From: gregs@meaddata.com (Greg Smith)
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:45:48 GMT

In article <67022@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
|> In article <67013@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
|> >In article <17iqm4INN25n@trigger.ksu.ksu.edu> royalyn@trigger.ksu.ksu.edu (Royalyn S Nelson) writes:
|> 
|> >>That and the fact that the armour also restricts movement
|> >>and thereby interferes with casting spells.
|> 
|> >I never said anything about casting spells in armor.  Why is everyone putting
|> >words in my mouth?
|> 
|> The assumption is that the wizard is going to want to cast spells.  I suppose
|> you can have a wizard clanking around in armor, but he's going to be pretty 
|> useless.

But if the wizard is out of spells and the party wishes to continue, this would
at least afford him some better protection.  Of course offensively he/she would
be not much of a threat.

|> 
|> Actually, I'm considering not permitting wizards to multi-class in future 
|> campaigns I run, partially because of the armor issue...if you want to be a 
|> wizard, you're going to be a *real* wizard and run around in your bathrobe!

Well, in your world you should certainly be allowed to make this call, hopefully
with the approval of your players.  In 2nd edition, I don't believe multiclass
Mu's can cast spells in armor.  If they wear it they are basically acting as a
fighter.  (there are some exceptions, like elfin chain, however).  How would you
handle a dual class human fighter mage?  (Assume that he's free to mix his 
classes at this point)


|> 
|> >So, how do you explain that a cleric can cast spells in armor?
|> 
|> Because cleric spells are different than wizard spells.  

Now that's not much more of an explaination than "'cause" would be.


|> 
|> >Why can't a fighter learn to pick a lock without having to go through a 
|> >class change?  As for taking the time to learn the craft:  [...]
|> 
|> Because if you are learning lock-picking, you are *not* learning fighting.
|> My view of adventurers in AD&D is that they are so exceptional as compared
|> to the common citizen because they spend *all* their time learning their 
|> craft.  If you start spending time learning skills that don't pertain to 
|> your choses profession, you start falling behind.
|> 
|> Another way of looking at this whole thread is that you are trying to apply
|> real-world perspectives to a fantasy role-playing game, and *every time* 
|> you are going to come to the conclusion that rules don't make sense.  Indeed, 
|> they *don't* make sense; that's why it's called _fantasy_.

True, but if Jorge want to try and make his version of the rules make more 
sense, he should be free to do so.

|> 
|> >After a cleric uses a mace for 10 years, I figure he'd become specialized
|> >in it, too:  It would just happen.
|> 
|> No, because specialization comes from an intensive study of the art of using
|> a weapon.  If a cleric gets into intensive study of weapons, he's *not* 
|> devoting sufficient time to his priestly duties, and is therefore a bad cleric.

Sounds like a subjective opinion to me.  What if the cleric worshipped the god of
war and combat?

|> 
|> Simply using a weapon all the time does *not* make you a specialist.  To 
|> use a real-world analogy, a secretary may use a computer five days a week
|> 48 weeks a year; will she become a computer specialist in ten years?  Nope.
|> She won't even become a specialist in the (let's assume) one software 
|> package (Microsoft Word) that she uses all that time.  She may become damn 
|> good, but as compared to a software engineer at Microsoft, is she a specialist?
|> Nope.  

That's not an accurate analogy.  You are comparing using a particular software package
with being a software engineer that writes the program.  She might not be able
to write a program, but she very well may be many times more efficient using it than
the author of the program.


|> 
|> >Game balance.  That's all it comes down to.

YES!

|> 
|> Considering that one of the most important aspects of a game is that it has 
|> to be playable, game balance is an infinitely good reason to make a rule.
|> -- 
|> Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their 
|> Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
|> Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter, 
|> Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu              _The Number of the Beast_


Good questions Jorge ... I hope you find a way to resolve these AND maintain good
game balance
-- 
Greg Smith

DISCLAIMER:  My ideas are entirely my own unless MDC decides to patent them.
I am not empowered to speak for Mead Data Central or Mead Corporation.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd