From: texdude@camelot.bradley.edu (Philip Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Class specific abilities, (was: Why are their level limits?)
Date: 30 Aug 92 02:15:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Aug29.135003.12393@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> gajensen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:

>In article <67012@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

>> Our party spends a lot of time on the road, between one town and another.
>> Since a lot of that time is spent walking, a mage could get to learn
>> how to move around in armor just by walking to wherever he was going
>> to walk to anyway.  There's no extra time required, and I don't think they
>> spend all the time on the road learning that one first level spell.

>That is a load of bull. No other class can cast spells, why, because they
>haven't the foggiest idea how its done. A mage needs to constantly learn the
>magics of his spells, to make sure that he doesn't get caught in a situation
>where he is of no use.

There is rarely a situation where a spell-less mage (or a weapon-less
fighter or a normal peasant) is of no use.  If you think a character is
useless because he's out of fireballs and magic missiles, try reading
some Tolkien.

> And, you obviously have misread the rulebook, since you
>believe a first level mage has only one first level spell. They can only
>memorize one first level spell at a time, but can KNOW quite a few, depending
>on their intelligence. Their time would be spent figuring out the intrinsics of
>all their spells, trying to understand them, and when each would be
>appropriate. Plus, they also have a thing known as research, which helps them
>when they gain inlevels, and encounter new spells. Plus, each mage writes his
>spells in a slightly different code, forcing a mage who captures such a
>spellbook to spend great amounts of time decifering exactly what the runes
>mean. Would you want to risk your entire party, including yourself simply
>because you would rather learn how to wear armor without it chafing instead of
>puzzing out those few runes you weren't quite sure of. I think not.

How about making armor a weapon (or non-weapon) proficiency for mages?
After all, I wouldn't want my mage taking time off from magic study to
learn how to wear armor.  But then there is all that time the mage spends
learning how to speak dwarvish, how to navigate a ship, or the history of a
certain country.  It's ludicrous to believe that a mage spends all of his
free time studying, but still learns a new non-weapon proficiency every so
often.  Why not spend that time learning to wear armor?

>> You're missing the point.  If *I* wanted to, I could learn to pick
>> locks.  I wouldn't need any gauntlets of dexterity to do it, I could
>> learn how to do it.  Why can't my cleric/mage?  Why can't a fighter?

>Because they specialize in a different area. It seems to me that you want
>everyone to be able to do everything they want. Why not just eliminate the
>classes entirely and have everyone be the same, able to do any skill at all.
>BORING!!!!! This way the players have to work out strategies to ensure that
>their one person who has a chance at picking to lock on the chest containing
>the fabled gem of Yendor stays alive to do so.

Wrong.  I say let everyone learn thief skills (if they want to spend the
proficiency slots), but make sure that thieves are far superior.  For
example, a fighter that devotes a lot of his free time learning to pick
locks might have a lockpick skill high enough to pick easy locks, but he
will never be able to surpass the thief in the party.  Saying that
non-thieves could never learn a thief skill is almost as logical as saying
that thieves can't fight because they're not fighters (and if everyone can
fight, then fighters become boring).

>> Because he's not a fighter.  Right, but other than that, what valid
>> reason is there, except in order to maintain game balance?

>No, because he spends a great deal of time learning how to do other things,
>LIKE PICKING LOCKS!!!

Sure, the thief has no time to specialize with a dagger, but he has time to
learn blind-fighting and ancient history.

>> I still think they're totally ridiculous. :-)

>You are passing ridiculous at mach ten. 

Keep in mind the old adage about people in glass houses.


Philip W. Allen      texdude@camelot.bradley.edu         /(?)\