Mixing the Races

As I've often said, I enjoy a certain amount of "reality" in my game. That is, there cannot be smoke without fire. Sorry, but it just doesn't work. An example of this is a mixing of the Game's races.

An illustration I like to use comes from the movie "The Quiet Man," starring John Wayne, Maureen O'Hara, Ward Bond, Victor Mclaglen et al. Yes, I know some of you will have to Google that movie and those names, no problem; you will not be the first to accuse me of being "older than dirt." LOL

Anyway, in the movie, John Wayne is in the Pub and offers to buy everyone a drink. No one, but no one, "rushes" to the bar for the free drink, it is only after it is established that John Wayne is the son of 'so-and-so' and the grandson of 'so-and-so' that an older man says: "Well now, that being the case . . . we will have that drink!"

I will point out here that, not only is everyone in the Pub is white, they are all Irish! Yet, in spite of that fact, no one was in a hurry to drink with a "stranger." We see this happen in real life even more when the stranger is of another skin color. So why is it that, in the game, everyone just assumes that Elves, Dwarves and Men rush to adventure with each other?

In the City of Greyhawk, each of the races has their section of town in which they "hang out." While it might not be "Rare" to see a human drinking in a Dwarven establishment, it is certainly "Uncommon" . . . or it should be. The same applies to an Elven establishment. While the human might be in there drinking, there wouldn't be any Dwarves or Elves patting him on the back and regaling him with their tales. He's both a stranger and of another race.

I'm not saying the races are enemies, nor that the demi-humans hate the human drinking in their midst. I'm just saying that no one is acting as though the human were a long, lost "buddy." They're going to act a little "standoffish" towards him; accepting his presence, rather than accepting him.

We won't even discuss the fact that both Dwarves and Elves hate Orcs, complicating matters when adding a Half-orc to the group.

Baring this in mind, I like my players to have back-stories explaining their presence in the group. Why is a Dwarf adventuring with an Elf and how did they "end up" with the human? This gives the game a more realistic feel.

Exclamation: "Oh Mystic! It's just fantasy!"

                                                                                                                                  

Reply: "You know you really need to be gaming with someone else."

I prefer something like this: The human and the Elf know each other from "back when" and are now adventuring together. They come across a group of Orcs that apparently have "someone" holed up in a crevice, or copse. The human and Elf effect a "rescue" and . . . behold! . . . it's a Dwarf! Now the three of them adventure together!

I actually enjoy running that type of scenario as well, as a way of adding a character to the game. Of course, the game can start out with the various races adventuring together, I just appreciate my players getting together and creating a back-story that explains how they all ended up together.

Sadly, I find that I usually have to create the back-story . . . I game with some very lazy players. The detail that they put into their own characters often leaves something lacking as well. They want the "hack and slash," not the role playing. Alas, they are all I have for gaming partners and so I am forced to "make do."

Regrettably, it can make for some uninteresting gaming. I do have one player that will put forth the effort, though I do need to "nudge" him to it. If it weren't for him, I'd stick to my computer games and let the others "suffer." Without me, they don't have enough people to make a game. Even then, I need to run two PCs! LOL

Anyway, that's another area in which I like a certain amount of reality in my game. What about you? Do you care about it at all, or are you happy -- as a DM or Player – to just "hack and slash?"

Let me know. I can foresee several discussions on this particular point.

Paladins Revisited

I'm currently playing a Paladin in a table top game and thought I'd take this opportunity to revisit the subject for a little clarification.

My Paladin just reached 2^nd level and . . . Eureka! He can now perform Lay on Hands. So, just as a reminder; from whence comes this ability? From the "mortal" king he serves? Or from the God he serves? I believe we can agree that no "mortal" king with whom we are familiar can grant such powers to their knights.

Just yesterday I was reading "The Knights of the Crown," published in 1987, and was pleased to discover another publication that – several times – stresses the difference between "strictly religious bodies . . . and . . . a body of lay knights." And so we again find real world references that distinguish between knights of the church and knights serving a king.

I wanted to stress – again – the difference between Paladins – knights serving the church – and "lay knights" – those who serve a mortal king – to make a further point in my use of Paladins. All knights which serve a church are Paladins, plain and simple. Titles, such as Paladin, anti-Paladin, Blackguard, Crusader, etc., are simply "names" bestowed upon these knights by their individual church. To the common people they are all knights which serve a church and they are called Paladins. All religious knights are Paladins . . . and they are all Lawful.

What? Wait! Did I just say that they are all Lawful? Yes, I did. Remember, Paladins serve the God to whose service they are sworn, not an "earthly" king. That "Paladin" that just murdered an entire village of halflings is Lawful. You see, you must take into consideration that he/she is a Paladin of . . . Tharizdun. Tharizdun wanted that village destroyed and the halflings murdered. Thus, this particular Paladin obeyed the laws of his/her god. Ergo, the Paladin is Lawful.

As you can imagine, this creates some interesting conversations at the gaming table. But I extend the courtesy to other DMs that these same people – as players – do not extend to me . . . the DM is always correct. Unfortunately, I find myself gaming with DMs who are very limited in scope. They simply cannot "leave" the books. An original thought is completely beyond their abilities.

At any rate, I thought I'd throw this view out there to see what responses it might illicit. We'll see. But, as I said, this all goes towards my view that Paladins are knights of the church and serve their respective God/Goddess first and always. Any "kingly" authority must take second place to that.

Learning New Spells - An Addendum

It occurs to me that I forgot to mention that Maldin shares a similar view, regarding the ability to "know" spells. He has laid out his position on his web site, Maldin's Greyhawk.

He's even gone so far as to create a chart, showing his view of matters, which you can find here. Of course, you Gamers with a preference for 3.5 need to bare in mind that Maldin is 2nd Edition. At any rate, I thought I should insert this now, before moving on to another topic.

Oh, and for those of you who like "short cuts," Maldin's unique list of magical items can be found here.

Learning New Spells - Part Two

What originally got this discussion going was reading of Renegade's Wizard Spellbook, Volume I, page 34, by Mongoose Publishing. In regards to learning certain spells – which they term Archaic Spells – their rules require one week of study per spell level. Each additional week of study will provide a +1 to the chance to learn the spell.

Now, to me, this seems excessive. How do you role play such a thing? There's no way to do it without causing disruption to the game's rhythm. Even if you allow the time for study to take place between gaming sessions, what did your other players "do" during the 10 weeks your Wizard researched that 9^th level spell?

I believe that one day of study, per spell level, is perfectly sufficient. After this, each additional day spent studying the spell can add a +1 to the Wizard's chance of learning the spell. This is a reasonable amount of time between gaming sessions. A week to ten days gives the other characters time to relax, shop, trade, repair equipment, brew potions, scribe scrolls, etc. But any time period longer than that simply disrupts the game's tempo.

I also believe that "Manna Pools" and "Spell Points" are disruptive to the game. In our discussion on Canonfire! various DMs who use these "home brew" systems talk of how they – along with letting their Wizards cast spells as though they were Sorcerers – can grant Magic Users enormous power, even pointing out that under such systems a Wizard could cast a dozen or more Lightning Bolts in a single day. That is a potent Wizard. But turning around and talking about how Wizards can "take over" the game, dominating it, seems a contradiction. And so I point out: That's exactly why the system was constructed the way it was.

We turn to 3.5 Edition's Player's Handbook, to point out the differences between Sorcerers and Wizards. It is clear to see that Wizards are more versatile than Sorcerers, but not necessarily more powerful, as some think. At 6^th level, a Sorcerer can cast three 3^rd level spells per day; that's three Fireballs. (Page 52, Table 3-16: The Sorcerer) The Wizard can only cast two 3rd levels spells a day, but, does he memorize two Fireballs, or only one? (Page 55, Table 3-18: The Wizard)

 The versatility comes into play in that the Sorcerer – at 6^th level – can only "know" one 3^rd level spell. Does he choose Fireball? (Page 54, Table 3-17: Sorcerer Spells Known) The 6^th level Wizard, on the other hand, has no limit on how many 3^rd level spells he can "know." There's only a limit on how many he can memorize for the day. Now, granted, 2^nd Edition's Player's Handbook, page 16, Table 4: Intelligence, does limit the number of spells – per level – a Wizard can know, based upon his Intelligence, but we've already discussed that and I've stated that I disagree with that limitation. For me, "knowing" means having the spell written in a spell-book in your library and since there is no limit on the number of books a Wizard can read, why should there be a limit on the number of spells a Wizard can "know?"

This, then, is the tried a true method of keeping a Wizard's power in check. Creating Manna Pool and Spell Point systems also creates the need to come up with additional "Home Rules" to keep the Wizard's power in check so that he doesn't come to dominate the game. It is simply creating too much work for the DM. If your player wants versatility, then he/she should be a Wizard. If, on the other hand, your player wishes to "toss about" whatever spell he/she is in the mood for at that particular moment, then they need to play a Sorcerer – and accept the limitations that go with it. All limitations set in the various Editions are created for the sole purpose of not letting the Magic User dominate the game to the point where all other player characters become redundant, little more than props.

One commenter in our discussion on Canonfire! posted: "The main reason was one of frustration with how rigidly affixed spells were aligned. Oftentimes, my wizard (or cleric) would only need a 'lesser' spell (such as Light) but, according to the rules, if you were out of 1st level spells, you couldn't do it, even if your 2nd, 3rd level, etc. spells were not expended. I didn't like how casters were 'pigeon-holed' in this manner."

And yet, this is exactly how the power of Wizards is "checked," keeping the game in balance, even when your Wizard reaches higher levels. As I've said, creating the Manna Pool, or Spell Point system, merely enhances the Wizard's ability to dominate the party and game, facilitating the creation of even more "House Rules."

Of course, one simple "fix" is that the Guidelines do allow the Wizard to load his higher level spell slots with lower level spells! If your Wizard feels that he/she may find themselves in need of an "extra" Light spell, simply put a 1^st level Light spell into a 2^nd level slot! Ah, the versatility of the Wizard is an astonishing thing. LOL

Your Wizard must choose the spells he/she feels he/she will need during the course of the day. Why load a 2^nd level spell slot with a 2^nd level spell he/she feels might not be necessary? Skip the unnecessary 2^nd level spell in favor of the much more needed 1^st level spell.

The ways of limiting the "over-powering" Wizard are numerous, without having to resort to a bunch of "House Rules." The same thing can be said for increasing the versatility of the Wizard. There's no need to turn your Wizard into a Sorcerer. In using these systems, you greatly increase the power of your Wizard, making it much more likely that he/she will take over the game. You've also supplied your players with an excellent reason for not playing a Sorcerer. After all, the Wizard can do exactly what the Sorcerer can do; only the Wizard is a lot more powerful.

Well, I'll stop for now. I'm quite sure that we are by no means finished discussing Wizards and their limitations and abilities. See you next time!

Learning New Spells - Part One

Well, I posted a thread on this subject over at Canonfire! In a search for various methods used by DMs. I discovered that we all do it pretty much the same, except for some minor differences. Now, as promised, I deliver my thoughts on the subject.

The chart (Table 4: Intelligence) on page 16 of the 2^nd Edition Player's Handbook provides an excellent guideline.  Reading everyone's post on Canonfire! shows that we all make our "minor" adjustments. I agree with some that were mentioned, but disagree with others. All will be "laid out" here. My "discussion" will try to follow the comments from Canonfire! as they occurred in the actual thread.

First, the 35% chance of learning a spell, that's for an "average" Intelligence score of "9." The percentage chance of learning a spell goes up as Intelligence goes up. We all apply the 35% as is intended in real life mathematics. I think that this percentage progression is fair. I do – however – require them to have rest and be in a "quiet" place . . . at least "in camp," in relative "safety," so that they might be undisturbed.

There are a few who disagree with the percentages outlined above, at least when it comes to how many spell levels a Magician can learn based upon his/her Intelligence score. I agree with the thought that Intelligence should not play a part in how many spells a Magician can know, that is, how many spells he/she might have in their spell book. But I think Intelligence should limit the spell levels a Magician can learn.

Remember that an Intelligence score of "9" represents and "average" Intelligence. The truth is that, in real life, the vast majority of people with an "average" Intelligence are never going to earn their Ph.D. For the most part, they find the work "too hard" and are not willing to put forth the necessary effort. I think that should apply in the game as well. If you want your Magician to gain his /her Master's or Ph.D. in magic, then he/she needs the necessary Intelligence score to do so.

In comparison, take the Fighter; the average Intelligence score is perfectly acceptable, it makes them capable of learning "the basics." But to be a superior swordsman, the Fighter needs "more," he/she needs the Strength and reflexes – or Dexterity – to reach the higher levels of skill.

Another example is the Cleric. To perform his/her "miracles" – cast spells – the Cleric needs Faith. On several occasions Jesus told his apostles that they failed because they lacked Faith. In the game, Wisdom – rather than Charisma – best reflects Faith. So the Cleric, too, can get by with "average" Intelligence.

The Magician, on the other hand, has no real need of Strength, Dexterity, or Wisdom. For the Magician, everything hinges upon his/her Intelligence score. This makes the Intelligence score vital for the Magician and this is reflected in the Magician's ability to learn spells and attain spell levels. But we have to bear in mind that Intelligence is a dynamic and fluid quantity. I try to "reflect" this quality in rerolling the failed attempt for learning a new spell. I do not make my player wait until he/she attains the next PC level before attempting to learn the spell again. I do require them to wait a certain amount of time, which is, itself, reflected in waiting until our next gaming session. Basically, they need to return to their "safe haven" – perhaps the Green Dragon Inn, or some such – and "rest and reflect" for a period of time. I then permit them to reroll the attempt.

In response to the "automatically learn" reply, I say . . . no, not really – depending upon the spell. For instance, my Magician is 5^th level and he/she "discovers" a couple of 1^st level spells that he/she did not previously know. Those are a "given." They're "freebies," sure. For 2^nd level spells, I require them to roll, but . . . I acknowledge their experience – by increasing their chances of learning the new spell. Experience should not be "over looked" when determining the percentage chance of learning a new spell. Training is one thing, experience is another.

But, if my 5^th level Magician found a "new" 3^rd level spell, well, that requires him/her to make their percentage roll and they must meet the criteria as set above – a quiet, contemplative place, where they will not be disturbed. Naturally, as they progress to the point where they know and are casting 4^th and 5^th level spells, then learning 2^nd level spells becomes automatic, and so forth.

Also, I require them to "find" new spells – scrolls they discover, spell books they find, returning to their school or Mentor to acquire a new spell, etcetera. I do not allow them to automatically know a new spell. Now, I do allow one exception to this rule; when they are 1st level, I roll one d6: roll 1-3 and they have one 2^nd level spell in their book, roll 4-6 and they have two 2^nd level spells in their book. These spells reflect a "gift" from their Mentor – or Academy Teacher – who may have been fond of them. Thus, when they reach 3^rd level in the middle of a Dungeon – once they "rest" – they will have a chance to know one or two 2^nd level spells. But that ends the "freebies."

There has also been mentioned a concern about Magicians becoming "over-powering," certainly a legitimate concern. But, ponder this: Why do you think it is that Magicians are most likely to become deities? Or rather, why do you think Magicians have the "best," most legitimate chance of becoming one?

Controlling this aspect falls to the DM. As I've said before, I require my players to provide me with an equipment list, NOT for weight – I don't bother with encumbrance – but for availability.

DM: "So, how are you going to get down there?"

PC: "I'm going to tie a rope to . . ."

DM: "Stop! Do you have a rope?"

So, does your Magician have the necessary spell components? Or did he use them all the last time he cast that spell? Hmm? The DM needs to keep/have a copy of the equipment list and check off each item that gets used when the PC says he uses it. For instance, after they climbed down that last cliff face, did anyone bother to retrieve the rope? No? Well then, they're going to tie off what rope?

I do not assume anything, speak the words . . . or you didn't do it!

It also takes time to memorize the spells. I include this in rest periods, but, the higher – more complicated – the spell, the more time and "quiet" the Magician needs. Resting in a Dungeon may find my Magician going into battle without his/her 5^th and 6^th level spells. It all depends; did they get enough rest and undisturbed meditation time?

I determine this by rolling dice. But I allow each roll to represent four hours. In other words, they lay down to rest, "four hours" later, I roll a dice. Is their rest interrupted? I do it again at the end of eight hours, to see if "they" will be interrupted while the Magician is trying to meditate. Once they are "awake," then each roll represents one hour. In this way, if they make the first two "four hour" rolls, the chances are good that the Magician will get to rememorize some spells, but maybe not all.

And though I've mentioned "rest," let's elaborate on it a bit more. Using powerful magics – 8^th and 9^th level spells – is supposed to be very taxing mentally and on one's physical strength as well. So I require eight hours of sleep, then they can meditate upon the spells they wish to learn.

As a former Over-the-Road Truck Driver, let me assure you that the Department of Transportation drives us "nuts," continually hammering the facts at us. What facts? Full Grown Adults require 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep to function at 100% . . . children require more.

"But Mystic, I only need 6 hours of sleep!"

Yeah? Razzberry! You're talking to a guy who has been forced to read ALL the material, it is required by LAW and you WILL be tested. Doctors and Scientist disagree with you. You are not "special." You require 8 hours of sleep, or you're not "functioning" properly.

I require this of my Magicians, persons who wish to engage in a mentally taxing enterprise. After getting the needed rest, they may meditate on their spells. I do not wish to bog down the game with extreme requirements, however, so I require no more than half an hour for each 8^th and 9^th level spell they wish to memorize. A quarter of an hour for 5^th to 7^th level spells. Five minutes for the "lower" spells. Their adventuring companions will simply have to wait, or delve deeper into the Dungeon without the "high powered" spells. Good luck!

Alright, this is getting long, so we'll have to continue this discussion in another post. Next time, look to read about the 2^nd Edition's Complete Wizard Handbook kits. See you then!