tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7748717096127069765.post258627271300430966..comments2023-11-10T05:55:58.450-08:00Comments on The Fantasy Game: Reading OD&D from cover to cover: The character classesThe Creatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12906302439863860854noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7748717096127069765.post-68904331251622342322011-05-08T13:37:09.113-07:002011-05-08T13:37:09.113-07:00BTW I just found a very interesting thread on the ...BTW I just found a very interesting thread on the OD&D discussion boards that mirrors my views quite a bit: http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=menmagic&action=display&thread=5441<br /><br />Interesting discussion there and it's really a lot of fun interpreting OD&D literally without preconceptions.<br /><br />I now will start to write down my literal discoveries :-)The Creatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12906302439863860854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7748717096127069765.post-10866566877162885262011-05-08T13:01:54.873-07:002011-05-08T13:01:54.873-07:00The really interesting thing here is that - when I...The really interesting thing here is that - when I try to read OD&D without all the preconceptions I have due to playing (A)D&D in various forms since 1983 - things can be interpreted very differently from what we are accustomed to. E.g. the "save the arms and armour of the fighters" part of the sentence is prefixed by "The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck" - so taking pure grammar the sentence definitely (from my grasp of the English language) refers to magical (enchanted) arms and armour of the fighter.<br /><br />Which is very different from what we know about (A)D&D... and doesn't make much sense when considering that they in any case may wield nothing but daggers (who would be trained in armor without being trained in more than daggers). It's interesting nonetheless. And probably should be attributed to tired rules authors in those early days ;-)The Creatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12906302439863860854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7748717096127069765.post-84708013906447688092011-05-08T12:19:00.587-07:002011-05-08T12:19:00.587-07:00To arm is to furnish with weapons; that doesn'...To arm is to furnish with weapons; that doesn't include armour.<br /><br />I read '...save the arms and armour of the fighters' as implying more strongly that magic users cannot wear armour.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02867172202074000174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7748717096127069765.post-30744148874925795882011-05-08T07:20:45.540-07:002011-05-08T07:20:45.540-07:00TB,
In reference to the arming limitations of wiza...TB,<br />In reference to the arming limitations of wizards, I believe the rules are trying to convey that they cannot weild any weapon other than daggers, and cannot wear any armour either. Real old school casters limited to robes and basic melee weapons must completely rely on their magical abilities. 'To Arm' in english normally refers to weaponry, not armour, but this could just be the context, because of you are told to grab your sword, you most likely grab your shield and chain mail (elven if you have it ;) too. Also, Elves ability to wear 'magical' armour and cast spells leads me to believe that armour restrics spellcasting (since wizards can use any magical items, and elves get a 'bonus' over them). Clerics in this really dont make a lot of sense. It appears as though the rules are forcing you to follow a general stereotype of shat clerics ought to be. Typically (in my experience) clerics weild crossbows and maces/clubs (in D&D and ADOM for example). I am also assuming that magical weaponry and armour is just an upgraded form of ordinary, unenchanted items -- I think that if a class can use the magical form, they can use the non-magical form as well. Although, the phrasing of these rules are really confusing and ambiguous.Profirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03485799593862980892noreply@blogger.com