Metal And Magic And MoreIn the ongoing battle against ignorance often spewed forth by morons and malcontents, I decided to add this counter argument for a recently added submission to Mark Hughes's I think it beautifully illustrates how a little imagination can overcome some minor difficulties - when and if required - and how some people's snap judgments - mostly brought on by their closed minded, prejudgmental natures - immediately has them attacking To that end, please find my comments in BOLD following Dr. Erin D. Smale's critique in plain type, in regards to some of The Counter ArgumentsMetal and Magic and Multiclassing, By Dr. Erin D. Smale, 2002 August 02. 1. Why are multiclassed demi-human magic-users permitted to wear metal armor, but human magic-users are not? Obviously for game balance, but that's a flaw in the system and not something that could ever be satisfactorily explained within the context of the game. While I agree the true reason for the suggestion (not rule) that armor interferes with arcane spellcasting was probably one of game balance, the second part of Dr. Smale's statement is patently false. What he means to say - if he's an honest man - is that he hasn't seen a satisfactory explanation. Alas, he's probably given to making sweeping generalizations like that, so we simply must assist him in his time of need. Even doctors need help, after all. Imagination shall overcome, and lucky for him, some imaginative people are willing to share. I've heard the excuse that metal interferes with magic. Fine. How does one enchant armor or weapons? How is possible, then, for offensive spells to damage targets "protected" by metal armor themselves? Why can't a magic-user wear leather armor? Excellent questions. Of course the "metal interference" idea doesn't have to be the justification you adopt. Almost any rule or suggestion made for game balance will present problems unless one can contrive of an IC (In Character) reason why they must be so, or at least might be so. The more character choices offered by a game, the bigger the problem, for many more items must somehow be balanced, lest too many players gravitate toward the same choices. That isn't very fun or rich enough in diversity for most roleplaying gamers, so rules for game balance must often be introduced, especially for games with a greater number of choices, and suggestions for why those rules may be true on the IC level naturally are put forth by the often more discerning players. Dr. Smale doesn't like the metal (iron, steel?) argument. Fine. He should search for a new or better one. Instead, sadly, he assumes no other explanation may suffice and gives up - which is fine if one is forever lacking in imagination, or they wish others to think for them, or create and play their characters for them, or even create their world for them. However, most roleplayers would rather do as much as they can for themselves. In any event, there are possible reasons or justifications for this idea, and a little knowledge about the real world might even suggest some of these possibilities. A stationary chunk of ferrous metal, or another magnet, within a magnetic field isn't particularly disruptive to a stable field. But if that metal is moving, it gives rise to rapid disruptions and induces various effects. Similarly, if the magical enchantment is actually on the metal item, then that item has NO relative motion to the magical field - i.e. it is not disruptive. Therefore, one may enchant metal items despite the disruptive effect of relative motion since those enchantments will be fixed and in the same reference frame as the item itself, and therefore they have zero relative velocity to one another. But this explanation only begins to scratch the surface or see the big picture. Like gravity, or better yet, the strong nuclear force, the disruptive effect between metal and magic is not solely a function of what something is made of, but how much and how close are vital factors as well. Small metal items doubtless produce insignificant disruptive forces compared to large items such as bulky, heavy, metal armor. Furthermore, the distance between the metal and the source of the growing magical field is vitally important. One is free to imagine the disruptive effect is inversely proportional to the square, cube, or even higher power of the distance between the metal's center of mass and the magical field's point of origin. This means, of course, the metal must be large enough and close enough to have an appreciable effect. Metal scalemail, chainmail, and platemail, etc., obviously fill this bill. Perhaps even metal studded leather armor will suffice. They are large enough, and the center of mass of the metal - since it is actually surrounding the wizard - is pretty darn close to the magical field's point of origin where the wizard is attempting to set up the field - which is assumed to be within the wizard's body, or close enough. You see, the center of mass for the metal armor isn't just on the wizard, but would actually be inside the wizard, as well. Furthermore, since one does move inside their armor, the metal and magic are in relative motion, and thus a highly disruptive force may cause the magical field to collapse or never allow a stable magical field to set up in the first place. An iron or steel sword or dagger at their side, the metal brazier on the floor, an iron workbench or anvil, etc. are probably of insufficient mass, or failing that and seeing they have great enough mass, their center of mass is not close enough to the point of origin. NOTE: This justification, you must realize, means magic-users trapped inside small metal walled rooms - like a metal closet with 4 iron walls, ceiling, and floor - probably couldn't cast their spells. Iron coffins, iron maidens, and that sort of thing could really ruin a magic-user's day. Iron shackles, however, are probably not of sufficient mass, nor might their center of mass be appreciably close to the point of origin for a growing magical field to actually be disruptive. As an analogy, powerful magnets may have vast lifting power, but only when you get right next to them or actually touch them. And that power just falls off as the square of the distance between magnet and metal, and not even the cube or higher power. Though it may lift a car, it sure won't rip metal objects off of your person or drag you to them if you are standing several extra yards away or even right next to that car, even if you were wearing platemail, for example. You probably won't even feel it, in fact - contrary to popular though misguided fictional accounts that seem to have these weak magnetic forces acting like strong forces over sizable distances - which is a joke in most cases since it doesn't really work that way for most magnets. Though I admit some industrial electromagnets can get so powerful one ought to be metal free when approaching them, this is not typical, nor true of any easily portable magnet, and even small distances from such magnets make the forces on carried metal items negligible and quite difficult to discern. A light, highly mobile, magnetized piece of metal - such as a compass needle - would be affected, but an iron ring on your hand, for example, would hardly notice it unless you were practically touching it to the magnet. Once you get that close, then yeah, you might have a bit of a problem, but not before. As for metal being the target of magical effects, this is not really a problem at all. Once magic is summoned or a stable magical field is set up, the disruptive effects are not an issue. What metal bothers is setting up a stable magical field to shape the desired effects, and the aftereffects are not appreciably affected by metal's presence, and are quite removed from the magical field's point of origin anyway. Thus, metal at a distance isn't going to affect a spell, even if it is the spell's target. Also, enchanting metal items may not require the idea of relative motion at all. The "Metal disrupts magic" idea is all about creating magical fields - not about disrupting existing ones. Once established, it takes considerably more than the mere presence of iron to disrupt a spell. Therefore, as the normal enchantment process might not require sufficient mass or proximity of iron to the spell, and may be brought together after the fact - like when the item to be enchanted is the target of the enchantment - this may not be a problem at all. Recall, the idea only requires that spellcasting, and not magic or enchantment itself, has a problem with iron, and even then only when a sufficient quantity and close proximity are combined. This is usually not the case, and a wizard wearing heavy, metal armor would be an exception. Happily, for game balance, this is enough to keep them from wearing heavy, metal armor most of the time, and thus game balance is achieved - as was desired - without any apparent inconsistencies, once one concludes it is not magic itself, but the process of actual spellcasting that is susceptible to iron's proximity and mass. After all, no one ever suggested you could collapse a magical effect simply by throwing a chunk of iron at it, now have they? Now, obviously, wizards probably can wear leather armor - or metal armor for that matter. The question is how do they perform in these armors and can they cast spells while wearing such armor? The answer is they usually do not perform very well. Encumbrance rules and a typical lack of strength probably prevents most wizards from wearing metal armor, even if their magic spells could be cast while so protected, which they can't in 2e (though they could in 1e). But since their magic capabilities are seriously curtailed, they most often simply don't wear armor. Note, 'they don't,' and not, 'they can't.' If they used up their spell compliment, for example, and knew how to wear heavy armor, they might well run around in platemail for a time for the added, temporary protection. Furthermore, wizards are usually not trained in the proper wearing and use of armor - even light, leather armor. The GM might rule, however, that if a single class wizard wanted to spend a weapon proficiency slot on leather armor, they could indeed wear it at the normal penalties - (weight, encumbrance, slowed movement, etc.). It is not as handy as the many folds and pockets of a robe, of course, and he might also rule the wizard's spells - if they had material components - would be one segment slower - unless the wizard prepared the components ahead of time and had them in his hands already. Or the wizard might adopt a bandolier or sash that carried these components over the armor, and spend a little extra money on that, and a little extra weight against his total encumbrance, too. He would then be free of the one segment penalty. Fine. But it begins to be too costly for most wizards to do all this - particularly when there are often better magical alternatives to AC, such as the Armor spell or magic items that augment one's AC. So, while a good GM probably would allow a wizard to wear leather armor (at the appropriate costs and sacrifices) wizards often don't. They can, mind you, but usually don't. If a player does insist their PC will do this, let them - at those penalties for encumbrance, movements, cost in gold for the armor, and the cost of one their rare weapon proficiency slots, so they know how to use it, etc. A couple AC points for those costs is not so much to ask, and game balance is not in serious jeopardy if you allow this. Magic leather armor might be a slight problem, but by the time they could get +2 or higher leather armor - which is often better left to the party thieves and rogues - the wizard should have better alternatives anyway, and again it won't really be a game balance problem - unless the GM hands a newbie wizard +5 leather armor or some such nonsense. Even then, if he does, well, the wizard with that kind of powerful magic should be better off, so it is again realistic enough. Finally, why are demi-humans permitted to do some things humans are not - or conversely, why are humans not permitted to do things demi-humans are? Well, this could be almost anything. Physiological and anatomical differences obviously exist, as well as spiritual difference - spirits vs. souls, for example. Perhaps demi-humans have a unique quality such that they may better control and thus mitigate the disruptive effect of metal on the magical casting of spells. All magic does not work the same way, after all, and all races have differences. If this is one of them, so be it. No one may point at a real elf in the real world in regards to real magic and proudly say: "See, elves aren't really like that when it comes to magic." It's fantasy. We are allowed to make up most anything we wish, as long as we are consistent. All we require is a consistent IC justification, and if elves have this ability, then they have it. Any logical consequences that may flow from this difference need only be addressed, but I don't see any such problems arising in this case. However, the ability may be limited and confined to certain types of armor - such as, in 2e, elven chainmail - that works well with their own racial traits, but not well with humans (maybe). It is not really a problem unless you insist, for example, that all magic works the same way all the time for everybody, and obviously that's foolish to assume, given that wizards, illusionists, clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, etc., etc., etc. all have different traits to their magical abilities. Each approach is sufficiently unique that they may overcome some difficulties, though they may perhaps encounter new difficulties using their unique approach to magic, as well. But I digress. If you wish, you may even allow elven chainmail to work for humans, claiming it is the special enchantments that allow this and not a racial ability, and so not run afoul of game balance problems since access to this armor can be carefully controlled by the DM. One might claim only iron or steel has this effect on magical spell casting - and not just metal in general - and elven chainmail probably isn't made of iron or steel, but rather made of mithral/silver or some such. If iron is the problem, then bronze armor might also be suggested, but it is thicker, heavier, harder to make - (cast and not wrought) - much harder to repair - (common blacksmiths are not the same as the rarer bronze workers, for example, and you can't weld bronze) - and finally, bronze may not take and hold enchantments as well as iron or steel. Thus, +1, +2, +3 or more bronze armor may be virtually impossible to make and far rarer than their steel counterparts. This might be for much the same reason a little carbon added to iron makes steel, but you can't expect adding a little carbon to bronze to produce similar results as well. It just doesn't, apparently, work that way, so complaining about it is foolish. Even if non-magic bronze armor is a possibility, that's a long way to go only to come up short later on, and probably a far more expensive and costly option than the better, magical alternatives. Is any of this an actual rule change? Perhaps, though perhaps not. It often depends on which edition we are in, and if it's a rule or just a suggestion commonly believed to be the reason for the rule. Even some of the author's 'suggestions' are just suggestions and not rules. The "iron spoils spell casting," idea, for example, isn't a rule. The rule is wizards can't wear armor and still cast their spells. "Why" this may be so is really left up to the players. They may adopt a reason they have heard, seen in the book, or are free to make one they like better. The thing about However, many players are not bothered by some apparent anomalies, and forcing them to read such detailed possible explanations - such as the ones I've given above - is doubtless too much to insist upon. Others would love to see and use it. Others might take the time to read it, but won't like it at all, and would rather find a different - or in their minds - better explanation that more closely resembles their own sensibilities and that already match those same sensibilities that created their own world. When both originate from their own sensibilities and understanding of how things 'really' work, this would tend to give rise to better and consistent rulings for that world. In order to achieve this lofty goal, though, a roleplaying game must be a little more open ended and vague on some of the finer details - details, I must again point out, that aren't even needed unless or until at least one player asks for them. OK, Dr. Smale wants some, and though he couldn't conceive of any on his own, he should at least be able to follow the reasoning of some of those offered. And if he doesn't like them, he should be able to explain why. Alas, even his explanations for why he didn't like the metal idea seemed to immediately latch onto and insist upon things that were not true, nor stated in the rules, nor necessary to achieve game balance. It was almost as if he wanted the game he didn't like to fail, so he happily and deliberately made ill-conceived assumptions as to the nature of magic so it would fail, or misquoted the rules, and thus apparently prove his predetermined point. But I digress into idle speculation. The point is, he is flat out wrong to make erroneous claims that such justifications do not and cannot exist on the IC level simply because he hasn't thought of any, or hasn't ostensibly seen any, yet. I've heard that wearing armor restricts the spellcaster's ability to execute a spell's somatic components. Fine again - what about spells that do not require somatic components? Never mind that - why are elves more adept at somatic components in armor than humans? Is it because they're more dexterous (as evidenced by their DEX modifier)? No, it can't be that, because non-elven multiclass magic-users who don't get a DEX bonus can cast magic spells in armor, too. Umm, well, though third edition tried to take this route, 2e didn't even suggest it, IIRC. I agree it's problematic, and also agree a DEX bonus for a race would not mean one of that race ought to gain an ability, but simply should mean one of sufficient DEX ought to gain that ability, regardless of race. As for 3e's claim, I don't like it and thus had to find better explanations. Note that I adopt this more sensible approach to gaming rather than, for example, claiming a game couldn't be fixed or 3e, alas, makes no claims similar to 2e that elves can do it better, so that need not be addressed. I think, in 2002, Dr. Smale must be talking about 2e only, or mixing up 1e and 2e rules without realizing he's doing that. But the DEX problem isn't the route to game balance I chose, and I don't have lots of details worked out along those lines since I didn't need them. Others may, however, be able to contrive such justifications with a little work, and I'd not be so foolish as to hastily claim otherwise. If you use this justification and think you can answer Dr. Smale's complaints, I'd be keen to hear your take on the matter. However, he is perfectly correct in thinking if you take this possible explanation for use, you ought to answer some of his questions in regards to its apparent inconsistencies, or allow non-somatic component spells to be cast free of penalty or while in armor - which probably isn't a big deal. How many spells are actually free of all somatic components, anyway? Darn few. So few, in fact, wizards wouldn't likely be able to have a decent compliment of spells if limited to only non-somatic spells, and thus they cannot afford to wear heavy, metal armor again. Still, wizards, etc. probably have to buy armor proficiencies, and that's a huge cost and a game-balancing factor, so if they wish to pay for it, then let them. There may be a problem on the horizon, unfortunately, with the metamagic feat "Still Spell" if this approach to spells and armor is adopted. If one finds game balance is in jeopardy due to this feat, they may simply increase a Still Spell's cost to two extra levels instead of one, or add a more costly material component, or use some other trick to balance the books, and that should more than do it. I've heard that demi-humans are more adept at the magical arts, so they have - as a race, mind you - somehow divined the secrets of overcoming the esoteric "restrictions" imposed by wearing armor. <Sigh> This is blatantly false, for if it were true, demi-human magic-users would be able to rise to a level equal to or greater than their human counterparts. Huh? Your own claims are blatantly false. Simply because a race may have overcome one problem doesn't mean they must therefore be able to overcome all problems. Also, they may not have 'figured out' a way to overcome it so much as never been as affected by the problem in the first place due to an inherent, racial trait. If elves, for example, can naturally mitigate the disruptive effects of iron on spell casting to a small degree, this doesn't mean they must therefore also be able to surpass their level limits - which can be justified on a whole other front, or in a variety of other ways. Which brings me to my second item: Do tell ;-) 2. Why are demi-humans restricted in level advancement? Again, the real answer is game balance, but it doesn't make any sense in the campaign world. Again, it can make sense if you simply contrive of an IC reason, it is consistent, and all logical consequences flow from it rather naturally. Now while it is clearly a game balance imposition, an IC reason is not all that hard to come up with. In fact, failure to have this limit for a longer-lived race is a HUGE problem for the NPC world. Of course, one might easily miss this if they were forever thinking in terms of just PCs and the limited time frame they are running around during an active campaign. But if one considers the world's NPC population, and a rather lengthy world history, however, then very old NPC elves ought to be around, and they could potentially be godlike in levels, given their apparent age, unless there were some sort of reason, like level limits, that prevented a world filled with walking NPC gods that took an active hand in your PC's life. Nobody really wants that. Even the Gods above are far away, recluse, and tend to only act through mortal intermediaries, if at all. Nobody wants godlike beings much more active than that in their game world, trust me - it's extremely problematic. Of course, one isn't forced to - nor might they be naturally inclined to - adventure every year of their adult lives, and retiring from the field after a time might be quite natural - as might be going "across the waters" when elves reach a certain age and/or level - thus depleting the world of surplus high-level elves. Furthermore, though the rules don't cover it, people's skills tend to degrade and atrophy through disuse. Skills do not sit on a shelf in pristine condition until you need them. You must practice them, or use them regularly, or eventually lose many of them. One becomes quite rusty, given enough time and inactivity. An elf, though he lives a long time, still only has so many hours in day, and after a time when the number of his skills are vast, he really can't add more skills while still having enough time to practice them all and keep them all razor sharp. There are practical limits to one's skills, feats, power, and or levels. But the rules don't really mention these facts. They just impose limits and don't explain them very well. This doesn't mean they can't be explained, but only interested players and GMs need to look into the matter themselves when and if desired. I, for one, had the xp tables resume a much harsher exponential nature after 20th level. I imagine - though did not hammer out - rules that degrade one's skills for each year of disuse, unless they practice said skills so many hours/month. The practical effect of this is that all adventurers probably have level limits, and where this may be for each race and class is quite arbitrary. The problem isn't, therefore, why are demi-humans limited, but why are humans apparently not. The solution is simple. Humans are limited, though the practical limit might be 20th level, 25th level, or 30th level or more, depending on what the GM wants for his or her world. And with the increasing exponential nature of the xp tables beyond level 20 - (that I admit I introduced) - it is unlikely a human could get much further than 25th level in a single human lifetime anyway. But must elves, etc. be that limited in levels? Yes and no. 1e had lower limits, 2e relaxed these quite a bit and raised them and made them a function of one's STATS, and 3e seems to ignore them altogether. Ultimately the actual level limits imposed may be arbitrary, but there should be IC reasons for them if a player wishes them explained. This can and has been done, probably by lots of GMs. I don't have my books in front of me, but IIRC, most demi-human races are longer-lived than humans. Would it not follow that they have more time to hone their skills in their chosen career? As a race, is it not reasonable to assume that they have a more advanced storehouse of knowledge? If elves are as magical as tales (and the MM) say, why can't they get beyond 10th-level in the magic-user career? Which edition are you talking about? In 1e, magic-user elves are limited to 11th level, in 2e they are limited to 15th level, but might attain 19th level with an INT of 19, for example, and 3e, sadly, ignores level limits altogether. However, the racial tendencies suggest some races are less concerned with keeping written records and might be more oral in their traditions. The longer-lived they are, after all, the longer they normally have to pass on much learning, while shorter-lived races really need to write things down before they die all too soon, thus taking their knowledge with them to the grave. As for honing their skills, remember they also have a lot longer to forget things or let them atrophy than humans do. I can barely remember some things I learned in college since I don't use them all that often, and that was scant years ago - not centuries. So, I would have to conclude that these level limits are realistic enough for racial averages. However, one might wish to relax them for PCs, and without a better IC reason to back this up, they ought to. GMs may, of course, contrive of various reasons and eventually impose the arbitrary and desired limits for their world. Personally, my justification ran along the lines of a complex intermix between the gods above, and mortals below. One's level is not just ALL you, nor ALL gods, but a strange and synergistic mix of your skills and divine blessings and bestowed power. You need both to achieve epic results. The details are much greater than this, but I won't reproduce them here. You may, however, read them by following the link below if you wish: Level Limits (The Justification Of, And How 2e If the level cap is 20, and a human's normal lifespan is 120, we can conservatively assume a maximum of one experience level per five years (given that the PC begins his adventuring career at the late age of 20). If a high elf's lifespan is 2000, and he is limited to 10th-level, then advancement creeps to the preposterous ratio of one level every 167 years (assuming that the elf begins his career at the age of 333 - the same relative age as our human example). I find your analysis to be quite flawed and rife with erroneous and unwarranted assumptions. Elven society probably places many demands on an elf, and unless he is willing to forgo them and live quite apart from his ancestors, I suspect they will not be inclined to adventure nonstop for 2000 years straight. Even if they were so inclined, the unwritten, natural, and logical expectations of a point of diminishing return would naturally impose itself, and after so many skills were attained, there simply wouldn't be enough hours in a day to keep all those skills honed at razor's edge. It seems, at least to me, you have fallen into the bogus assumption and trap believing that once you acquire a skill it can only get better with time and never needs practice or use to keep it honed. This is simply not true. To my mind, therefore, longer-lived races probably adventure - (if an individual of that race has the stats and inclination) - and may achieve somewhere around their level limit when the amount of effort put in is no longer worth the limited return. They knock off for a few years and degrade a bit until the call comes - another worthy adventure! Perhaps at a few levels lower (due to atrophied levels and xp loss) they set out once more and quickly regain their level limit again. I even award such people 10 times the normal xp until they regain their former levels on the theory it is easier to recall things once learned than it is to learn something new. Still, there probably comes times when they do not adventure at all, perhaps for centuries, but instead raise a family, serve the community, and enjoy life - especially if adventuring has already set them up for life, economically speaking. Most adventuring elves, for example, probably rise and fall, rise and fall, rise and fall in and around their level limit over the centuries. It would be a mistake to think they simply increase without bound and never forget anything and have infinite capacity to recall everything and perform flawlessly when called upon to do so, even if they haven't done anything like that for decades or longer. Humans, by comparison, may have a higher-level limit, but this would happen to them too, except it is less noticeable since they don't have decades, let alone centuries, for their skills to atrophy. Remember, it goes both ways. They have time to learn, yes, but they also have time to forget. Nevertheless, I would expect retired humans - who had attained high-levels - to be rusty in many regards unless a substantial portion of the daily routine was spent in keeping their skills sharp and ready. Most, I'm sorry to say, would get lazy and let things slide as old age crept up on them, or they found more interesting things to do than practice, practice, practice. Think of how many athletes continue to spend 4 or more hours in the gym everyday? Now double that and you might have an idea of what it takes to maintain the skills of a 20th level character. 8 hours a day, 5 to 6 days a week, 4 weeks a month, 12 months a year, forever, lest your skills atrophy. Who is going to do that unless they have great need to do so? Damn few, that's who. Even if an elf was so dedicated and ignored all else other than adventure, there must come a time when the number of skills, feats, and levels to be practiced simply exceeds the number of hours in day one can allocate for their sufficient practice such that they would not degrade. Thus, they might tend to exchange this skill for that, forget this skill and learn another, or maybe even replace one class with another, etc. though all this is not clearly covered in the rules. It is still, nevertheless, allowed, logical, consistent, realistic, and answers all your questions and addresses all your stated concerns (as far as I can see). Though you might prefer a more detailed write up of how quickly skills atrophy or how much xp is lost due to extended periods of inactivity, etc. the interested player can do that for themselves if this becomes that important to them. For myself, just knowing it works in general and within these vague parameters explains away the 'High-level NPC demi-human conundrum,' and thus solves my problem with it. It's IC, makes sense, is consistent, realistic, and it works. Yet we "know" elves are better at magic, because they're allowed to cast spells in armor. Right? Wrong! We know they are better at avoiding the disruptive effect, and that is all we know. Anything else is some erroneous assumption on your part that doesn't necessarily follow. Just because they have one skill doesn't mean they have more skills beyond that. But maybe not, because: 3. Why can multiclass demi-human magic-users wear armor but single-class demi-human magic-users can't? Game balance? I don't even think so, because the rule actually favors the munchkin in that the multiclass magic-user - with more class abilities - gets a better deal than the single-class magic-user. And both with the same magic-user level cap. This just doesn't make sense. Period. The primary reason was simply because multiclass fighter/magic-users were trained in armor use, while single class wizards were not. I suppose a single class wizard could take some time off, spend weapon proficiency slots on armor, and acquire some limited armor use, but I'd dislike any rule that allows a fighter/magic-user demi-human to wear elven chain but wouldn't allow a single class demi-human magic-user to do the same. Personally, I would restrict them to elven chainmail, but then would allow single class demi-human magic-users to use it too, or maybe even a human magic-users too, provided they spent WP slots on it and could deal with the encumbrance. And while we're on the subject: 4. How are other multiclass character abilities justified in contrast to their single-class restrictions? For example, a multiclass fighter/thief can perform thieving abilities in better-than-leather armor. A multiclass cleric/fighter can use All weapons. What of the cleric/fighter/magic-user "powerhouse"? Are you actually familiar with the rules of 1e or 2e Of course all this is on the heals of being way past the point where better, magical alternatives to armor usually exist, such as rings of protection, cloaks of protection, braces of defense, and a variety of protective spells or devices. Using armor would almost be a step backwards at that point. It can't be an issue of game balance because these multiclass combinations actually overpower their single-classed counterparts in terms of the game rules. In terms of a campaign's internal consistency, there's no reason *not* to be multiclassed. Why? This simply isn't true either, though I can see how it may look that way to an inexperienced gamer for a lower-level game, or for one that goes belly up before advancing to mid to higher-levels. Multiclassing comes at a huge price. You may start off as quite powerful, but you end up less powerful than single class characters once high-levels are achieved. Game balance is often not a snapshot of one level or a small range of levels, but often involves a broader look at the whole range of likely levels for the entire game. So while it is true if players know the game will never reach higher-levels, and thus be able to pick multiclass characters more for the immediate power while ignoring longer term consequences, this is more a reflection of bad roleplaying and allowing players to make choices for their characters clearly based on player information - (knowing the game won't reach higher-levels). After all, do the PCs feel their lives will only last for the next couple of years and make short term choices based on that? No. They ought to make choices based on their whole life's potential, and this probably goes way beyond the lifetime of the campaign. Alas, there is little that can be done about this sort of thing, except to discourage bad roleplaying like that when you see it. Nevertheless, I think game balance was of paramount importance when making some of those rules. It is just unfortunate inasmuch as Therefore, there are many reasons why a far-sighted player would want his PC to be a single class character in 1e and 2e. It has greater long-term potential. Well, according to those who whine when I bring up this issue, game balance *is* achieved by making multiclass characters divide their earned experience by the number of classes possessed. Now, if memory serves, a fighter needs 2,001 XP to advance from 1st - to 2nd-level; a magic-user needs 2,501 for the same. So, for a fighter/magic-user, the character must actually earn 4,502 XP to reach 2nd level. Well, by that time, the single-class fighter is only 3rd-level, and the single-class magic-user is still 2nd-level. Game balance? How about lazy mechanics instead? Let me correct your numbers, for I do have a handy PHB in front of me. It's 2000 and 2500 XP respectively, and such a multiclass person would need 5000 XP to achieve 2nd level in both classes - (5000/2 = 2500 XP in each class). While the single class fighter would be 3rd level at 5000 XP, the single class magic-user would also be 3rd level and not 2nd level at 5000 XP. Regardless of your faulty memory, you are simply ignoring the whole picture and looking at the fact the designed game balanced isn't really achieved immediately, despite the fact balance will be achieved as the levels climb. You may as well say fighters are not balanced with magic-users, for example, since your average 1st level fighter could kick the ass of your average 1st level magic-user in a toe-to-toe. Or if not the toe-to-toe, since that isn't really a fair comparison, the fact magic-users tend to die a lot more than fighters in lower-level games makes them undesirable and poorly balanced. The fact is, magic-users start out as weak, but are still balanced inasmuch as they will achieve greater power later on in life. Sadly, if you insist on looking only at the first few levels, you will never see this balance. Thus, I think I can safely say that this isn't a result of poor planning or lazy mechanics. Not at all. It's just a fact not all choices are 'perfectly' and 'immediately' balance all the time and in every situation or possible contingency. Sometimes, the game balance achieved is not immediately apparent, but may become so as the game progresses. This is expected. I seriously doubt any game balances each factor perfectly at every instance between every choice for possible PCs. A "whole-game" approach to balance is important. PCs, NPCs, races, and classes, all enter into the fray over a long period of time, and not just for a snapshot or two of the whole. Eventually, immediate advantages now are paid for later, and immediate disadvantages now are made up for later. This achieves over-all game balance. And the progression just gets worse as levels increase. So my fighter/magic-user is one fighting level below your single-class fighter - I can cast spells. Can you? My AC is just as good as yours. My weapon proficiency/specialization is just as good as yours. My saving throws are better. Because I'm a demi-human, I have ability score mods and special racial abilities - does your single-class human have those? No, it doesn't. And even if your PC is a single-classed demi-human of the same race, I can still cast spells. In armor. Remember? No, the fighter/magic-user can't cast spells while in that armor in 2e. You were wrong about that. You should check the rules before submitting such unwarranted articles. His AC isn't as good as the fighter's, probably, and his HPs sure aren't. Thus, he may die, and dead men cast no spells. Also, multiclass fighter/magic-users may not specialize in a weapon. The theory is that weapon specialization takes so much time and practice that one simply doesn't have the time to dabble in other classes and still maintain this level of excellence with a special weapon. So again, you are wrong. Remember? Yeah, I remember you got it wrong first time out according to the PHB (page 45 in my copy, anyway). So while demi-human multiclass characters have clear immediate advantages, they will eventually come up short and fall behind beginning midlevel, and fall way behind in sheer power at higher-levels. Sadly, though you didn't point this out, this partially comes about due to the insistence a multiclass character keeps spending 1/Nth his xp on each of his N classes - even after level limits are achieved in that class - and that he can never abandon one and just solely concentrate on the others, which on its face looks odd. The true reason might be due to some idea akin to the 3e prestige classes, and that they aren't really a fighter and a magic-user per se, but are instead a weird combination of fighter/magic-user, which is a single class combination of these arts, and that may have wildly different approaches to some matters such that they can ignore certain normal rules while abiding by others. In any event, it is not as poorly designed, badly written, or as terribly unbalanced, as you would have your readers believe. There are solutions to many of these issues, if you are but inclined to look for them. This even assumes you read the rules correctly in the first place, which you haven't, for you don't need to fix what isn't broken. Unfortunately, you aren't - I'm guessing - imaginative enough to look for them when you actually do need them, so instead you write articles about how since you can't see it or figure it out yourself, it must, therefore, not exist since clearly no one is smarter than you (or some such nonsense along those lines, doctor). Among the numerous problems with the Not true. Your conclusions proceed from several faulty premises and are thus unsubstantiated and unwarranted. Game balance is not easy, and yes, it may be better done or better balanced in some ways. Thankfully, you have the freedom to make any adjustments you feel are necessary when and if you see a problem in your game. And recall, a problem in your game may not be a problem in mine, or indeed in most people's games, but a highly subjective need on your part. Also, your solution may be entirely bogus according to me. It's quite subjective. If Game balance does not, therefore, suffer, and the fact you can't quote the rules properly shows the level of concern and thought you have put into your opinion, doctor. Thankfully, one is always able to seek a second opinion, doctor, and I'm happy to provide one. Of course, no one likes heavy-handed rules, rulings, or practices that force issues of game balance to work in overt ways, and we strive to find a more natural, organic solution that does not reveal the Gamer's Footprint. I commend you inasmuch as you apparently care about the Gamer's Footprint, but cannot applaud your seemingly lackluster approach to finding solutions before giving up, or worse, criticizing others who can. If any readers are uncertain as to what I mean by the Gamer's Footprint, you may read more about it following the link below: The Gamer's Footprint (Why Some Rules Designed For Game Balance Leave Something To Be Desired.) But at least, in this case, you haven't really pointed out any rules that don't work, despite your claims such things cannot possibly work on the IC level merely because you couldn't find them or get them to work. I have gotten them work, and they work well. It's a magnificent system for me, and for numerous others. This, naturally, does not mean you should do a 180 turn about and suddenly like And that should be the slogan on every That's foolish. One might just as easily claim every article you write should be labeled: "A short sighted opinion of the rules of Of course, I would never say that about a person or one article, or idiotically claim every article you write should thusly be so labeled. But then I'm not the sort to condemn a whole game system and unfavorably label each of its books simply because I was found lacking in my personal understanding or grasp of their content, either. I'm just not the sort.
Ultimately, my primary objection to your article wasn't the questions you raised. They were good and should be raised, and they show you are a thoughtful enough person to ponder some of the more intricate matters of roleplaying. What I objected to were the broad sweeping conclusions that no possible solutions could be contrived, and therefore, all Even if you don't like my explanations, that still doesn't prove others may not yet be discovered, created, or contrived. I can only guess, therefore, that you have other serious issues with In any event, if you even find this article or read it, and you have objections to it or feel I have mischaracterized something you have said, please feel free to write to me and we can discuss it.
This following three paragraphs were added in May, 2014:
To be clear, 1e allows multiclass fighter/magic-users to simultaneously wear heavy metal armor while casting magic-user spells. They limit gnome fighter/illusionists to leather, however, but they do that in a previous section under gnomes and not in the multiclass section, so that was silly of them, IMO. Though the statements about armor in the multiclass character section are rather ambiguous and could be taken several different ways, it is only under the dual class section - a little later on - that they finally and EXPLICITLY state an elven fighter/magic-user can wear heavy metal armor WHILE casting magic-user spells (and, it is assumed from that, so can half elf fighter/magic-users). Though it was in the wrong section, which is problematic for a reference book, of sorts, they eventually and explicitly finally gave that rule. Too bad it was in the wrong section. That fact has caused more than a little confusion over the years. And in case you were wondering, it's possible, given the way they wrote the rules in the multiclass section, to interpret them as meaning one could perform the abilities or either class, but not necessarily at the same time, or simultaneously. The late and misplaced dual class statement on multiclass fighter/magic-users, however, finally clears up any ambiguity. But I digress.
2e, on the other hand, explicitly prohibits multiclass fighter/magic-user characters from the simultaneous use of heavy metal armor while casting magic-user spells. They make an exception for elves wearing elven chainmail, however. Thus, multiclass fighter/magic-users are expected not to wear heavy metal armor when they wish to cast spells, but there are plenty of reasons to take this multiclass, despite this limitation. The plethora of bonuses from two classes comes to mind, for example. But since one could always put on heavy metal armor after their spell compliment was exhausted, for instance, wearing the stuff for part of an adventure is still a realistic option for a fighter/magic-user. They just need to be strong enough to carry armor around with them, as many fighters ought to be, or have a porter or pack animal carry it for them, and while this is a bit annoying, it's certainly doable. They can also use a shield for the added protection, even while walking around in robes or cloaks, provided they put the shield down or drop it before casting a spell.
For this issue, the problems of game balance could still exist in 1e and/or 2e, of course. Depending on the possible reasons for these rules may determine why single class humans or single class demi-human magic-users may or may not also wear heavy metal armor, or even elven chainmail, while casting magic user spells. That is, those are the rules, and the reasons are left up to the imagination of the DM. All that is required is the explanations or justifications be consistent with other rules and with themselves - unless the DM alters a rule, or eliminates it, should they feel that necessary or desirable, which is also an option for every DM - and any logical consequences of those reasons should be allowed to flow naturally from them. So pick your edition, then contrive your reasons or justifications, and, hopefully, you'll do a good job. I know it can be done - I've seen it done many times and in a variety of ways. But it would be wrong to claim there is only one solution. Each DM can put a different spin on it, which in turn gives his or her game a unique flavor, and that's part of the fun of the game.
Email Jim Your Comments (Send Praises, Critiques, Complaints, Suggestions, Ideas, Corrections, Or Submissions.)
As for my regular visitors, I hope this article has proven insightful into how one might approach issues of game balance and the Gamer's Footprint, not just for Happy Gaming ;-)
© August of 2003 |