FN: Paradise for painterly people	The Eyes of Mavis Deval, by Gardner F. Fox	FtSS: AD&D's Magic System: How and why it works	LTH: Smoothing Out Some Snags In the AD&D® Spell Structure	Mapping the Dungeons II: The International DM List for 1980
BotB: Magical Oils: Try Lotions Instead of Potions	DB: Frosts	A CAU for NPC's Gives Encounters More Believability	Clerics, take note: “No Swords” means No Swords!	Inert Weapons
-	-	-	-	Dragon

From the Sorcerer's Scroll:
AD&D's Magic System:
How and Why It Works
©Gary Gygax

Working up rules about make-believe can be difficult. Magic,
AD&D magic, is most certainly make-believe. If there are “Black Arts”
and “Occult Sciences” which deal with real, working magic spells, I
have yet to see them.

Mildly put, I do not have any faith in the powers of magic, nor have I
ever seen anyone who could perform anything approaching a mere
first-level AD&D spell without props. Yet heroic fantasy has long
been one of my favorite subjects, and while I do not believe in invincible
superheroes, wicked magicians, fire-breathing dragons, and the
stuff of fairie, I love it all nonetheless! Being able to not only read about
heroic adventures of this sort, but also to play them as a game form,
increased the prospects of this enjoyment of imaginary worlds. So
magic and dragons and superheroes and all such things were added to
Chainmail.

Simply desiring to play fantasy-based games does not bring them
into being as a usable product. Most of the subject matter dealt with has
only a limited range of treatment. Thus, giants are always written of as
large and not overly bright, save in Classical mythology, of course.
Some are LARGE, and some are turned to stone by sunlight, and so
on, but the basics were there to draw from, and no real problems were
posed in selecting characteristics for such creatures in a game. The
same is basically true for all sorts of monsters and even adventurers—
heroes, Magic-Users, et al.

Not so with magic. There are nearly as many treatments of magic as
there are books which deal with it.

What approach to take? In Chainmail, this was not a particularly
difficult decision. The wizard using the magic was simply a part of an
overall scheme, so the spells just worked; a catapult hurled boulders
and a wizard fire balls or lightning bolts; elves could move invisibly,
split-move and fire bows, and engage monsters if armed with magical
weapons, while wizards could become invisible or CAST spells.

When it came time to translate the rather cut-and-dried stuff of
Chainmail’s “Fantasy Supplement” to D&D, far more selection and
flexibility had to be delivered, for the latter game was free-form. This
required me to back up several steps to a point where the figure began a
career which would eventually bring him or her to the state where they
would equal (and eventually exceed) a Chainmail wizard. Similarly,
some basis for the use of magic had to be created so that a system of
spell acquisition could be devised. Where should the magic power
come from? Literature gave many possible answers, but most were
unsuitable for a game, for they demanded that the spell-caster spend
an inordinate amount of time preparing the spell. No viable adventurer
character could be devised where a week or two of preliminary steps
were demanded for the conjuration of some not particularly mighty
spell. On the other hand, spell-casters could not be given license to
broadcast magic whenever and wherever they chose.

This left me with two major areas to select from. The internal power,
or manna, system where each spell-caster uses energy from within to
effect magic, requires assigning a total point value to each such character’s
manna, and a cost in points to each spell. It is tedious to keep track
of, difficult to police, and allows Magic-Users far too much freedom
where a broad range of spells are given. If spell points were to be used,
it would require that either selection be limited or all other characters
and monsters be strengthened. Otherwise, spell-users woud quickly
come to dominate the game, and participants would desire to play only
that class of character. (As a point of reference, readers are referred to
the handling of psionic abilities as originally treated in Eldritch Wizardry.
Therein, psionic manna was assumed, the internal power usable to
tap external sources, and the range of possible powers thus usable was
sharply limited.)

Having read widely in the fantasy genre since 1950, I opted instead
for the oft-used system which assumes that magic comes from power
locked within certain words && phrases which are uttered to release
the force. This mnemonic power system was exceedingly well articulated
by Jack Vance in his superb The Eyes of The Overworld and
Dying Earth novels, as well as in various short stories. In memorizing
the magical words, the brain of the would-be spell-caster is taxed by the
charged force of these syllables. To increase capacity, the spell-caster
must undergo training, study, and mental discipline.

This is not to say that he || she ever understands the words, but the
capacity to hold them in the memory and to speak them correctly
increases thus. The magic words, in turn, trigger energy which causes
the spell to work.

The so-called “Vancian” magic system allows a vast array of spells.
Each is assigned a level (mnemonic difficulty) rating, and experience
grades are used to expand the capacity of the spell-caster. The use of
this particular system allows more restrictions upon spell-casting character
types, of course, while allowing freedom to assign certain spells to
lower difficulty factor to keep the character type viable in its early
stages. It also has the distinct advantages of requiring that spell-users
select their magic prior to knowing what they must face, and limiting
bookkeeping to a simple list of spells which are crossed off as expended.
The mnemonic spell system can be explained briefly thus: Magic
works because certain key words and phrases (sounds) unlock energy
from elsewhere. The sounds are inscribed in arcane texts or religious
works available to spell-users. Only training and practice will allow
increased memory capacity, thus allowing more spells to be used. Once
uttered, the sounds discharge their power, and this discharge not only
unlocks energy from elsewhere, but it also wipes all memory of the
particular words or phrases from the speaker’s brain. Finally, the
energy manifested by the speaking of the sounds will take a set form,
depending on the pronunciation and order of the sounds. So a Sleep
spell or a Charm Monster spell is uttered and the magic effected. The
mind is wiped clean of the memory of what the sounds were, but by
careful concentration and study later, the caster can again memorize
these keys.

When Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was in the conceptualization
stages some three years ago, I realized that while the
“Vancian” system was the best approach to spell-casting in fantasy
adventure games, D&D did not go far enough in defining, delineating,
and restricting its use. Merely having words was insufficient, so elements
of other systems would have to be added to make a better
system. While it could be similar in concept to the spell-casting of D&D,
it had to be quite different in all aspects, including practice, in order to
bring it up to a higher level of believability and playability with respect
to other classes.

The AD&D magic system was therefore predicated on the concept
that there were three power-trigger keys-the cryptic utterances, hypnotic
gestures, and special substances—the verbal, somatic, and
material components, possible in various combinations, which are
needed to effect magic. This aspect is less “Vancian,” if you will, but at
the same time the system overall is more so, for reasons you will see
later.

Verbal spell components, the energy-charged special words and
phrases, are necessary in most spells. These special sounds are not
general knowledge, and each would-be spell-caster must study in order
to even begin to comprehend their reading, meaning, and pronunciation,
i.e., undergo an apprenticeship. The basic assumption of this
training is the ability to actually handle such matter; this ability is
expressed in intelligence or wisdom minimums for each appropriate
spell-using profession.

Somatic spell components, the ritual gestures which also draw the
power, must also be learned and practiced. This manual skill is less
important in clericism, where touching or the use of a holy/unholy
symbol is generally all that is involved, while in the Illusionist class it is of
great importance, as much of the spell power is connected with redirection
of mental energy.

Material components are also generally needed. This expansion
into sympathetic magic follows the magic portrayed by L. Sprague de
Camp and Fletcher Pratt in their superb “Harold Shea” stories, for
example. Of course, it is a basic part of primitive magic systems practiced
by mankind. In general, some certain material or materials are also
needed to complete the flow of power from the spell-caster, which in
turn will draw energy from some other place and cause the spell to
happen.

now do considerable studying, but he or she must also have the source <>
material to study. AD&D also assumes that such material is hard to
come by, and even if a spell-caster is capable of knowing/memorizing
many and high-level spells, he or she must find them (in the case of
Magic-Users and Illusionists) or have the aid of deities or minions
thereof (in the situation faced by Clerics and Druids). These strictures
apply to other professions which are empowered with spell use, as
appropriate to the type of spells in question. In order to expand
mnemonic capacity, spell-users must do further study and be trained.
Thus, the system is in some ways more “Vancian,” as such information
and studies are indicated, if not necessarily detailed, in the works of that
author. It might also be said that the system takes on “Lovecraftian”
overtones, harkening to tomes of arcane and dread lore.

In addition to the strictures on locating the information for new
spells, and the acquisition of the ability to CAST (new, more powerful)
spells, the requirements of verbal, somatic, and material components in
most spell-casting highlight the following facts regarding the interruption
and spoiling of spells: Silencing the caster will generally ruin the
spell or prevent its instigation. Any interruption of the somatic
gestures—such as is accomplished by a successful blow, grappling,
overbearing, or even severe jostling—likewise spoils the magic. Lack of
material components, or the alteration or spoiling thereof, will similarly
cause the spell to come to naught.

Of course, this assumes the spell has the appropriate verbal, somatic,
or material components. Some few spells have only a verbal
component, fewer still verbal and material, a handful somatic and
material, and only one has a somatic component alone. (Which fact will
most certainly change if I ever have the opportunity to add to the list of
Illusionists’ spells, for on reflection, I am convinced that this class should
have more spells of somatic component only—but that’s another
story.)

All of these triggers mean that it is both more difficult to cast a spell,
especially when the new casting time restrictions are taken into account,
and easier to interrupt a spell before it is successfully cast.
Consider the casting of a typical spell with V,S, and M components.
When the caster has opportunity and the desire to cast a spell, he or she
must utter the special energy-charged sound patterns attendant to the
magic, gesture appropriately, and hold or discard the material component(
s) as necessary to finally effect the spell. Ignoring the appropriate
part or parts, all spells are cast thus, the time of conjuration to effect the
dweomer varying from but a single segment to many minutes or tens of
minutes. These combinations allow a more believable magic system,
albeit the requirements placed upon spell-casters are more stringent,
and even that helps greatly to balance play from profession to profession.
A part and parcel of the AD&D magic system is the general classification
of each spell by its effect. That is, whether the spell causes an
alteration, is a conjuration/summoning, enchantment/charm, etc. This
grouping enables ease of adjudication of changes of spell effects or
negation of power. It also makes it easier to classify new spells by using
the grouping.

It seems inevitable that the classification and component functions
wil eventually lead to further extrapolation. The energy triggers of
sound and motion will be categorized and defined in relation to the
class of dweomer to be effected. This will indicate what power source is
being tapped, and it will also serve to indicate from whence the magic
actually comes, i.e., from what place or plane the end result of a
successfully cast spell actually comes. Perhaps this will lead to a spellcasting
character having to actually speak a rime, indicate what special
movements are made, and how material components are used. While
this is not seriously proposed for usual play, the wherewithal to do so
will probably be available to DMs whose participants are so inclined.
It all has a more important and useful purpose, however. Defining
the energy triggers will make it possible to matrix combinations by class
of spell-caster and dweomer group. Mispronounced spells, or research
into new spells, will become far more interesting in many ways if and
when such information is available and put into use!

As it now stands, the AD&D magic system is a combination of
reputed magic drawn from works of fiction and from myth. Although
they are not defined, verbal and somatic components are necessary
energy-triggers. The memorization of these special sounds and motions
is difficult, and when they are properly used, they release their
small stores of energy to trigger power from elsewhere. This release
totally wipes all memory of sound and/or motion from the memory of
the spell caster, but it does not otherwise seriously affect his or her
brain—although the mnemonic exercise of learning them in the first
place is unquestionably taxing. Duplicates of the same spell can be
remembered also, but the cast spell is gone until its source is again
carefully perused.

The new form which spell casting has taken in ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS has a more realistic flavor to it—unimportant,
but some players revel in this sort of thing, and that is well enough. Of
real importance, however, is the fact that it requires far more effort from
spell-casters in gaining, preparing, and casting spells. It makes them
more vulnerable to attacks which spoil the casting of the spell. All in all,
it tends to make each and every profession possible for characters in
AD&D to be more equal, but still very different, from all of the others.
Lastly, it opens up new areas where new development can be done at
some future time, and if such new material adds significantly to the
enjoyment of the game, it will certainly be published—in experimental
form herein, then possibly in final form in a revised edition of the work
itself.

If the foregoing doesn’t completely explain everything you or your
players wish to know about the AD&D magic system; if after all of those
words there are still unanswered questions, doubts, or disputes, remember
the last and overriding principle of the whole: ITS MAGIC!

OUT ON A LIMB
This brings me to a point that I didn’t want to
write about when I started this letter: spell points.

I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF FORGETTING
SPELLS!!!!!!!

You reject spell points out of hand because one
author uses a system whereby the spell is forgotten
after casting. No other author uses such a system.
To allow a mage to repeatedly cast a spell you
make powerful implements such as wands, staves
and rings. This makes two different magic systems
(forgetting and storing) into one dubious believability
and playability. I have seen dungeons where a
mage walks in with a wand of magic missiles containing
20 charges that the DM used as a treasure
because once the spell is used it is forgotten. For
want of spell points one multiplies MU implement
use incredibly.

And what of illiterate MUs? The Druid in D&D
can somehow have a spell book, although his historical
counterpart could not read. The absurdity is
worsened by the material component rule. Spell
points require less paperwork than do Sears catalogs
of spell material components. If you would just
look at the ease of recording current power next to
current hit points in the game Runequest you
would understand what I am saying.

One of the abilities of a good company is flexibility.
I see little flexibility in TSR as regards rules
innovations. AD&D is different enough from D&D
to be an entirely new game. Some of the loopholes
have been closed, but the newness is, to some
extent, a facade.

You may consider this a hostile attitude. It is
not. I am not a hostile APA reader with an axe to
grind. I merely think that the game would more
than likely improve if you innovated. I like it when
SPI innovates. I have played their small unit tank
games from Kampfpanzer to Mech War to October
War to the new Mech War. Each is a new and better
game. I don’t stop playing one because the system
is ‘dated’, but I do appreciate the October War was
not a Mech War with a yellow map.

The graphics on AD&D may be excellent, but it
still is mostly a ‘yellow map’ D&D. Glitches are still
there.

Another problem I see with TSR is the problem
of ripping off of game systems and calling them
new. You get altogether too upset about such
things. Saving throw is not a new idea. Role playing
is not a new idea. Level and exp. points may be,
but as ideas they cannot be effectively held onto.
The same goes for 3d6 characteristics. It doesn’t
help a game that much to leave home the old ideas
that work. A comparable demand would be Avalon
Hill saying, “We first quantified strengths and
made the odds CRT. That’s ours now.” I don’t buy <CRT=?>
these kinds of arguments.

Nor can you complain if other game systems
have door locking spells, for Gandalf uses the spell
in LOTR against the Balrog.

A lot of fandom would appreciate you more if
you would calm down and not spend pages of The
Dragon yelling at APAs. We know that you have
hassles, but I don’t plunk $2 on the counter for
yelling in print. Do it by the mail or by the courts.
I’ve heard enough of if.

Marc Jacobs
[edit]
(The Dragon #28)
 

Unfortunately for you, D&D was based, the
magic aspect of it, upon Jack Vance’s concepts of
magic in his “Dying Earth” books. That is the way it
is designed. If you don’t like it, play something else,
or design your own variant. Most people make
mages far too powerful, and badly unbalance the
game in so doing. As to the magic items extant in
any given campaign, that is solely the province of
the DM.

Who says that one of the “abilities of a good
company is flexibility”? You? Who are you to say
something that absurd? Where do you think you
are? Since when does a company work on your
principles? We may live in a democracy, but that
democracy does not extend into the field of
business? Is Parker Bros. a bad company because
they resisted the appeals to rename the streets in
MONOPOLY? How can you possibly make such
an asinine claim? Your reference to SPI is hardly
justified. Their specialty is re-doing games time and
time again, and in that context they are successful. I
might add that they also publish the more exotic
and less-demanded off-the-wall games that we
would not otherwise have access to, for which I, as
a gamer, am grateful. By your reasoning, Avalon
Hill is a “bad company” because they have not let
any of their “classics” (which are replete) with
inconsistencies and quirky glitches) be tampered
with.

Kindly document the use of saving throws prior
to a TSR game. You can’t . . .

We can complain about a lack of daring and
ingenuity in game design anytime we wish, by the
same right that you have to make these statements.
We certainly have the right to decry the trend to
take other companies’ ideas and merely rehash
them or slightly modify them. Why is it that when
TSR Hobbies puts out something new and radical,
six months later three or more so-called “improved” designs are on the
market? I feel that it is symptomatic of a lack of daring and ingenuity on
the part of the industry as a whole that one or two companies should do
all the trail blazing and inventing, only to have the rest of them jump on
the bandwagon made popular by those that took the risks.

If you want a world that is dominated by goblins, instead of having
men be the dominant race, that is up to you. Unless they are somehow
PC’s it is ludicrous to advance lower races, and serves no useful purpose.
If the lower orders were capable of advancement, man would not
be the dominant species.

Having printed all of this, in context, I wouldn’t want to bet on who
received any favor. I’m sure that the readers have enough evidence to
make up their own minds now . . . . — Ed. <Tim Kask> [edit]

'The best around'

Dear Editor:
I just received a copy of the January issue of
“The Dragon,” and I would have to say that it is the
best fantasy mag around. My favorites are
“Wormy” and “Bazaar of the Bizarre.” Hope
you’ll keep the “Wormy” series for a long time.
Sorry to hear about the “Sorcerer’s Scroll’s” discontinuation,
maybe Mr. Gygax will pick it up once
TSR’s sales drop a bit (Thor forbid!). A big cheer for
“Clerics and Swords,” “Sage Advice,” and
“Leomund’s Tiny Hut;” even though I don’t agree
with all they had to say, any AD&D insights are
very welcome.

One of the few things I didn’t like about the
issue was the cover. What was that thing supposed
to be? Certainly not a dragon, because where was
all the treasure? A basilisk maybe? Anyway, that’s
just a trivial complaint compared to the vast majority
of excellent articles as well as artwork #33
included.

Re “The Electric Eye,” the little excerpt from
the game sounded quite a bit like a program that
we have on our school computer called “Adventure,”
which is a very good version of a D&D
game, with the DM being an all-powerful djinni—
any connection? I agree with Mr. Herro’s views, I
myself having developed an AD&D player creating
program that eliminates a lot of the hassle involved
with that part of the game. I hope to see more of this
sort of thing—maybe leading to a complete
campaign program? Who knows?

John C. Coates IV
—Lynchburg, VA
(The Dragon #36)
 

Glad you liked the January issue. You’ll be
happy to know that though TSR’s business is continuing
to boom, Gary has managed to produce a
few more Sorcerer’s Scrolls for us (in case you
missed it, the first return of the Sorcerer’s Scroll
appeared last month, and you’ll find another in this
month's magazine).

The ELECTRIC EYE column has been very favorably
received, and will hopefully be expanded in
the future—just how far remains to be seen. Ideally,
we would like it to touch on all aspects of electronic
games and gaming, including, perhaps,
actual programs. However, we will most likely start
with commercially available equipment and software
before getting into any custom programs.

As for the cover of the January magazine, who
says that dragons must always be surrounded by
treasure??? If you read “Cover-to-Cover” that
month, you know that the title of the painting is
“Dragon’s Lair,” not “Dragon’s Treasure Room.”
Maybe its the dragon’s dining room. In game playing
or in real life, it’s a dangerous business to let
your mind become locked into a single or absolute
concept of how something should appear or
behave—therein lies the path to stereotyping and
prejudice, not to mention that creature you encounter
in the dungeon which outwardly appears
to be a fist-sized rock, but in actuality is a bizarre
creature whose touch is instantly fatal to AD&D
characters played by people named John. Q.E.D.

—Jake
(The Dragon #36)
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard
Gary:

A friend of mine let me borrow "Best of Dragon" Vol II (as I am on a bit of an old dragon magazine binge right now) and I just read your essay on D&D's Vancian magic system and why it was created the way it was.

Pure awesome.

Thanks.

I am pleased that you enjoyed the article.

The "memorize then fire and forget" principal for casting spells Jack Vance assumed in his fantasy stories seemed perfect to me for use by D&D magic-users.
IT required forethought by the player and limited the power of the class all at once.
I still like the concept even though I have gone to a manical energy point system in the Lejendary Adventure RPG.

Cheerio,
Gary
 

B:
A
by

Invisibility
While violence causes the instant negation of Invisibility, I think that
other magics do so also. I rule that if a Magic-user is invisible he/she will
become visible in the segment during which he/she discharges a magic
item or begins to cast any spell. Also, an invisible figure can not receive
another spell without negating the invisibility. Thus a figure can be
enlarged, strengthened, hasted and then made invisible, but Invisibility
MUST be the last spell throw or it is negated at once! Note that a figure’s
“gear” is not equivalent to another figure. “Gear” above and beyond
normal encumbrance will not become invisible and will spoil the effect
of the entire spell. Lastly, “gear” can not be passed around to others
and remain invisible. The trick of giving all weapons to the Magic-user
to hold while Invisibility is cast and then passing the invisible weapons
back to the other players is unfair. Invisibility can be used to make an
individual weapon, its scabbard (holder) and belt invisible, of course.
Drawing the weapon will negate the invisibility.

<
* if you TARGET an invisible figure with a spell, that creature is made invisble (technically, TARGET the square where the invisible creature is located, in many cases)
* if you are invisible and you CAST a spell, then your invisibility ends
* if you are invisible and you USE a magic item, then your invisibility ends
>

<
I covered all the invisibility stuff over on the EN world boards thread, and in general I agree that any offfensive action,m including casting a apell or picking a pocket breaks the spell. Len could have simplified the "gear" question by simply saying that invisibility covers the person upon whom it is cast as well as all normally worn and carried by the individual.

If that doesn't cover it, come on back.

- Gary Gygax, Dragonsfoot (1)

>

Clerics, take note:
“No Swords” means
No Swords!
Lawrence Huss
 
 

Excerpts from a lecture at the Seminary of Magpidar, “On the Use of
Physical Duress” by Archmadriate Bex of Geopolis.

“. . . so young clerics say to me, ‘If we may righteously use mace or
flail to remonstrate on our enemies, why then do we not use sword or
arrow?’

“Why, ‘tis as plain as the forbidden pikestaff! The purpose and
nature of all edged weapons (and what is a point but a section of an
edge?) is to cut, release blood and kill, both in reality and symbolically.

“The club, mace and flail are but growths of the staff, which stands
for guidance and religious authority. Though the end result of the
sword stroke and the well-aimed mace blow are the same, the symbolic
intent differs. As the High Power judges our acts much from a
viewpoint in which symbols supersede particulars, this symbolic differ-
ence in intent is of greatest importance, both to the performance of the
specifically clerical functions and in the gaining of spiritual eminence.”

In lay terms, the use of edged or pointed weapons has a different
theological potency than the use of non-edged ones. Gods (as differ-
entiated from nature deified) tend to desire blood spilled by their
servants only under certain highly ritualized circumstances, such as
sacrifices and oath-swearings.

As a result, when a cleric uses a forbid-
den weapon type and hits he (she) becomes ritually polluted and loses
all ability to use clerical skills and spells. Also, no experience can be
gained (for clerical purposes) while in a state of ritual pollution.

To be
cleansed, a pure cleric of at least level x (6,7,8?) must perform a
ceremony involving holy water, incense and costly material sacrifice. <atonement?>
Of course a cleric, polluted or not, always fights on the clerical tables, no
matter what the weapon used.

Notes from a lesson at the Grand Academy at Otheme, given by
Magister Scholae Wilibrod.

“You young cockerels have been talking (Don’t deny it; I’ve got
Invisible Ears everywhere) about when the going is touchy grabbing up
some glaive or man-splitter and hacking about like some fool Warrior!
Idiots! Don’t you remember the Third Lesson? More than a few ounces
of copper or iron close to you and your spells get all turned about. And
each time you get all worked up and swing something there is a one in
twenty chance adding up you’ll start forgetting your spells! And the
psychic pollution takes a five-day fast! And. . . .”

< remarks are unending-Novice Grimbolt >

Why can’t Magic Users use arms, armor and weapons as well as
spells? They can! But above a certain lower limit (eight ounces) any
copper or iron alloy that is within about two inches (52 mm) of the MU
has a tendency to foul up the spells that are being cast (say, point of
origin detonation of fireballs). For each ounce above the minimum
there should be about a 3% chance of a malfunction in the spell. This
weight includes materials that are in contact with the metal within the
critical limits. So a 2½ lb. sword would have a 96% negative effect if
worn or used. And a 20 lb. chain shirt. . .

If you remember that spells have to be memorized and held in the
mind by an effort of will, it should be apparent that the excitement of
melee might well weaken the grip of the MU’s mind on the spells it
holds, the most complex (and potent) ones first. This effect could be
simulated by a 5% chance per melee round (cumulative per round) of
forgetting a spell. After each melee round the MU is in combat, and DM
rolls (5% the first time, 10% the next) to see if a spell is forgotten. Once
one is gone, then you start over again with the next. When all the spells
on one level are gone, start on the next lower. Determine which on
each level is forgotten either randomly, or by DM’s whim.

OUT ON A LIMB

More swordplay

To the editor:
I read Lawrence Huss’s article in TD-33 concerning
rationales for forbidding clerics and
mages the use of the sword with both interest
and disappointment, for he left much unsaid on
the subject. To begin with, I think it would have
been more useful to begin with the real reason
why the D&D rules deny swords to clerics and
mages, which is to take from them a certain
degree of combat effectiveness so that fighters
will be better at fighting than any other class.
This may seem elementary, but some of the
newer players may not realize it and lose track of
the important underlying reason for the rule.
Among the weapons in D&D, the sword does
more damage than any other, and it is for that
reason that most fighters use the sword. By providing
that the cleric is limited to blunt weapons,
the rules really mean that the cleric is limited to
weapons that do less damage. Similarly, the rule
limiting mages to the dagger as their weapon
was intended to limit them to a weapon that is
less powerful than not only the sword but the
mace as well. It is an interesting quirk of history
that under the Greyhawk rules, the characteristic
weapon of these 3 classes does the same
damage as their own HD, but that is probably
coincidental.

The rationale given in the TD-33 article for
limiting clerics to club, mace, and flail, unfortunately,
does not hold together very well.  The
excuse that a cleric must use stafflike weapons
because of their symbolic value makes little
sense, since if a mace or hammer is stafflike so is
an axe, while if a flail is stafflike so is a morningstar.
The argument is specious, particularly with
respect to the flail, of which there are many
varieties that are that are staffllike only in that they have a
staff as a handle, an argument that also applies to the spear.

More importantly, the fundamental basis of
the argument is that ‘God said to do it that way.’
But the appeal to a High Power that judges all
clerics suffers badly in logic in a world in which
the gods are real. In a polytheistic universe, it
begs the question to suggest that there might be,
after all, an all-powerful single godhead hiding
behind the multiplicity of apparent gods on
which you can peg a rationale for a rule.

Thus, the argument that a cleric becomes
spiritually polluted from using an edged or
pointed weapon in the sight of the cleric’s god
completely misses the point to the nature of
religion. If the gods are real, then a cleric will pay
close attention to his or her god’s or goddess’s
favorite weapon, on pain of offending the deity
in question, which can lead to harsh penalties.
The result is that while a priest of Thor will naturally
use the hammer, a priest of Odin will carry a
spear; a priest of Ares will choose the sword,
while a priestess of Diana might specialize in
archery; and so on.  The entire concept of a <link>
master power behind the gods doesn't make
sense in the D&D rules, which are premised on a
polytheistic universe.

The original clerics-and-maces arrangement
probably originated in the medieval Christian
clerical hypocrisy that a cleric could not represent
the Prince of Peaec while cutting people up
with a sword, but that clubbing them to death
was all right because it was less messy.  Regardless
of the theological validity of this idea, it
simply doesn't apply to clerics of other gods,
however.  This leaves us without a satisfactory
rationale for limiting cleics to blunt weapons, in
my opinion, other than a plea to a game balance
argument.

The rationale offered for mages being unable
to handle metal while casting spells has a
solid background in western fantasy tradition, at
least concerning the effect of cold iron on magic.
Unfortunately for the argument, there is no similar
tradition with respect to copper and copper
alloys (brass and bronze). What is there about
copper that interacts badly with magic, when
mages traditionally use brass implements? If
copper is harmful, why not gold? Silver? Mithril?
Remember that the latter two metals have a
tradition of not only not interfering with magic,
but they are also thought to contain or transmit
magic particularly well.

In addition, the metal-vs. -magic argument
fails to restrain mages from wearing non-metal
armor. Leather armor is an obvious suggestion
but armor made from laminated cloth was used
successfully by the Greeks, and would be attractive
to mages as a metal substitute. Furthermore,
there are lots of nonmetallic weapons that
mages could use, if metal is the only bar to
this—a stone club, for example. In fact, there is
an inconsistency in the rules that suggests a
mage can use a quarterstaff as a weapon, since
the Staff of Striking is a magical quarterstaff, and
there is no good reason why someone who can
use that cannot use a nonmagical staff as a
weapon.

The D&D rules specify a large number of
magical items that normally are made of metal
that could be a copper or iron alloy. Limiting
ourselves to the Greyhawk tables of items specifically
limited to or usable by mages, we find
Helms, Bottles, Tridents, Bracers, Gauntlets,
Bowls, Decanters, Beakers, and Braziers in profusion.
Potion bottles and scroll cases are often
made of brass, in one local campaign; braziers
are traditionally made of brass; tridents probably
are bronze; and so forth.

A more serious objection to the metal-vs.-
magic theory, however, is built into the D&D
rules structure: Clerics use magic while wearing
plate armor and carrying metal weapons. My
personal belief is that clerics get their spells exactly
the same way mages do, that in fact clerics
are a combined class of warriors who are also
specialty mages. The reason behind this statement
is that many of the spells usable by clerics
are ones they hold in common with other
mages —detects, light, hold person, protection
from evil, and others. I do not believe in the
theory that clerics get their magic directly from
their gods. In the first place, to refer to casting
Detect Magic as a “miracle” cheapens the concept
to trivia—a miracle is divine intervention,
and should be restricted to special cases. In the
second place, the multiplicity of gods makes the
standard list of clerical spells highly suspect in
terms of each god’s or goddess’s personal inclinations,
if that’s where they come from. The
same problem makes the idea that clerics get the
ability to throw magic while wearing metal
equally suspect; Athena approves of armor but
Diana doesn’t. <link>

Magic is magic, it seems to me, whether cast
by a mage, cleric, druid, bard, or whatever. If
this is so, then clerics use the same mechanics in
using magic and are subject to the same restrictions
as mages. It is true that some spells operate
differently in the hands of clerics than in those of
mages, but this can be explained by clerics being
specialists who are better at what they get in their
restricted list of spells than generalist mages,
without appealing to divine intervention as an
excuse. I might note that this raises the question
of how druids throw spells if they must learn
them like anybody else (how does an illiterate
read a spellbook?), but this problem exists under
any interpretation of the rules because druids do
not have a personal god to appeal to, only nature.
But druids throw many of the same spells
that generalist mages use, while using swords.

As for the suggestion that mages who get into
melee will forget their spells, this is simple brutality
on the part of the GM. You don’t forget
things permanently while excited, or we would
all be leading monastic lives for fear of losing our
professional skills. This idea is no more than a
“do it my way or else” approach, and is no way
to retain the respect of your players. A gamebalance
argument, for all its limitations as a rationale,
is a better method than that.

John T. Sapienza, Jr.
Washington, D.C.
(Dragon #41)
 
 
 

'New freshmen'
To the Editor,

I am writing this letter to clear up some
problems that appear in my article in the August
1979 issue of “The Dragon” A rather dull part of
my article was edited out. While this made the
article more readable, it created a small problem
with my description of freshmen. In the article, the
first paragraph states “. . .most . . . of the returning
freshmen had heard of D&D. However, none
of the new freshmen knew how to play.” Before
my article was edited, it stated dryly that all of the
returning freshmen who had gone to Cranbrook
in the eighth grade were “day” students (not
those who flunked!). The “new freshmen” of the
article are the boarders, none of whom were at
Cranbrook in the eighth grade. Since the boarders
had a lot of free time together, D&D was the
perfect thing for them. So, there were only four or
five freshmen boarders who did not play D&D.
There were more than four freshmen “day” students
who didn’t play D&D. Whenever the article
says “new” freshmen it means freshmen
boarders.
 

Another thing that was edited was the names
of the DMs. They did a superb job and deserve the
credit of being mentioned. They were: David
Albrecht, David Baxter, Chuck Chung, John
Dennis, Paul Dworkin, Paul Gamble, Todd
Golding, Tod Leavitt, Robert Nederlander, and
Marshal Eisenberg. The last thing about the article
is about our club. We would appreciate any assistance
or suggestions on club charter, constitution,
by-laws, etc. A copy of an existing club’s rules
would be greatly appreciated.

Dan Bromberg—MI
(The Dragon #33)