-	-	-	-	-
Dungeons & Dragons	Dragon magazine	AD&&D	Classes	The Dragon #34

These words are especially for those of you who have read any of
the various articles which have appeared in The Dragon about the
“all-powerful Magic User and how to delete his power” and cried
“Unfair!” Even if you have agreed with those (supposed) words of
wisdom, please read on.

I have been playing and DMing D&D games for almost 4 years
and feel I have acquired a relatively good understanding of the game.
During this playing time I have developed both Magic Users and
Fighters (along with various other characters) and I take offense to the
continual criticism of the D&D magic system, mainly as it concerns
Magic Users.

Gary Gygax has written various pieces for The Dragon supporting
his magic system as well as Magic Users, but support for his positions
has appeared to be lacking.

It seems that a large majority of D&D players feel that the Magic
User wields too much power and thereby controls the tempo of the
game. This line of thought is in total contrast to mine. I’m sure most
people (even you anti-Magic User types) will agree that the lower-level
Magic User is not such an all-powerful character, with spells such as
Sleep, Charm Person, Magic Missile and Web being the major offensive
spells for the Magic User below 5th level. (This is not to degrade
these spells; even a Charm Person—if used correctly-is a very good
spell.) At the 5th level the Magic User can acquire more powerful
offensive spells such as Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

Most people who have played Magic Users feel that they finally
climb that first step to becoming powerful when they achieve the 5th
level and can use a 3rd-level spell. That’s when they start becoming
overconfident, which usually leads to their downfall and the downfall of
the party.

Take, for example, the case of a Thaumaturgist who casts a Fireball
(his only 3rd-level spell) at his counterpart in the Fighter Class, a
Swashbuckler. Even if the Swashbuckler takes the full effect of the spell
and fails to make his saving throw, the chances of his being killed are
next to nothing. With the Swashbuckler using eight-sided dice for hit
points and the Magic User using six-sided dice for his spell, his chances
of survival are very high.

“But wait,” some of you will surely say, “think of the damage that
he took. Our fighters would then finish him off.” And you would be
correct. But there is one thing you must remember: A dungeon adventure
usually takes a long time to play, and the Magic User will be unable
to cast that spell for another day. After a few encounters, even if he did
not sustain any damage, the Magic User would be worthless, for what
could be a long time, until he was able to use his spells again. Also
remember that it is not always advisable to obtain offensive spells.
There are many times when a Read Languages or a Read Magic spell
would be more useful than Sleep or Charm Person spells. So, there are
many different factors which affect the strength and power that a Magic
User has.

With higher-level Magic Users, such as Witches, Sorcerers or Necromancers, the
same reasoning will apply. In a well run campaign, the opponents of
that level of character are going to have equivalent strengths and
powers. Along with the increases in strength and power goes the ability
to make saving throws more easily. That fact alone greatly reduces the
power of the higher-level Magic User.

The weakness of THE WIZARD must also come into focus. The
inability to wear armor makes him relatively easy to hit by even
low-level monsters; and the higher-level monsters are practically assured
of a hit.

With a d4 for HP, THE WIZARD does not make a very
strong opponent. A Fire Giant (who would automatically score a hit vs.
A.C.9 opponents) would have a very good chance of killing a Necromancer with one blow. 
On the other hand, the spells of the Magic User would have a hard time affecting the Giant, 
due to his having an easy roll to make to save vs. the magical incantations of the Necromancer.
Also, do not forget the Time delay from the beginning of the spell
casting to when it actually takes effect.

THE WIZARD as I have described him is, hopefully, not that
“all-powerful” character that some people would believe him to be.
While his powers and abilities are a worthwhile addition to any party of
adventurers, he is also one of the hardest of character classes to play.
Many decisions await the player of a Magic User character, like when to
use those power spells you have, knowing that you will not be able to
cast them again for quite a while; also, deciding whether a defensive
spell such as Invisibility would be more desirable than a destructive
spell such as a Fireball or Lightning Bolt; and whether to take a possibly
worthless spell like Read Magick or a more useful one like Sleep.

To those of you who run campaigns where magical items are as
common as fleas on a dog, the Wizards are probably the “all-powerful”
characters who have been described in some of the articles in
earlier editions of The Dragon. Even a Thaumaturgist is a powerful
character to be dealt with when he has a <Wand of Cold>, Staff of Power
or any of the other more powerful magical items. A 10th-level Lord
would rightly fear a Thaumaturgist with a Wand of LIGHTNING
Bolts.

Magickal items should be limited and hard to acquire (especially the
more powerful ones). Too many or even 1 magickal item can unbalance
The GAME and make the other characters’ actions of little or no
importance. Most people who play D&D enjoy
PCs whose actions have some meaning and influence on
the outcome of the game. There is nothing more unenjoyable than
playing a game where one person’s character is so over-powerful that
the rest of the players feel like dead weight.

I say, let THE WIZARD alone. Allow him to use his abilities as
described in the D&D magic system. If played correctly, the Fighter,
Cleric and Thief all have as much power and influence on the play of
the game as the Magic User.

A final note, for those of you who want to know about the even
higher level Wizards of the 14th-level-plus category:

I personally have not had the experience of playing with a character
that high in level. After playing in a campaign (a very well-run one, at
that) at least once a week for 2 years, I was pleased to have obtained the
levels of Warlock fpr my Magic User and Champion for my Fighter.

It is hard for me to understand how a player can obtain those high
levels in less than 2 years, and sometimes in less than 1 year as I have
heard. If people are using Greyhawk’s “Guidelines for Awarding Experience <link>
Points for Monster Slaying,” reaching those levels would be a
tremendous feat! A 14th-level Wizard would have to kill 430 Red
Dragons or 925 Manticores or an amazing 60,000 Orcs to acquire the
needed XP by monster-slaying.

But for those of you who have made it to those levels, there would
not be much difference in the relative power of the MU. The same
disadvantages of no armor, fewer hit points and the ability to use spells
only once per day make the higher-level Magic User no more powerful <not necessarily onc eper day>
than the other character classes at that level. Take a 14th-level Wizard,
pit him against 300 Orcs, and tell me whom you would wager on!

I contend that a Prestidigitator, played by
the books, is hopelessly deficient in survival
skills relative to his peers of other character
classes. He may as well be a 1-charge magical
item (typically, a wand of sleep spells) in terms
of his usefulness to his adventuring party.
Defensively, he is woefully unprepared for the
hazards into which he is obliged to thrust
himself. Cowering and cringing down dungeon
corridors, he must wait patiently for the critical
moment when his single incantation may be of
service. Then, having CAST it, he must fear even
more desperately for his life, as his companions
will have little incentive to further risk their
necks on his behalf.

Mr. Gygax would have us believe that this
situation is somehow necessary to the overall
well-being of the campaign – that game balance
requires it. Since a Mage, as the formula goes, is
so vastly powerful at high levels, his class must
suffer restriction at low ones lest it dominate
the game. Such reasoning, however, is specious.
A wizards great power may be mitigated, in
some absolute sense, by his impotence at low
levels (and, practically speaking, his fragility will
guarantee that a reduced number survive to
high level), but the latter does not “balance” the
former in a way meaningful to the enjoyable
playing of the game. If anything, this “solution”
aggravates the problem, leaving the magic-user
unbalanced at both levels.

True game balance should be effected not
over time (in the long run), but through it —
continuously. In the ideal situation, all character
classes would be equally playable, in different
ways, at all levels. Every perceived drawback to
a class, relative to the others, would be counterbalanced
by some advantage, and vice versa.

From this perspective, his potential power is
little solace to the struggling Prestidigitator, yet
superior, alternative remedies to his weakness
are seemingly limitless. A few examples:

1. Spell bonuses (a la clerical wisdom bonuses)
for exceptional intelligence).

2. Allowing permanent knowledge, not just
memorization of certain cantrips.

3. Allowing the use of certain types of armor
or more varied weaponry at low levels, which
ability is to be phased out as the magic-user
progresses in level. For example, magic-users
might start with a higher number of weapon
proficiencies. Then, instead of acquiring more
proficiencies over time, they would be subject
to deficiencies, as melee abilities fall into gradual
disuse.

Remove the onus of memorization ( which is
too patently a contrivance, anyway) from the
spell caster by allowing him to CAST spells —
from the complete list of those known to him —
on the fly. The revised rationale for such casting
is that the power for magic stems not from
some all-pervasive manna but from a little
understood human resource, which suffers
depletion with use. Increased ability at higher
levels is explained by the greater stamina developed
by the magic-user, through practice and
technique, over Time (even as a fighter’s muscles
are toned). Interpreted in this way, it should be
noted, Mr. Gygax’s table of “Spells Usable per
Level” constitutes a complete system of “spell
points” — something of which he always seemed
irrationally afraid.

This last modification has the added benefit of
permitting a much greater variety of spell use in
a campaign, since a memorization restriction
limits the choice more than the power of a spellcaster.
Rare, indeed, is the Prestidigitator
who, under the present system, ventures into
the deep without some general purpose spell
like sleep or magick missile. Meanwhile, such
castings as enlarge and message remain but
little used, though they might be ideal in certain
situations. If such freedom seems too generous,
it may be tempered by allowing, for example, a
(logical) chance of spell failure (as a function of
level of caster vs. level of spell being cast, for
instance).

So, let’s hear it for the low-level magic-user!
Am I the only one feeling sorry for him? Is his
plight less pitiable than I imagine? Or, are most
GMs covert sympathizers with soft hearts when
the dice are rolled? I wonder.

W. Brian Barnes
Princeton NJ
(Dragon #122)

I am writing in regard to W. Brian Barnes'
[second] letter in issue #122 of DRAGON Magazine.
In this letter, he states that "a Prestidigitator, played by the books, is hopelessly
deficient in survival skills." I must disagree with
this notion.

I have been playing AD&D games for over
5 years, and I have found that my favorite
characters are Thieves and (you guessed it)
Wizards. These character classes seem to
have more options open to them and are, in my
mind, more fun to play than any other.

Mr. Barnes states that magic-users are much
like a 1-charge magical item since all the
"defenseless" spell-caster can do is shoot off his
1 spell and pray that he survives afterward. I
must say (meaning no offense to those who
agree with this view) that such a view shows
very little IMAGINATION. There is surprisingly
large room within the actual rules for the
improvement of the "cast and run" magic-user.
For example:

1. A magic-user proficient in the use of the
dart as a weapon can effectively back up the
party by throwing these weapons (at a rate of
3 per round) over the heads of those shorter
than the mage or through gaps in the front
row (and let's face it, there's plenty of room left
between 2 fighters when they're busy hacking
at foes in front of them).

2. The cantrips presented in Unearthed Arcana
can be used to create some extremely useful
(and interesting) effects. A smokepuff CAST in the
face of an opponent is an effective way to blind
someone for a round. The cantrips footfall,
thump, rattle, groan, and creak can be used to
draw the attention of the enemy to their backs
and perhaps break their morale in the process.
These "small magics" can be used to effect many
useful (and hilarious) results.

3. Use the race of the magic-user to the fullest
advantage. A drow can effectively double his
rate of fire with darts and knives due to his <1 extra dart, I think>
ambidexterity. Other types of elves can be
useful woodland guides, even though their
chosen profession would seem to preclude such
abilities.

4. Double-classed magic-users can wreak
havoc upon friend and foe both. Imagine a Thief
who, without so much as touching another, can
transport valuables to his hand (the present
cantrip), then make them invisible or change
their appearance (the hide or mute cantrips)
while disappearing into the crowd. Likewise,
the Spellblade presents a formidable foe
with both weapons and wizardry, while the
Adeptus is still effective in combat but
can now cast the spells of 2 professions
instead of just one. The list goes on, and possibilities
would seem endless.

Thus, I must maintain that THE WIZARD, if
played with a little IMAGINATION, can hold his
own with any party. I must, however, agree that
removing the rule of memorization, thereby
allowing magic-users to cast spells "on the fly,"
seems to be more reasonable. Since when has
any spell-worker in popular fantasy forgotten a
spell just because he put forth the power to cast
it? It just doesn't happen! Certainly, they grow
tired and can no longer cast a spell, but they
don't totally forget spells which they can cast!

Steve Shewchuk
Cranbrook, B.C.
(Dragon #128)
 

I would like to respond to the letter in issue
#122 concerning Wizards, from W. Brian
Barnes. I feel that if a gamer is not able to
understand the reason for the rules, he should
just make up his own, ignore the ones he can't
handle, or not use magic-users. If the game is
played with 3 or more players like the basic
D&D® game box says (which also applies to the
AD&D game), the mage will have at least one
other character with him. If the DM is not
bloodthirsty, they should be able to survive to
high level.

Next, I would like to say something about SD.
Anderson's letter on experience for finding
treasure. The experience is supposed to reflect
the fact that the characters found the treasure
through tough fighting, and should not be
awarded otherwise. In my campaign, it also
reflects how the characters figure out what
magickal items do. The experience is a reward
for the daring character who picks up the
sword suspected of being cursed and ends up
with a +2 blade. DMs who just say: "You found
a sword +2" are destroying a lot of role-playing
possibilities, not to mention some fun for the
characters trying to figure out what it is. Also,
magic that is purchased should not gain experience
for the PC. Money should work the same
way. I reward PCs with 1 XP for
every 5 gp they find. The key word is "find:
The [characters1 must go through some ordeal
to gain the gold. Some of the most powerful
monsters only raise higher-level characters
about 1% of a level. Treasure experience helps
this a little and balances the game. Rules don't
have to be followed rigidly, but the creator of
the game usually had a reason for creating what
he did.

K.B. LaBaw
Ridgecrest CA
(Dragon #128)

I am responding to Mr. Barnes's [second] letter
in issue #122, specifically to the suggestion that
lower-level magic-users be allowed to use weapons
and armor to protect their fragile selves,
disdaining such crude practices as level, HP, 
and spell capability increases. A similar
system has been presented, as it was used with
the psionicist (which appeared in DRAGON®
Magazine in October 1983, issue #78).

I cannot imagine any logical basis for the
severity of the restrictions placed on the arms
and armor usable by AD&D® game magic-users.
I would suggest the following rule changes:

1st, allow the magic-user a better weapon
selection. This should probably have something
to do with the weapon's speed factor; for instance,
perhaps a magic-user could use any
weapons with a speed factor of 5 or less. This
encompasses the more popular sword choices,
several blunt weapons, and several missile
weapons. A mage can't very well engage in full
combat while trying to cast a spell anyway, so
why not allow wider choice?

2nd, allow the magic-user some armor
protection. The casting of a magic-user spell is
largely psychic in nature, and the "spell components
" only serve to focus the internal/invoked
power. Thus, the only restrictions should be on
armor that severely impedes the spell's workings.
Any armor up to and including chain mail
could be worn without interference; after that,
you might impose a greater chance of spell
failure (it's hard to make finger movements in
full plate) or just forbid the bulkier armors
altogether. Shields could be used, but not during
spell-casting if a somatic component is involved.
A small helm could be worn, because it hampers
neither the mouth nor the eyes; a great helm,
on the other hand, is out of the question.

3rd, give the poor guy some HP! At
1st level, even the slimy, skulking little Thief at
the rear of the party has a better overall chance
of living through the day than the intellectual
wizard-to-be. Chances are that the 2 characters
do the same amount (at least initially) of
weapon practice. A modified magic-user may
begin his career as a cleric-type character,
training both martially and magically. Gradually,
his physical training takes up less and less of his
time as he looks harder and deeper into the
world of magick. To mirror this development, we
could give him 1d8 at his lower levels (perhaps
1st-3rd, or so), 1d6 later on, 1d4 at the next few
levels, and finally a mere 1 hp bonus every
level. Also, the attack tables could be modified
to reflect this training at lower levels, but some
might say that's going overboard.

Of course, some will state that "game balance"
is better served by a wimpy, easily killable
Wizard. But how easily we forget the example
of the Priest, who instead of being represented
by a robed, unarmed friar who heals the
sick by the grace of his god, is almost as formidable
a warrior as the fighter or Knight, and
still hurls potentially deadly spells to boot! THE WIZARD 
(and possibly the Illusionist as well)
should not be forced to face these inequalities
any longer. Since Wizards are undoubtedly
the most interesting and best-loved of all character
classes, it's hard to believe that nobody has
recognized sooner the unfair discrimination
built into The Game.

Scott Whitmore
Kissimmee FL
(Dragon #129)
 

The debate, I see, is on again! What to do
about the "poor, defenseless" Wizard? Issue
#122's "Forum" had a raft of letters on various
aspects of the plight of THE WIZARD. Some of the
solutions were good, others were poor.

In her letter, Ms. McGuire offered a well-thought
out replacement for the now outdated
Intelligence Table II as well as an ingenious
answer to the problem arising from a Mage's
inability to learn a given spell. Her solutions do
not affect game balance, and add more versatility
and cohesion to THE WIZARD class.

Mr. Barnes, on the other hand, offers some
dangerous solutions. The difficulties involved in
playing a low-level mage center mostly on the
PCs' ineffectuality as regards number of spells
and combat. These are recurring themes in the
ongoing debate over Prestidigitators, and
Barnes's letter is no different.

1st, to the idea of giving Wizards spell bonuses
a la the Priest's wisdom, I can only say one thing
to DMs who are thinking of trying it: "Don't!" I
ran a campaign for a year like that and, while
things started out just fine, they quickly fell
apart as the mages advanced in level. Consider
that a Mage with an INT of 18, upon
reaching 5th level will, with bonuses, have
7 first-level spells, 4 second-level spells,
and 2 third-level spells! If Mr. Barnes believes
that this will encourage the use of some of the
minor spells, he is mistaken: in my campaign,
Mages invariably loaded up with a handful of
magick missiles (at 2 missiles each), some web
spells, and a couple of fireballs or lightning
bolts. Other minor spells were added to fill out
the Mage's capacity, but they weren't needed as
the PC could effectively blast to bits just about
anything a 5th-level character might meet. In
addition, mages with these bonuses are wont to
become "ball hogs" and steal a lot of the other
PCs' thunder.

To the proposed use of armor for Mages,
again I say "No!" If a player wants a Mage with
armor, he can choose Spellblade or
Adeptus options. Additional weaponry
might not be harmful, as long as hand-to-hand
weapons are not promoted. My campaign allows
bows as a choice of weapons for mages, as they
do not necessarily require a great deal of
strength. This keeps the unarmored mage out of <bows DO require strength>
melee, but allows an option for greater involvement.
But if you give the additional weapon
proficiencies to your Wizards, be prepared
to allow them to keep them. A player whose PC
must give up a spell or weapon is not going to
feel very good about it.

The POINT involving the ability to cast one spell
a day, but choosing which one to cast "on the
fly," was intriguing as it is often very difficult for
a Wizard to pick the proper spell in advance; but
Mr. Barnes did not elaborate on this option.
Another possibility is to relax the requirements
for relearning spells. Allowing a Wizard to relearn
a spell in a couple of hours while the party rests
will allow greater flexibility on the part of THE WIZARD 
without creating too deadly a character.

The most unfortunate aspect of Mr. Barnes's
letter is what seems to be a lack of understanding
of the personality of THE WIZARD class.
The picture of THE WIZARD as a "1-charge
magickal item," "cowering and cringing," etc., and
who, after casting a spell, has companions with
"little incentive to further risk their necks on his
behalf" is not a picture of a Mage, a Wizard, a
Sorceress.

THE WIZARD is a class of power, arcane and
mysterious. Any 1st-level character who can
drop 8 goblins from 30' in 1 round without
even breaking into a sweat (using a sleep
spell) will command a great deal of respect,
even admiration, from comrades. The mage
may be "woefully unprepared" for defense with
weapons, but this is the nature of Wizards.
Huddled over strange tomes through the night,
constantly in SEARCH of new incantations, THE WIZARD
has tasted power, is imbued with it, and
wants more. THE WIZARD becomes somewhat
otherworldly, not completely of this dimension. This
is the personality of the class and, while some
Wizards may indeed cower and cringe,
others will take pride in their arcane skills,
perhaps even delight in the FEAR which they
may instill in mundane folk.

Kurt R.A. Giambastiani
Bellevue WA
(Dragon #129)

W. Brian Barnes has a few points concerning
the problems of low-level Wizards in his
letter in issue #122. [However,] these limits were
put in to let high-level Wizards become
powerful without becoming omnipotent.

If low-level Wizards can have certain
cantrips permanently usable (without need of
memorizing them or taking up spell capacity),
why shouldn't high-level magic-users be permitted
to get a few 1st- and 2nd-level spells the
same way without using the permanency spell
or acquiring the penalties the use of a permanency
spell requires? It would sure be nice to be
able to cast an unlimited number of magick
missiles in addition to having all the spells a
Wizard is normally allowed to have. And
why should a game be balanced if game balance
keeps me or W. Brian from having a powerful
character?

I'm being sarcastic, but it is true. The typical
Wizard or higher-level magic-user is a very
powerful character. (And when THE WIZARD
and Illusionist are combined into the sorcerer
class next year, look out.) It is not that difficult
to raise a low-level Wizard to <a> higher level,
unless you put THE WIZARD into the thick of
battle.

With a bit of common sense (leaving combat
to the HP factories, etc.), your character
will survive without too much difficulty. Once
you've gone through an adventure, use your
share of the treasure sensibly.

A PC with enough cash to buy 6 first-level
scrolls after an adventure usually buys 6
different spells and puts all 6 into his book.
Try this instead: Buy 2 spells to add to your
book and get 2 magick missile and armor
scrolls each for use in the next adventure.
You've tripled your offensive capacity and
should be able to take more damage. If you have
to play a combat machine, you now can.

(It should also be noted that scrolls are usually
written to give the effectiveness of 1 level
higher than the minimum level needed to cast
the spell, which makes armor scrolls 2nd
level in effect, and which gives THE WIZARD
twice as many bonus HP as his own
casting gives. Also, scrollmakers tend to keep
such scrolls for their own use, and they might
well boost the effective level of a scroll of armor
to give themselves extra protection. With luck,
they may forget to charge extra for such scrolls
or mistakenly give the higher-level scroll to their
customer.)

Pay an Illusionist to cast phantom armor on
your character's robe, and if you have a DM
who goes by the letter of the rules rather than
the spirit, have the spell put on the inside.
(Technically, the AC and damage reductions
are in effect whether the attacker sees the
phantom armor or not. Wearing it inside-out
merely prevents an attacker from realizing
what is being used and thereby disbelieving and
eliminating the armor. (Presumably, "Sage Advice
" will close this loophole in the near future,
but until then, we gonna have FUN!)

Wizards are not supposed to get into
fights. Using that precept, I've managed to
develop quite a few high-level Wizards and
Illusionists. I don't need a bunch of minor rule
changes made to get my characters developed,
and neither should you.

Larry Madden
Glendale CA
(Dragon #129)
 

The point Larry Madden makes ["Forum."
issue #141] about scrolls is somewhat valid,
though I'm reluctant to make high-level spells as
available as his system would dictate.

Granted, nothing is more frustrating for a
beginning player than sitting around watching
the rest of the party bash zombies while his
Wizard DOES NOT cast that sleep spell. Also, I
would have a hard time denying scrolls to a
high-CHA spell-caster, who came back to his
mentor with a few bags of hard-won silver and a
couple of extra 1st-level spells--particularly in
lieu of some of the other things a character
could buy with that money. For instance, $9000
could get the 1st-level spells alarm, message,
and magick missile for his spell book (assuming
the PC doesn't blow a learn-spell roll). Then the
character could use that silver to hire (again
using the 1st Edition Dungeon Masters Guide)
4 mercenary bodyguards--a Hero,
a Swordsman, and 2 Vets--
when the party next goes adventuring.

But somewhere a line has to be drawn. If a
game world exists in which anyone can walk
into a magick shop run by a high-level Wizard,
plunk down $27,000, and get a wish scroll, you
have a game world that is going out of control
Common low-level spells (except for name spells
or powerful spells like sepia snake sigil) should
be relatively obtainable, if the Wizard has the
money or can provide suitable service.

Madden's magick-using shop owners are probably
ex-adventurers who decided to stay alive
and let others do the risk taking. Since 11th-level
Wizards or higher can build a tower, attract
a body of men, etc., and retire as nobles, we can
assume the typical shop owner is no higher than
10th level (Necromancer). Exceptions do exist, but they show
up at the DM's discretion.

Scrolls or spells up to 5th level can be obtained,
but due to the longer Time to prepare
higher-level scrolls and spells, such a shop
would probably have only 1st- to 3rd-level
spells in stock, unless the owner had a great
deal of spare Time, or a particular 4th- or
5th-level spell was constantly required in the
area--both unlikely events. Higher-level spells
would have to be ordered, requiring a minimum
of 1 day per level of each spell to complete,
assuming the Wizard has the ingredients to make
the ink for the scroll. (And that's assuming no
errors are made!)

DMs are advised to keep the spell books
belonging to such shop owners fairly bare and
such shops distant. Players who have to go
through a lot of trouble to get a single spell will
be reluctant to go spell shopping without good
reason. PCs, being the most aggressive characters
in the AREA, may stock up an impressive
supply of spells and items. A less aggressive
NPC, even if considerably more experienced,
may not accumulate as many spells. The typical
magick shop should have basic spells--i.e., those
you feel safe handing out to the players.

S. D. Anderson
Whittier CA
(Dragon #150)
 

I just finished reading an article in the "Forum
" of issue #122 of DRAGON Magazine. I feel
that [W. Brian Barnes's] letter is well-written,
[but] this is going just a little too far.

To me, this insults the basic nature of the
magic-using class. Playing the part of a Wizard
has to be the most challenging, fun activity
that there is because of the great diversity and
power that is gained by spell use. In the past
year to year and a half, I have played only
Wizards in our long Saturday-night gaming
sessions.

One thing that I have found is that 1st-level
spells are probably the most useful and most
powerful spells available in the entire spell list.
For the past 2 months, I have played a Wizard
with almost no offensive spells at all, but
he has still proven his services are invaluable to
the party with cantrips such as clean, stitch, and
warm. In one instance, the PCs needed to interrogate
a prisoner, so my PC used a color cantrip
while threatening to give him gangrene all over
his body. He didn't believe my PC, who then cast
the spell, turning THE PRISONER an odd shade of
green. Needless to say, the NPC gave out his
best-kept secrets. Other spells, such as mending
and identify, can also be of great BENEFIT.

Giving a Prestidigitator extra spells due
to high INT is giving too much power to
THE WIZARD. If you don't like that imbalance
which Priests possess, then don't let your Priests
have their high WIS bonuses.

Knowledge of cantrips? Give me a break!
Every monster in the book would be tripping,
belching, blinking, etc., several times per encounter
after the offensive spells run out!
Armor and weapons? Magic-users are not
fighters!

Also, if the DM doesn't want a Wizard to be
powerful at high levels, then he or she does not
have to give them the more powerful spells.
Game balance is in the hands of the DM, not in
the books, and not in the ideals of the PCs. If the
magic-user is in real trouble, he should first go
to his fellow adventurers for help. If that is
futile, the DM should lighten up the pressure.

To give last light to the ending paragraph, I
don't feel any sympathy for the Prestidigitator.
When 1st-level PCs are together, they had
better stay together or else they will pay the
consequences. A monk will always be lesser to
THE WIZARD at any level unless acquiring
some major magicks. So sympathize with them--
No way!

To the following letter by Jeanne McGuire of
State College, Pa., I like the first part about
having 40 spells and being able to learn all of
them with a 19 intelligence. The limit of 22 is
acceptable to me, but as for the rest, I am a bit
skeptical. To each his own.

The last bit of info which I would like to
discuss is weapon specialization. It is unfair to
all of the other PC classes to let only fighters
and rangers dish out so much more extra damage
than anyone else. But, since it is in print and
probably accepted all around the nation, why
not let magic-users become specialized at casting
spells? Just use the number of spells knowable
as proficiency slots, and have one extra
proficiency slot per level used to become specialized,
thus reducing the casting time by half
or making it possible to cast quick spells at a
rate of two per round instead of only one. For
example: A 3rd-level mage with an 18 intelligence
wants to become specialized in magic
missile. It is a first-level spell, so it takes one
extra slot, leaving only 16 other slots for spells.
The spell thus takes only one-half segment to
cast; otherwise, the magic-user is able to cast
two magic missile spells in one round. Or let?s
say a 6th-level magic-user with a 16 intelligence
can know up to 14 spells. To become specialized
in a fireball, a third-level spell, it would take
three extra slots, leaving a total of 10 other spell
slots. As a result, there wouldn?t be many people
crazy enough to be specialized in high-level
spells such as wish because they couldn?t have
many other spells.

The last bit of info which I would like to
discuss is weapon specialization. It is unfair to
all of the other PC classes to let only fighters
and rangers dish out so much more extra damage
than anyone else. But, since it is in print and
probably accepted all around the nation, why
not let magic-users become specialized at casting
spells? Just use the number of spells knowable
as proficiency slots, and have one extra
proficiency slot per level used to become specialized,
thus reducing the casting time by half
or making it possible to cast quick spells at a
rate of 2 per round instead of only 1. For
example: A Conjurer with an 18 intelligence
wants to become specialized in magic
missile. It is a first-level spell, so it takes one
extra slot, leaving only 16 other slots for spells.
The spell thus takes only 1/2 segment to
cast; otherwise, the magic-user is able to cast
2 magic missile spells in one round. Or let's
say a 6th-level magic-user with a 16 intelligence
can know up to 14 spells. To become specialized
in a fireball, a 3rd-level spell, it would take
3 extra slots, leaving a total of 10 other spell
slots. As a result, there wouldn't be many people
crazy enough to be specialized in high-level
spells such as wish because they couldn't have
many other spells.

This may look like a crazy idea, but so is a
ranger doing a minimum of 10 hp damage from
a normal arrow + 1 per level, without strength
additions or magic bonuses, etc. Imagine a l0thlevel
ranger with an 18/00 strength, a bow +2,
and arrows +2: too much #@&$?! power!

Bruce Johnson
Anchorage AK
(Dragon #129)
 

Mr. Barnes talked about trying to balance the
magic-user at low levels [in issue #122]. A magic-user
should receive spell bonuses for exceptional
intelligence. A smart mage should get a
greater benefit from his intelligence than
merely having a greater selection of spells to try
to choose from. As Jeanne McGuire said in her
following letter, "Hence the tie-in to intelligence: <link>
the smarter mage can keep track of more sets
of data [astrological data, manna fields, etc. in
spell-casting] at once." Next is the permanent
knowledge of some cantrips. This bonus should
only be bestowed upon mages with intelligence
of 18 or greater, as it is already easy enough for
a magic-user of average intelligence to be able to
cast many cantrips. Again, this is another use of
high intelligence for mages.

Another issue is allowing magic-users to wear
light armor. During a magic-user's early stages
(1st-4th levels), his spells are simple and easy to
cast. Therefore, padded or leather armor would
not restrict his movement enough to interfere
with spell-casting. As the higher levels are
reached, however, spells become more complex
and difficult to cast, so he would have to shed
his protective coverings. In addition, he is now
ready to face the dangers of adventuring with
more HP and spells with which to defend
himself. Giving the mage additional weapons
and fighting abilities is unnecessary, as he is a
magic-user, not a fighter!

The last idea Mr. Barnes suggested was that of
using "spell points." I've seen this system used
with other games and it works well. A low-level
magic-user with few spells to cast would be
much better off with such freedom. I also feel,
however, that this ability would become unbalancing
at higher levels, and such an ability
should be phased out as the magic-user increases
in level. There are many reasons for
forcing the magic-user to start memorizing his
spells again. For one, he is able to cast many
more spells now, and he should now be able to
assemble a wide variety of spells from past
experience. The second argument I shall associate
with another spell-caster, the cleric. A cleric
is able to receive his lowest-level prayers and
spells on his own or at a local temple. As the
spells progress in power, the spells come from
higher places, more important temples, demigods,
and -- for the highest spells -- the cleric's
own deity. Well, a magic-user is easily able to
keep track of the knowledge of lower-level
spells, but as they increase in complexity, their
knowledge comes less easily, thus requiring
outright memorization. All of this new data for
the higher-level spells and the knowledge of all
the lower spells begins to clutter his mind. To
solve this problem, he has to organize this
information and select only the knowledge of
how to cast certain spells at a time.

These are just my ideas about how to create
additional abilities for low-level magic-users, and
I am sure that other people have many more. I
hope that such ideas help the many pitiful
mages out there. Maybe such abilities should be
considered while the AD&D game is being
revised.

Keith Sutton
Alliance NE
(Dragon #129)
 

I am responding to a letter in the "Forum"
from issue #128, written by Steve Shewchuk. I
disagree with him; magic-users are indeed much
like a 1-charge magical item at lower levels
(especially 1st). I find a few flaws in Mr. Shewchuk
's "improvement" for magic-users.

First of all, the use of cantrips. Page 45 of
Unearthed Arcana clearly states that a magicuser
may memorize 4 cantrips in place of
1 first-level spell. If a 1st-level magic-user does
this, how does he cast his first-level spell? While
they may be effective in given situations, cantrips
do not have the power to equally replace
that one important spell.

Removing the memorization rule, however,
seems drastic. The system of spell points used
by some has been suggested as giving a spellcaster
too much power; I am inclined to agree.
Mr. Shewchuk asks, "When has any spellworker
in popular fantasy forgotten a spell just
because he put forth the power to use it?" In the
DRAGONLANCE® books, Raistlin certainly
forgot his spells after casting them!

Don't get me wrong. I love magic-users and
couldn't do without them. But there are easier
ways to keep them alive longer. For instance,
what about that character you roll up every
once in a while with more than 1 high ability
score? If he were a magic-user, he could have a
better AC due to dexterity. Or put a
staff in the hands of a magic-user with a 17
strength. This will make certain that while he is
not as good as a fighter, the magic-user can take
care of himself to a degree.

Also, use that 1 spell carefully. If a party has
a few fighter types, they should be able to
handle 4 or 5 orcs without the magic-user
trotting out his magic missile.

Finally, what's wrong with hit and run? Every
character I've ever played has had to earn his
levels by taking on one group of monsters and
then going home to heal for a few days. There's
nothing wrong with it. Some people get the
impression that you should be able to get into
several battles the first time out.

The magic-user is a lowly person, but with a
little work and patience, he can be that high-level
mage everyone dreams of having.

Jason Greff
Regent ND
(Dragon #133)

There has been in past issues of DRAGON®
Magazine's "Forum" section a tendency to tinker
with or modify the workings of the magic-user
class. Some maintain that a Prestidigitator is
very weak; others believe the class to be fine
just as it is. Some suggest altering the memorization
rules and number of spells learnable, or
giving bonuses on number of spells memorized
for high intelligence similar to a cleric's wisdom
bonus.

This issue came into current prominence with
the letter of W. Brian Barnes in issue #122.
There, he maintains that Prestidigitators are "a
one-shot magical item" and severely limited in
their options once their 1 spell is cast. He goes
on to criticize the standard argument that game
balance requires weak low-level mages to offset
powerful high-level Wizards. True balance, he
argues, should not be dependent on time, but
rather should be constant over time. All in all, a
very compelling argument. Most players that
have played a magic-user at low levels can
identify with their relative impotence -- low HP and 1 spell. 
After you've cast that one
spell, your life can get real boring.

In issue #128, Steve Shewchuk tries to
counter this argument by presenting a variety
of alternative actions for low-level magic-users.
Regrettably, these options are somewhat questionable
in their usefulness, Mr. Shewchuk
suggests first that magic-users proficient in
darts can throw them at opponents. Unfortunately,
this ignores a fundamental rule of combat:
You never, ever, fire missile weapons into
melee combat. I recommend that anyone who
questions this conduct a mock fight with
friends. As anyone who has been in any kind of
fight can tell you, positions change very rapidly,
and where an enemy was just a second ago, a
friend can appear at any time. So, here you
have a mage, whose combat skills are not anything
to boast of in the first place, lobbing darts
into a melee. See page 63 of the Dungeon Masters
Guide for how to handle this. After a few
accidental darts in the back, a mage's fighter
companions are probably going to tell him to
knock it off, perhaps with some force. I would
theorize that the spell magic missile was invented
to deal with just this problem.

Another disadvantage to the dart idea is that,
until 6th level, that dart is a mage's only weapon
of proficiency. Despite there being no provision
for it in the rules, a mage should have considerable
difficulty in engaging in melee combat with
a dart. When attacked by an orc with a scimitar,
a staff is a whole lot more useful. I would consider
a mage (or anyone else for that matter)
without a hand-to-hand melee weapon to be
easier to hit, perhaps giving an attacker a + 1 or
+ 2 bonus "to hit." A bow or crossbow might
deflect a sword attack, but a dart? Never.

Another suggestion by Mr. Shewchuk is the
extensive use of cantrips. Take a good look at
those cantrips for a minute. Most of them have
exceptionally limited combat usefulness at best.
A smokepuff cantrip will make a puff of smoke
that will dissipate in 1 round. A creature
should get a saving throw and maybe even a
bonus such as + 2 if a mage actually tries to
throw it so as to blind, or maybe the mage
should have to make a "to hit" roll. It strikes me
that a puff of smoke could very easily be
cleared with a simple puff of breath. Any cantrip
that makes noise will almost certainly be
overwhelmed by the regular noises (get a shield
and beat on it -- pretty noisy business) of combat.
If one actually does draw a creature's
attention to its back, guess what? The group's
Thief sneaking around back should have to make
another roll to see if the monsters notice him. If
he is spotted, there goes his back-stabbing
which requires surprise. I personally have
always found cantrips to be pretty silly -- summon
a honey bee indeed! They're good for
entertaining peasants, but in combat with
bloodthirsty monsters, they just don't cut it.

Next, Mr. Shewchuk suggests elven mages use
woodsman skills. I find no reference in the
elven or half-elven race descriptions to such
abilities. But even if the mage has such skills,
being a guide (or even using the elven ability to
increase surprise of opponents) generally
requires the guide to be near the front of the
party, a place a Prestidigitator should avoid like
the plague. Those with 1-4 HP cannot even take
an average sword blow. And of course this
suggestion does nothing for those mages who
are human. Finally, Mr. Shewchuk discusses
multiclassed mages, which seems to miss the
whole point. The discussion was about magic-users,
not fighter/magic-users or magic-user/
thieves, which are totally different classes with
their own problems and circumstances.

Here is a list of my suggestions:

1. If you like cantrips, give magic-users spell
capacity for them in addition to that for 1st-level
spells, not in exchange for them. Expecting
mages to sacrifice a 1st-level spell for 4 lousy
cantrips is going to doom cantrips to disuse. A
good number might be 2 cantrips for every
1st-level spell a mage can memorize (a 1st-level
magic-user would therefore have a 1st-level
spell and 2 cantrips).

2. Drop the learning rules. A competent DM
can control the number of spells the mage
receives over Time. This way, a low-level mage
does not struggle to find magic missile -- only to
have it permanently removed from his use. The
learning rules seem somewhat unfair anyway;
clerics get instantaneous access to all their 1st-level
spells and wisdom bonuses on top of that.

3. Consider starting magic-user players as Evokers. 
It gives them a few more HP and
provides them with an extra spell. Under this
interpretation, mages gained a level while in
apprentice training. If you think this is unfair to
others who have to start at 1st level, make the
mage start with zero XP -- i.e., to
become a Conjurer, he must gain 5,001 xp. That
way, he has to pay for it all, but is less of a
wimp at the very beginning of the campaign.

4. Avoid the spell-bonus system suggested by
numerous people. Such a system creates something
of an imbalance, effectively raising a mage
2 or 3 levels if he has high intelligence
(and when was the last time you had a mage
character with less than 16 intelligence?). Spell
bonuses for clerics are less of an imbalance. A
cleric's spells are less flexible and there are
fewer of them available -- and none of them
can do damage at a distance or affect multiple
creatures as can magic missile or sleep. A 1st-level
party containing a mage with 3 sleep
spells is going to waltz through most low-level
encounters. After all, that sleep spell was
designed to affect just the type and power level
of monsters the party will be encountering. One
other problem with this system: What's good for
the goose is good for the gander. Before you
players out there start pressing your DMs to use
such a system, be warned that the NPC magic-users
will have the bonus, too. And your DM
can automatically assign them an 18 intelligence.

5. DMs and players should give some thought
as to why mages would be sought-after individuals
for adventuring groups even at low power
levels: incredible intelligence. It is almost a
triviality to state that magic-users have the
highest intelligence ratings in the party. Mages
represent the smartest group of their particular
race and probably can out-think most of the
fighters, clerics, and thieves they associate with.
If you're low level, having someone along who
can think his way out of a problem is an asset
you must have. Raistlin of the DRAGONLANCE®
saga is an excellent example. Despite little actual
spell-casting ability in the early stages, Raistlin
was an invaluable companion. His example
suggests further usefulness for mages. In the
stories, Raistlin was by far the best educated of
the Heroes of the Lance. In many worlds, mages
may be the only literate members of the group,
and certainly they should be by far the best
read. Having someone well-educated about the
world along on a low-level adventure just might
be the difference between life and death. Some
things are hard to simulate in a game in which
the magic-user player has an intelligence equal
to that of his companions, I'll admit.

In my world, only magic-users can consult the
Players Handbook concerning magic-user spells,
and only clerics can look up clerical spells. This
is to reflect the simple fact that the 1st thing
mages ever do in their training is memorize all
such information. Indeed, their ability to memorize
the whole thing backwards and forwards is
the first test as to their capacity for magic use.
Thus, if the party wants to know about a spell,
whether the mage has it or not, they have to ask
him. I also give mages some knowledge of a
variety of old, dead languages used on many
maps and other written information the group
finds. Unless he's high level, a thief is just not
reliable on such things and he's unlikely to have
encountered such languages before in any
event. I also give mages the benefit of having a
general knowledge of magical items (let's face it,
most of your players probably know the DMG
treasure list by heart) and other various magical
effects. When the group encounters a new item
or strange effect, the mage may know something
about its abilities or limitations.

The key to making low-level mages playable is
not by vastly increasing their spell power.
Remember, any system will apply to high-level
wizards and to NPCs, so those spell-point systems
will increase the power of high-level spellcasters
as well as low-level ones. And for a class
that's already very powerful at high level, that
might be trouble balance-wise. An examination
of most fantasy game systems that use spell-point
systems reveals an interesting fact: The
mages have considerably lower numbers of
available spells. With the large number of spells
available to an AD&D® game mage, things could
get really out of hand. Low-level mages can be
made more interesting and flexible by relaxing
some of the tight restrictions on spells available,
increasing their value to a group apart from
pure spell power, and perhaps making a small
adjustment in the beginning number of spells
(as opposed to a permanent addition from a
spell-bonus system similar to that used by
clerics).

Tim Lieberg
Rogers MN
(Dragon #134)
 

In previous letters to the "Forum," some
people have discussed different ways to rid [the
AD&D® game's] magic-users of their nagging
habit of dying at low levels. But if you tamper
with the class too much, it tends to become a
supercharacter. My solution to this dilemma is
actually very simple. Just let the magic-user
wear armor that is a cross between his normal
robes and leather armor. This would consist of a
resilient fabric with cloth reinforcements over
the vital areas. The new armor would keep the
original movement of the robes and weigh only
a little more. As a result, the AC, not
including dexterity bonuses, would be dropped
from 10 to 9. The magic-user now has a 5%
better chance of survival. I have found this
simple change gives the magic-user the tiny
edge he needs to survive, but it will not affect
him seriously when he reaches higher level.

Dain A, Muller
Marblehead MA
(Dragon #135)
 

Scott Whitmore brings up an important point
in the big debate over strengthening the low-level
mage (issue #129). Unfortunately, it produces
the opposite conclusion to what he has in
mind. If we accept his claim that magic-users
are the favorite class of most players (a probable
theory), then we must conclude magic-users
must be made weaker, not strengthened.

Our basic fantasy world is a society in which
the magic-user is a relative rarity. There are a
lot of fighters, but only a few spell-casters. To
role-play such a society, a majority of the players
must choose to be fighters and relatively
few to be mages or clerics. If a majority of the
players would rather play a magic-user, the
fighter must be given advantages while the
magic-user must suffer.

Our ideal PC distribution would look something
like: 5 fighter types, 4 of them purely
fighters with only 1 ranger or cavalier
type; 2 clerics; 2 magic-users; and 1
thief. As long as we have 20% of the players
preferring to be mages, we don't want to
strengthen the magic-user. Only when the
players have to start drafting to get a magic-user
in the party do we improve the class.

This does not mean we can't help the poor Prestidigitator,
but if we do so, we must hurt
the magic-user in other ways -- say, reduce his
spells at higher levels. The magic-user class
cannot be made any more attractive. I'd love a
more powerful magic-user myself, which means
by my logic that we need a weaker, not stronger
magic-user.

David Carl Argall
La Puente CA
(Dragon #135)

About the ongoing controversy about low-level
magic-users not having a good survival
rate, here are some more remarks.

Larry Madden (issue #129) had some interesting
suggestions, but they are not really practical.
Whether or not your mage can pick up
magic missile scrolls (or any others) just by
walking in a store and requesting them is a
matter for the DM to decide, but magical items
really shouldn't be that common. And for the
merchant to "forget" to charge extra for more
powerful scrolls or "mistakenly" give them out
just isn't going to happen without DM collusion.

If I had a player tell me that phantom armor
could be cast on the inside of a robe because the
spell description doesn't require it to be visible,
I'd say that the spell may be cast in that way,
but the "armor" would still be visible on the
robe's outside, since the spell description doesn't
prohibit that, either! (The illusion is of a suit of
armor of normal thickness, and surely the outer
"surface" of it would be one armor-thickness
distant from the robe's inside, and thus be
visible.)

There is a simple solution, though: Start your
magic-user character as a dual-classed (Players
Handbook, page 33) Prestidigitator, former Vet. 
This gives the benefit of
good HP, and the magic-user can use
fighters' armor and weapons. Armor cannot be
worn during spell-casting (meaning in practice
that the magic-user is going to wait until running
out of spells before wearing the armor),
and the weapons will never be used more
skillfully than 1st-level fighter ability (by 6th
level, the magic-user will do better with a magic-user
's weapon).

Kenneth Arromdee
Ventnor NJ
(Dragon #135)
 

Issue #134 presented some very educational
reading. I particularly enjoyed the letter to
"Forum" by Tim Lieberg and applaud his
attempt to improve on a situation that so many
other people have failed to do effectively. I have
done many of the same things that Tim suggests
to realign the powers of Prestidigitators. I
do not fully agree with him on his views on
cantrips; however, I am not using the cantrip
system as it was presented and am not prepared
to actively disagree with him.

I believe that too many AD&D game players
these days put too much emphasis on combat,
and thus they think of 1st-level magic-users only
as "one-shot" sleep spells. Even though Tim's
letter centered entirely on the magic-user, much
could be learned about the other classes by
applying his theories to them. I have noticed a
general tendency of late to add power to the
low-level characters of all classes. Specific
examples of power boosting can be seen in
weapon specialization, new character rolling
methods, new statistic minimums for 1st-level
characters, and the addition of cantrips (to
name a few). This tendency, I believe, stems
from the fact that most players and DMs believe
that the game is centered on combat. I am not
arguing with the fact that the game presents
itself as a combat-heavy system. I am merely
pointing out that there are more things that
low-level PCs can do besides fight everything
they see. Players become bored with noncombat
activity and put pressure on the DM to "liven
things up a bit." This leads to other problems.
Too many times I've played in games in which
every encounter forces the party to stop and
rest or heal up. This usually causes the DM to
allow much more healing or even boost the
effects of the standard potions or spells. Fighters
and clerics start to look like Sherman tanks,
bristling with magic weaponry, armor, and
healing spells. Magic-users resemble artillery
units, each boasting several wands, rings,
cloaks, etc.

My point is that combat should be deemphasized
right from the beginning. Characters
should have more to strive for than power
and wealth. Use of noncombative skills should
be rewarded by XP, and some
form of praise should be given -- whether it be
verbal or "lucky breaks" -- to those who skillfully
role-play their characters. If this is done,
then ultimately the players might be more
willing to accept those things that add depth,
not power, to their characters. "The Mystic
College" (issue #123) presented a perfect example
of such. I know of very few campaigns in
which running a magic-users' college would go
over well with the players of wizards. "Why
would I want to waste my money on that!" is the
response that usually comes back. The idea that
one should spend money in order to gain prestige
or a good reputation is alien to most. Many
DMs complain that their players become too
powerful for the monsters or become too rich.
True enough! Then the DMs go one step farther
and blame the articles in DRAGON Magazine for
the situation. I propose that DMs should look to
their policies in bringing up the characters from
low levels in order to find out where the fault
lies!

R. J. Wenzel
Lancaster CA
(Dragon #137)
 

Today, I decided to peruse through a stack of
DRAGON Magazines to read some "Forum"
letters. Lately, the big thing has been magic-users.
When Mr. Gygax wrote the game, he
knew that the magic-user at 1st level was laughably
weak, and he tells us so in the Players
Handbook. But if anyone were to bother to look
at the future of the class, he would notice that
after a while it takes surprisingly few XP to rise in levels. As soon as the
magic-user hits a high-enough level, a 3rd-level
fireball or lightning bolt will outshine the party's
warriors. Besides, when it comes to weapons, a
magician only carries a weapon to defend
himself, so why not have only 1 weapon?

Just because a magic-user can't fry Orcus's
brains out at 1st level is no reason to condemn
the class. I believe another "Forum" writer
supports me when I say that the magician is,
because of his greater age (as per the DMG) and
all of his studying, the most learned of any of
the other characters, and will usually have the
highest intelligence. Surely he will be the best at
trying to deal with zealous arresting officers,
trying to discover if the party's contact is lying,
or debating whether a known assassin should
join the party. A magic-user must also have a
fairly high dexterity, so he might be the best at
helping the Thief pick a lock or something along
those lines.

A. Patrick Connery
Burlington ND
(Dragon #138)
 

I have read many letters in "Forum" complaining
that low-level magic-users are too weak and
die too often. I agree. Magic-users start with
very few HP, 1 spell, and no armor or
powerful weapons. I have a few suggestions
which might help.

1. Start magic-users with 1-6 hp instead of 1-4.
It will help them survive that difficult 1st level.

2. In my campaign, I let magic-users refer to
the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and
Monster Manual II any time during the game.
My reasoning is that magic-users are the most
intelligent of characters. Also, you might consider
starting magic-users with an additional
language for the same reason.

3. Allow magic-users to wear leather armor
until attaining 4th level. It will give them that
extra edge to help them survive.

4. Lastly, start magic-users with 3 or 4
scrolls of 2nd- or 3rd-level spells. It solves
the "only one spell a day" problem without
strengthening spell abilities at high levels.

Eric Burns
West Buxton ME
(Dragon #138)
 

For years, I have read varying viewpoints on
how to improve the low-level magic-user to help
him survive and make him more fun to play. As
both a player and a DM, I find the worst part of
playing a low-level magic-user is the frustration.
He can't fight to save his life, the number of
spells he has is pitifully few, and other PCs are
as smart as he is. So, what does that leave us
with? A frustrated player.

Once his specialty is established, the magic-user
is allowed to choose his initial spells with
no random dice rolls at all. I believe if the
apprentice magic-user was specializing in an
area during training, he would have learned
specific spells in that area, not just any old spells
that came along. Likewise his teacher, who is
also a specialist, would tend to teach him spells
that fall within his area of specialization. The
number of spells the magic-user is initially
allowed to have does not change.

The number of spells a character can cast,
however, does change. A Prestidigitator
who has specialized can cast 2 spells; at 2nd
level, 3, etc.; overall, the magic-user gains
the ability to cast 1 additional spell. This
allows the character to participate more fully
should the party have to fight more than once,
but it does not give him an inordinate amount of
spells at any time in his career.

What does specialization give a character
besides 1 extra [1rst-level] spell? All spells
that are within the character's area of specialization
are cast as if the magic-user were 1
level higher; likewise, he can cast specialization
spells from the next higher level at the rate of
1 per day. This gives the magic-user slightly
more power, but not an extraordinary amount,
especially when we look at the negative side.

Spells cast which are not within the character
's areas of specialization always have only
50% of normal effectiveness, rounded down
where appropriate. For example, a 10th-level
magic-user with specialization that included
fireball would be able to cast a fireball that did
11d6 hp damage and had a range of 21". If that
same magic-user's specialization did not cover
fireball, he would only be able to cast a 5d6-hp
fireball with a range of 10". In addition, it takes
twice as long to learn and memorize a spell that
is not within one's area of specialization.

Finally, magic-users are allowed to memorize
or cast only a certain number of spells that fall
outside their areas of specialization without
receiving added penalties. The number of spells
and severity of the penalties vary and are basically
subjective. The penalties exist because
these magic-users have specialized in a specific
area of magic, and working outside that area is
simply dangerous. They are dealing with forces
with which they are not entirely familiar, and
this could have an effect not only on the spell
but on the caster as well. Penalties I have used
range from having the spell fail or backlash on
its caster to complete loss of specialization and
all benefits. In the case of lost specialization, the
ability to cast other spells does not revert to
normal. Instead, it stays at the level it was when
specialization was lost. When the character
attains his next level, his abilities in these other
areas increases along normal lines but does not
automatically catch up.

Let's look again at the 10th-level magic-user
who did not have fireball in his area of specialization.
At 10th level, he could cast a 5d6-hp
fireball for 10". If he lost his specialization
powers, he would only be able to cast a 6d6-hp
fireball for 11" at 11th level.

As a DM, I have found this method works
very well, allowing the low-level magic-user to
participate more and keeping him from becoming
frustrated. It also forces the players to
seriously consider their areas of specialization
from the start. What may benefit them at lower
levels may be a serious handicap at higher levels
if they're not careful. They have to do some
research into what they really want to accomplish.
The end result is a much more knowledgeable
magic-user who is solidly aware of his
strengths and weaknesses right from the start.

Jeffrey C. Weber
Oak Harbor WA
(Dragon #139)
 

I found Kenneth Arromdee's input into the
ongoing discussion of the abilities and shortcomings
of the low-level magic-user (issue #135) to
be curious. He noted that the suggestions of
Larry Madden (issue #129) were "not really
practical," then went on to put forth a "simple
solution." His solution was to allow the magic-user
the ability to wear armor when he had
exhausted his spell-casting capability.

This approach, too, seems to be "not really
practical." The prospect of a magic-user (who is
most likely deficient in strength to begin with)
lugging around a suit of armor for occasional
use is at best unlikely. The thought of our
magic-user taking his turn in any particular
martial encounter to stop and don his armor is
truly absurd.

It seems to me that the spell-casters are well-rounded
characters as they now stand. In the
early levels, when the magic-user's party is
tackling relatively low-level problems, the mage
will do his bit against the enemy (be it a sleep
spell or whatever), then slip back to a defended
point and lay low while the brawny-armed
musclemen hack up the orcs. Then, when
XP are handed out, the magic-user
gains for the total attack. This is repaid at
higher levels when the strong-shoulders gain
XP after the mage casts a spell
that acts as an extraordinary killing machine.

In my opinion, there are only 2 times when
a magic-user should be given any extra abilities.
The 1st is when the party is dealing with a
world in which a magic-user is as rare as a staff
of the magi. In this case, the magic-user would
have greater fighting abilities at all levels, but
his magical ability must suffer proportionally --
both because some of his time that would otherwise
be spent enhancing magical technique
must be given for the conditioning of those
fighting abilities, and because other mages from
whom the up-and-coming magic-user could
learn are so few and far between. This decrease
would be noted by a lessening of effectiveness
of spells across the board (i.e., the HP
damage ability of the mage's spells would drop
proportionally to that mage's increased amount
of HP damage that he can inflict in normal
combat). The second situation would occur
when the party is dealing with a world in which
magic-users are a dime a dozen. In this case, the
magic-user's spells would be of increased effectiveness
-- but remember, what is given to the
PC must also be given to all NPCs.

Moving on, I find that I must reply to the
belief of Steve Allen (same issue) that the prime
use of RPGs is to be challenged, and that fun is
secondary. I agree with Mr. Allen that a good
challenge stimulates play and makes it more fun
— to a point. However, after having spent 7
hours in school trying to understand the
imbalances of trisomy inheritance and puzzling
through General Howe's motives in making a
frontal attack against Breeds Hill, my primary
aim in sitting down to a game is to enjoy myself,
not to be bogged down with endless and agonizing
puzzles, the answers to which are buried
deeper than the riddles of the ancient pyramids.
Also, an occasional adventure which is purely
"for the fun of it" is often just the thing to
rejuvenate a party -- enabling it to attack those
earth-shaking quests for which gamers pine
with all the more vigor.

Finally, I contend that at the other end of the
scale of poor role-players is the player who is so
wrapped up in the seriousness of the game that
he forces it to be oppressive. Therefore, I submit
that the primary aim of RPGs is to have fun
-- if it's not fun, why bother?

Scott A. Shepard
Castanea PA
(Dragon #139)
 

I'm writing to you on 3 related subjects
covered in issue #135 in "Forum." These subjects
are low-level spell-casters, illusionist spells, and
spell books.

I find that a Prestidigitator needs no
improvement to survive. He has all the resources
needed to survive as is, if only you look for
them. These resources are his intelligence and
his starting money.

According to the Players Handbook, a magic-user
starts the game with $200-800 and can
equip himself for $100. The extra money can
be well used in several survival strategies, as
follow:

1. Join a group of adventurers. There is safety
in numbers, and this is how the game is supposed
to be played.

2. Loan money to a fighter for armor. This
helps him survive, and he'll owe you a favor and
some money.

3. Hire a bodyguard<sentinel>. This is costly, but it
guarantees he'll place your life before almost
everything else. You might be able to get one on
the promise of a magical item for him or by use
of a charm spell.

4. Buy a bodyguard<sentinel>. If there's slavery in your
campaign, it is easy. Otherwise, you can buy a
guard dog for $250 or a hunting dog for $170.
You might also be able to pick up something
more exotic, like a nilbog or a rust monster.

5. Make a bodyguard or helper. This option is
not usually open to low-level spell-casters, but if
you can get a golem or undead to serve you,
you're doing great. Cantrips and 1st-level spells
usable for this are bee, bug, gnats, mouse,
spider, enlarge, find familiar, mount, unseen
servant, and Tenser’s floating disc.

6. Sell your services in town. Remember, $10
= 1 xp. All you need is the imagination to apply
every spell in the book.

I must now defend my position on the construction
of traveling and permanent spell books (issue
#129). I based my description on the size, volume,
and weight figures on the writing of Eric Krein in
issue #123 and the assumption that a traveling
spell book would be built "form follows function"
while a permanent spell book would be "function
follows form." I will grant that I didn't consult
Unearthed Arcana.

Mr. Krein, in turn, seems to have missed a key
note in my description of a traveling spell book
"the pages are thin! They are made to be
squeezed into a small space, not to endure
attacks. Permanent (or standard) spell books are
constructed to serve the same function for a
magic-user as treasure serves a dragon: status
symbols! The better quality of these works
would give them a +2 bonus to saving throws.

This example of spell book construction
should help: A wizard orders 1 traveling and
1 standard spell book. He is informed that the
standard book will be ready in a year, and the
traveling book in a month.

The traveling book is built as a loose-leaf
volume. The pages are between 1/2 and
1/10 the thickness of a hair. The cover
consists of 2 iron pans filled with alkaloids
and capped with ceramic tiles. The book comes
with an airtight glass case to keep it, and, maybe,
a few spell components inside. It's built for
volume, not strength.

The standard spell book is built as a hardbound
work. Each page is 2-5 hairs thick and
stored in preservatives until needed. The pages
are sewn to the cover with elf hairs and glued
in place. Endpapers are used. The cover is
constructed of hardwood and covered with rare
leathers. The book is decorated with gold leaf
and jewels, and is built to last 1,000 times the
1-2 years of the traveling book.

My final topic concerns the vagueness of
illusionist spells. I say they have to be vague; an
Illusionist has to be able to create everything
from a butterfly to Tiamat to a ball to a gaping
crater full of demons with a given spell. His
spells have to be powerful and flexible. This
means they are complex to the point that
nobody can conceive of an 8th-level illusionist
spell. The spells do this as they stand.

Douglas M. Burck
Cincinnati OH
(Dragon #141)
 

I'm currently DM for an AD&D
game. I've been keeping up with the arguments
about magic-users wearing armor and using
weapons, and with arguments in mind, I sought
some information that would support either of
the arguments. I found this quote in
DRAGONLANCE® Legends, volume 2, page 111:

"At the beginning of time, magic-users were
prohibited by the gods from carrying any type
of weapon or wearing any sort of armor. The
reason being, ostensibly, that they needed to
devote time to study that could not be spent
achieving proficiency in the art of weaponry.
But, after the magic-users helped Huma defeat
the Queen of Darkness by creating the magical
dragon orbs, the gods granted them the right to <Orbs of Dragonkind?>
carry daggers upon their persons. . . ." I allow
magic-users to use daggers (and use oil) as
weapons.

Now let's talk about fighters. I have found that
the fighter is considered undesirable for a few
reasons. 1st, fighters have no special abilities
outside of combat; 2nd, if a player wants a
character that wears good armor, can take and
dish out decent damage, and has nice HP,
then he could choose a cleric and get turning
and spell abilities to boot! So, I feel since a
fighter is trained in combat, he would also be
able to treat minor wounds. Using this rule, a
fighter could heal 1 hp of damage each day in
semisterile conditions (meaning anywhere
decently clean).

Darrell Anderson
Elma NY
(Dragon #141)
 

Being an avid player of magic-users in the
AD&D game, I am dismayed to see articles in
"Forum" suggesting rules to help magic-users
survive lower levels more easily. It seems that
that idea of benefits and limitations, or game
balance, has been forgotten. The limitations, in
the case of the magic-user, are 1) not being very
powerful at low levels and 2) dying easily at low
levels. But, the benefits from these sacrifices, if
the character survives, are great indeed. Survival
means the magic-user has the ability to use
powerful spells that can kill with a word, annihilate
an entire army on command, and control
entities from [outer planes] while forcing his
will upon them. I can't imagine the resulting
chaos in a world where almost all magic-users
(including NPCs, as common sense would dictate)
survived to high levels and had these
powers, quite literally, at their fingertips.

I believe that magic-users should be rolled up
according to the Players Handbook and not
modified to allow easier survival, because the
limitations of the class are more than adequately
balanced out at high levels.

Eric Parish
West Lafayette IN
(Dragon #142)
 

Unfortunately, here's another letter about the
magic-user's dilemma (the popular thought that
we should make magic-users more powerful to
survive early on). To help my PC, my DM started
letting him have special bonuses and find scrolls
throughout most dungeons. As a result, I have
the ultimate PC at level 20. All others are at my
mercy, and my party must watch as my PC
destroys monsters too powerful for the others
but just right for him. After 3 years, I must
finally remove my character from the campaign
in all fairness.

Dain A. Muller (issue #135) saw the problem I
have. To avoid the frustration and disappointment
I had, start low-level PCs in dungeons that
have fewer dangerous encounters and more
riddles, puzzle-solving, and ways to coax players
into correct playing of the rules. Give XP 
for solving certain situations. Gradually
add more traps and danger until you can
run a more regular campaign.

The mentor of one magic-user could have an
illusion-using dungeon set up with minimal real
damage. True experience could be awarded
because the party would be gaining knowledge.
Eventually, the magic-user would be powerful
enough to begin other low-level adventures
without the rest of his party suffering.

Jason Kasper
Buffalo WY
(Dragon #142)
 

There has been much debate over a spell bonus
system for magic-users. Instead of extra
spells for the magic-user, similar to the cleric's
bonus for high wisdom, I suggest giving magic-users
with high intelligence more memory. This
allows the magic-user to memorize more spells
than he can cast each day. For example, a 1st
level magic-user can cast 1 spell, but if he has
a high intelligence, he can memorize 1 or 2
extra spells. The magic-user may memorize
sleep, charm person, and magic missile, but
could only cast 1 of them [each day]. This
makes the magic-user more useful, but will not
unbalance the game like a spell-point system
would.

I agree and disagree with Jason Greff (issue
#133) on the issue of memorization. He is right
that removing the memorization rules would be
drastic, but Raistlin from the DRAGONLANCE
saga is a poor example. Those books were based
on the AD&D game rules. Raistlin forgot his
spells because the rules say so. I do think the
memorization rules are a little strict, so I suggest
that a magic-user should only have to go
over his spells each morning. Committing spells
to memory every morning should not be
required. Magic-users do, as Steve Shewchuk
pointed out in issue #128, become too tired
after their last spell to cast another.

I agree with Tim Lieberg's suggestion (issue
#134) to start magic-users at 2nd level. After all,
experience should not be given out for monster
slaying and treasure finding only. For magic-users
it also comes from researching and, as Ed
Kruse pointed out in issue #134, casting spells
usefully. To balance this, I suggest giving out
only 1/2 experience to magic-users for killing
monsters, unless they use spells to do so.

Lastly, I would like to share my opinion of
multi-classes involving magic-users. I do not
allow magic-user multiclasses above 4th level.
My reasoning is that they must devote their
time to studying the higher arts. The only
possible exception would be the magic-user/thief
class, and that mix would have to be limited in
maximum level, thieving abilities, and spellcasting
abilities.

Eric Sonnestuhl
Olympia WA
(Dragon #143)
 

Recently, readers have been sending in letters
trying to change the magic-user character. Some
wish to make it better in combat situations by
allowing the use of armor, more diverse weaponry,
spell bonuses, etc. Each letter has its own
merits, which I won't debate here.

The one thing few realize or suggest changing
is the minimum/maximum number of spells
known per spell level due to intelligence. Currently,
there are 40 official spells of 1st level
alone. Magic-users with maximum normal
intelligence are restricted to a maximum of 18
of these spells. Meanwhile, clerics and druids of
the lowest minimum wisdom are able to receive
any of their spells with no restrictions whatsoever.
I suggest dropping the minimum/maximum
values altogether. Is game balance really upset if
a magic-user can learn all spells of his class? He
is still restricted to casting X number per day
due to his level.

In my own campaign, following an example
found in FR4 The Magister, I have divided all
magic-user spells into three different categories:
common-knowledge spells, rare spells, and
unique spells.

Common-knowledge spells are ones that are
either not overly powerful for their levels, or
have been around so long that every mage
knows of them. These are the easiest spells to
find and learn, and consequently are cheaper
economically.

Rare spells are the "named" spells (various
Bigby's hand spells, etc.), which also include
some common spells that have different casting
results than normal due to some obscure wizard
's research. Though many of these spells'
effects are well known, few mages will give
away the secrets of casting these spells unless
offered a hefty price, usually involving the
trading of magical items and more spells.

Unique spells are primarily those that I have
personally decided should or would not be in
the hands of ordinary mages. They can only be
found in certain books, tomes, scrolls, etc., and
are very hard to find (and thus are not well
known).

Using a system like this, it sometimes costs the
character more than it's worth to gain the use
of rare or unique spells. The characters will
generally find it less costly to invent their own
spells. The character can then make himself
rich by selling the knowledge to other mages, or
defend himself from those who seek to steal the
knowledge.

Incidentally, in my campaign, there are close
to 900 magic-user spells, ranging from lowly
cantrips to 9th-level spells. These spells come
from the various hardcover books, as well as
from magazine articles, descriptions of my own,
and the inventions of others.

Wendell Works
Truro, Nova Scotia
(Dragon #143)
 

I am writing this letter in response to some of
the past letters in “Forum” concerning the topic
of the low-level magic-user. Some of the letters
have been a little too compassionate toward the
poor little guy. Others, though, were saying that
it’s a tough world out there, and if you don’t like
it, well, that’s life as a magic-user.

1st, I think that some weapons like the sling,
club, mace, flail, and hammer should be allowed
because they are not too hard to learn how to
use effectively. Also, there could be a penalty
for the new weapons requiring 2 or more
proficiency slots because these weapons were
not originally intended for the magic-user class.
If the character opts not to use one of the newly
introduced weapons, however, he could get the
bonus of an added NWP or
added spell/cantrip.

Secondly, dealing with the problem of armor
for our defenseless mage, a mage does not need
to use any armor whatsoever. Just think for a
minute here: If all the modifications that have
been voiced in “Forum” were to be put into
effect, we would come up with Joe, a Theurgist 
wearing chain mail and a ring of
protection +3, carrying a short sword +4, with
a 17 dexterity and a backpack holding his spell
book and 2 potions of giant strength. Give a
little thought to this guy for a minute; he has an
AC of -1! And if he and his buddies
decide to go adventuring in the Dungeon of
Death and happen to meet up with a band of
spectres (say about a 12 or so), and the
party’s cleric is killed by a shambling mound in
their last battle, we could have Joe the mage
jump into the front row with all the warriors
and kill off the spectres without wasting any of
his precious spells.

Finally, a note on the HP debates: The
mage does not need more HP to survive.
In fantasy literature, magic-users do not strive
to be the healthiest people around. They rely
instead on their magical nature and spell-casting
abilities. If a player wants more HP, he
shouldn’t have a magic-user.

Also, if you want to be able to protect yourself
with good weaponry and armor, try running a
ranger. You get armor, weapons, and magic-user
spells, along with druidic spells. I hope that this
debate is settled by the time the AD&D® 2nd
Edition Players Handbook is published.

Tim Oakes
Berlin CT
(Dragon #144)
 

Although I do not agree with bettering the HP
and ACs of Prestidigitators, I do
believe mages should be able to memorize more
than 1 spell at 1st level.  Therefore, I suggest
the following and certainly not unbalancing
modification:  1st-level magic-users may
memorize cantrips in addition to their one each
1st-level spells.
 

XP	No. Of additional cantrips
0-833	1
834-1666	2
1667-2500	3

Of course, 4 cantrips may still be substituted
for a 1st-level spell, in which case the
additional cantrip rule above still applies.

Zach Miller
Naples FL
(Dragon #145)
 

The latest argument among players and DMs
is over the weakness of the magic-user class.
The magic-user class in and of itself is fine, and I
have seen several players who have done quite
well with mages. The problem here is with the
players. Often players don't succeed with mages
because the players lack experience or don't put
enough thought into their actions and spells. I
have seen many wizards die because they used
their spells quickly and wastefully. Players need
to take time to think about better uses for their
spells; that is often the key to a wizard's survival.
It is not much help to a novice player,
however.

When players lack experience in playing a
wizard, I feel that starting them out with 1 or
2 minor magical items will greatly help. I
often start a PC with a ring of
protection + 1 or (rarely) bracers of defense, AC
8. These defensive items, along with dexterity
adjustments, can help a mage's AC
enormously and will help the wizard survive
those 1stt few quests. A DM will notice that
these items are limited in use, as they quickly
become obsolete. Thus, these items help a mage
through the toughest stages without unbalancing
the game. You will, however, note that they
are not substitutions for skillful spell-casting.
Players still have to think before hurling magic,
but this will assist inexperienced players.

Matt Richardson
Havana IL
(Dragon #149)
 

With all the talk about changing the AD&D
game rules so that magic-users can have more
power and clerics can use edged weapons, one
thing has never been considered: How will these
rules work in your campaign?

The campaign I am in would make most
players shudder. Rules (ones that are written in
the book) are freely tossed aside to accommodate
whims of the DM. (Actually, we have several
DMs, but what was stated still applies.) For
instance, lycanthropy is not a curse. Some
players pursue it because they know it gives
their characters greater prowess, and the
negative aspects are easily done away with.
Some DMs have very powerful NPCs who can
provide lycanthropy and the control of that
power to a player. These NPCs will do it with a
minimum of whining from the PC. The result is
a character able to assume animal form at will
and a character immune to nonmagical or silver
weapons. (One person started a PC as a lycanthrope
at 1st level.)

Monster PCs are common; dragons, minotaurs,
minor deaths, and others exist and flourish.
Reincarnation into a new (and usually more
powerful) form is common, but some reincarnations
start at 1st level. (How they go into a
tavern without everyone else leaving or attacking
is beyond me.)

A variant spell system exists for both clerics
and magic-users. NPC classes presented in
DRAGON Magazine are widely used, and so are
magical items. PCs in these games have some
incredible stuff. I ask you, how many Paladins
below 7th level have holy swords in your campaign?
In this campaign's case, roughly half.

It's getting worse, but the players enjoy it.
When I started with this group, I tried to run
games by the book. I rejected characters right
and left for the above reasons and didn't use the
variant systems. After a bit, I noticed a pattern.
Some people would deliberately not come to
games I ran, and no one would play a magic-user.
I had to adapt to the gamers' playing
styles, or I wouldn't be playing with them for
long. I began using the variant spell systems and
was more lenient with character selection.

I try to hold the line by myself. I retire my
monster PCs soon after they become monsters,
and I stick to book classes and races during
character generation. I have a dream that this
group will follow my example, but I'm not
holding my breath.

All of you out there who have your ideas, use
them if they fit your gaming style. If they don't,
go back to the basics.

Bill McCullough
Riverside CA
(Dragon #150)
 

You know, I really can't figure out what the
big deal is about magic-users and the weapon/
armor debate. "Why can't my magic-user use a
sword?" "Why can't he wear armor?" Hey! No
sweat! Here's your sword, and here's your
armor. Now get up there and stand toe-to-toe
with that big ugly monster, and have a nice
time. But seriously, does it really matter? I've
played more spell-casters than I can readily
count, and most of those were magic-users. The
one thing that I learned during that time is that
the last thing you want to do is get close enough
to a monster so that you need a sword to defend
yourself. Your HP and hit probability
tell the whole story. It doesn't matter if you're
holding a light saber and wearing plate mail +5;
you'll be raw meat in a few rounds.

I have no problem with these arguments in
my campaign. I let the magic-users use any
weapons and wear studded leather armor. The
armor can't get any better, in my opinion, because
the magic-user couldn't perform somatic
gestures wearing heavy metal armor. (Note: I
apply these restrictions to elves and gnomes as
well, but not to clerics). The players like the
freedom and the ability to swing a real weapon
when they get into a jam. Game balance stays
stable because a sword-toting wizard poses no
real threat to anybody except himself. If he opts
for a bow, he'll be a downright menace to the
party. The only thing that the bow changes is
his survivability at low levels. The added 2 or
3 AC points and extra point or 2
of damage potential help him fend off some of
the lower-level monsters like kobolds. Don't get
me wrong; I don't think low-level magic-users
really need any help, but coming to the aid of a
magic-user is a by-product of the above mentioned
policy deviations, and it doesn't amount
to much or hurt anything. You'll probably also
find that your PC magic-users will revert to
doing it the old-fashioned way after a while,
because the rest of the party will tend to put
pressure on them to do their fair share of the
hack-n-slash work.

R. J. Wenzel
Lancaster CA
(Dragon #149)