My Magic (Part 2)

Magic-users are, of course, a completely different story.

If you read over Ye Old blog, you'll find numerous examples of bitching and moaning about MUs not being "magical enough" or designed well enough or balanced enough or (even) viable for play as written. Hogwash...absolute hogwash, all of it. Despite all my complaints and proposed fixes, house rules, etc.the magic-user AS WRITTEN is a fine and viable and plenty playable.

I've both run AND played magic-users in MOST editions of D&D: OD&D, B/X, Holmes, RC/BECMI, 1E, and 3E. In the days of my youth, I never played magic-users, but I saw some pretty good ones (generally played by my friend Scott) get up to some pretty high levels. In my teenage years, I ran an NPC magic-user as a companion/henchman to a small (three player) campaign that would peter out sometime around G3 (Hall of the Fire Giant King)...that guy went from 1st to 12th level or so over the span of his career. When I first acquired the OD&D books (back in the late-80s/early-90s) I did some solo gaming to test them, running a magic-user named Barack the Half-Handed (based on a character from an old Lythande story). 

[interesting...to me at any rate...that I would recycle that name and character concept for two separate Ars Magica campaigns (one PC, one NPC) that I would play/run in my 20s]

In recent years, however, I've had the opportunity to play low-level MUs as a player in other DMs' campaigns. This is unusual, for a couple reasons. First off, unless we're playing a game like Ars Magica (where being a wizard is kind of "the thing"), my tendency is to gravitate towards fighter characters (or MAYBE a beefy cleric). I'm the type of dude that prefers to lead...and probably charge...confronting threats in direct, head-on fashion. Oh, I can be sneaky and cautious at times, but that's not my default setting...consequently I like a character that's a bit sturdier than your standard magic-user. Better survivability with my preferred play style.

Which leads me to the OTHER reason it's unusual for me to play magic-users: I don't trust other DMs. You can call me paranoid or elitist or whatever, but I simply prefer to be the guy in the driver seat when playing RPGs because, well, I trust my ability to be fair and scrupulously honest. With other DMs, you never know what you're going to get. Which is admittedly ridiculous stance to have (I've experienced MAYBE one or two "bad apple" GMs over 40 years and dozens of different gaming tables)...but I'm a ridiculous guy that has some "control issues." And playing a magic-user with no armor, 3-4 hit points, and a single spell makes me feel a little too vulnerable.

Fortunately, I've relaxed a bit the last decade or so, and been able to kick off my shoes (and armor) and put on the pointy hat. The first By The Book magic-user I played was a Holmesian one at a convention. The game was a blast, and I enjoyed myself immensely...there's a bit of a thrill living on the edge with only a couple hit points, and the game forces you to be both creative and a "team player." That's neat!

[mmm...I now recall that my FIRST player character MU was actually a wizard in 3E campaign that lasted all of one session...but that dude was one of those very few "bad" GMs I've had the misfortune of meeting...]

Most recently, I've been playing a magic-user in my son's AD&D (1E) campaign. The character ("Barnaby") has worked his way up to 5th or 6th level at this point...I can't recall because it's been several months since our last game. Diego is running a very By The Book campaign with a couple exceptions: he runs clerical magic the same as I do, and he doesn't charge training costs. But everything else (as much as a smart 12 year old can remember/manage) is BTB. 

And...I've found the class a bit boring. Most of my PC's experience came from plumbing the Caves of Chaos in B2 (modified for AD&D) and while THAT was actually a pretty fun series of adventures (it's very tactically interesting if you choose NOT to work the faction angle), the BTB magic-user made the whole thing...a little too easy?

It helped that I got some good spells from my random roll (find familiar is a godsend for any low level sorcerer-in-training). But the ability to stockpile spells in one's spell book (giving you a wide range to draw from) and the ability to memorize multiples of the same spell (sleep, for example) lends to tactical play that can feel very same-same.

Which is why that...for the last 3-4 years (even since BEFORE I was playing AD&D again), I stopped running magic-users BTB. I know, I know...shame on me.

Here is how I run magic-users at my table:

1. Read magic isn't a thing. Magic-users can read magic-user scrolls just like clerics can read clerical scrolls. Magic-users automatically speak/read the "magical language" as part of their class training.
2. No stockpiling spells. The number of spells you can cast is the number of spells you have in your spell book. You don't get to (nor have to) find and add new spells to your book. This is, by the way, the same as RAW B/X (BECMI/RC differs however).
3. No multiple spell memorization. Each spell may be used once per day. This is adapted from OD&D (Book 1), and while others may quibble over my interpretation of the wording in the first paragraph of page 19, in practice I find it works very well.
4. Each first level magic-user begins with three spells, rolled randomly from the tables in the DMG (p. 39). Yes, this means that MUs in my campaign can cast three spells at 1st level, instead of one. I really like the one offense,  one defense, and one miscellaneous spell paradigm, and I don't force the player to choose which of the three to memorize. Later on, as they progress in level, they can choose whether to specialize in offense or utility or whatever...at first level, they are armed with the spells their master gave them. 
5. Upon advancement, the magic-user chooses additional spells up to the amount that they're able to cast for the day. Chance to Know (based on INT) is checked as normal. 1st level spells known are read as the number +2 (because of the additional spells learned at 1st level, of course). Minimum/Maximum Known (based on INT) remains the same.

AND...that's pretty much it. The magic-user is otherwise as written, though some spells have been modified in my game. 

Please understand: the character class as designed (at least, in OD&D, Holmes, B/X, and 1E) works JUST FINE using the rules as written. I've run BTB magic-users over the years and have played the class (By The Book) in multiple systems/games and managed to both survive and thrive. You can run a MU using RAW in any of those pre-1989 works (probably 2E as well) and NOT be hamstrung despite the slight variations and idiosyncrasies in each edition...they all work.

Well then, JB (I hear the hard-liners asking), if the game WORKS why would you bother to change it? The mantra should be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," right?

Yeah. That's right. But I have reasons.

• Removal of read magic resolves a lot of problematic questions arising from that spell like: Why can other spell casters read scrolls without such magic? Why can thieves read scrolls without using a spell? How does the spell interact with the writings in a spell book? Etc. It also helps foil Gygax's attempt at DMv.PC antagonism (I ignore most of the EGG's rules with regard to "fading" scrolls, etc. pressures designed to PUSH players into hasty decisions in order to trigger curses). F that noise. I'm not trying to "trip up" players (they make plenty of mistakes all on their own), and I don't want every scroll tube found to become an exercise in following a 5-point, best practice plan avoiding risk. No. MU spell scrolls are simply specially prepared, one-shot magic items useable only by magic-users (and some higher level thieves and illusionists).
• Spells being limited to what can be cast (e.g. I can cast three 2nd level spells, and I only know three 2nd level spells) cuts down on dithering on what to choose and whether or not to end a delve early (because the PCs need to retreat to memorize different spells, etc.) and allows a group to simply get on with the game. The fighter on an expedition doesn't worry about his weapon load-out every morning: he straps it on one time and then chooses the right tool for the job as the need arises. Same for the MU and his/her spells. With a set battery of dweomers, the mage starts to understand and develop tactics (and, from there, creative tactics) based on experience and usage...which I like.
• Similarly, the prohibition on memorizing multiple spells of the same type creates more variety of tactics and prompts the PC to make interesting choices: do I use my magic missile spell now (since I don't have it memorized thrice?)? When is the best time to cast shield? Etc. For me, this makes the magician character more interesting and models much of the pulp fiction that inspired D&D in the first place (seldom does one see a sorcerer use the same spell twice in fiction). 
• The three random spells is BTB AD&D (minus the read magic spell that would be part of every 1st level magic-user's inventory), but it functions EXTREMELY well in tandem with the "spells known = spells cast" house rule. As a result of the combo of house rules, I have seen creative and effective use of those 'oft overlooked spells' that would otherwise be left off the daily memorization schedule. Spells like ventriloquism, jump, push, mending, message, and spider climb have all seen great use as part of the regular rotation, and some spells (feather fall and jump) have been real life savers. Spider climb is just a damn useful spell by the way, aiding my BTB wizard immensely in cleaning out the Caves of Chaos. 
• Allowing 1st level magic-users to use three magic spells per day from the get-go also seems to be the "sweet spot" of making the class seem more magical. I was doing something similar towards the end of my B/X gaming (giving MUs +1 spell for INT 15 and +2 spells for INT 17), but having three spells just feels...mm..."magical." I know not everyone will agree and, as I wrote, I've played MUs with a single spell and (in tandem with companion party members) survived just fine. But I enjoy seeing how my players will use their three spells in early adventures...it's always entertaining!

Finally, with regard to the automatic acquisition of spells...well, this needs a bit of elaboration.

Spell acquisition is an interesting subject. In B/X it's one of the few true "money sinks," since PCs over a certain level are left with no alternative than to conduct spell research to learn their new spells (although, without other associated upkeep costs, the time component isn't as harsh as it could be). But in AD&D, the BTB acquisition of spells is quite draconian: the "gain 1 spell per level" is so stingy that wizards (beginning at mid-levels) are left with little recourse than to beg, borrow, and steal spells, especially given the costs of conducting spell research along with all the additional expenses heaped upon the heads of advanced PCs.

The overall effect...which I have observed in multiple long-term campaigns...is something I refer to as "the Raistlin Effect." Any of you out there familiar with the Dragonlance novels? Read the first trilogy with an eye focused on the actions of the Raistlin character and you will get a glimpse of the typical 1E wizard's path. The guy will go to any lengths to find a scroll, or an old spell book, or a library of ancient tomes...lying, cheating, betraying his friends, changing his alignment, whatever it takes. In some ways, the quest for more magic is good adventure fodder: you need a scroll with stone to flesh or mass charm? Check out the abandoned Tower of So-and-So or the ancient Tomb of Whatshisname. 

But it's...mm...'not great' when the campaign starts to be influenced by one (or more) player's drive to acquire power. And yet, if that drive is stifled (by the DM or the other players at the table)...well, that can have negative repercussions, too. Resentments and recriminations...yeah, I've seen 'em. Both ways. Nobody wants one player character to become the focus of the campaign. 

And, sure, a good DM can prevent this by placing plenty of scrolls and spell books and whatnot in the party's path (or an "appropriate amount," whatever that means). But my house rule neatly sidesteps the entire issue and allows the PCs to get down to what it is they came here for: exploring the campaign world. No side-quests (to get the mage-types their spells) needed. Better, in my opinion, to have the party focused, together, on the task at hand, whatever that might be (plumbing a dungeon, defeating an antagonist, embarking on a money-making venture, looking for trouble...whatever). I prefer that the advantages that come with level advancement...better thief percentages, special war horses, more weapon proficiencies, etc....to simply come automatically. 

And for magic-users, that includes spell acquisition. 

Because, really, the magi's role is challenging enough, isn't it? No armor, few weapons, poor attack capability, low hit points. And their best spells, even when acquired (always have to make that INT check!), often have expensive spell component costs or severe penalties (like aging or possible insanity). The magic-using profession is hard, and rightly so (a fair trade-off considering the amazing marvels they can work). Best to let them simply get to it, rather than forcing them to jump through more hoops.

Sorcery I Like

Well, what do you know: a quiet moment around the old home front, for a change.

I'll be honest: I've (perhaps) had the opportunity to blog recently, just not the spirit. Just lots of things over-occupying my brain/attention. It gave me some peace to simply withdraw from the whole blog-o-sphere for a few days, rather than tread water with throwaway posts and comments. Not that this isn't (perhaps) a throwaway post, but there's enough quiet right now that I can sit and type-type-typity-type.

Mmm. With cup of hot coffee at hand.

Yesterday (or maybe the day before) I had the chance to read Clark Ashton Smith's second Xiccarph story, The Flower-Women (to give credit where credit's due, I only learned about Xiccarph after Maliszewski wrote about it a week or so ago). I like Smith's stuff, though I've read precious little of it (perhaps a dozen of his short stories). His work is reminiscent of other writers, though I recognize he was probably the influence on them, rather than the reverse. But his stuff is (usually) punchy and short, perhaps only slowed down by an expansive vocabulary that requires me to look up two-three words with every reading. 

[quick: who can tell me the definition of odalisque off the top of your head?]

I also like this bit about Smith's writing, aptly summed up by James in his (previously mentioned) post:

Smith is almost unique in the history of pulp fantasy for sympathizing with his evil sorcerers, or at least presenting their thoughts and perspectives sympathetically. It's what sets him apart from both Lovecraft, whose antagonists' motives are largely inscrutable, and Howard, whose dark magicians are never portrayed as anything but villains to be cut down.

I think it's fair to say that, for much of my life, I was one of those who tended to "root for the bad guy" both in story and film. Not always, but often enough. Many times over the years I found myself wishing the villain would triumph, the hero would be cut down (or disgraced), the evil plot would unfold according to its nefarious plan. However, this was certainly more the case when I was a kid...having (in later life) viewed films and such where evil did triumph, I confess that the result is generally unsatisfying.

[perhaps my initial rooting for bad was fueled by too much sympathy for Wile E. Coyote and Sylvester the Cat. My wife, to this day, HATES Tweety Bird, and I can't say it's difficult to understand why]

*ahem*

Anyway, black-hearted sorcerers have long been "my cup o tea;" I think it's fair to say that's part of my fandom of Moorcock's Elric stories, despite the general whininess of their protagonist (for me, his constant bitching-moaning is balanced out by his dark sense of humor and occasional bursts of action). But I like necromancers and black magicians of all sorts; when it comes to sorcerous characters, I become a BIG champion of the flawed, antihero type...a cardboard stereotype that I usually loathe in other genres (action films and supers comics, to name two).

I guess I just like my magic a little transgressive? I mean, sorcery transgresses the laws of reality, so shouldn't a sorcerer transgress cultural/societal norms (the laws of man)?

Eh. Not trying to get too deep here. The heart wants what the heart wants. The funny thing is this: with regard to Dungeons & Dragons, I have long said that my personal play style lines up far better with the fighter type than any other archetype. Even when playing another class (bards, clerics...even thieves) I tend to run my character like a fighter. Bold. Brazen. Hacky-slashy. My old DM famously precluded me from playing anything but a fighter in the last campaign she ran, because I 'always acted like a fighter anyway.' 

I've played a lot of too-loud "war priests" over the years.

Magic-user was the last class I was interested in playing...so much so that, with regard to D&D, I'd never run one as a PC until a Con game in 2019.

[okay, okay...I did play ONE wizard back in a SINGLE session of 3E/D20 years ago, but I gave him feats like "martial weapon proficiency" so that I could use swords, etc. Natch, I was doing Gandalf...and the DM quit the game in disgust when he saw I hadn't taken an "optimal build" for the character. One of the events that led to my disillusionment with that particular edition...]

HOWEVER, while I've generally stayed away from the magic-user class over the years, upon reflection (after reading The Flower-Women) I realized I actually had a hankering to play just such a character...a proper D&D (or, rather, AD&D) -style sorcerer. An old school magic-user. 

That character I played back in the 2019 convention? Probably the best time / most fun I've had as a player in a loooong time. And just to re-tell an old saw (for folks who don't want to read the old post):

• We were using Holmes Basic rules, MINUS the wonky combat (no double attack daggers!).
• PCs were rolled randomly at the table (3d6) in order; I took magic-user only because I didn't have the stats for anything else.
• My one spell was protection from evil and it was expended in the first room of the dungeon.
• I spent the majority of the three hour time slot with 1 hit point (due to being wounded) and no spells.
• I was only slain by another party member at the end of the session for (reasons).

And it was still a great time. Despite my character's fragility and lack of "usefulness" (sleep spells, charm spells, combat ability, etc.) I was able to contribute and...many times...take the lead on our eight-man band of misfit adventurers. I used the character's multiple languages and negotiating ability, I used poles and oil and torches, I preceded others into trap doors and tight spaces (okay...probably a little foolhardiness there, but not much to lose in a con game), and I was able to help direct attacks...and throw the occasional dagger...such that we didn't lose a single party member over the course of the session. And that's with 1st level characters and zero healing magic.

I was the only magic-user in the party.

The challenge of playing such a character is/was fairly exhilarating. Trying to find ways to be useful (without getting killed) was far more challenging than other (D&D) games I'd played: games where I had lots of hit points and/or good armor and a feeling of invincibility (at least for the first hit or so). I can only imagine the fun that could be had with the increased effectiveness (more spells) and survivability of playing such a character in the Advanced version of the game...it's not difficult to visualize the manifestation of an "imperious sorcerer" the likes of Maal Dweb. Gradually, of course.

The main difficulty, as always, is finding the right Dungeon Master. *sigh*

I've messed around over the years with a lot of different design tweaks for the D&D magic-user. Most of these have ended up being nothing but junk. What follows are my current "house rules" for the magic-user class in my home game (if not otherwise stated, rules are as per 1E PHB/DMG):

• Magic-users begin the game with three 1st level spells, randomly determined (per the DMG). 
• There is no read magic spell; magic-users can read magic-user spell scrolls automatically.
• All spells known may be cast once per day; a particular spell may not be cast more than once per day (no multiple memorizations of a single spell).
• New spells are added after training upon reaching a new level of experience; new spells are presumed in the cost for training. Preferred spells are chosen by player and then diced for based on Intelligence (per PHB). Spells from spell scrolls and spell books may not be added to the magic-user's repertoire of spells...a magic-user knows what he/she knows.
• Spell books are part talisman, part grimoire, part journal/scientific notes. Study of the spell book is needed to regain spells. Spell books can be prohibitively expensive to replace; losing (stealing) one's spell book is akin to losing (stealing) one's power. Magic-users will endeavor to recover lost (stolen) spell books (and will punish thieves with great vengeance, if possible).

We've been using these rules for a while now (a couple years) and they work for us; i.e. there haven't been any complaints. I'm sure long-time AD&D players will recoil at the thought of NOT having the option of adding "extra" spells to their spell book; in practice, it's been a non-issue (and it's a lot more convenient to simply HAVE the spells available then to need to search them out). The bonus spells at 1st level provide additional effectiveness to the new character, and the randomness and single memorization clause ensures creative use of even the most "worthless" spell (all spells are precious commodities to be treasured by the first level magic-user). 

We have yet to see a thief reach 10th level (or any high level illusionists/rangers) so it's hard to say how their abilities to "read (magic-user) magic" will interact with these rules. As it's a bridge we've yet to cross, I'm content to leave the issue alone and continue with what works...for now.

As an aside: spell-casting dragons in my world know spells as a magic-user equal to their hit dice (a red with 10 HD, for example, would know spells as a 10th level magic-user). This makes dragons considerably more magical...at least the ones that can use magic (I've toyed with the idea of making ALL dragons speaking and magic-using, but I like the idea of there being more "vermin-esque" dragons who are ignorant...and mundane...threats to civilized folk). For me, in addition to dragons being more sorcerous, this helps justify the dragons' hoards, as magic-users pay them in coin and treasure to be trained in higher level spells (what "magic schools" there are being few and, often, strictly regulated).

All right, the coffee pot is empty and the brew in my mug is considerably cooler than when it was first poured (and the house is not nearly as quiet...the wife is wanting me to make lunch), so I'll sign off for now. Hope y'all are having a good January.

: )

Talisman

Regarding Friday's post on spellbooks...

Additional thoughts have been percolating in my brain. Please allow me to share.

The first thing that occurs to me is that any "problem" I have with spell books is only really a problem when it becomes a problem. Me worrying about it ahead of time is...well, silly. Except of course that if the physicality of a wizard's tome is important, then I want the players to worry about it, too (i.e. 'How am I going to lug this thing around?'). Requiring players to think about such real world issues...similar to having them think about issues like light and food and encumbrance...helps with the immersive experience of the game. But for the game itself, it's not all that important...unless it suddenly becomes important (due to a particular book-wrecking situation during play). Whether or not the character has the book in her backpack, or safely hidden outside the dungeon only otherwise matters if you're allowing wizards to rest and recuperate their spells in the Underworld which is a sketchy stance to take as a DM for a variety of reasons.

A second thought about why the size, presence, or need for spell books matter is that it directly ties to how magic-users acquire spells in one's game. Can players steal enemy spell books and add their pages to their own? Can the players' own books be stolen? Spell books quickly become the most precious treasures in a wizard's hoard. Does a lich need to study a spell book? Sakartha, the vampire lizard king needed one...and it proved quite a valuable find to my players back in my old AD&D days. On the other hand, B/X magic-users only know as many spells as they can cast...taking an enemy's spell book certainly hamstrings the caster but adds nothing to the player's own store of knowledge.

Which leads me to my main (if not final) "thought of the day:" it seems to me that one could interpret the wizard's spell book as something largely symbolic, a talisman the mage requires in order to use (and re-use) her spell knowledge. A talisman is nothing more than an extremely personal (and, thus, magically invested) object that is sacred to the spell caster; losing a talisman denudes the character of her magical abilities...capturing a talisman puts the wizard at a person's mercy (and destroying it severs her powers completely).

Typical Talisman

Plenty of talisman examples from fiction come to mind: the wizard Vector's monocle in Wizards & Warriors (stolen by Blackpool and used to control the mage). The staves of the Istari-wizards in Tolkien (and how Gandalf's breaking of Sauruman's staff destroys his powers). Galen's amulet in the film Dragonslayer. The stolen wand of Rastafyre the Incomparable in the Lythande story The Incompetent Magician...even the secrets of the Blue-Star mages themselves could be classified as a talisman of sorts, one that carries no physical weight but whose loss carries far more consequence (destroying the magician's power completely).

I could wrack my brain for other examples...it was a common plot element of the old Dungeons & Dragons cartoon, requiring the protagonists to recover some ring or wand or amulet in order to restore a wizard's lost powers. The magic hat of the the magician character Presto would certainly count as a talisman by my definition.

Would Sauron's ring count as a talisman? Probably. So might the matrix stones of the laran gifted in Darkover or the medicine bag of a Native American shaman (which seem to me an inspiration for the former). Would Stormbringer qualify as a talisman for Elric? Maybe...but Elric's a special case in a lot of ways. But you could probably count Princess Eilonwy's "bauble" (from the Prydain books).

The point is, there are a lot of things that can serve as a talisman, all largely symbolic. A spell book need not be different: it represents the work, thoughts, and accumulated knowledge of a mage in a world that (presumably) has a fairly low rate of literacy. It need not actually contain "magic spells" but, rather provides the same sense of security and comfort and pride as the phallic power represented in a staff or wand.

[isn't the wand thing kind of a big deal in the Harry Potter books? It seems to me that there's a lot of wand stealing and wand breaking plot points in that series...if memory serves]

Changing the magic-user's spell book requirement to a talisman might make the character a little too similar to the cleric class (whose "holy symbol" amounts to the same thing)...on the other hand, that might be a good thing. How does one's magical power grow, exactly? The gods gift the cleric with power as she gains experience in their service. The wizard...needs to find (or create or steal) spells?

Far easier (and perhaps more interesting) to make the different spell-casters all "magic-users" of different schools. Mechanically (i.e. rules-wise) they're still interesting: clerics have (mostly) different magic, lesser in some ways, but powerful in others. Wizards have more variety and raw power (perhaps), but don't have the support of a church or followers...it's still the path of the outsider and individual, even those who belong to a particular magical order.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I'd even consider something like the theft of one's talisman resulting in a diminishment of power (say one-half level?) rather than a full loss of spell ability. The 14th level wizard without her staff is still a potent force, but with it she can literally move mountains. Well, hills anyway (using the move earth spell).

My final thought on the subject is this: a fighter who loses her weapons can still fight, a thief who loses her lockpicks can still perform other thief skills, and (in both cases) acquiring replacements are a small cost to the player. Same holds true for a cleric's holy symbol (assuming you require the symbol for clerics to use their abilities). Placing the magic-users power in an encumbering stack of paper...very, very expensive paper...feels exceptionally punitive to me.  And I'm not someone who is particularly about "making life easier" for the players.

Anyway...still thinking about it.

Spell Books

One of the problems with having with more than a decade's worth of posts is that every time I sit down to write up my latest thoughts on a subject already broached, I have to read back through all the posts I've already written on the subject.

Well, I suppose I don't have to...I could just fly off the handle (my usual m.o.) and let the chips fall where they may. But the fact, there are still folks showing up to Ye Old Blog and reading my ancient posts, and my conscience tells me I should strive for some level of consistency, at least enough to say "my feelings on such-and-such have changed since 2011" or whatever.

[really! Last week, I had someone commenting on a post I wrote back in 2014, while still living in Paraguay. And this week, I had an email from a French blogger who wants to translate some 2012 entry I posted about abstracting armor rules]

So it was this morning that I was combing through the 50+ posts on magic-users I've made over the years, looking to see what I've written on the subject of spell books. Also, had to check the 60+ posts on "spells." I'll be honest...I got pretty bored with the exercise and, quite frankly, there wasn't much there that stood out anyway.

I'm considering cutting spell books from my D&D game.  Since my family will probably be rousing themselves from slumber soon, I'll try to be as succinct as...well, as I ever am (not that succinct, I realize)...in explaining my thought(s) here:

#1 My journey with magic-users has come a looooong way since I started this blog. Prior to blogging, I never gave much thought to magic-users at all: I didn't play them in other people's games, and the few who showed up in my own game weren't anything too spectacular (they were infrequently run and frequently died). Plus, it had been so long since I'd run an old school game, my memory was probably on the "hazy" side. Once I started blogging, I started running/playing games again, and this led to all sorts of hare-brained ponderings on the class.

#2 To sum up my thoughts on "what I've learned about magic-users over the years" (through actual play): The class is nicely balanced. The class should probably start with multiple spells (2-3) instead of one. Vancian system = good idea. Removing spell duplication (memorization of 2x fireball or 3x sleep, for example) improves versatility and encourages creativity and proactive thinking in players. Knife-fighting mages are somewhat distasteful (personally), but a "necessary evil" and well-modeled by the magic-user's poor combat skills.

#3 In older edition games (i.e. pre-1983, i.e. pre-any edition I enjoy playing), spell books are poorly defined/described, if at all (we'll leave aside the physical dimensions specified for AD&D in 1985's Unearthed Arcana tome). We know magic-users have spell books. We know that they study the books (in the morning) to regain their daily allotment of spells. We know it's one of the things that distinguish the magic-user from other classes (save, perhaps, the illusionist subclass). Most everything else about the spell book, however, is pretty much unknown and (thus) often ignored in actual play.

I mean, things like weight, bulk, and dimensions of such a tome should be incredibly important. I still haven't gotten around to penning my (planned for 10 months now) post on encumbrance, but I'll give you the TL;DR version: YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF YOU DO NOT TRACK ENCUMBRANCE. Yes, that is a purposeful riff on Gygax's famous admonition regarding time (see page 37 of the original DMG). As I said, it deserves its own post...one of these days.

I think back to my own youth, hauling around my own "spell books:" the four or five AD&D hardcovers I used to create the "magic" of my own campaign. A backpack with 20-30 pounds of books was just how I rolled in those days...on foot, on bicycle, or on the bus. I would carry my books everywhere...certainly to my friends' houses, but also to school and back...never knew when one might have the time to do some quick reading (or even gaming). The city bus to my high school in downtown Seattle was a long one (including a transfer/wait in the University District)...close to two hours round trip every day...and I would spend most of it reading. Even when I stopped playing D&D proper, I was still carrying a ton of RPG books (in addition to school texts).

There would have been little room in my backpack for rations and rope, had I been an adventurer, let alone treasure.

Per OD&D, a magic-user has one spell book for each level of spells obtained...thus a 12th level wizard would have six books total. The DMG lists the encumbrance of a "book, large, metal-bound" as 200 coins (20#). In both OD&D and AD&D, a backpack has a capacity limit of 300 coins, meaning only one such book could be hauled at a time...and this is born out later in the UA's description of the "standard" spell book ("traveling" spell books, also described in UA, are a different matter, each having 6# of encumbrance and a quarter of the spell capacity of the sturdier "standard").

But does a spell book need to be this bulky and magnificent a tome? How about a diary or journal or a handful of scribbled notes. The kids and I were watching the still entertaining 1968 film Blackbeard's Ghost the other day, in which an 18th century witch's spell book is discovered: a small packet of pages rolled up and concealed in the handle of a bed warmer. Each spell has a small description of what it does, along with the incantation needed to pronounce it...what more does a spell-caster need, really? A normal (i.e. "untrained") person isn't going to know the gobbledy-gook words a wizard needs to say to bring a spell to life, and the wizard herself will need to study (and silently practice) the words many times before she can recite them from memory...probably a task that should be done daily, given the odd twisting of the tongue required (these spells aren't written in Greek or Latin).

Anyway, it doesn't really matter because (as I said) in actual play, the spell book concept is generally glossed over...at least until someone remembers the thing at a most inconvenient time. "Hey, wouldn't that subterranean river risk getting the pages of my spell book soaked?" or "Hey, does that dragon breath have a chance of destroying the contents of my backpack (including, like, ALL my magical knowledge)?" In a recent game, my son's magic-user was captured and thrown in a prison cell. While he was able to escape both the cell and the dungeon, he did so without his backpack of equipment...which we figured had been the place his spell book was stored. This ended up being a huge pain in the ass for the player (though it was eventually resolved).

Here's the thing: I realize the image of the wizard studying her ancient tomes is an iconic one. I realize the book-learning helps distinguish the character from other spell-casters, and that it is tied to intelligence (the ability score) in much the same way that prayerful meditation is tied to wisdom. But is it really worth the fuss? That is to say: if I said 'the spells you know are the spells you know' and allowed a wizard to cast each once daily without any spell book at all, would the character class suffer? Not even that: would actual play suffer? Would the game suffer, for me NOT making magic-users carry/own spell books and NOT making them study/memorize spells every morning (though still limiting them, mechanically, to the fire-and-forget Vancian style play we know and love)? Would it be weird to NOT distinguish magic-users from other spell casters by removing this anchor known as the spell book? Would it be bad?

All right...the kids are up (actually, they've been up for about 40 minutes...distracting me ever since), so I need to go cook some breakfast. More on this later.

Magic Physics

Push is a wretched spell. And not simply because it's totally "weak sauce" as an offensive choice for the starting, first level magic-user (compared to, say, sleep or the dual-purpose light spell). No, it is wretched because of the way it's written, in game terms, especially when compared to other spells of similar effect.

[oh, hi! Remember me? Yes, still alive here at in plague-ridden Seattle. Currently a couple dudes of Eastern European persuasion are working on fixing my dryer while the family sleeps away upstairs]

Yesterday, I spent far too long on researching joules and newtons and physics calculations to figure out the correspondent scale between the push spell and the 5th level magic-user spell telekinesis. Just so I don't have to go through all that again, I'm going to write it up here for edification of interested parties. Because the phrase

"Heavy objects travelling [sic] at high speed can be deadly weapons!"
 - PHB, page 82

isn't especially helpful in and of itself. How heavy? What speed? How many hit points of damage? And how does it compare to push, which simply exerts one foot-pound of energy, per level of the caster?

Let's start with telekinesis: the spell moves 25 pounds of weight, per level of the magic-user. As would be expected from a fifth level spell, control is much more precise than for the push spell, and while the caster must concentrate to control the object being moved, the duration only lasts for two rounds plus one additional round per level. Speed starts at 2" (20 feet) per round, and then doubles with each successive round until a maximum of 1024" (10240 feet) in the tenth round. As magic-users first gain the ability to cast a fifth level spell (like telekinesis) at 9th level, I can see that at minimum the caster will be able to accelerate 225 pounds to the maximum speed by the tenth minute of concentration, and maintain control at that speed for one additional minute (each round being one minute in length).

Joules are the measure of kinetic energy and is a unit found by multiplying half an object's mass by its velocity squared in terms of meters per second (m/s). Assuming gravity in our D&D setting is the same as real world Earth, 225 pounds is equivalent to 102.058kg. Converting D&D "inches" (tens of feet) per round to miles per hour...and thence to m/s...we can calculate the telekinetic velocity over time as follows:

1st round: 0.1016 m/s
2nd round: 0.2032 m/s
3rd round: 0.4064 m/s
4th round: 0.8128 m/s
5th round: 1.6256 m/s
6th round: 3.2512 m/s
7th round: 6.5024 m/s
8th round: 13.0048 m/s
9th round: 26.0096 m/s
10th+ round: 52.0192 m/s

[for my American readers, that's a bit more than 116 miles per hour at maximum velocity]

Here's a good web site for calculating kinetic energy (in joules). Suffice is to say that a 9th level magic-user using telekinesis uses about half a joule in the first minute and quickly ramps up, generating a bit more than 8 joules after three rounds, 33 joules after four, and nearly 135 by the round five. At maximum velocity, that 225 pounds is using over 138 thousand joules of kinetic energy.

Meanwhile, the same 9th level magic-user using push generates only nine foot-pounds of kinetic energy (one foot-pound per level): a little more than 12 joules of kinetic energy.

Or does it? Let's take a closer look.

"Of course, the mass of [the target] cannot exceed the force of the push by more than a factor of 50, i.e. a 1st level magic-user cannot effectively push a creature weighing more than 50 pounds."
 - PHB, page 68

Okay, just because it drives me crazy, I'm going to go ahead and convert Gygax's pounds to kilograms (because you measure mass in kg, not pounds). If we're going to say that a 1st level magic-user can move 22.6796kg a single foot by means of the push spell, and that this is a single foot-pound of kinetic energy, then working backwards we can discover that the "instantaneous" duration found in spells like push can be measured in actual time as .8814 seconds.

[the PHB states "instantaneous" means a spell "lasts only a brief moment." Strange fact: did you know that a moment was once an actual unit of time, roughly calculated to be 90 seconds? The things you discover...]

Now we look at the 9th level magic-user using push to exert nine foot-pounds of kinetic energy (12.2024 joules) with the spell. Knowing the time, distance, and KE we can determine the mass that can be moved a single foot in .8814 seconds as 204.092kg. Converting that to the maximum amount of weight that can be pushed we see it's (roughly) 449.95 pounds. Pretty close to 50 pounds per level (which is what the text implies).

But what if my 9th level sorcerer wanted to push 175 pounds instead of 450...say, the weight of an average human male (DMG page 102)? How about 60 pounds, average weight of a male halfling? Well we can see the velocity created by the kinetic energy will change in these cases: specifically to 0.55448 m/s (for the human) and 0.946955 m/s (for the halfling). Knowing this, we can calculate the human will be pushed with enough force to travel more than two feet, while the halfling will be pushed three and a half. Judging by how far I can knock my 60 pound child in play, I exert more foot-pounds of force than this.

Now, if the sorcerer launched a dart (.5 pounds; equivalent of .2268 kg) from a flat surface (say, the palm of her hand) it would travel about 39 feet...nearly the same distance as the weapon's long range. Would a magically impelled dart lose velocity over distance like a thrown dart? Yeah, probably (since the initial impetus of force is at the place the dart is initially resting). But, still, that's kind of a neat trick.

Not as neat as magic missile, of course, which shoots five unerring darts at 9th level. Probably not even as effective as simply throwing three darts per round (with no chance of being "interrupted"). Yeah, I guess it's not really neat at all.

Push is just a wretched spell. It's the equivalent of a cantrip. I want my first level spells (my first level offensive spells certainly!) to be effective attacks. As written, it should be a defensive spell seeing as how a target ends up with a penalty to its attack roll. If it fails its save. If.

Personally, I'd prefer something that really shoves something...smashes targets against walls or flings them over cliffs. Right now, this spell is just a nudge. And that's not good enough.

I'll talk about the detritus that is gust of wind another day.

Letter "M" Addendum

Sorry about yesterday's abrupt cut-off. I was really put off my writing by the day's events. And unlike, say, another mass shooting that might fire me up scribble some vicious rant or other, yesterday was just a sad feeling of helplessness...I mean whatcha' going to do? Ask for better protection of historic monuments? I don't think the Parisians were short on contingency plans and procedures. So as a sentimentalist and armchair historian I just needed a bit of a breather to refocus my brain.

SO...just to finish off my thoughts on the Karameikos "Magic Guild" before I move on to the next topic: I like B/X's restrictions. Personally, I prefer them to be MORE restrictive, which is why I've moved to the same house rules you'll see with other DMs about not allowing magic-users to memorize "multiple copies" of a particular spell. Unlike 5E designers who want to go the opposite way (with mages firing lasers at will like some cartoon villain), I want wizards to use every spell in their repertoire and be forced to make tough choices. Magic is powerful, and it needs to be treated respectfully.

Now how to change Karameikos so that its magic guild retains the B/X spell restrictions yet remains mechanically useful to the players? Well I suppose you could increase the number of "Teldons" (i.e. wizard mentors) that are teaching at the guild. But that doesn't work all that well with the background as written: here's a mage, past his prime and "retired," who had to be enticed to live in this backwater country and badgered (by his buddy the archduke) to start a guild. Would it be right to have multiple such persons building what amounts to a "magic university?" I can see that kind of Hogwarts set-up in Glantri, but not Karameikos!

Sure, over the last two-three decades, Teldon might have trained a few students up to a level when they could act as teaching assistants, especially for the newest guild recruits. Problem is that this doesn't solve the basic problem (a lack of variety in spells to teach) because any student of Teldon would be limited to knowing (and teaching) the same spells as Teldon. Unless you want to say that they'd engaged in extensive magical research over the years, broadening the guild's inventory. While that's one way to go, and well within the B/X rules, as has been (recently) pointed out elsewhere the whole concept of magical research is a bit of a sticky wicket.

[Alexis's posts need a whole 'nother series of posts regarding the cosmology of magic, but that will have to wait till a later date]

However, if you are going to throw magical research into the mix, you might as well leave Teldon as is (after converting him to a B/X wizard, natch): a doddering old man, only capable of teaching the basics of magic to apprentices and the (few) spells he happens to know. Make players do their own "magical research" rather than have readily available teachers eager to dole out precious knowledge. For me, this is a more "B/X-style" solution: I've always felt an underlying assumption that PC magic-users are supposed to outgrow their master(s) and be forced to rely on their own research. Would a wizard with a tower (not to mention several apprentices) continue to "go back to her masters" every time she leveled up and needed to acquire new spells? Wouldn't these Secret Masters eventually see the PC wizard as a rival (or a potential candidate to join their circle?)?

In my B/X Companion, I suggested that magic-users might acquire new spells by stealing another wizard's spell books. I regret that thought now...it's a hold-over from AD&D concepts. It's not that it doesn't jibe with B/X; the B/X description of the read magic spell would seem to suggest such a possibility. I just prefer spell books to be DIFFERENT from "specially prepared" magic (spell) scrolls. That being said, if you like the idea of magic-users learning spells from other wizards' tomes, another option would be to have Teldon possess a library of dead wizards' spell books. Even though Teldon can't use them, his collection could be useful to young magicians seeking other magic? Maybe?

Ugh, no. The more I think about it, the more I don't like that idea (though it makes me wonder what IS the use of a dead wizard's spell book in a B/X campaign?). I mean, what is a spell book anyway? I'm not so sure it's anything more than the freeform scribbling of the demented mage's mind, tapping into his (or her) own subconscious. It doesn't appear to be actual words or "formulae;" B/X magic-users have no minimum Intelligence requirement and can practice magic even as an illiterate (intelligence 5 or less), suffering only a penalty to earned experience of -20% because of the character's low prime requisite.

[the whole idea of literacy in D&D is a little weird. The chance of being literate (an Intelligence score of 6+) is 206 in 216...more than 95% literacy rate. 16th century literacy in England (per Thomas More) was about 40%...I'd imagine it was probably less in earlier centuries, at least post-Roman Empire. I know it's a non-issue in AD&D, where Intelligence is learning ability "outside knowledge of the written word" (i.e. literacy and Intelligence aren't linked)...but again, I'm talking B/X]

Another option to expand magical learning for PCs would be to locate other mages around Karameikos...wizards that a player must seek out for training. Bargle is an obvious choice (and who knows what training at his hands might cost a character), but don't forget there are two elven communities in Karameikos as well...and as all elves in B/X are magic-users, it seems reasonable that a character on "good terms" with the elves, might manage to find some instruction from these creatures.

Of course, characters starting in Luln should have access to a magic-user...first level characters have to learn from somewhere, and beginning PCs are notoriously allergic (in fatal fashion) to overland travel. Don't know what an adventurer based out of Castellan Keep will do upon leveling up...I suppose she could request training from the Castellan's "advisor" (the only magic-using character in B2, the advisor is a 3rd level elf with the spells charm person, read magic, and web). But again you have the problem of all magic-users/elves ending up with the same spells in their books.

*sigh* I suppose what I really, really want to do is (*ugh* Again!!) attempt an overhaul of the magic system. Not just to make it work with Karameikos...these kind of issues will come up in any B/X setting!...but just to make it work, in a way that makes sense. I doubt it would be anything close to what Alexis suggests...neat as this is, it throws off my particular balance of "complexity" versus "playability." But spell research costs ARE a load of hooey, especially in B/X (OD&D costs are more appropriate). And anyway, there're no guidelines are price lists for "guild dues" provided in GAZ1, BECMI, or B/X...all that shit needs to be worked out even as I figure the logistics of traveling to a site of training.

But that's not something that can be solved in an A to Z post.

"Teach us some magic, please!"

M is for Magicians' Guild

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for this year's #AtoZchallenge? Revamping the Grand Duchy of Karameikos in a way that doesn't disregard its B/X roots]

M is for Magicians' Guild, the presumed training center for all magic-users (and elves) in Karameikos.

Magic is a tricky subject for this series, as every edition of Dungeons & Dragons places its own stamp on the subject, each doing things a little different from the other. GAZ1 (which is the origin of the Karameikos "Magicians' Guild") is written for the BECMI edition of D&D, and while superficially similar to B/X, there are some changes. Before we look at the Guild proper, it's important to understand these differences.

A magic-user in BECMI is "a human character who studies the powers of magic. Magic-users find spells, put them into books, and study those books to learn the spells."

In BECMI, "learning" is the term used for the process most D&D editions (including B/X) call "memorization." A magic-user "learns" his or her spells after a good night's rest and hour's study; casting spells causes them to be erased from the magic-user's memory, necessitating the magic-user "re-learn" the spells.

All BECMI magic-users begin with a spell book of uniform size containing TWO 1st level spells; the spells known are chosen by the Dungeon Master. Upon reaching 2nd level, a third (1st level spell) is added to the book; again chosen by the DM. Upon reaching 3rd level, a single 2nd level spell is added; upon reaching 4th level a second 2nd level spell is added. The game assumes these spells are given to the magic-user by a teacher of not less than 7th level of experience (hence, the reason the DM chooses the spells). Teachers do not go on adventures.

Any magic scroll containing a magic-user spell may be added to the magic-user's spell book, so long as it of a level that the magic-user can cast. Doing this uses up the scroll, but provides the magic-user with a wider range of spells to be "learned." The read magic spell is required to read magic writings (including that of scrolls), unless the writing is the magic-user's own (i.e. of the character's spell book). A magic-user may research new spells of any level they can cast; expending the proper money and time allows the magic-user to add the new spell to his or her spell book. There is no listed chance of failure for spell research but (strangely) Mentzer's Companion set makes provisions for a wandering wizard being able to "double the chance of success" when assisting another mage with spell research.

Magic-users in B/X are "humans who, through study and practice, have learned how to cast magic spells." All magic-users start with ONE spell at 1st level in their spell books, and gain additional spells as they rise in experience. In B/X, the DM "may choose which spells a character has in the book, or may allow the player to select them."

In B/X, magic-users must be taught their new spells, and characters are "assumed to be members of the local Magic-Users Guild or apprenticed to a higher level NPC." When a player character earns a level of experience "they will return to their masters" and will be out of play for one "game week" while learning new spells; either the player or the DM may choose the new spells. Importantly, in B/X magic-users "are limited to the number of spells they may know, and their books will contain spells equal to the number and level of spells the caster can use in a single day." There is no mention of magic scrolls being added to a character's spell book, and while magic research is performed the same, it does not seem to break this explicit limitation (instead just giving magic-users another way to acquire spells outside their "Guild"). Reversible spells are, however, simply memorized "backwards," allowing magic-users who have such spells to effectively double-up on their magical knowledge.

B/X is thus the most restrictive of any edition in terms of learning magic: it allows the fewest number of spells to be cast (by level) of any edition, and the spell selection is limited to those exact spells. Furthermore, it is the DM's choice whether or not the player has any say in which spells are learned. "No your guild doesn't want you to learn fire ball...here take water breathing instead." This is iron fisted role-playing folks, but it gives DMs a lot of explicit control over the shape and form of the B/X campaign setting.

Back to Karameikos: GAZ1 provides a Magicians' Guild in the form of Teldon, a 110 year old Thyatia adventurer who settled in Karameikos 30 years ago at Duke Stefan's request where he was "badgered by Thyatian and Traladaran youth to share his knowledge and eventually created the Magician's [sic] Guild of Specularum." The guild is nothing more than a decorated tower (Teldon's residence) attached to a barn-sized building that acts as the guild's school and laboratory. Teldon is a 15th level magic-user, and while his spell book is extensive, it IS limited, especially with regard to high level spells. This limits the spells accessible to most (BECMI) magic-users in a Karameikos campaign...although they can find other ways to acquire spells (like pursuing spell research or bargaining with Bargle the Infamous).

[of course, in BECMI "magic-users never trade spells" (page 38 of Basic Players book), nor allow other mages to read their spell books for fear of damage to their books. Strangely (and unlike B/X), absolutely NO PROVISION is made for magic-users to replace lost spell books in BECMI...they simply lose their ability to "learn" spells! This is somewhat rectified in the later Rules Cyclopedia, but it has some interesting possibilities if played as written, with sad little mages desperately hoarding the last few spells remaining in their memory...]

The set-up in GAZ1 doesn't work particularly well as written for a straight B/X campaign. The nice thing about a B/X's limitations is that it encourages players to specialize somewhat...possibly even with a focus on theme (illusions, transformations, fire magic, etc.). Unfortunately, this can only occur when there are multiple sources from which to learn one's magic...a single instructor, like Teldon, can only teach the spells in his own repertoire. And in a B/X game, that repertoire is extremely restricted. While BECMI magic-users learning from Teldon's "guild" have a large number of choices as to what they put in their spell book AND what they choose to memorize for the day, B/X magi will (eventually) end up being cookie-cutter copies of each other, which I find to be both lame and uninspiring.

[yes, in practice, any B/X campaign that is thoughtless in its presentation of magical learning and permissive when it comes to spell acquisition can end up looking pretty "cookie cutter" anyway, as players tend to gravitate to whatever is perceived as the "most optimal" spells: things like sleep and charm and fireball and fly. All the more reason for DMs to exercise some iron fisted control. Often characters from other editions are similarly expedient in their spell selection...at least in B/X DMs have the explicit option of cutting that crap off!]

[oh, my God...as I write this post Notre-Dame de Paris is in the process of burning to the ground. Wow. Just sickening to watch...for me!...and I can only imagine the state of France and the Parisians watching the destruction of this national treasure. Centuries (!!) of history up in smoke. A very, very sad day. Even if it rebuilt, it will take decades (it took almost 200 years to build). My children will be adults...ah, God...ugh...terribly tragic loss, even without loss of life]

[ugh, sorry...I can't write any more at this moment. I'll try to come back to this later]

[Shit. Merde]

B is for Bargle the Infamous

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for this year's #AtoZchallenge? Revamping the Grand Duchy of Karameikos in a way that doesn't disregard it's B/X roots]

B is for Bargle the Infamous. Told you I'd get to him eventually.

D&D players who came into the hobby with the Frank Mentzer edition of Basic D&D (circa 1983) should all be familiar with Bargle: the evil magician lairing at the dungeons of Castle Mistamere who magic missiles your cleric companion, Aleena. Beginning with Mentzer's Expert book, we learn that Bargle is an agent of the Baron "Black Eagle" von Hendriks, and is residing in the ruins north of Threshold (the player characters' presumed "home base") in order to spy on the Duke and (presumably) his goody-good followers like Patriarch Sherlane. GAZ1 gives Bargle a stat-line, a brief history, and the statement "Every campaign needs a thoroughly evil magic-user villain, and Bargle fits the bill." Oh, Allston...too many comic books, man.

It's not that I disagree with the notion that evil wizards can be cool/fun, it's just that the concept is so trite, so banal these days...and the unfortunately named "Bargle" (sounds like a portmanteau of "Barf" and "Gargle") is about as by-the-numbers as you get. SnarfQuest's Suthaze had more personality than this guy.

I was trying to think back to the last time the idea of an evil wizard antagonist was actually interesting. Evil magic in myth and folklore often takes the form of a (female) witch: Circe, Morgan le Fay, Baba Yaga, that crone in the candy house (Hansel and Gretel). Yeah, there are some antagonists in pulp literature who use sorcery and "black magic," but a lot of them are more of the "evil high priest" variety that get played up in the earliest edition of OD&D. Most wizards in pre-D&D fiction tend to be good guys or (at worst) elemental "forces of nature" that are neutral unless trifled with (and many stories contain the lesson don't f around with these dudes). Khemsa from Howard's Conan tale "The People of the Black Circle" is one of the best examples of an "evil magician," but he's less of an antagonist than a complex character (and co-protagonist) of the story.

[there aren't any evil wizards in Tolkien. Sauron is a fallen angel, the witch-king is an undead lord powered by magic, and Sauruman is more of a tragic figure]

I guess old "youth fantasy" is where I see more evil wizards of the Bargle-type. Lloyd Alexander. Susan Cooper. Paul Fisher (though he was writing post-D&D). Yes, Bakshi's Wizards had Blackwolf, but he is far more interesting (both as a post-apocalyptic mutant and in his use of technology and propaganda) than the typical "Bwah-hah-hah!" evil magician. Theleb K'aarna (of Michael Moorcock's Elric stories) is probably the last, best use of this particular type of wizard...perhaps because (again, like Khemsa) we're allowed to glimpse his side of the conflict in some stories.

Bargle's not to my taste, but there are a couple things I find interesting about him. One is his youth: GAZ1 describes him as being about 30 years old (and whenever an NPC's that make use of longevity potions are generally noted, along with their actual age). Considering that he's only been practicing magic since the age of 14...and grew up on the streets of Specularum...we can presume he has lived his entire life under the reign of Archduke Stefan in occupied Traldara. He is probably a native Traladaran, perhaps orphaned shortly after birth when one or both parents were killed in the Marilenev revolt. Certainly Bargle's committed murder and heinous acts since then, but he might have a good-sized axe to grind against the Thyatians and the Duke in particular. This makes him a far more intriguing character than the lazy-crazy trickster/murderer portrayed in the books.

The other thing that's interesting is his additional spell knowledge: Bargle possesses more spells than Karameikos's head wizard (because he's killed and robbed spell books from foreign magic-users he's come across over the years)...which gives player characters a real reason for being on friendly (or, at least) working terms with the "evil" wizard. What is it worth to a PC to be able to learn spells like ice storm, disintegrate, and mass invisibility, rather than spending the time and resources to engage in spell research? No, of course this isn't suggested by the text (no heroic PC would ever work with Bargle! Gooeavens!) instead implying that Bargle has extra spells to make him a more formidable foe for the PCs to (inevitably) defeat.

The point is semi-moot anyway: this series is supposed to be about revamping the Grand Duchy for B/X play, and Bargle never appeared in B/X. The idea of "court magicians" doesn't appeal all that much to me anyway...perhaps due to my experiences with Ars Magica, or the humorous disdain the concept is treated with in Robert Asprin's Myth- books. Do I need some sort of pet henchmage for the Black Eagle? Probably not. And yet as I said in the beginning of this post "evil wizards" can be fun...if they're not so run-of-the-mill boring.

Here are a couple-few ideas for including a Bargleish antagonist in Karameikos:

Pilgrim Without Ethics: if you want a wandering "do-badder" type, I'd check out Marion Zimmer Bradley's Lythande stories. Not for Lythande herself, but rather for her Blue Star brethren (Rabben the Half-Handed, Beccolo the Goat Ravisher). They're a good example of what a dangerous mage is, and how, regardless of a character's alignment, powerful magic-users have a tendency to consider themselves ABOVE the law. It's a bit of the Crowley philosophy: Do As Thou Will (and who cares if anyone gets hurt).

This kind of character has an outlook that denies compassion: they sacrificed much for their craft, why should they give a damn for others? Have others made similar sacrifices when they could have? If not, that's on them...it's not up to the mage to pretend to care about their suffering. Only the weak suffer, and those without magic are no more than toads to be toyed with. While I wouldn't go so far as to say these magicians have such a thing as "personal honor," their egos are absolutely huge, and revenge versus slights is a major motivator (even unto their downfall). It's old school sorcery 101, really (of the pulp variety).

Demoniac Evil: or you can go "whole hog" with the supernatural evil and make your wizard a demon worshipper. Unlike deities, demons and devils don't grant spells, so I've never really gotten the connection between "evil high priests" and "clerics." Best to leave such worship to wizards of the more insane sort.

Couldn't find a good image. Here's
the toy version. Much better animated.

Funny enough, my personal favorite example of this is the animated character Kelek from the old Dungeons & Dragons cartoon. The show doesn't actually say he's a demon worshipper but his worship and attempts to appease the eight armed statue of diabolic visage by maiming unicorns kind of screams "follower of dark gods" to me. No, demons don't grant spells but they do (sometimes) grant favors...plus being long-lived they have lots of "secret knowledge" (perhaps new spells or the location of power magic items) in exchange for blood sacrifices. Make your Bargle something really scary.

You really don't want to see him in better light.

Visage of the Beast: hell, why not make your evil mage even scarier and make him a twisted piece of corruption, like the sorcerer Xusia. The idea of supernatural evil corrupting one's flesh as well as one's soul isn't hugely original...you see it in everywhere from modern fantasy (David Chandler) to gaming (Warhammer) to Old School religious texts (the "mark of the beast" etc.). But showing what twisted, dark magic can do to you is a tone setter for your campaign...and gives PC magic-users something to think about when they come across such a figure.

[sure, sure...some might say Xusia was a lich, not a human. I'm inclined to disagree]

Morgana le Fay: again, in the style of Marion Zimmer Bradley (yes, I'm aware she was a horrible person; her books were still influential). Why does the power behind the throne have to be some maniacal, beardy court magus, when you could have an enchanting, manipulative witch? How about even an unassuming housewife (or presumed trophy squeeze/eye candy). Your pseudo-medieval campaign setting is probably all egalitarian when it comes to the sexes, but it needn't be (except with regard to player characters...player characters stand outside the social norms). Even if she isn't hiding behind (and/or because of) the patriarchy, your female "Bargle" might simply feel it's safer to keep a low profile (less chance of being hunted down by a pack of bloodthirsty adventurers).

There really isn't enough representation. An evil sorceress is as good as a dude any day of the week. Want the distaff version of Xusia to play advisor to your Black Eagle? How about the crone/mother of Alan Rickman's "Sheriff of Nottingham" (from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves). Oo-oo...so many things to say about that film. Hell, use an evil version of Lythande...I won't care. Promise!

Court Buffoon: I know that when I suggested re-skinning the Black Eagle as King Haggard the other day, I also put forth the idea of using the "magician's magician," Mabruk, in place of Bargle. While there's some merit to the idea, I keep coming back to the same question, namely 'What self-respecting wizard would rather be performing as a trained monkey than out on adventures?'

"Magic, do as thou will!"

Well, how about an incompetent one? Enter Schmendrick, last of the Red Hot Swamis. Back when I was toying around with the idea of a Krull campaign setting (circa 2009), I came up with some "magical mishap" rules to better mimic Ergo the Magnificent (another fine incompetent). I'd probably end up adapting something like that for NPC (only!) magic-users of the "comic relief" variety. "Failed wizards," I guess I'd call them, and they'd only be encountered rarely...as most such blunderers would likely blow themselves up in short order.

All right, that's enough for tonight. Back at it again tomorrow.

The Magical Three

Just continuing on with the post I started a few days back, I want to get to the second character class that has a less than stellar degree of low level effectiveness: the magic-user. Reading back over my blog, I can see that the MU is a subject I've griped about incessantly over the years, suggesting all sorts of "fixes" that would make the class more desirable/workable...everything from magical skills, to additional cantrips, to age-based magic, to more Vancian magic, to exceptional traits, to a variation of "spell points" linked to hit points, to a few other ideas that I won't bother finding links for. After reading through all of these proposals over the years, I find one major thing they have in common:

They're all crap. Really.

About the only post about magic-users I find worth keeping is this one that basically nerfs the B/X magic-user by restricting the classes which can engage in missile combat with thrown weapons (hint: magic-users aren't one of them). As I've written before, the concept of the wizard with the bandolier of throwing knives was interesting the first time we saw it in a game ('round about middle school) and has since become a trite, laughable image. And not very magical to boot.

What is magical? Dudes with gold skin and hourglass eyes? Albino sorcerers that need drugs to survive? Half-demons that age backwards? Wizards with blue star tattoos and secret taboos?

Nah...all that is interesting color, but no more interesting really than a guy with a curly horns on his skull cap or a robe sewn with images of stars and planets. No, the real thing that makes magic-users magical is their spells (duh), and when you get down to it, spells are really the only thing that matters. And the consistent gripe over on this old blog has always been one about spells...specifically how they scale.

Now, folks might not realize this, but of ALL the various editions of D&D, B/X is the absolute stingiest with regard to spell acquisition. Not only is there the "issue" of spell knowledge (a magic-user's spell book may contain no more spells than the maximum number that may be cast in a day), but the absolute number of spells that may be cast is fewer than every other published edition...at least between levels 4 and 14. While this actually helps scale at the higher levels (in my opinion), it is still a fairly intolerable rate of acquisition...especially at the low levels. A first level character, starting with a single spell, is simply not a recipe for effectiveness. Even Gygax's house rules (which purportedly started PCs at 3rd level) provided a bonus 1st level spell to wizards with an INT of 15+.

So what to do?

Well, after careful consideration...as well as side-by-side comparison between OD&D, AD&D, B/X, etc....I've come up with the following three house rules that I can live with. For me, they give just the minimal effectiveness needed, they still feel both magical and "Vancian," and they jibe with my B/X sensibilities. Here goes:

1. Magic-users begin the game with one extra 1st level spell. So two first level spells known to start, increasing to three at 2nd level. When the magic-user hits 7th level (the experience level at which they would normally learn a third first level spell), she does not receive a fourth spell; instead, normal B/X progression resumes (so 3-2-2-1, just as in the book). The additional spell is simply in aid of increased effectiveness at low levels.
2. Magic-users with a high intelligence receive a number of bonus spells in much the same way that fighters receive a bonus to melee combat for strength or thieves receive (per my house rules) a bonus to thief skills for dexterity. An intelligence of 13+ provides a bonus 1st level spell, an intelligence of 16+ yields a bonus 2nd level spell (once the magic-user has reached sufficient level to cast 2nd level spells), and an intelligence of 18 gives a bonus 3rd level spell (again, only upon reaching a high enough level to cast spells of that magnitude). Note that even with these bonus spells, the B/X magic-user will have fewer spells available at high levels than both the AD&D and OD&D wizard.
3. Finally (and I realize some may hate this), I will not allow magic-users to memorize more than one copy of any spells known (no doubling up on sleep or magic-missile, for instance). I really prefer players to find ways to utilize their entire repertoire of magical knowledge, not simply stacking combat spells. Not only does this ape the feeling of Vance's Dying Earth (as well as other S&S stories), but it provides additional incentive for magic-users to create magic items (scrolls and wands, etc.) both for extra firepower and for trade with other wizards ("I'll give you a potion of water breathing for a scroll with web and continual light."). I want magic to be a scarce and potent resource and magic-users to collect any bits of magical gear they can to bolster their own abilities. I want to encourage PCs to specialize in different styles (fire magic or illusions, for example) rather than accumulating pages and pages of spells that they seldom, if ever, find an excuse to memorize.

The astute reader will notice that the average first level magic-user with an above average intelligence (13+) will thus begin their career knowing a total of three magical spells, all of the first order of magnitude, each of which can be used a single time during the adventure (game session). Personally, I feel this is sufficient for a beginning character: it provides multiple options but is still limited, requiring the young adventurer to make clever use of her resources, but not hamstringing her completely. As previously said, I can live with that.

And anyway, I'm really not a fan of cantrips.

Weapon Restrictions

Knife fighting is a dirty, nasty business. We'll come back to that, but I just want y'all to keep that in mind.

[by the way, my AFC West childhood won't let me feel fantastic about giving John Elway and the Broncos another Super Bowl win, but I prefer them hoisting the trophy to the paper tiger Panthers (yes, yes, I can enumerate my reasons for criticism, but I shan't bore the non-football folks). Congrats, anyway...now I can stop thinking about football till next preseason]

Before we get to magic-users, we need to talk about clerics. In Men & Magic (volume 1 of the original D&D game), the entry for clerics states only:

Clerics gain some of the advantages from both of the other two classes (Fighting-Men and Magic-Users) in that they have the use of magic armor and all non-edged magic weapons (no arrows!)...

That's it...that's all Gygax writes in reference to the weapon restrictions of clerics. One could be forgiven for reading those rules and considering that ALL normal weapons and armor are allowed to the cleric, and only magical edged weapons are prohibited. Regardless, the only weapons listed on Men & Magic are the personal weapons found in CHAINMAIL: the dagger, hand axe, mace, sword, battle axe, morning star, flail, spear, pole arm, halberd, two-handed sword, lance, pike, and various bows and crossbows. There is no sling available for purchase; neither is there a war hammer. There IS a magic war hammer on the list of enchanted weapons...three, in fact...and it is the only "non-edged" magic weapon besides the mace +2.

Holmes...who uses the exact same weapon list, but only has one magical weapon of the "blunt" variety (the war hammer +1)...writes this about the cleric in his Basic rules:

They may, however, wear armor, including magic armor, and carry non-edged weapons such as the mace or the quarter staff. No swords or bows and arrows can be employed, for the cleric is forbidden by his religion from drawing blood.

Moldvay...who adds the war hammer and club while removing the morning star and flail...writes this on page B9 of the Basic rules:

Clerics are forbidden by their religious codes from using edged weapons, such as swords and arrows. A cleric may only use a weapon without an edge, such as a mace or sling.

The emphasis is added by me, but it's an important distinction...later editions of D&D (3rd, 4th, and 5th) make no mention of a religious code or tenet that prevents the cleric from using edged weapons. Instead, they allow clerics to use "simple" weapons (like crossbows), making a design choice that the reason clerics are unable to use weapons like swords and long bows is their lack of training. Clearly, they are forgetting the Second Lateran Council of 1139 in which Pope Innocent III (reportedly) banned the use of crossbows, as well as bows and slings. At least, against other Christians (the crusader knights had no issue using such weapons against Saracens in the Middle East).

My main issue with the rule is that a mace or war hammer...when used correctly...should still shed a lot of blood. If you crush someone's skull with a mace or club, there will be bloodletting. Bleeding occurs from a break in the skin, and blunt force trauma from a weapon...especially one with knots, flanges, or spikes intended to focus impact force...are likely to cause that break. Not to mention, bleeding from other orifices (eyes, nose, ears, mouth...). That being said, religious tenets (not necessarily Divine Law...there's a difference), can seem silly, arbitrary, or contradictory. They are subject to change; they sometimes do fail to hold up to scrutiny (usually when they've outlived there usefulness or when the context in which they were created has changed). Ranking members of the religious hierarchy are still expected to uphold the tenets of their faith, even when they "don't make sense."

And anyway, rolling around in the dirt with a dagger should be considered beneath most priests' dignity, I'd think.

Here's what I'm NOT particularly fond of modeling: that some weapons are harder to use than others. I mean, let's consider this for a moment. It does require a lot of training to wield a battle axe with full proficiency...using it to parry, and hook, learning to hit with the butt of the weapon, or the back of the head with a reverse move, not to mention understanding the distance one needs to fight optimally (and not allowing yourself to be disarmed upon hooking an opponent's weapon). But just to try and swing and hit a guy with an axe...there's not a lot of "concept" involved in that. You may not be a great axe fighter, but it doesn't require some sort of exalted "martial weapon" status. Certainly not over the hand axe which is pretty much the same weapon on a smaller scale. Fact is, a hand axe is more difficult to use because, while faster, it is shorter, requiring you to get in close to your opponent, which opens you to (and requires you to employ) all sorts of grappling close combat maneuvers. Things happen faster at close distance, requiring more focus and skill, especially when fighting someone with a longer weapon (like a sword).

This holds true for most weapons: most weapons have strengths and weaknesses that require training, practice, and experience to fully utilize. A dagger is an effective weapon...the most effective weapon in the right situation...but damn hard to use by someone who hasn't specialized in knife-fighting. A person without training (and a lot of strength and good grappling technique) will have a difficult time inflicting more than superficial wounds against an opponent who can defend themselves, especially one who has a longer weapon...like a stick. Effective knife-fighting requires speed, cunning, and a willingness for brutality that few folks can stomach. Patience (i.e. staying cool-headed) is also necessary, something that few amateurs can muster with such a "simple" weapon.

[this fight from Game of Thrones, while staged, is still a fair example, demonstrating how a smart knife-fighter can use a cluttered environment to his advantage when fighting against a weapon with superior reach. If they were outdoors, this would heavily favor the dude with the longsword]

The way to "realistically" model these things, by the way, is to go with the AD&D method: give a penalty to ANY character using a weapon in which they lack proficiency. The baseline attack line exists for people who are proficient in a particular weapon and different classes are able train in more weapons than others: the fighter learns how to use more weapons than any other class, but the weapons learned are not "set in stone." It is also appropriate (I believe) to give a martial class like the fighter a lesser penalty for using a non-familiar weapon than classes like the cleric or magic-user, both of whom focus their studies in other areas.

However, this doesn't really justify weapon restrictions. The religious tenets of a cleric does, but no such taboos are mentioned for magic-users. No reason of limiting their equipment is given at all in early editions of the game, save for the AD&D PHB which states:

...they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use, for martial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive.

Now, I believe I've mentioned before that I've worn armor in the past? I had some SCA friends who invited me along back in college, and got me dressed up in a lot of pads and mail and steel plates for the purpose of getting knocked around with padded baseball bats. Sure, it's not the same as walking around in casual clothes, but properly fastened down, it's really not that tough to maneuver in. Heck, it doesn't take you all that long to be accustomed to it (though I'm sure it would be fatiguing to wear for several hours). The point is: I don't have "martial training" and I can wear "heavy armor" just fine.

And likewise with weapons...at the time, my "weapon training" was limited to some archery at summer camp. They gave me a spear to use. Why? Because it's a great weapon for a novice: you can keep your opponent at a distance and you just need to poke at them. Tremendously effective. Oh, they let me use a "sword," too, but my arm got tired from swinging it...I really didn't have the muscles I needed and my technique was poor (especially trying to use a shield at the same time while being attacked by raving lunatics). But I like the spear (with two hands) and I'm guessing that I would've done better if given a smaller club (um, "sword"); with a few weeks or months of practice I'm sure I could get my arm in shape.

Notice that they didn't give me a dagger. Arming a person with a dagger and saying, 'get ready to defend yourself in mortal combat,' is pretty much a death sentence (as I'm sure it is for a lot of 1st level magic-users forced to defend themselves once bereft of spells).  It's a damn last resort is what it is. A thief or assassin loves the dagger, but not for "combat" reasons: it's concealable and good for slipping into someone's kidney when they're back is turned. It's a weapon for fighting dirty, preferably against an unarmed or hindered (tied up, sleeping) enemy. Great for slitting throats, but not for going toe-to-toe in open melee.

Come get some!

Why would any pasty-faced academic (i.e. magic-user) carry the dagger as a weapon? I can see them carrying one as a magical tool (like an athame) but not as a means of combat. Yet, that is exactly what it is expected to be: a weapon, to be used in battle after all spells have been exhausted. Ridiculous. Ridiculous! Why? Why is this the weapon they get? Why not a wooden cudgel? Why not a spear? Why not NOTHING...why not simply say the magic-user is unable to fight effectively in combat, and if forced to do so must roll on the "normal human" combat matrix?

No, instead we have a character class that, as it advances in level, they get stronger in combat (an 11th level wizard, presumably older and more feeble physically, fights as fiercely as an owl bear). And their chosen weapon for training this combat ability? The dagger. Ridiculous.

More later (my time's a bit limited today).