Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Atavax  1. The "one spell a day" thing about 1st and 2nd level magic-users has always bugged me about AD&D 1e (and for that matter, 2e). I just don't like the idea that the magic user has his one, lonely little spell which, once casted, renders him a weak, fleshy target until the following day. I remember that, as kids, we beefed up magic-users through a very nifty in-game process: the young 1st level apprentice was given a healthy heaping of scrolls and wands from his mentor as a "parting gift". "Use them wisely, and you may survive," he was told. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue? |
A few scrolls and perhaps a wand with a few charges should work ok. Remember that an AD&D Sleep spell is very powerful encoounter-ending bit of magic. Having the magic user not toss that out several encounters per day is a balancing factor. The magic user must be comfortable with being weak at first in order to achieve power. AD&D is not a game with balance that must built in on a per round basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Atavax 2. In combat, why would PCs ever declare their action to be "set weapons to receive a charge"? Because as I read the RAW, it seems that actions in combat are declared BEFORE knowing what the monsters are going to do (thus giving a more simultaneous feel to things). But wouldn't setting weapons to receive a charge be the kind of thing the PCs would only do in RESPONSE to seeing the monsters charge? |
A weapon set to receive charge can easily be used otherwise at short notice. The declaration of actions is primarily in place for spell casters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Atavax 3. I can't envision how an assassin can work as a PC class. I remember reading an article David 'Zeb' Cook wrote in DRAGON to the same effect, that assassins, by their very nature, were counter-productive to the concept of a heroic, unified party. Does anyone have experience in making the evil assassin class workable within a party? |
If I remember correctly that article was written in defense of a 2nd Edition decision to get rid of assassins as a class. It was a cop-out to the real reason that the class was removed-it was the same reason demons and devils became "fiends"
Anyhow, while I didn't agree with the reasons for removal at the time I can see why they should not be a class.
IMHO its because thier abilities are too specialized to justify a separate class and nothing to do with counter productivity. Assassins skills are simply that. If those skills are used to simply make money then it can be evil. If those skills are used for the forces of good to take out evil priests, demons, ect. then there isn't as much disruption with good/vs evil although paladins will have issues
To me its who you kill and why that is the moral question, not the tactics used to do it.
I would use assassin abilities to supplement the skills of the thief class and make a thief-assassin option similar to the thief-acrobat from UA.
And yet another word from our sponsors
