Recent content by fuindordm

Arguably, one of the things that "can't be fixed" about 1e is magic. The spells are all over the place, cursed items can killl your pc outright, and illusionists are somehow both powerful and useless. If I had time, I would go through the whole PH and try to at least make the spells of each...

I let them choose their starting book and one spell on level up, but it is still subject to the % roll. In my most recent game a MU/T failed to know Sleep so they learned Charm Person instead. There are enough good spells per level so that no PC is crippled. A 15 Int still gives you good odds.

Yes I would, if only for story reasons : origin and without alliegance to temporal authority. I would have put the C-P at 4000-5000 xp at first level. The C alone is roughly par with the fighter including specialization. The paladin adds major abilities on top, even with the nerf. I think it's...

Magic missile is very useful even at first level, but it's best held in reserve to finish off a wounded opponent. Burning hands is theoretically useful due to its unusual duration (1 full round) which lets it clear a wider area or prevent vermin and animals from closing to melee range at the...

Yes I always used the % chance to understand. Otherwise every MU uses the same spells. Vancian casting is not just spell slots, it is the atmosphere of MUs scrounging ruins and risking ancient curses to retrieve fragments of magic they can use, but barely understand.

Good point, from that viewpoint giving the melee a free attack is a bit harsh. There are a handful of spells clearly intended to be cast in melee -- shocking grasp and burning hands come to mind.

Do not attempt to reconcile the text! That way lies madness! I warned them...

That's interesting. Since there is very little overlap in their abilities, it might make sense to allow it as a special case where humans can multiclass C/P. If I were going to rework the plaladin I would probably add their abilities one at a time over the first 4 or 5 levels, instead of...

Yeah it's a big ol' mess and not really worth the effort to reconcile textually. In any case no melee attacker on the losing side should act earlier than their side's starting segment, regardless of weapon.

Again with the caveat that this is just my personal interpretation: I think the intent is that a PC who starts the round already in melee simply cannot cast spells--they are too distracted by defending themselves. This situation modela what to do if a back-line caster is potentially reachable...

So, even less bonus damage than the monk? I think we all agree that the fighter group deserves something, and that gatekeeping a class ability behind an 18 strength was a bad idea!

Did that happen to any of the Arthurian knights? Aside from the Green one.

I like this writeup, and I like the comparison with the ranger as a generalist fighter. Regarding stat requirements, I think having above average Cha is more relevant than above average dex. These are the heavy armor, melee tanks, who are training to be officers not just fighters. It would...

Also, can y'all give the probability discussion a rest or take it offline? I'm a physicist and data scientist, I understand both your points, but it's polluting the thread and getting boring.

I think the relevant text regarding melee vs prolonged actions is on p.66 of the DMG which attempts to explain how to resolve a weapon attack vs spellcasting. This was so confusing that Gary Gygax wrote a Dragon article about it, if I remember correctly, which did little to clear up the issue...