Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5795413" data-attributes="member: 87792">In short &quot;He doesn't do a lot of stuff we'd consider D&amp;D wizardish&quot;.&nbsp; Which means that a D&amp;D wizard would be a poor fit for Gandalf.He also does stuff we'd consider not-wizardish.&nbsp; His voice is well known.&nbsp; When he fought the Balrog it was sword to sword.&nbsp; That is not D&amp;D wizardish.&nbsp; It is almost the opposite of D&amp;D wizardish.&nbsp;If trying to model Gandalf in either 2e or 3e D&amp;D there's a class to do it and one that does a respectable job.&nbsp; It isn't the wizard.&nbsp; It's the Bard.&nbsp; Jack of all trades, master of social skills, focus on illusion and communication - and ability to wield a sword.&nbsp;And from a coldly pragmatic perspective this doesn't matter.&nbsp; All that matters is how he actually behaves.&nbsp;&nbsp;Once more I say Bard.&nbsp;&nbsp;1: Lord of the Rings is explicitely in Appendix N.&nbsp; Gandalf is almost certainly the most famous wizard in fantasy fiction with the possible exceptions of Harry Potter (who massively post-dates Appendix N) and Merlin (explicitely a Bard).&nbsp; So your argument is that we should be focussing on Appendix N is telling us that we should do what we are already doing and you are objecting to.&nbsp; Claiming that he has only the most tenuous connection to D&amp;D wizards is problematic.&nbsp;2: From Appendix N &quot;The most immediate influences upon AD&amp;D were probably de Camp &amp; Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt&quot;. &nbsp;We can and in the past have continued here too.&nbsp; I've not read all the listed authors, but &quot;Vancian magic&quot; is nothing like that of Jack Vance's spellcasters who can learn only half a dozen spells at a time and are generally all round competent.&nbsp; A better model for Jack Vance's heroes would be 4e martial heroes with Wizard dailies.&nbsp; &nbsp;Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser has a spellcasting protagonist (Mouse) who is in practice a 4e rogue or thief with ritual caster - and certainly not a classic D&amp;D either multiclass character or character with two classes.&nbsp; REH's Conan stories have NPC magic only - or at least the ones I've read - and a very powerful warrior protagonist (shades of 4e).&nbsp; And mostly ritual at that.&nbsp; &quot;Vancian magic&quot; in no way resembles Lovecraftian eldritch tomes.&nbsp; The only de Camp I've read and recall off hand is Against the Fall of Night - no magic (on appendix N - but it's Harold Shea who's called out and again appears to bear little resemblance to &quot;Vancian magic&quot; as I don't believe that magic systems cross worlds).&nbsp; And I've not read the rest.&nbsp;AD&amp;D wizards are able to cast spells at the rate of characters in Harry Potter.&nbsp; They are their own entity entirely and bear IMO far less resemblance to most of the source material they themselves claim than 4e characters do.&nbsp; So which fantasy wizards should we be talking about?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5795413, member: 87792"] In short "He doesn't do a lot of stuff we'd consider D&D wizardish". Which means that a D&D wizard would be a poor fit for Gandalf. He also does stuff we'd consider not-wizardish. His voice is well known. When he fought the Balrog it was [I]sword to sword[/I]. That is not D&D wizardish. It is almost the [I]opposite[/I] of D&D wizardish. If trying to model Gandalf in either 2e or 3e D&D there's a class to do it and one that does a respectable job. It [I]isn't[/I] the wizard. It's the [I]Bard[/I]. Jack of all trades, master of social skills, focus on illusion and communication - and ability to wield a sword. And from a coldly pragmatic perspective [I]this doesn't matter[/I]. All that matters is how he actually behaves. Once more I say Bard. 1: Lord of the Rings is explicitely [I]in[/I] Appendix N. Gandalf is almost certainly the most famous wizard in fantasy fiction with the possible exceptions of Harry Potter (who massively post-dates Appendix N) and Merlin (explicitely a Bard). So your argument is that we should be focussing on Appendix N is telling us that we should do [I]what we are already doing and you are objecting to[/I]. Claiming that he has only the most tenuous connection to D&D wizards is problematic. 2: From Appendix N "The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt". We can and in the past have continued here too. I've not read all the listed authors, but "Vancian magic" is nothing like that of Jack Vance's spellcasters who can learn only half a dozen spells at a time and are generally all round competent. A better model for Jack Vance's heroes would be 4e martial heroes with Wizard dailies. Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser has a spellcasting protagonist (Mouse) who is in practice a 4e rogue or thief with ritual caster - and certainly not a classic D&D either multiclass character or character with two classes. REH's Conan stories have NPC magic only - or at least the ones I've read - and a very powerful warrior protagonist (shades of 4e). And mostly ritual at that. "Vancian magic" in no way resembles Lovecraftian eldritch tomes. The only de Camp I've read and recall off hand is Against the Fall of Night - no magic (on appendix N - but it's Harold Shea who's called out and again appears to bear little resemblance to "Vancian magic" as I don't believe that magic systems cross worlds). And I've not read the rest. AD&D wizards are able to cast spells at the rate of characters in [I]Harry Potter[/I]. They are their own entity entirely and bear IMO far less resemblance to most of the source material they themselves claim than 4e characters do. So which fantasy wizards should we be talking about? [/QUOTE]

Verification