Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6793533" data-attributes="member: 82106">My assumption was always that there were "a lot of ways to do it" or many possible traditions. The various PC non-divine caster classes each representing some variation of the potentially infinite paths to magical power. 'classic' D&D didn't diversify much, the original OD&D rules simply had a 'book mage' type of interpretation of a Vancian mechanic. Even then there were notes as to how this was not the ONLY possible way to interpret just this one set of class mechanics. Indeed 1e DMG included shamans and witch doctors, as discussed earlier, who follow MOSTLY similar rules to a magic user and cast the same spells, but don't have "book learning", at least not to the same degree. It was also mentioned somewhere in AD&D that "spell books" were a fairly abstract concept and might take alternate forms. I think there are some, uncommon, examples of things like casting foci and such that replace books per-se. The Al Qadim setting also has casters that use wizard spells, but cast using an entirely different system. This is presented as a parallel to the 'book learning' of magic users. I think that all 'magic user' was intended to absolutely represent was 'wizardry' in all its forms, with the possibility of many variations, albeit only 2 were spelled out in the initial rules (and another if you count rangers). I'd note that witches, etc were presented several times in places like Dragon, though there was never an official version in an actual rule book for 1e that I can recall. It seems to me that the intent thus is that class is a general tool to easily give some rules structure to utilize when the time comes to ask the question "what can this guy do"? but the 'how' is considerably more open, and especially so for NPCs. I think if you look through all the mass of NPCs and villains in 1e that cast spells the impression I get is that they do so by a lot of different paths, but the mechanics are USUALLY based on the magic user (IE if they have a spell progression it generally conforms to magic users, though not always). Some have other abilities that PCs lack, others gain spells by means other than studying a book, etc. Some simply have one or more spells they can use without really explaining how or why in any mechanical fashion. So, I always played it that there was a magical tradition of book learning, and that 'book wizards' were a major, perhaps predominant, strain of casters amongst demi-humans. But that didn't preclude other possibilities, and potentially there could be entirely separate additional traditions, like warlocks, shaiir, wild mages/sorcerers, etc. These are just not, usually at least, PCs, a warlock is subservient to a master, not really PC material, etc. 2e, and things like OA/Al Qadim, definitely expanded the playable options, but it was 3e before they REALLY picked up a wide range of them with warlocks and sorcerers, which 4e carried on with and adds to. The point being, any given NPC might belong to the classic wizardly tradition, or some other tradition, or be unique. Even if they belong to the 'wizardly tradition' that doesn't mean they necessarily EXACTLY follow the magic user class, maybe they have fewer or more spells, or whatever, based on how they were trained, etc. PCs are a specific product of their environment, so they're just one example of a continuum, and the DM may well invent new classes to represent different points on that continuum that are going to be interesting to players, at least potentially.</blockquote>

Verification