Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tx7321" data-source="post: 3300047" data-attributes="member: 43146">Foster, there is a huge difference between a barbarian not being allowed to use ANY magic or associate with magic users until high level and a cleric using a non-edged weapon (taking an oath not to draw blood), or an MU not being trained to use swords (which is perfectly logical and most DMs do allow an MU to pick up a sword (not carry one around mind you) but they have the penalty to hit).    I think you are comparing apples and oranges here.  The idea that an barbarian would knowingly throw away a +2 ring just because he finds out down the line its magical (when someone casts detect magic) is just rediculas (it hadn't bothered him before, so why now?  He doesn't feel any different.) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Foster, Notice the MM Beserker (obviously an early example of barbarians) has no such fear of magic restrictions.  Thats the template people should use IMO, esp. when you consider all the other "off" stuff presented in Dragon and UA during that time.   I have nothing wrong with suggesting the Barbarian fear magic (infact, Conan did), my problem arises with the extreme position taken by the author absolutely banning it.  Half of the fun of AD&D was finding cool magic, and every class could use it.dcas, the paladin has to be good, yes.  And he'd do his utmost to save innocents.  But its up to the player to determine whats an impossible risk and if he wants to take it, and how he wants to take it.  A low level paladin won't loose his paladinhood if he runs from a red dragon wiping out some villagers say (esp. if he intends to deal with it later).  Good is not stupid.  However, the same can't be said for the cavilier as presented, taking on impossible odds isn't the problem, its being free to run to fight later on with a better chance thats the problem.  Why not say, "the cavilier is honor bound to fight the battle, but if he has obviously no chance of winning he might retreat and regroup to continue the battle when he won't be needlessly throwing his life away.  dcas, consider this: the player controlling the cavilier is asked to be suicidal, the player controlling the Paladin is not.  The paladin who runs from a direct assult by overwhelming forces, and then kills that same force later on during an ambush is not only a superior player, he is also a more effective paladin and thus a greater force of good.   The same would be true for the honor bound cavilier completing the mission for his king and country.    Anyhow, the point of FRPGs is to role play (ie for players to make choices from a set of options...thats the fun part).  Both the absolute magic restriction of the barbarian and the absolute suicidal code of the caviliear interfere with this fundamental concept.  They are rules that undercut the foundation of the game.  They work as NPC classes perhaps, but not as PCs.  At least that has been my experiance when attempting to use these classes back in the day.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification