Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck
Just re-read the section on combining Wizard and Melee in the original Wizard rules. Most of it resolves minor conflicts that would have otherwise occurred where the same rule was worded a bit differently between the Microgames. There are mainly two technical differences that apply to this discussion.
First is the one Ironific mentions. Yes, wizards were at -4 DX using any weapons other than their staff, or a dagger. I cannot recall if I ever used or enforced that back in the day, but in any event that rule became quickly subsumed after ITL came along, and added an extra 1d6 difficulty for anyone using a weapon for which they didn't have the Talent. I doubt any of us ever made a wizard roll at -4 DX and on 4d6 at the same time for a weapon without the needed Talent. Nor would most of us have made the wizard roll at -4 DX when they did have the Talent for the weapon -- I know my old group never did. But that last case hardly mattered under ITL because wizards couldn't afford the weapons Talents that had become required (or if they did learn one, it would have cost them as much memory as 4 spells, which is a very expensive trade off).
Secondly, and I'd also forgotten this, when combining original Melee and Wizard we were supposed to double the DX penalty for any armor heavier than leather when worn by a wizard. I can't recall if that rule carried over into ITL or not? And if it did, was it supposed to stack with the DX penalty for attempting spells while carrying iron? Probably not, as that would be major overkill.
None of which really changes my original opinion that wizards and fighters really didn't have a strong class distinction before ITL. They only differed in what they were supposed to fight with in combat, spells for wizards and physical armaments for "heroes". Other distinctions had no practical effects.
That changed with ITL, where many survival skills, many of them fairly mundane, became codified as "Talents" that only non-wizards could really afford. It was the learning and memory rules that really created (or at least formalized) these class distinctions.
|
I assumed the -4 DX with weapons just represented lack of training - in ITL terms a lack of the appropriate Talent. Which is already a pretty big distinction - Wizards are much less capable at melee combat. Beyond weapon Talents and we're back to the question of whether a skill system handicaps or enhances character options. You can find old school D&D fans who don't like the Thief class precisely because it limited certain tasks to one class which previously anyone could attempt.
I imagine one compromise would be to scale back the Talent system so it becomes an add on to the Melee/Wizard system. Heroes get basic combat Talents for free, Wizards get their spells for free & Talents are limited either to relatively esoteric abilities a typical adventurer is unlikely to have (e.g., Alchemy or Physicker) or basic combat Talents for Wizards (to get rid of that pesky -4 penalty) or spells for the Heroes. Or perhaps just increase starting Talents. The big issue seems to be that Talents compete with spells for memory slots & most Wizards will want Literacy at least. So characters ported in from Wizard will likely be handicapped in a way that characters from Melee wouldn't be.
Note that Melee & Wizard basically created a Fighter & Magic User class. The Talent system added a third class - the Specialist who could have special noncombat mundane abilities. So ITL expanded the number of possible characters.