|
I'd recently participated in a discussion on AD&D-L concerning the Animate Dead spell, and the limits (if any) of how many undead a given caster could have animated at one time. As you might know, there is no listed limit within the spell description, so it looks like the caster could make a veritable army of skeletons and zombies with enuf time and resources available. Some folks have a problem with this, in much the same vein as not giving Stoneskin a duration, I suppose. Personally, I don't have a problem with this "undead stockpiling", as it actually explains a campaign effect. Here is my recent posting about this: >>But the original question might have been: how many can undead can the cleric have under his control as the result of an animate dead, or other similar spell (like create darkenbeast). I believe the a cleric could create an army of undead using the animate dead spell - I don't recall any limit on that. I don't think a cleric has to turn (control) his own undead, they just obey him because he animated them. >I'd pondered this question myself early within the creation of my own campaign world, and personally reached the conclusion that there should be no inherent limitation to the number of undead that can be raised thru an Animate Dead or similar spell. This conclusion was primarily the result of considering the number of skeletons and zombies present within the average AD&D campaign world. As far as I know, *all* basic skeletons and zombies in AD&D are the result of Animate Dead spells, so these creatures must have come from an overabundance of animated bodies. Necromancers have essentially polluted the average campaign world with their creations, with the "aimless" skeletons and zombies a result of these necromancers having died or the deliberate sending away of excess "help". Presented in The Complete Book of Elves is a particular elven kit that has become as synonymous with "munchkin" as the classic Unearthed Arcana Barbarian and Cavalier classes. This kit is the elven fighter/mage Bladesinger kit, and it does have its share of gamebalance problems. Unlike (it would seem) most other AD&D players, however, I don't have as serious a problem with the kit, and only a minor tweak eliminates the problems altogether. Personally, I have little gripe with Benefits #1 and #2 of the class. An additional +1 to hit/damage isn't that problematic, with the AD&D Str score posing more of a munchkin threat than this. #2 gives a bonus for "unusual maneuvers", which is a fine roleplaying piece. My problem is with Benefit #3 and its allowance of one-handed spellcasting. This is NOT TO BE ALLOWED (tm). The AD&D magic system is a rigid one. Spell formulae are like scientific experiments, designed to work repeatedly if duplicated precisely. You cannot even change the color of your Fireball during memorization or casting - this requires a separate spell (Sense Shifting) to accomplish. Even the most minute of changes to spell function forces one to research a new spell with these changes present. A major change to a spell, such as one-handed casting, is not easy. As of yet, no Bladesingers have appeared within my own campaign world. If they did, I would rule that they can cast one-handed, as their spells are specifically designed for such a usage. Unfortunately, there is a price to be paid for such spell alterations - reduced component spells suffer a 1 level boost in casting power. In other words, a Bladesinger can cast his Magic Missiles one-handed, but his variant of the spell is 2nd level. Bladesingers may cast any spells they can learn, but to cast one-handed spells, they have to be one-handed variants. Finding such spells might be difficult (I'd allow that elven societies would keep such spells handy for their Bladesingers, however). Spells found "in the field" by Bladesingers will generally be the two-handed variety, so their only reliable source of new spell will be an elvish source - Bladesinger-supportive elvish mages, other Bladesingers, or researching new spells on your own. BTW, roleplaying limitations as a detriment to game mechanic benefits doesn't work that well. Bladesingers must always protect elvish interests - so what? In all likelihood, thats exactly what the player of the PC wants to do anyway. Real game mechanic penalties should be used. Its not uncommon for me to receive questions on game mechanics from other players, and I try to answer then as best possible. Here is one of my favorite questions, one which pops up often enuf to convince me that the spell's description isn't up to code:
IMO, the below words should be tacked onto Charm Person's descriptive:
I'm a big fan of the new Player's Option: Skills & Powers rules. While some players value the munchkin characters than can be produced, I respect the amount of choice presented to players in their character creation process (munchkins will, unfortunately, arise anytime choices can be abused). There was, however, one choice in S&P that I particularly don't care for nor allow unchanged within my own campaign. That choice is the Detect Magic class ability offered to Rogues. This inherent Detect Magic ability is essentially the ability to cast the 1st level Detect Magic spell at-will. While this might not seem like a campaign-breaking effect, I do find it to be improper for the Rogue class. Why allow a non-spellcasting class the ability to detect magical radiations, when the spellcasters must rely upon using up a spell slot to do the same? And the solution is not to simply allow this purchasable option to mages and priests - this ability is a path I'd rather not follow in AD&D. What I have done IMC is to subtly change the Detect Magic skill, turning it into a variant of the Spellcraft NWP. Instead of allowing the rogue to sense magical radiations from whatever source, they must instead hold and carefully examine the item in question to estimate the item's magical nature. This examination takes a full turn to complete. Note the various limitations this puts upon the skill - only 1 item can be studied at a time, it must be an item (can't be an AoE magical source, since there is no way to "carefully examine" it), it must be held (can't witness a sword being used in combat and determine if its magical or not), and its time-consuming. Also note that this skill isn't even the full version of the Spellcraft NWP, which allows the user to determine what spells have been cast locally. I did reduce the Detect Magic skill charp cost to 5 instead of 10, to reflect its much weakened nature.
It's common to hear AD&D players lamenting
the loss of their dear Monk class, an unfortunate victim in the
move to 2nd Ed. Many documents and articles are abound
on the 'net, converting the classic Monk to 2nd Ed
standards; some with a modicum of success, and some that are outright
silly. Never saw much of a problem myself - if you want to play
the Monk, pull out your old 1st Ed rulebooks and play
'em in your current campaign. What has caught my attention is
poor attempts to merge the 2nd Ed psionicist class
with the Monk concept. Personally I think this is a great idea,
but note I said "poor" attempts - this document will
illustrate what I consider the proper merging of psionicist and
Monk.
Let me begin by discussing the nature of
the 1st Ed Monk, and briefly going over a few of the
attempts at conversion by other AD&D enthusiasts. The Monk
really was a grab-bag of game mechanics, with little rhyme or
reason to what special abilities where gained when. Yes, there
was the obvious "monk" theme, but you got the feeling
that any number of the monk's special abilities could've been
substituted with any other number of special abilities, and things
would fundamentally stay the same. Anyway, I'm not stating this
to attack the class, but to point out the difficulty in making
a true conversion - everyone seems to have a different concept
of what the Monk should represent, yet at the same time, the desire
to write up a hard-wired class translation that must
be this way or must be that. When using the psionicist
class as the Monk foundation, the same problem occurs. Instead
of following the narrow, yet undefined focus of the 1st
Ed Monk, why not keep the spirit alive instead?
What I have long proposed is that the Monk
class become a (very) loose-form kit for the psionicist class.
Even the framework of a kit might be too strict for my concept,
as there are few hard & fast rules as to what defines a psionic
monk. Instead, the psionicist character is merely roleplayed
as a Monk, with a few generic suggestions to keep the character
steered in the right direction. Here are some thoughts:
With these simple guidelines, you will have
created a new Monk for the enjoyment of both your gaming group
and yourself. |