|
|
Post by dzubak on May 4, 2005 14:33:54 GMT -5
Okay, this question recently came up.
What are the armor restrictions for gnome multi-class characters?
Per the PHB 16 (emphasis mine):
Now I interpret the phrase "in the latter case" to refer to the multi-class sentence since the quote later says "regardless of which class combination . . is chosen". Therefore a gnome fighter/illusionist, fighter/thief, or illusionist/thief must wear leather unless they will be fighting only.
Wheras in regards to the other demi-humans when talking about the thief multi-class combinations the rules specifically point out that the restrictions.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on May 4, 2005 14:50:35 GMT -5
Correct. A gnome fighter/illusionist can only wear leather armor. Only single-classed gnome fighters can wear anything above leather.
|
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on May 4, 2005 14:53:57 GMT -5
Due to that pesky little sentence I've always enforced the gnome illusionist multiclass rule of having to wear leather or no armor. Elves and Half-Elves though can still cast fireball while wearing their platemail.
It hasn't come up much though, as I've only had 2 people ever even consider playing a gnome in AD&D, and only 1 went through with the idea. Sadly he had to leave the group after 1 session due to family problems.
Gnomes always seemed to me to be the afterthought race in AD&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on May 4, 2005 15:33:33 GMT -5
I agree with everybody else -- gnome fighter/illusionists are limited to leather armor only.
|
|
|
|
Post by BonesMcCoy on May 4, 2005 19:02:32 GMT -5
Well I disagree. Gary's made mistakes before and he has readily admitted to them. I think this is just such a case. Multi-class thieves are restricted to leather naturally. But a F/I should suffer no such restriction since this is 1e and spellcasting in armor is allowed. I believe the sentence is just poorly worded. Were I the DM, I would allow a gnome F/I to wear any armor and still cast freely.
Consider also the UA. This book allows clerics of any demi-human race. Would you restrict a gnome C/F to leather? It doesn't make any sense.
On another note, in the netbook Unearthed Arcania (with an 'i') Gary says halflings should get the -4 AC vs. giants, trolls, ogres, etc. like the dwarves and gnomes get. He says he meant to include it all along but it was just an oversight. Certainly gives halflings a nice little boost.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on May 4, 2005 20:17:28 GMT -5
The illusionist spells require much greater dexterity to cast, so that's why gnomes are limited to leather. Since illusionist is the only spell caster class the gnome can take, the sentance makes perfect sense. UA fouls it up, as usual.
What is this netbook you speak of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on May 4, 2005 22:18:08 GMT -5
Well I disagree. Gary's made mistakes before and he has readily admitted to them. I think this is just such a case. A mistake by ommision I can understand. A mistake by transposition or saying "yes" when "no" was meant I can understand. But if this is a mistake, then an entire phrase was included that clearly means what it says: ". . . the character is restricted to the wearing of leather armor, regardless of which class combination he or she has chosen, unless only fighting is performed by the character." Why would it specifically say "regardless of which combination" if one of the three possible combinations could use armor other than leather, and then follow up by saying "unless only fighting is performed." Now it seems a gnome fighter/illusionist might be able to wear armor other than leather, but could not cast spells (only fighting can be performed) the same way a fighter/thief can wear armor but not use thief abilities. Thus, as long as fighting is the only thing being done (whether fighter/illusionis, fighter/thief, or straight fighter) then any armor can be worn. No, a gnome cleric/fighter should be able to wear armor and cast spells. It is clear that the line in the PHB doesn't apply to new class combinations added in the UA. Looks like something that should have been errata that went unnoticed. You know, I don't buy that (I don't mean that I doubt Gary said that, I mean I don't buy the rule). I always assumed that the -4 AC bonus was due to a combination of size AND skill at fighting these natural racial enemies. I've never considered halflings to be at constant war with giants. In fact, the vast majority of halflings are rather peaceful and dislike "trouble" (as per Tolkien's description) so it is very unlikely that halflings as a race have any type of special combat advantage of that nature. If it is due simply to size, then a whole host of creatures get the -4 AC vs. giant creatures. |
|
|
|
Post by BonesMcCoy on May 4, 2005 23:37:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BonesMcCoy on May 4, 2005 23:38:20 GMT -5
The illusionist spells require much greater dexterity to cast, so that's why gnomes are limited to leather. This is an excellent rationalization. You may be correct. |
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on May 5, 2005 0:15:55 GMT -5
Though I think the high dex rationalization is a logical one, I don't agree with Mistere. The dominant question IMO is which side of the fence do gnombes fall on in their inate magicalness (the elf side or the human side). Sure illus. spells req a 16 dex, but casting a fire ball MU spell etc. still req. some dex, right? If you had an elf NPC illusionist in your game (just say you did), would you restrict them to leather (based on a high dex req)? Or would you let them wear plate and cast illus. spells? The same would be true for a NPC Gnombe magic user (let them wear plate because the dex req. was lower?), both illus and MUs have dex. reqs. so... I don't think that should be the final answer.
It seems that pre UA AD&D saw gnombes a little less magical then elves (though more magical then dwarves and humans).
In the past the way I always saw the gnombe illus/what ever DMed was he could were plate and still cast spells. This was because, as Bones points out, the DMG is riddled with inconsistancies, and God knows who wrote what. It was rushed out no doubt.
The final question isn't always what is the official rule (gnombes are limited to leather as you pointed out), rather the final quesiton needs to be WHAT FEELS MORE AD&D, and what do you think Gygax had intended (deep down)?
I see gnombes not as the silly little men with bells on thier pointed boots in little green hats, rahter I see them as slightly leaner dwarves (as depticted in some d**nned Gygax dungeon module illustration) in heavy metal kicking butt, and having to run around in silly leather is just not that cool, and switching armor, please!
So, although the rules state differently, I agree with Bones, it is closer to the core feel of Gygaxian AD&D to allow the gnombe illusionist fighter to don plate and cast spells (just as the elf MU fighter does). It just feels right, call it a James T. Kirk "hunch".
Gygaxian AD&D IMO is: always give more rather then less to the demi-humans (excluding halflings who, even in the Hobbit and LOTR were more closely linked to humans then elves or dwarves).
|
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on May 5, 2005 7:38:08 GMT -5
You know, I don't buy that (I don't mean that I doubt Gary said that, I mean I don't buy the rule). I always assumed that the -4 AC bonus was due to a combination of size AND skill at fighting these natural racial enemies. I've never considered halflings to be at constant war with giants. In fact, the vast majority of halflings are rather peaceful and dislike "trouble" (as per Tolkien's description) so it is very unlikely that halflings as a race have any type of special combat advantage of that nature. If it is due simply to size, then a whole host of creatures get the -4 AC vs. giant creatures. Have to agree with that logic. Infact, nothing is mentioned about the bonus in the monster manual, so i don't think it was a simple exclusion like the sling/bow attack bonus. I wonder if gary just wasn't really thinking about halfings at all. |
|
|
|
Post by PapersAndPaychecks on May 5, 2005 8:09:57 GMT -5
I quite like halflings, particularly when lightly roasted with just a hint of marjoram.
They shouldn't get any bonuses as player characters, though, because then someone might accidentally decide to play one.
|
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on May 5, 2005 8:24:28 GMT -5
Heh. I had a dungeon once with a stall manned by an Ogre Chef. A big sign in common was placed over his grilling stand revealed the nature of his business:
HOBBIT BURGERS[/b]
|
|
|
|
Post by dzubak on May 5, 2005 11:26:45 GMT -5
Hey folks, I just wanted to thank everyone for offering their opinion on this. My stance follows that of Lord Cias, North, and Foster for the reasons listed above.
I don't want to rely too much on "mistakes" and "what feels like AD&D" as it opens a can of worms regarding the interpretation of the "feel" of the game.
As far as halflings receiving the -4 to AC vs giant class, I'll agree with Cias in that dwarves and gnomes receive this bonus due to experience in fighting these types of monsters. Something, I just don't see the halflings having.
Regarding, what Gary states in the UA Netbook, he mentions that "Dwarves get a +4 in defense when being attacked by giants, ogres, and other hulking members of the Giant Class. Gnomes and halflings should have received this same benefit, and it was purely a matter of overlooking this omission on my part that they didn’t." But gnomes already receive this bonus, so I think Gary was just confused.
My 2cents.
Again thanks for the input guys. I appreciate it.
-D
|
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on May 5, 2005 11:35:10 GMT -5
Excellent. Would you like some gnome fries with your hobbit burger?
;D
|
|
