Feature Inheritance: Elf, Magic-User in 1e

[dmw71]

Preface:
I am looking for a strict rules-as-written interpretation of the following situation.


Question:
Would a single-class Magic-User -- normally restricted to just dagger, dart, and staff -- be able to add bows and/or swords to the list of permitted weapons if they are of the Elf race?



Elf

Elf Bow Sword.jpg (14.46 KiB) Viewed 566 times

Magic-User

M-U Weapons.jpg (34.66 KiB) Viewed 566 times

Current Thoughts:
I'm leaning towards no.

The Elf, Magic-User would still get the +1 to hit from their race, but that bonus would be applied towards the otherwise -5 penalty from their class for using a weapon they're not permitted to use.


Thoughts?

[Rex]

We always played it as No.

[gurusql]

If the statement is true then the same would apply to an Elf MU, Thief (with bow) and MU/T.

It is hard to "prove a negative", but if you look two paragraphs back from the quoted paragraph it says

A character of elven stock can opt to be a fighter (maximum of 7th level), a magic-user (maximum of 11th level), a thief, or on assassin (maximum of 10th level). An elven character can also be multi-classed, i.e. a fighter/magic-user, a fighter/thief, a magic-user/thief, or a fighter/magic-user/thief. If the character is multi-classed, the following restrictions and strictures apply: Although able to operate freely with the
benefits of armor, weapons, and magical items available to the classes the character is operating in, any thieving is restricted to the armor and weaponry usable by the thief class. All earned experience is always
divided equally among the classes of the character, even though the character is no longer able to gain levels in one or more of the classes. (More detailed information is given in the CHARACTER CLASSES section hereafter.)

The inference is single class elven characters follow the same rules as humans (except level limits) and the multi-class are as described and the language states that it would not be legal for a MU/T - "If the character is multi-classed, the following restrictions and strictures apply: Although able to operate freely with the benefits of armor, weapons, and magical items available to the classes the character is operating in, any thieving is restricted to the armor and weaponry usable by the thief class."

Which leads me to agree with "The Elf, Magic-User would still get the +1 to hit from their race, but that bonus would be applied towards the otherwise -5 penalty from their class for using a weapon they're not permitted to use."

[Rex]

We always played that any multi-class fighter (not dual class) can use any weapon. For multi-class thieves, the armor/weapon restrictions only apply when using their special abilities.

[rredmond]

The Elf, Magic-User would still get the +1 to hit from their race, but that bonus would be applied towards the otherwise -5 penalty from their class for using a weapon they're not permitted to use.

This is the RAW way to go IMNSHO.

[dmw71]

I appreciate all the input.

I did ultimately decide to go with this:

The Elf, Magic-User would still get the +1 to hit from their race, but that bonus would be applied towards the otherwise -5 penalty from their class for using a weapon they're not permitted to use.

[Inferno]

Hi Dave,

Question:
Would a single-class Magic-User -- normally restricted to just dagger, dart, and staff -- be able to add bows and/or swords to the list of permitted weapons if they are of the Elf race?

No.

The Elf, Magic-User would still get the +1 to hit from their race, but that bonus would be applied towards the otherwise -5 penalty from their class for using a weapon they're not permitted to use.

No. They aren't permitted to use those weapons at all. The -5 penalty applies to weapons they are permitted to use, but aren't proficient in.

A first level Elf Magic-User that is proficient in staff gets a -5 to hit with dagger and dart, and can use no other weapons.

To use spells, bows and swords, they should be an Elf Fighter/Magic-User.

[dmw71]

No. They aren't permitted to use those weapons at all. The -5 penalty applies to weapons they are permitted to use, but aren't proficient in.

A first level Elf Magic-User that is proficient in staff gets a -5 to hit with dagger and dart, and can use no other weapons.

To use spells, bows and swords, they should be an Elf Fighter/Magic-User.

Huh.

So, a party is in battle with a rust monster.

The fighter, cleric, and thief have all been killed; the last remaining character is a magic-user.

The rust monster "eats" the magic-user's dagger (which they're proficient with).

The only other weapons available are the fighter's longsword, the cleric's flail, and the thief's short sword.



The magic-user, now weaponless and out of spells, can't possibly pick up and make an attack with any of these other weapons?

[Inferno]

Correct. Rules-wise they're not permitted to use them. Like a cleric can't use a sword even if it's the only weapon.
Gamewise, the Magic-User's lack of martial skill would prevent them from ever hitting.

Figure out a makeshift staff, or retreat to avoid the TPK, or try something else.

[Quonundrum]

What about improvised weapons?

In effect, a magic-user could not murder Mr. Plum with the candlestick in the library because it's not a dagger, dart, or staff?

[Inferno]

I'd try to find the improvised weapon's equivalent.

Maybe a club for the candlestick?

I'd let them use a kitchen knife like a dagger.

[Quonundrum]

That's my point, though.

If the candlestick is treated as a club, then a magic-user could not use it as an improvised weapon (for murder or otherwise), given that a club is not a permitted weapon of proficiency.

It feels like an unnecessary break in verisimilitude to use such a strict interpretation of the rules.

It's not like he'd hit the broad side of a barn with a -5 to-hit penalty, anyway.

[Inferno]

Could a cleric use an improvised weapon of a broken bottle? Or a butcher's cleaver?

Given a dire enough situation, where no permitted weapons are available, can any character use any weapon? Could a paladin use poison if it was the only option available?

If yes, what's the purpose of this chart?

[Quonundrum]

Class based prohibitions notwithstanding, a cleric or paladin could attempt to wield those weapons, subject to divine retribution, of course.

They're not physically prevented from wielding them.

The problem with the chart is that it doesn't define what permitted means. Proficiency is well defined with noted penalties for non-proficiency.

It's entirely acceptable to apply it as implied, though. I just prefer to allow characters more freedom than a strict interpretation of the chart that requires some degree of suspension of disbelief.

[Inferno]

Class based prohibitions notwithstanding, a cleric or paladin could attempt to wield those weapons, subject to divine retribution, of course.

So paladins and clerics are punished for violating that chart, and magic-users are not? Any other classes get a bye on the rules?

They're not physically prevented from wielding them.

I'm not saying that. Again, I'm saying those weapons are as useless to a Magic-User as spellbooks are to a Fighter. M-Us have no martial training. They can try to use them, but they won't land a telling blow. I'd let a Fighter try to read a magic scroll too, if they wanted.

The problem with the chart is that it doesn't define what permitted means.

So I figure it's the standard definition of the word: allowed. I don't think it's a strict interpretation. It's just what the word means.

...suspension of disbelief.

So, our hypothetical magic-user flees the rust monster and ends up in a chamber with a candlestick, a short sword, a footman's flail and a bohemian earspoon. The rust monster catches up to him!

In my version, all objects are equally useless to the chronic non-combatant. He has to find another way.

In your version, the magic-user walks past the sword, the flail and the earspoon, and grabs the only non-weapon in the room, the candlestick! Then he turns, ready to face the monster.

Which version seems like an unnecessary break in verisimilitude?

[rredmond]

My poor cleric will not be able to eat that yummy steak. No pointy forks or sharp knives allowed.
Each DM makes their ruling methinks. But I certainly see what Inferno is saying.

[dmw71]

Each DM makes their ruling methinks. But I certainly see what Inferno is saying.

Absolutely. In this case, though, I am seeking clarification of how the situation should be handled, rules-as-written.


I never considered this, but I can see how the rules could be interpreted this way:

No. They aren't permitted to use those weapons at all. The -5 penalty applies to weapons they are permitted to use, but aren't proficient in.

I still think this edge case is unique, though.

Their race says they're so good at using a type of weapon they get a bonus.
Their class says they can't use the weapon at all.

The character is both -- their race and their class.

Which wins out?



I'm definitely enjoying the discussion.

[Quonundrum]

So paladins and clerics are punished for violating that chart, and magic-users are not? Any other classes get a bye on the rules?

A paladin would be punished for using poison, an evil act. A cleric, by the class rules, are prohibited from using edged weapons that shed blood. Others get the appropriate non-proficiency penalties.

I'm not saying that. Again, I'm saying those weapons are as useless to a Magic-User as spellbooks are to a Fighter. M-Us have no martial training. They can try to use them, but they won't land a telling blow. I'd let a Fighter try to read a magic scroll too, if they wanted.

Sorry, I was not suggesting you were saying that. I meant that a magic-user could physically wield a sword, badly, hence the non-proficiency penalty. To say he would never land a telling blow is a bit unrealistic, in my opinion.

So I figure it's the standard definition of the word: allowed. I don't think it's a strict interpretation. It's just what the word means.

True, but in the context of the rules, I am suggesting that interpreted in conjunction with the proficiency rules, that table specifies what weapons a particular class can opt to become proficient with.

In your version, the magic-user walks past the sword, the flail and the earspoon, and grabs the only non-weapon in the room, the candlestick! Then he turns, ready to face the monster.

Ah, but wouldn't we rule the candlestick operates as a club? In which case even the candlestick is useless!

What about a simple rock?

As a non-combatant, however, I would concede that an actual weapon could be just as dangerous to himself as to the enemy. A dexterity check each round of use to avoid a critical error (even self inflicted) would not be unreasonable.

[Rex]

If you are interpreting it strictly by the books and how it was played when it came out then Inferno is correct. House rules and DM rulings of course varied wildly.

[Quonundrum]

Okay. My personal preferences aside, I will try to interpret the rules strictly as written. The specific words in the text therefore must be evaluated

In the elven racial bonus description, "proficiency" isn't used. However, the word proficiency is only used on pp 36-37 defining weapon proficiencies!

Pg. 16

When employing either a bow of any sort other than a crossbow, or a short or long sword, elven characters gain a bonus of +1 on their die rolls "to hit".

So, the racial description uses the word "employing", which is used interchangeably in the class descriptions with "use". In context of the rules then, these two words are equivalent and this is important when we look at Table II and pp 36-37.

In the Table II footnotes, the allowed weapons are clarified as those "useable", by the class or in general. So, we can assume "use" is equivalent to "permitted" in this context.

Under Weapons on page 36 we can see the same equivalence ...

At the start, your character will be able to employ but a limited number of weapons. The number is determined by class.

If proficiency with any given weapon is not held by the character, it is used at a penalty as shown on the table which follows.

So, to recap. "Employable"~"Permissible"~"Usable" and further limited by the rules of proficiency.

How improvised weapons are handled, to my knowledge, are undefined in the rules as written. Otherwise, it appears Inferno and Rex are indeed correct from a strict rules interpretation.