The Case AGAINST Elf Spellburn

[atlascott]

In Appendix N Literature, name me a horribly physically disfigured elf who has been warped or scarred by wild use of magic?

Well, okay, even if you CAN -- I have always viewed Elves as sort of physically inviolate. That is sort of the LOTR impression I've always had.

So allowing Spellburn and risky magic use has always seemed to be the purview of the dedicated caster. It seems more the realm of the foolhardy or desperate mortal man (or woman), not the centuries-old Elf.

I know that the Elf description says that Elves cast "as Wizards do" -- but the Magic Chapter references "Wizard" over and over and over, never mentioning Elf where is discusses Spellburn.

Similarly, Elves are much superior to Wizards when it comes to combat generally, as well as being immune to sleep and paralysis magic, and being able to easily find hidden doors. More HP. Better critical chart. Higher Attack bonuses at every level.

If we otherwise treat Elves as identical to Wizards in casting, there is a balance problem. They are allergic to iron? Well, don't ALL spellcasters avoid the iron-containing armors to avoid the negative spell check consequences, anyway? The iron aversion is essentially a ROLE PLAYING negative, not really affecting the game mechanic. And giving them mithril at first level? Gee, isn't being robbed sort of a ROLEPLAYING negative as well, and a rick to even the non-mithril-equipped?

If you allow spellburn, all you really do is allow a Wizard-equivalent spellcaster with the addition of Thief-like combat abilities. The Patron Bond stuff makes the number of spells essentially equivalent.

Does anyone know whether there has been an official RAW word from the folks at GG as to Elves and Spellburn? How about any indiccation as to the stats of Mithril armor and arms?

Thanks for reading.

[cjoepar]

I can't imagine that there has been anything official from GG indicating that Elves are not affected by Spellburn, but I've certainly been wrong before.

In the end, I think it is a balance issue and has nothing to do with the literature. I can't imagine even the lowliest Noldor from the Silmarillion being anywhere near as weak as a DCC Elf. Stamina, Agility, Personality and Intelligence would all be well above an average of 10. Indeed, a 10 in one of those stats for an elf would make them a circus freak among their own kind.

Of course you are always free to do things your own way. That's what we all do with DCC when we see something that doesn't quite sit right with us. Case in point: I don't like giving away very rare weapons and armor to first level characters (mithril) and it pretty much completely negates their challenge with iron, so I don't give it to them in my campaign. They use bronze or other materials that have a chance of breaking and I don't have to come up with a story about why 1st level characters are walking around with priceless weapons and armor and why they aren't being immediately targeted by every thief and brigand within 50 miles.

In the end, I think the Elf is balanced pretty nicely with the other classes. The real challenge is getting lucky enough to have ability stats that don't render them nearly useless in either fighting or spellcasting. In my experience, it happens just rare enough to make a character that's competent at both fighting and spellcasting a special occasion and a character that's prized.

[atlascott]

"The real challenge is getting lucky enough to have ability stats that don't render them nearly useless in either fighting or spellcasting."

Assume a character who wishes to play a spellcaster. Assume average attributes. Why would he ever choose to be a wizard rather than an elf? Purely for roleplaying purposes. Because otherwise, an elf is superior to a wizard. This cannot be disputed, mathematically. This does not mean that playing in wizard is untenable. It does mean that under RAW, assuming spellburn, Elf > Wizard. without spell burn, elves are still semi-competent fighters and good spell casters. But spellburn puts the wizard in his own class in spellcasting, imo.

Thanks for the suggestion. Maybe I'll limit elf spellburn and see how it goes...

[ragboy]

If you think about the rest of Appendix N (and Daniel Bishop's take on elves in his two adventures) you could make a case that elves should SOULburn, rather than spellburn... Perhaps Personality, Luck and... maybe voluntarily take on corruption to boost spell results?

But, I agree, it seems weird.

[Radish]

Why would he ever choose to be a wizard rather than an elf? Purely for roleplaying purposes.

If you're playing with the 0-level and funnel rules, the player cannot choose to be an elf; she either is or is not one. Elves and other demihumans, in my experience, are rarely as optimized as the human classes for this reason. The player who has a human survive the funnel picks the class that that her character is best suited for; the elf is just left hoping that 3d6 order gave her reasonable strength, dexterity, and intelligence.

[cjoepar]

Why would he ever choose to be a wizard rather than an elf? Purely for roleplaying purposes.

If you're playing with the 0-level and funnel rules, the player cannot choose to be an elf; she either is or is not one. Elves and other demihumans, in my experience, are rarely as optimized as the human classes for this reason. The player who has a human survive the funnel picks the class that that her character is best suited for; the elf is just left hoping that 3d6 order gave her reasonable strength, dexterity, and intelligence.

This is it, exactly, IMO. You don't get to choose, it's determined by the Occupation table on pp 22-23. So you have to get average, or close to average scores or better in Intelligence, and hope you don't get a low score or two in Strength, Agility or Stamina in order for all the stars to line up and have a character that has much of an advantage over a Wizard. With a Wizard, you would assume that most of the time you have a good Intelligence, otherwise you generally wouldn't have chosen to be a Wizard. So my experience is that it is a rare thing indeed to have an Elf character that's much more effective than a Wizard. And I know there are a few who are about to chime in and remind me that this is a role playing game and it's not all about the stats and that you can have fun playing an Elf with 7 INT and 4 STR, but I'm talking about effectiveness from a game mechanics perspective at the moment.

Radish is also right about the other demi-humans. I see the same thing with Dwarves, for example I don't know how many times I've watched a player roll up a character with great stats for a cleric or wizard and then they roll a dwarf on the Occupation table and they're ready to burst into tears. Or they end up with a Halfling that has a 6 LUCK.

Thanks for the suggestion. Maybe I'll limit elf spellburn and see how it goes...

I'd be interested in hearing about how you'd do it and how it goes. What would you do, say an Elf has to spellburn 2 points for a +1 to their spellcheck? Put a cap on the maximum they could use? Just wondering. I'm constantly making small tweaks to things in my game and I'm always interested in hearing about what others are doing in theirs and how it works out.

[Maxwell Luther]

Yeah, but remember that you should be generating 3 or 4 Level 0 characters. If I got an Elf, Dwarf or Halfling like the ones you mention, they'd be the first ones whose 'curiosity' would lead them into the most dangerous situations first. I mean, an INT 7 elf? When you're intellectually Gumped by the average human, it makes total sense that you'd do incredibly retarded things like running towards the first bright shiny object you see and dying on the blades of it. No wonder the other elves kicked you out of the forest...

[atlascott]

No wonder the other elves kicked you out of the forest...

Lol. Poor, lonely, wayward Elf...

[Maxwell Luther]

Yeah. Hey, maybe that's what happens to Elves who get corruption and use Spellburn? They have children who end up on the 0-Level Occupation table?

[Golgothmog]

Yeah. Hey, maybe that's what happens to Elves who get corruption and use Spellburn? They have children who end up on the 0-Level Occupation table?

I thought maybe that's where goblins come from... twisted, mutated elves.

[NJPDX]

I thought maybe that's where goblins come from... twisted, mutated elves.

If you look at Celtic mythology, they certainly have far more in common with each other than an elf and a man.

But I like this explanation ... if an explanation is needed.

[Machpants]

I think going from 0 level chandler owning nothing but some scissors and candles, to a warrior-wizard god with a FREE(!) suit of mithril is the biggest disconnect in DCC. I love the down and gritty start of DCC PCs and initially just ignored the free mithril for elves, find it yourself IMO. However I now just don;t have elves in DCC, I can see dwarves and hobbits as lowly peasant types, not elves. So for my games elves are NPCs only.

But not giving them free mithril, which is a big cop out, and stopping them using spellburn is a pretty good alternative if you have to have PC elves.

[Maxwell Luther]

Yeah. Hey, maybe that's what happens to Elves who get corruption and use Spellburn? They have children who end up on the 0-Level Occupation table?

I thought maybe that's where goblins come from... twisted, mutated elves.

Heh, I was making a joke about inbred hillbilly elves, but sure, that's an idea. Very Tolkien.

[Raven_Crowking]

Yeah. Hey, maybe that's what happens to Elves who get corruption and use Spellburn? They have children who end up on the 0-Level Occupation table?

I thought maybe that's where goblins come from... twisted, mutated elves.

Heh, I was making a joke about inbred hillbilly elves, but sure, that's an idea. Very Tolkien.

Literally. The orcs are elves twisted by Morgoth.