We've been switching editions for over a year now, and in all this time one thing has become abundantly clear: No matter the game, the dice have it in for my players!
Now, as the title of my blog suggests, I've been a victim of Murphy's Law for as long as I can remember. It's been the one constant in my life. However, it now appears that when I DM adventures for other people, the dice become maliciously evil and decide to roll critical hits (natural 20s), and just screw with the players. I've switched out sets of dice with the same effect every week. The problem seems to have infected the player's dice as well. The other week one player rolled three consecutive 1's on different dice. Another player has trouble rolling anything in double digits. A third player fails every single saving throw ever rolled. And so it goes, week after week.
This downward spiral of bad luck has to end soon. The players are starting to get aggravated by the karmic suck affecting their dice. I wonder if there's a way to exorcise whatever imp is causing the problem...
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Friday, May 12, 2017
AD&D: Problems with Color Spray
I have finally completed my project to convert the Players Handbook into a searchable, editable Word file on my computer, faithfully reproduced with the Twentieth Century font and scanned images. I've noticed quite a few typos and omissions in the text, mainly in the spells section. It also seems that near the end of the book, Gary ran out of space and had to cut short his excellent advice on dungeon (and wilderness) adventures.
However, the glaring errors occur in the spells section. Sloppy editing or just plain not bothering to re-read the spells as written, is probably to blame. But the illusionists seem to have gotten the worst of it. Besides the problems encountered in trying to DM illusions (which were poorly explained to begin with), some of the spells just don't work.
In this example, we will be looking at Color Spray:
COLOR SPRAY
Level: 1
Range: 1"/level
Duration: 1 segment
Area of Effect: ½" x 2" x 2" wedge
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 segment
Saving Throw: Special
Explanation/Description: Upon casting this spell, the illusionist causes a vivid fan-shaped spray of clashing colors to spring forth from his or her hand. From 1 to 6 creatures within the area of effect can be affected. The spell caster is able to affect 1 level or hit die of creatures for each of his or her levels of experience. Affected creatures are struck unconscious for 2 to 8 rounds if their level is less than or equal to that of the spell caster; they are blinded for 1 to 4 rounds if their level or number of hit dice is 1 or 2 greater than the illusionist; and they are stunned (cf. power word, stun, seventh level magic-user spell) for 2 to 8 segments if their level or number of hit dice is 3 or more greater than the spell caster. All creatures above the level of the spell caster and all creatures of 6th level or 6 hit dice are entitled to a saving throw versus the color spray spell. The material components of this spell are a pinch each of powder or sand colored red, yellow and blue.
The first line indicates that this spell creates a fan-shaped spray of colors from the caster's hands. Nothing special about that. It's like the fan of burning hands, but more technicolor. Then it states that 1 to 6 creatures within this area are affected. Is that supposed to be a random roll? or is it based on something? The next line states that the caster can affect 1 level/HD of creature per caster level. OK, so that limits the number of creatures to be affected I guess, sort of like the sleep spell. So long as the levels or HD are less than or equal to the caster, the affected creatures are struck unconscious for 2-8 rounds. Awesome! Sort of a burning hands effect that causes sleep!
Then the rest of the spell makes little or no sense. It seems that if the levels/HD of the affected creatures are 1 to 2 levels above the spell caster.... wait, HUH? How can that ever be? Remember that the caster can only affect a number of HD/levels equal to his caster level. So how can this EVER happen? It then goes on with another stipulation if the levels/HD affected are 3+ levels more than the caster, but this can never happen either! Something is screwy here...
As an example, lets take a look at some illusionists and creatures:
1st level illusionist -- he can affect 1 HD of creature (1 orc or normal man, or 2 kobolds)
2nd level illusionist -- he can affect 2 HD of creatures (1 gnoll, 2 orcs or men, or 4 kobolds)
3rd level illusionist -- he can affect 3 HD of creatures (1 bugbear, 3 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds)
4th level illusionist -- he can affect 4 HD of creatures (1 ogre, 2 gnolls, 4 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds*)
5th level illusionist -- he can affect 5 HD of creatures (2 gnolls + 1 man,
5 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds*)
6th level illusionist -- he can affect 6 HD of creatures (1 troll, 3 gnolls, 6 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds*)
*Remember, the number of creatures is only 1 to 6 in the area of effect, no matter their HD.
How will the illusionist ever be able to affect more HD than he has levels according to this description? Say he's a 1st level illusionist up against an ogre (mean, but it has happened). His caster level is only 1 vs. a 4 HD creature. There is only 1 ogre. But the illusionist doesn't have enough HD of effect to cause the spell to work against the ogre. So he CANNOT stun the target creature in the area of effect because he can only affect 1 HD of creatures at 1st level.
UNLESS.... the line about HD/Levels is WRONG!! perhaps it was supposed to read that the illusionist can affect 1 CREATURE per caster level in the area of effect, up to 6. That would allow the rest of the spell description to work properly. Because then the ogre in the example above would be 1 creature in the area of effect of 3+ HD above the level of the caster, and would be stunned for 2-8 segments by the spell.
Hmm, all creatures above the level of the caster and those of 6 levels or 6 HD are entitled to a save. That would never happen in the spell description as written until the caster himself is at least 6th level, because he could not ever affect more HD/Levels than his caster level, and would not be able to affect creatures of 6 HD/Levels until he is himself a 6th level caster.
There is another interpretation of the spell, but it is rather convoluted and is not really supported by the language. In this interpretation, the main effect of the spell (unconsciousness) only affects those creatures of equal to or less than the caster level of illusionist. However, if there are any creatures above and beyond this level in the area of effect, they will be either blinded or stunned, as appropriate, according to their HD/Level. No more than 6 creatures can be affected by the spell.
I'm not really sure which interpretation is correct, or if the spell is simply broken. It really makes no sense as written.Let's see some more hypothetical examples:
1) A 1st level illusionist and his party comes across a band of 7 goblins in a dungeon corridor. He casts color spray on the 1st round. What happens? Does he affect only 1 goblin? Does he affect up to 6 goblins?
2) A 5th level illusionist and his party encounters a pair of trolls in a dungeon chamber. He casts color spray on the two trolls. What happens? Does he fail to affect the trolls? Does he affect both trolls but only blinds them? Do they get saving throws?
3) A 7th level illusionist and her party encounters a mind flayer in the tunnels of the underworld. She casts color spray at the creature. What happens? Is the creature affected? If so, is it blinded if it fails it's save?
4) A 9th level illusionist and her party encounters a fire giant and a pair of large hell hounds. She casts color spray at them. Will she be able to affect more than one of the creatures? Does it affect the lower HD creatures first? Will it affect all the creatures with different results for each type? Will it affect the giant at all?
Let's go back to the original spell description in DRAGON Magazine #1:
Color Spray: A sheet of bright conflicting colors. They affect 1-6 levels of creatures, rendering them unconscious through confusion. (Note: for every 5 levels above Trickster the caster has obtained,
add one to the die roll for amount of levels, the number never to exceed 6.) The distribution of the effect if there are more target levels than spell levels is semi-random, first one creature is fully affected, then another, till all the levels are assigned, there being no more than one partially affected creature. There is no saving throw vs this spell if the creature is fully affected, if all but one level is affected, it gets a normal saving throw, for every level unaffected beyond the first, it gets an additional +2 on its saving throw, in any case, it will not affect any creature above the 6th level. Range 24”.
Well, at least that's a bit more concise. The range is ridiculous on this version of the spells, assuming that the effect begins at the caster. Then again, the range of the spell in 1st edition makes little sense, assuming that it springs from the caster's hands. How can it be 1"/level if the area of effect is a static 5' x 20' x 20' wedge? Someone didn't think this through very well.....
It appears that, as with the sleep spell, there is a hard limit of 6 HD/levels that can be affected by the spell. However, the saving throw makes more sense. Those affected FIRST by the spell are those of the least HD. Anyone of higher HD that is partially affected gets a save, otherwise, no save. For every level unaffected, the save is at a bonus of +2. Therefore, using this version of the spell, if the 1st level illusionist uses this spell on the ogre and rolls a 2 for the levels affected, the ogre gets a saving throw at +4 to avoid the effects, otherwise he is unconscious from the colors. There is no duration listed here so it's assumed that it lasts until the creature is revived somehow. There is a hard limited of 6 HD, meaning that this spell would be useless on giants, powerful dragons, etc. This makes more sense than the convoluted spell description for AD&D 1st edition. But still not very helpful.
OK, so perhaps the whole "higher HD than the illusionist" thing occurs only when an illusionist casts this on a creature not normally affected by the spell (i.e. higher than the spell's HD capacity). This would give the creature a saving throw against the effect AND only be able to blind or temporarily delay the actions of the creature. It's important to note that if the DM doesn't understand initiative, then the segments duration of the stun effect will probably be taken incorrectly or ignored. Ugh, such a confusing spell! But I can see how the original was twisted into the current AD&D version. It could have been much better explained in my opinion, since it obviously was meant to allow illusionists to keep using the spell beyond 6th level casting ability.
However, the glaring errors occur in the spells section. Sloppy editing or just plain not bothering to re-read the spells as written, is probably to blame. But the illusionists seem to have gotten the worst of it. Besides the problems encountered in trying to DM illusions (which were poorly explained to begin with), some of the spells just don't work.
In this example, we will be looking at Color Spray:
COLOR SPRAY
Level: 1
Range: 1"/level
Duration: 1 segment
Area of Effect: ½" x 2" x 2" wedge
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 segment
Saving Throw: Special
Explanation/Description: Upon casting this spell, the illusionist causes a vivid fan-shaped spray of clashing colors to spring forth from his or her hand. From 1 to 6 creatures within the area of effect can be affected. The spell caster is able to affect 1 level or hit die of creatures for each of his or her levels of experience. Affected creatures are struck unconscious for 2 to 8 rounds if their level is less than or equal to that of the spell caster; they are blinded for 1 to 4 rounds if their level or number of hit dice is 1 or 2 greater than the illusionist; and they are stunned (cf. power word, stun, seventh level magic-user spell) for 2 to 8 segments if their level or number of hit dice is 3 or more greater than the spell caster. All creatures above the level of the spell caster and all creatures of 6th level or 6 hit dice are entitled to a saving throw versus the color spray spell. The material components of this spell are a pinch each of powder or sand colored red, yellow and blue.
The first line indicates that this spell creates a fan-shaped spray of colors from the caster's hands. Nothing special about that. It's like the fan of burning hands, but more technicolor. Then it states that 1 to 6 creatures within this area are affected. Is that supposed to be a random roll? or is it based on something? The next line states that the caster can affect 1 level/HD of creature per caster level. OK, so that limits the number of creatures to be affected I guess, sort of like the sleep spell. So long as the levels or HD are less than or equal to the caster, the affected creatures are struck unconscious for 2-8 rounds. Awesome! Sort of a burning hands effect that causes sleep!
Then the rest of the spell makes little or no sense. It seems that if the levels/HD of the affected creatures are 1 to 2 levels above the spell caster.... wait, HUH? How can that ever be? Remember that the caster can only affect a number of HD/levels equal to his caster level. So how can this EVER happen? It then goes on with another stipulation if the levels/HD affected are 3+ levels more than the caster, but this can never happen either! Something is screwy here...
As an example, lets take a look at some illusionists and creatures:
1st level illusionist -- he can affect 1 HD of creature (1 orc or normal man, or 2 kobolds)
2nd level illusionist -- he can affect 2 HD of creatures (1 gnoll, 2 orcs or men, or 4 kobolds)
3rd level illusionist -- he can affect 3 HD of creatures (1 bugbear, 3 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds)
4th level illusionist -- he can affect 4 HD of creatures (1 ogre, 2 gnolls, 4 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds*)
5th level illusionist -- he can affect 5 HD of creatures (2 gnolls + 1 man,
5 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds*)
6th level illusionist -- he can affect 6 HD of creatures (1 troll, 3 gnolls, 6 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds*)
*Remember, the number of creatures is only 1 to 6 in the area of effect, no matter their HD.
How will the illusionist ever be able to affect more HD than he has levels according to this description? Say he's a 1st level illusionist up against an ogre (mean, but it has happened). His caster level is only 1 vs. a 4 HD creature. There is only 1 ogre. But the illusionist doesn't have enough HD of effect to cause the spell to work against the ogre. So he CANNOT stun the target creature in the area of effect because he can only affect 1 HD of creatures at 1st level.
UNLESS.... the line about HD/Levels is WRONG!! perhaps it was supposed to read that the illusionist can affect 1 CREATURE per caster level in the area of effect, up to 6. That would allow the rest of the spell description to work properly. Because then the ogre in the example above would be 1 creature in the area of effect of 3+ HD above the level of the caster, and would be stunned for 2-8 segments by the spell.
Hmm, all creatures above the level of the caster and those of 6 levels or 6 HD are entitled to a save. That would never happen in the spell description as written until the caster himself is at least 6th level, because he could not ever affect more HD/Levels than his caster level, and would not be able to affect creatures of 6 HD/Levels until he is himself a 6th level caster.
There is another interpretation of the spell, but it is rather convoluted and is not really supported by the language. In this interpretation, the main effect of the spell (unconsciousness) only affects those creatures of equal to or less than the caster level of illusionist. However, if there are any creatures above and beyond this level in the area of effect, they will be either blinded or stunned, as appropriate, according to their HD/Level. No more than 6 creatures can be affected by the spell.
I'm not really sure which interpretation is correct, or if the spell is simply broken. It really makes no sense as written.Let's see some more hypothetical examples:
1) A 1st level illusionist and his party comes across a band of 7 goblins in a dungeon corridor. He casts color spray on the 1st round. What happens? Does he affect only 1 goblin? Does he affect up to 6 goblins?
2) A 5th level illusionist and his party encounters a pair of trolls in a dungeon chamber. He casts color spray on the two trolls. What happens? Does he fail to affect the trolls? Does he affect both trolls but only blinds them? Do they get saving throws?
3) A 7th level illusionist and her party encounters a mind flayer in the tunnels of the underworld. She casts color spray at the creature. What happens? Is the creature affected? If so, is it blinded if it fails it's save?
4) A 9th level illusionist and her party encounters a fire giant and a pair of large hell hounds. She casts color spray at them. Will she be able to affect more than one of the creatures? Does it affect the lower HD creatures first? Will it affect all the creatures with different results for each type? Will it affect the giant at all?
Let's go back to the original spell description in DRAGON Magazine #1:
Color Spray: A sheet of bright conflicting colors. They affect 1-6 levels of creatures, rendering them unconscious through confusion. (Note: for every 5 levels above Trickster the caster has obtained,
add one to the die roll for amount of levels, the number never to exceed 6.) The distribution of the effect if there are more target levels than spell levels is semi-random, first one creature is fully affected, then another, till all the levels are assigned, there being no more than one partially affected creature. There is no saving throw vs this spell if the creature is fully affected, if all but one level is affected, it gets a normal saving throw, for every level unaffected beyond the first, it gets an additional +2 on its saving throw, in any case, it will not affect any creature above the 6th level. Range 24”.
Well, at least that's a bit more concise. The range is ridiculous on this version of the spells, assuming that the effect begins at the caster. Then again, the range of the spell in 1st edition makes little sense, assuming that it springs from the caster's hands. How can it be 1"/level if the area of effect is a static 5' x 20' x 20' wedge? Someone didn't think this through very well.....
It appears that, as with the sleep spell, there is a hard limit of 6 HD/levels that can be affected by the spell. However, the saving throw makes more sense. Those affected FIRST by the spell are those of the least HD. Anyone of higher HD that is partially affected gets a save, otherwise, no save. For every level unaffected, the save is at a bonus of +2. Therefore, using this version of the spell, if the 1st level illusionist uses this spell on the ogre and rolls a 2 for the levels affected, the ogre gets a saving throw at +4 to avoid the effects, otherwise he is unconscious from the colors. There is no duration listed here so it's assumed that it lasts until the creature is revived somehow. There is a hard limited of 6 HD, meaning that this spell would be useless on giants, powerful dragons, etc. This makes more sense than the convoluted spell description for AD&D 1st edition. But still not very helpful.
OK, so perhaps the whole "higher HD than the illusionist" thing occurs only when an illusionist casts this on a creature not normally affected by the spell (i.e. higher than the spell's HD capacity). This would give the creature a saving throw against the effect AND only be able to blind or temporarily delay the actions of the creature. It's important to note that if the DM doesn't understand initiative, then the segments duration of the stun effect will probably be taken incorrectly or ignored. Ugh, such a confusing spell! But I can see how the original was twisted into the current AD&D version. It could have been much better explained in my opinion, since it obviously was meant to allow illusionists to keep using the spell beyond 6th level casting ability.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
OD&D 1974 Character Creation
I was in a nostalgic mood today and decided after work that I would sit down and create a character "Old School" style. So I opened up my pdf version of Men & Magic, got out my d6 brick, and started rolling! Here's the result:
DARNOK THE ACOLYTE (Lawful)
1st level Cleric (Man), Hit Points: 4 Exp. = 0
Equipment: (Encumbrance = 830 GP WT., Move = 9"/turn)
I can use magic armor like a fighter, and non-edged magic weapons.
I have 7 GP left at the start of the game.
Although I can't cast spells yet, I can Turn Undead (Skeletons 7, Zombies 9, Ghouls 11) on a 2d6 roll.
So, not a bad character! He needs to be in a large party in order to survive. Those 4 Hit Points are not gonna do him much good I'm afraid. One good hit and he will drop like a sack of potatoes. Since his Con is slightly below average I'm giving him a hacking cough which he acquired after fasting and praying in nothing but a thin linen robe for a week in penance. Although he is pious and faithful, his studies have fallen to the wayside. He is competent enough to hold his own in weapons practice though, and he gets along well with his fellows at the monastery. Not sure about religion in OD&D though. It seems like the implied religion here is Christian-like -- no doubt because of the presence of holy crosses and other aspects. I would assume, however, that this character does NOT exist in an Earth-like world at all (since this is D&D and magic & monsters exist). Let's assume that this character actually exists in the old Greyhawk campaign -- and let's assume that he is a worshipper of St. Cuthbert (a somewhat Christian-like deity). Beyond this, I don't think I need to go into any more detail than I already have. The character is complete!
I doubt 7 GP will be enough to hire many henchmen. Perhaps he should just try and get some men-at-arms to accompany him on his first adventure. For 4 GP he can hire two light foot men-at-arms for a month. I assume they are dressed in leather armor, with or without shield, and with light weapons like spears and short swords. If Darnok has to equip these men then he can't afford to hire them!
With my new guardsmen, Darnok is ready to find others willing to locate and enter a dungeon! Now if only I knew of a Dungeon Master who still ran OD&D....
- Strength 11
- Intelligence 11
- Wisdom 12
- Constitution 8
- Dexterity 8
- Charisma 12
DARNOK THE ACOLYTE (Lawful)
1st level Cleric (Man), Hit Points: 4 Exp. = 0
- Strength 11
- Intelligence 9
- Wisdom 13 (+5% earned Exp.)
- Constitution 8 (50% survival chance)
- Dexterity 8 (-1 missiles)
- Charisma 12 (4 henchmen max.)
Equipment: (Encumbrance = 830 GP WT., Move = 9"/turn)
- Chain Mail Armor (30 GP)
- Shield (10 GP)
- Helmet (10 GP)
- Mace (5 GP)
- 50' Rope (1 GP)
- 2 Small Sacks (2 GP)
- Silver Cross (25 GP)
- Holy Water (25 GP)
- 1 Week Std. Rations (5 GP)
I can use magic armor like a fighter, and non-edged magic weapons.
I have 7 GP left at the start of the game.
Although I can't cast spells yet, I can Turn Undead (Skeletons 7, Zombies 9, Ghouls 11) on a 2d6 roll.
So, not a bad character! He needs to be in a large party in order to survive. Those 4 Hit Points are not gonna do him much good I'm afraid. One good hit and he will drop like a sack of potatoes. Since his Con is slightly below average I'm giving him a hacking cough which he acquired after fasting and praying in nothing but a thin linen robe for a week in penance. Although he is pious and faithful, his studies have fallen to the wayside. He is competent enough to hold his own in weapons practice though, and he gets along well with his fellows at the monastery. Not sure about religion in OD&D though. It seems like the implied religion here is Christian-like -- no doubt because of the presence of holy crosses and other aspects. I would assume, however, that this character does NOT exist in an Earth-like world at all (since this is D&D and magic & monsters exist). Let's assume that this character actually exists in the old Greyhawk campaign -- and let's assume that he is a worshipper of St. Cuthbert (a somewhat Christian-like deity). Beyond this, I don't think I need to go into any more detail than I already have. The character is complete!
I doubt 7 GP will be enough to hire many henchmen. Perhaps he should just try and get some men-at-arms to accompany him on his first adventure. For 4 GP he can hire two light foot men-at-arms for a month. I assume they are dressed in leather armor, with or without shield, and with light weapons like spears and short swords. If Darnok has to equip these men then he can't afford to hire them!
With my new guardsmen, Darnok is ready to find others willing to locate and enter a dungeon! Now if only I knew of a Dungeon Master who still ran OD&D....
Monday, May 1, 2017
Hopeless Characters
I've been looking over a few posts on other web sites in the past few weeks regarding characters with low ability scores, or "Hopeless" characters. This sentiment has been around for a while now, even appearing in the rules for AD&D and Basic/Expert D&D back in 1979/1980. The thing about it is that I don't think that a character is truly hopeless unless the PLAYER thinks it is.
The premise of the original D&D game appears to be that of a bunch of people who have apprenticed in a chosen profession (class) heading off to a dungeon to recover treasure and make a name for themselves. Along the way they face terrible monsters, deadly traps, and devious puzzles. Those that overcome these become rich and famous. Those that don't...? Well, they become dungeon dressing to be found by those who later enter said dungeon in search of their own glory.
But here's the thing... abilities are MEANT to be random. If they weren't, then why roll the dice at all? If you won't play a character with any score lower than 10, why even roll the dice? It's statistically possible to have a character with all 3's. The same probability exists to roll a character with all 18's. But it's more likely that your score will fall in the 9-12 range.
Let's face it. No one wants to play someone JUST LIKE THEM in real life. No one who plays D&D or AD&D wants to play the couch potato with the huge gut who can barely lift a sword, no less swing one. No one wants to be the bumbling klutz or the moron who can't remember where he left his glasses (which are on his head...). No one wants to be known as the guy who foolishly agreed to some plan suggested by an NPC, just because he wasn't savvy enough to realize he was being duped. No, everyone wants to be the god-like hero of myth, the mighty warrior who gets all the girls, the powerful magic-user able to routinely hold dozens of spells in his memory at once, or the wise cleric who can see through deceit and resist the most potent charms. Let's face it, no one wants to play themselves in their fantasy.
But, I have to tell you, playing the foibles of lackluster characters is sometimes fun. Our most memorable characters were not the ones with 18 percentile strength, but rather the weakling mage who can't even hold his own cat familiar without becoming tired; or the fighter whose wisdom was so low that she could be convinced of just about anything; or the charismatic fighter who really wanted to be a paladin but just could not cut it. These low scores that "prevent" us from enjoying a character really give the character personality and background. However, this is not for everyone.
One of my friends once put this in terms I could understand. Superman is invulnerable, he's the fastest hero around, he's the strongest hero around, he has a computer-like brain, and he's dashing and charismatic. However, the character is boring as hell. Even the writers couldn't figure out how to write good stories about him. However, his bumbling sidekick Jimmy Olsen, or not-so-wise love Lois Lane (always getting into trouble) were much more interesting to write about. And so, although Superman could be said to have 18s in all his stats, he was still just a ho-hum character. You always knew he would save the day. There was no doubt about it. And when something becomes an absolute, when there's no chance of failure, the action becomes routine and boring.
Some players yearn to be Superman from 1st level. They want to win all the time. They need to succeed and be the best. They hate losing. Low stats means they have lost or aren't good enough. There is a section in the beginning of the Players Handbook regarding such a thing. In fact, later versions of the game assume that the characters are a cut above the rank and file of humanity (or dwarf-, elf-, and halfling-kind). But this is not how swords & sorcery fantasy should be. Everyone has to start somewhere. The game assumes that you are beginning at the ground floor and working your way up to fame and fortune, power and prestige. If you START at the top, as the saying goes, there's nowhere to go but down.
The definition of "hopeless character" has changed over time. Original D&D had no such thing. But if you look at the way the game played, ability scores were not very important. Basic D&D, which is based on OD&D, stated that characters whose ability scores were all under 9 were unplayable, but this was the first time that minimum scores were stated in the rules for each class. Before this, you could be a fighter with a 7 strength, or a magic-user with a 5 intelligence. You wouldn't be very good, but you could still exist. By AD&D, all the major classes needed at least a 9 in their "prime requisite" to qualify for a class. It was recommended that you have at least two scores of 15 or higher and no more than one score in the very low range (3-6).
The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm trying to figure out why people hate 3d6 rolled in order as a method of generating characters. To me it makes little difference. But there are some people who adamantly despise this method of rolling. It seems that it boils down to two real ideologies here:
Call me a grognard, but I think that everyone should try and play a 3d6-straight rolled character at least once. Old style gaming can be a real fun time if everyone is on the same page. Just for kicks, I rolled up three characters using 3d6 rolled in order. These are my stats
For example: It was assumed that players would seek out NPCs to assist them in their adventures. The concept of hirelings and henchmen has been around since the beginning. Of course, the terms "meat shield" or "red-shirts" have also, unfortunately, been around for that long as well. Let's face it - adventuring is risky business; you're going to get hurt and will most likely die unless you are very careful. The more targets there are, the less likely a casualty will be a player character. It's not a very heroic concept, sacrificing others so that you can survive. Then again, the premise of the game is not very heroic either - entering dank dungeons and stealing away with treasure that belonged to someone else (or guarded/protected by magic and traps). These are things that THIEVES are meant to do. They sneak into bad places and steal away with treasure, hopefully without any harm coming to themselves. So, in essence, ALL characters are really thieves (or "murder-hobos" as some refer to them). And the typical depiction of a thief is a rough-and-tumble scrawny guy who lies, cheats, and wheedles his way through life, avoiding combat when possible, and making out with as much treasure as he can carry. THIS is the way the game was envisioned by the creator(s). It didn't matter much what your strength, intelligence, wisdom, or dexterity were. What mattered is that you lived - by any means possible!
But back to "hopeless characters." We can now see that "heroic" characters were made to cater to individual desires. They were not meant to be adventurers in the original D&D sense. But let's face it, when you think medieval society, you assume knights, dragons, and damsels in distress. Enter the paladin. I believe that this sub-class was created to cater to those who needed to be the superhero. They needed high stats and a moral code. Strangely enough, no one I knew back in the day wanted to play a paladin as Lawful and Good. All they really wanted were the stats. And who wants to play a lowly fighter when you can play a demi-god of holy prowess? Eventually, sub-classes came to rule the D&D landscape. Since they needed higher scores to qualify, people started seeing 3d6 as "not good enough." So alternate methods were devised. Looking at the characters I generated above, I don't think any of them qualifies to be a sub-class (perhaps #3 could be an assassin?). And if your only goal in the game is to "be the best" or, more disturbingly, "be better than everyone else playing the game," then 3d6 isn't going to cut it. The added character classes and races in Unearthed Arcana continued this disturbing trend with barbarians, cavaliers, dark elves, duergar, etc. The new method of rolling characters (Method V) had players rolling multiple dice for certain key stats and taking the best 3 rolls. If you wanted to play a human fighter, you got to roll 9d6 and take the highest 3 rolls. Soon, if you were a fighter without percentile strength you were "doing it wrong."
To me, no character is truly hopeless. The lack of a stat does not mean that the character is worthless. In a truly randomly-rolled game, there is just as much chance of your 18/00% Strength fighter dying as there is my 10 Strength fighter. That 9 Intelligence magic-user may not know as many spells as your 18 Intelligence magic-user, but the game plays the same regardless. What needs to be addressed BEFORE THE GAME BEGINS is which type of characters the players prefer. Once a consensus is achieved, the Method of rolling can be established and the game can proceed. The DM also should establish guidelines for when a character may be scrapped because scores are not high enough for survivability; but even this can be waived if the player really wants to play such a character. They can be just as much fun, and usually more memorable, than those with god-like stats. Remember that magic items typically enhance abilities, and once the characters are beyond 1st level ability scores take a back seat to class mechanics.
My rule of thumb for "Hopeless Characters" is if you have more penalties than bonuses, you probably should rethink your character's chance to survive or even perform adequately in the chosen class. In the above examples, character #1 has 4 scores below 10. In Basic D&D one of these (strength) would result in a -1 penalty to hit and damage. But this is balanced by the +1 bonus gained from Constitution. In AD&D Strength of 7 would only cause a -1 to hit. This is a perfectly valid character, although some people see the lack of bonuses as a problem. After all, thieves don't really NEED strength to perform as thieves. Character #2 is dead average - he could qualify for any of the base classes (fighter, magic-user, cleric, or thief). Again, this is a valid character. However, the lack of bonuses seems to turn some people off. Character #3 is an amazing example of the randomness of rolling 3d6. This character would make a powerful magic-user.... or would it? What benefit does a Basic D&D magic-user gain from such high Intelligence? They can still only cast a limited number of spells, same as a 9 Int M-U. Sure, they can speak 3 extra languages, but this doesn't affect their survivability all that much. In AD&D, that magic-user has a better chance of knowing more spells, and has more spells in their spellbook, and will likely level faster thus getting the character out of danger of dying too soon. However, they can still only cast ONE of those spells for the day, regardless of Intelligence. So you see, a high score is only desirable in the mind of the player. The game doesn't care WHAT your score is. The only classes that really suffer from low scores are fighters and clerics. Fighters with lackluster Strength can't kill things very fast, and may miss more often than one with high Strength. Low Wisdom clerics in Basic D&D have no real penalties; however, those with low wisdom (9-12) in AD&D have a chance of miscasting their spells! Thieves in D&D are not terribly impacted by average or high Dexterity in their class abilities; however, it provides a penalty or bonus to thief abilities in AD&D and high Dex may improve the chances of survival in combat by lowering AC in either system.
Comparing the ability bonuses in Basic D&D and AD&D, one can see that in Basic D&D, bonuses and penalties occur immediately beyond the average 9-12 range. In AD&D it depends on the ability score; some gain penalties/bonuses at very low/high numbers and some give benefits a bit above average. But generally speaking, in AD&D you want scores of 15+ to gain the bonuses provided on the charts. And this is the reason why Gygax made that statement of wanting at least two scores in the 15+ range. Also, if you peruse the charts in the Players Handbook, you will see that if an ability score is lower than a 6, it locks you into a particular class. For instance, a character with a 5 or lower strength can ONLY be a magic-user. It doesn't matter what your intelligence is (so long as it is 9 or higher). If you had scores of Str 5 and Int 8, then that would truly be a hopeless character. In the examples above, the only character with a score of 5 or lower is #3. That character has a Charisma of 5. Sure enough, consulting the PHB states that this character can ONLY be an assassin! However, the character has an 11 Dex and needs a 12 to qualify for assassin. Interestingly enough, this character is considered HOPELESS according to the rules since he cannot qualify for ANY class based on those stats. The DM would require the player to reroll, despite having rolled an 18 in Intelligence!! If the player wanted to still run the character, the DM would likely enforce the need to be an assassin and have the player run an elf to get the Dexterity up one point. However, elves must have a minimum Charisma of 8 so this character is unplayable!! The only way this character could work is if the DM made an exception to the rules, something the other players may not agree with as it seems as if the DM is playing favorites (especially if they are settling for a character they didn't really want to play based on their stats). The same does not apply to Basic D&D characters. Character #3 could be an intelligent fighter, a strong magic-user, or an elf character with no problems. It could also be a thief character (with good strength and great intelligence). The charisma in Basic D&D really has no effect on character choice at all.
So, as you can see, "hopeless" characters are really dependent on the version of the game you are playing, the rules/guidelines being used by the DM, and the desires/needs of the players. A 3d6-straight character is no more or less valid than any other method of rolling. The only way to get a character you truly want to play with the stats desired is pretty much selecting from a given array or selecting the class and rolling ranges between the minimums and maximums. For example, monks are one of the hardest classes to qualify for in AD&D. They require 15 Str, 15 Wis, 15 Dex and 11 Con. Rolling that with 3d6 is really hard - it's even pretty tough with 4d6 drop the lowest. Some DMs allow a player to choose their class before rolling dice, then roll ability scores. For example, a DM might allow a player to choose monk, then have them roll 1d4+14 for Str, Wis, and Dex, and 1d8+10 for Con while all other stats are rolled using the normal method. Again, it is the DMs prerogative and the player's desires which drive this. The rules used are not "lame", "broken," or antiquated, they simply have evolved over time to suit different needs.
The premise of the original D&D game appears to be that of a bunch of people who have apprenticed in a chosen profession (class) heading off to a dungeon to recover treasure and make a name for themselves. Along the way they face terrible monsters, deadly traps, and devious puzzles. Those that overcome these become rich and famous. Those that don't...? Well, they become dungeon dressing to be found by those who later enter said dungeon in search of their own glory.
But here's the thing... abilities are MEANT to be random. If they weren't, then why roll the dice at all? If you won't play a character with any score lower than 10, why even roll the dice? It's statistically possible to have a character with all 3's. The same probability exists to roll a character with all 18's. But it's more likely that your score will fall in the 9-12 range.
Let's face it. No one wants to play someone JUST LIKE THEM in real life. No one who plays D&D or AD&D wants to play the couch potato with the huge gut who can barely lift a sword, no less swing one. No one wants to be the bumbling klutz or the moron who can't remember where he left his glasses (which are on his head...). No one wants to be known as the guy who foolishly agreed to some plan suggested by an NPC, just because he wasn't savvy enough to realize he was being duped. No, everyone wants to be the god-like hero of myth, the mighty warrior who gets all the girls, the powerful magic-user able to routinely hold dozens of spells in his memory at once, or the wise cleric who can see through deceit and resist the most potent charms. Let's face it, no one wants to play themselves in their fantasy.
But, I have to tell you, playing the foibles of lackluster characters is sometimes fun. Our most memorable characters were not the ones with 18 percentile strength, but rather the weakling mage who can't even hold his own cat familiar without becoming tired; or the fighter whose wisdom was so low that she could be convinced of just about anything; or the charismatic fighter who really wanted to be a paladin but just could not cut it. These low scores that "prevent" us from enjoying a character really give the character personality and background. However, this is not for everyone.
One of my friends once put this in terms I could understand. Superman is invulnerable, he's the fastest hero around, he's the strongest hero around, he has a computer-like brain, and he's dashing and charismatic. However, the character is boring as hell. Even the writers couldn't figure out how to write good stories about him. However, his bumbling sidekick Jimmy Olsen, or not-so-wise love Lois Lane (always getting into trouble) were much more interesting to write about. And so, although Superman could be said to have 18s in all his stats, he was still just a ho-hum character. You always knew he would save the day. There was no doubt about it. And when something becomes an absolute, when there's no chance of failure, the action becomes routine and boring.
Some players yearn to be Superman from 1st level. They want to win all the time. They need to succeed and be the best. They hate losing. Low stats means they have lost or aren't good enough. There is a section in the beginning of the Players Handbook regarding such a thing. In fact, later versions of the game assume that the characters are a cut above the rank and file of humanity (or dwarf-, elf-, and halfling-kind). But this is not how swords & sorcery fantasy should be. Everyone has to start somewhere. The game assumes that you are beginning at the ground floor and working your way up to fame and fortune, power and prestige. If you START at the top, as the saying goes, there's nowhere to go but down.
The definition of "hopeless character" has changed over time. Original D&D had no such thing. But if you look at the way the game played, ability scores were not very important. Basic D&D, which is based on OD&D, stated that characters whose ability scores were all under 9 were unplayable, but this was the first time that minimum scores were stated in the rules for each class. Before this, you could be a fighter with a 7 strength, or a magic-user with a 5 intelligence. You wouldn't be very good, but you could still exist. By AD&D, all the major classes needed at least a 9 in their "prime requisite" to qualify for a class. It was recommended that you have at least two scores of 15 or higher and no more than one score in the very low range (3-6).
The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm trying to figure out why people hate 3d6 rolled in order as a method of generating characters. To me it makes little difference. But there are some people who adamantly despise this method of rolling. It seems that it boils down to two real ideologies here:
- The camp that believe that all characters should be a "cut above" and be heroic in all ways. They believe that such characters should have no flaws, because weakness is no fun to play (for them). These people already know exactly what character they want to play.
- The other camp seems to like organic character creation. These folks have no idea what they want to play and allow the dice to tell them what they can play. They don't go into the game needing to play a certain type of character, but rather learn about what character they just rolled.
Call me a grognard, but I think that everyone should try and play a 3d6-straight rolled character at least once. Old style gaming can be a real fun time if everyone is on the same page. Just for kicks, I rolled up three characters using 3d6 rolled in order. These are my stats
- Str 7, Int 7, Wis 9, Dex 12, Con 14, Cha 8 (possible thief)
- Str 10, Int 11, Wis 12, Dex 9, Con 11, Cha 14 (any base class, leaning towards cleric)
- Str 15, Int 18(!), Wis 9, Dex 11, Con 13, Cha 5 (likely fighter/magic-user, or MU at least)
For example: It was assumed that players would seek out NPCs to assist them in their adventures. The concept of hirelings and henchmen has been around since the beginning. Of course, the terms "meat shield" or "red-shirts" have also, unfortunately, been around for that long as well. Let's face it - adventuring is risky business; you're going to get hurt and will most likely die unless you are very careful. The more targets there are, the less likely a casualty will be a player character. It's not a very heroic concept, sacrificing others so that you can survive. Then again, the premise of the game is not very heroic either - entering dank dungeons and stealing away with treasure that belonged to someone else (or guarded/protected by magic and traps). These are things that THIEVES are meant to do. They sneak into bad places and steal away with treasure, hopefully without any harm coming to themselves. So, in essence, ALL characters are really thieves (or "murder-hobos" as some refer to them). And the typical depiction of a thief is a rough-and-tumble scrawny guy who lies, cheats, and wheedles his way through life, avoiding combat when possible, and making out with as much treasure as he can carry. THIS is the way the game was envisioned by the creator(s). It didn't matter much what your strength, intelligence, wisdom, or dexterity were. What mattered is that you lived - by any means possible!
But back to "hopeless characters." We can now see that "heroic" characters were made to cater to individual desires. They were not meant to be adventurers in the original D&D sense. But let's face it, when you think medieval society, you assume knights, dragons, and damsels in distress. Enter the paladin. I believe that this sub-class was created to cater to those who needed to be the superhero. They needed high stats and a moral code. Strangely enough, no one I knew back in the day wanted to play a paladin as Lawful and Good. All they really wanted were the stats. And who wants to play a lowly fighter when you can play a demi-god of holy prowess? Eventually, sub-classes came to rule the D&D landscape. Since they needed higher scores to qualify, people started seeing 3d6 as "not good enough." So alternate methods were devised. Looking at the characters I generated above, I don't think any of them qualifies to be a sub-class (perhaps #3 could be an assassin?). And if your only goal in the game is to "be the best" or, more disturbingly, "be better than everyone else playing the game," then 3d6 isn't going to cut it. The added character classes and races in Unearthed Arcana continued this disturbing trend with barbarians, cavaliers, dark elves, duergar, etc. The new method of rolling characters (Method V) had players rolling multiple dice for certain key stats and taking the best 3 rolls. If you wanted to play a human fighter, you got to roll 9d6 and take the highest 3 rolls. Soon, if you were a fighter without percentile strength you were "doing it wrong."
To me, no character is truly hopeless. The lack of a stat does not mean that the character is worthless. In a truly randomly-rolled game, there is just as much chance of your 18/00% Strength fighter dying as there is my 10 Strength fighter. That 9 Intelligence magic-user may not know as many spells as your 18 Intelligence magic-user, but the game plays the same regardless. What needs to be addressed BEFORE THE GAME BEGINS is which type of characters the players prefer. Once a consensus is achieved, the Method of rolling can be established and the game can proceed. The DM also should establish guidelines for when a character may be scrapped because scores are not high enough for survivability; but even this can be waived if the player really wants to play such a character. They can be just as much fun, and usually more memorable, than those with god-like stats. Remember that magic items typically enhance abilities, and once the characters are beyond 1st level ability scores take a back seat to class mechanics.
My rule of thumb for "Hopeless Characters" is if you have more penalties than bonuses, you probably should rethink your character's chance to survive or even perform adequately in the chosen class. In the above examples, character #1 has 4 scores below 10. In Basic D&D one of these (strength) would result in a -1 penalty to hit and damage. But this is balanced by the +1 bonus gained from Constitution. In AD&D Strength of 7 would only cause a -1 to hit. This is a perfectly valid character, although some people see the lack of bonuses as a problem. After all, thieves don't really NEED strength to perform as thieves. Character #2 is dead average - he could qualify for any of the base classes (fighter, magic-user, cleric, or thief). Again, this is a valid character. However, the lack of bonuses seems to turn some people off. Character #3 is an amazing example of the randomness of rolling 3d6. This character would make a powerful magic-user.... or would it? What benefit does a Basic D&D magic-user gain from such high Intelligence? They can still only cast a limited number of spells, same as a 9 Int M-U. Sure, they can speak 3 extra languages, but this doesn't affect their survivability all that much. In AD&D, that magic-user has a better chance of knowing more spells, and has more spells in their spellbook, and will likely level faster thus getting the character out of danger of dying too soon. However, they can still only cast ONE of those spells for the day, regardless of Intelligence. So you see, a high score is only desirable in the mind of the player. The game doesn't care WHAT your score is. The only classes that really suffer from low scores are fighters and clerics. Fighters with lackluster Strength can't kill things very fast, and may miss more often than one with high Strength. Low Wisdom clerics in Basic D&D have no real penalties; however, those with low wisdom (9-12) in AD&D have a chance of miscasting their spells! Thieves in D&D are not terribly impacted by average or high Dexterity in their class abilities; however, it provides a penalty or bonus to thief abilities in AD&D and high Dex may improve the chances of survival in combat by lowering AC in either system.
Comparing the ability bonuses in Basic D&D and AD&D, one can see that in Basic D&D, bonuses and penalties occur immediately beyond the average 9-12 range. In AD&D it depends on the ability score; some gain penalties/bonuses at very low/high numbers and some give benefits a bit above average. But generally speaking, in AD&D you want scores of 15+ to gain the bonuses provided on the charts. And this is the reason why Gygax made that statement of wanting at least two scores in the 15+ range. Also, if you peruse the charts in the Players Handbook, you will see that if an ability score is lower than a 6, it locks you into a particular class. For instance, a character with a 5 or lower strength can ONLY be a magic-user. It doesn't matter what your intelligence is (so long as it is 9 or higher). If you had scores of Str 5 and Int 8, then that would truly be a hopeless character. In the examples above, the only character with a score of 5 or lower is #3. That character has a Charisma of 5. Sure enough, consulting the PHB states that this character can ONLY be an assassin! However, the character has an 11 Dex and needs a 12 to qualify for assassin. Interestingly enough, this character is considered HOPELESS according to the rules since he cannot qualify for ANY class based on those stats. The DM would require the player to reroll, despite having rolled an 18 in Intelligence!! If the player wanted to still run the character, the DM would likely enforce the need to be an assassin and have the player run an elf to get the Dexterity up one point. However, elves must have a minimum Charisma of 8 so this character is unplayable!! The only way this character could work is if the DM made an exception to the rules, something the other players may not agree with as it seems as if the DM is playing favorites (especially if they are settling for a character they didn't really want to play based on their stats). The same does not apply to Basic D&D characters. Character #3 could be an intelligent fighter, a strong magic-user, or an elf character with no problems. It could also be a thief character (with good strength and great intelligence). The charisma in Basic D&D really has no effect on character choice at all.
So, as you can see, "hopeless" characters are really dependent on the version of the game you are playing, the rules/guidelines being used by the DM, and the desires/needs of the players. A 3d6-straight character is no more or less valid than any other method of rolling. The only way to get a character you truly want to play with the stats desired is pretty much selecting from a given array or selecting the class and rolling ranges between the minimums and maximums. For example, monks are one of the hardest classes to qualify for in AD&D. They require 15 Str, 15 Wis, 15 Dex and 11 Con. Rolling that with 3d6 is really hard - it's even pretty tough with 4d6 drop the lowest. Some DMs allow a player to choose their class before rolling dice, then roll ability scores. For example, a DM might allow a player to choose monk, then have them roll 1d4+14 for Str, Wis, and Dex, and 1d8+10 for Con while all other stats are rolled using the normal method. Again, it is the DMs prerogative and the player's desires which drive this. The rules used are not "lame", "broken," or antiquated, they simply have evolved over time to suit different needs.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
AD&D Initiative Examples
I will admit right now that I do not use the initiative rules as written in my own campaign. However I do understand these rules and how they function, and I have used them in my AD&D dogma trial adventure (when I remembered that they applied).
As written, the rules for armed opponents vs. spellcasters is somewhat confusing and doesn't follow the normal flow of initiative as presented in the book. Many of us have taken that to mean that the rules are broken or don't make sense as written. This may be the case, or they were left overly simplistic to make the game run smoother. You decide which is right.
Here are some examples I just whipped up. I will attempt to explain each in as much detail as possible:
EXAMPLE 1
A melee between party A and party B has erupted in a dungeon chamber. The combatants had all engaged their opponents when a fighter from party B saw an opening and headed off to take on the magic-user in party A. They begin within melee range. Before initiative the magic-user declares he is casting a magic missile spell (casting time: 1 segment) at the offending fighter. The fighter is armed with a short sword (Speed Factor 3). Initiative is rolled and party A gets a 2, while party B gets a 1. According to the rules as written, we compare the casting time (1 segment) with the speed factor of the weapon minus the losing die roll (3-1 = 2) to get the segment when the attack occurs. Proceed from lowest number to highest. Thus the spell would come off first!
EXAMPLE 2
A magic-user is casting a slow spell (casting time: 3 segments) upon an evil cleric and his undead minions. The cleric is within melee distance of the magic-user (less than 10') and will strike at him using a footman's mace (Speed Factor 7). Initiative is rolled and the magic-user's party gets a 3 while the cleric's side gets a 5. Comparing the casting time (3 segments) to the weapon speed factor minus the losing die (7-3 = 4) we can see that the slow spell will indeed occur first.
EXAMPLE 3
An evil cleric player character is casting bestow curse (casting time: 6 segments) upon a fighter attacking him with a battle axe (Speed Factor 7). The initiative roll for the cleric's party is 1; the fighter's party rolls a 2. Comparing the casting time (6 segments) to the weapon speed factor minus the losing die roll (7-1 = 6) shows that the action is simultaneous. Thus the spell will occur at the same time as the weapon strike. Both attacks will take effect and neither will be disrupted.
EXAMPLE 4
A druid encounters a small group of goblins in the forest chopping down trees in a sacred grove. The druid engages the goblins and is able to dispatch all but one which is armed with a hand axe (Speed Factor 4). The druid begins casting his heat metal spell on the goblin (casting time: 4 segments). They roll for initiative and the druid gets a 5 while the goblin rolls a 2. Comparing the casting time (4 segments) with the weapon speed factor minus the losing die (4-2 = 2) indicates that the goblin will strike the druid BEFORE his spell comes off, despite having lost initiative. If the goblin hits, he can disrupt and spoil the spell.
EXAMPLE 5
An illusionist is casting color spray (casting time: 1 segment) at a hobgoblin armed with a longsword (Speed Factor 5). Initiative rolled results in a 3 for the illusionist and 4 for the hobgoblin. Comparing casting time (1 segment) to the weapon speed factor minus the losing die roll (5-3 = 2) indicates that the spell will go off before the hobgoblin can strike despite the hobgoblin winning the initiative.
EXAMPLE 6
A magic-user casts hold monster (casting time: 5 segments) at a frost giant wielding a huge battle axe (Speed Factor 7). Initiative is rolled with the magic-user scoring a 3 and the giant scoring a 3. Since initiative is tied, attacks are resolved in order of speed factors/casting times without adjustment by the losing die roll. In this case the spell occurs first (CT 5) and the axe after (SF 7).
Interestingly enough, this works also with activated magic items in melee, like potions, wands, scrolls, rods, staves, some rings and some miscellaneous magic items. Basically anything that lists how many segments it takes to use or activate. It doesn't work well with missile weapons or clerical turning, however, since no speed factor is listed. In such a case, use the general rule "you go on your opponent's die roll" to determine when the attack occurs. Remember though that, by the rules as written, weapons with multiple attacks in a round go FIRST and LAST. Thus, if the missile were a bow (Fire Rate 2), it would go before a spell caster and after the spell caster. This must be why magic-users cower behind their party (to gain a cover bonus, or at least concealment). It also explains the existence of spells like shield (which is better against missile weapons) and protection from normal missiles. If darts are being used, the thrower goes FIRST, on initiative, and LAST. If more than one combatant goes FIRST and LAST, use initiative to see which gets the jump on the other.
The next example showcases increased number of attacks based on speed factor. Note that this ONLY occurs on a TIED initiative, when both combatants are using weapons in melee, and only after having closed/charged; so this rule will only come up on rare occasions.
EXAMPLE 7
A thief armed with a dagger (SF 2) has been caught infiltrating an orc lair ahead of her party. She was discovered by an orc guard armed with a bastard sword (SF 6). They have traded a few blows and now find themselves tied for initiative. Since the orc's weapon is more than twice the speed factor of the thief's dagger, the thief will get two dagger strikes BEFORE the orc gets to swing his blade. This only occurred because of the tied initiative (or whenever speed factor becomes a determinant in who strikes first).
This next example indicates the use of Dex bonuses when engaged in missile fire.
EXAMPLE 8
A party of adventurers comes across a band of gnolls in the wilderness. The elf fighter/magic-user has his short bow at the ready and wants to fire at the gnolls before they close. His Dexterity score is 16, granting him a Reaction bonus of +1. Some of the gnolls are also firing arrows from long bows at the party. The gnolls have no Reaction adjustment (the DM decides they all have average scores). When initiative is rolled, the elf gets to adjust the party's roll by +1 for himself only. The party rolls a 4 and the gnolls roll a 5, so the elf also goes on 5. The elf and gnolls fire their first arrows simultaneously before he rest of the party and/or gnolls get to do anything.
Now, let's look at an example that defies rolled initiative -- charging. When charging, weapon length dictates who strikes first.
EXAMPLE 9
Assume a warrior with a spear is being charged by an angry giant boar (DM declares the charge before initiative). The warrior states he is setting his spear for the charge. Initiative is rolled with the boar scoring a 6 and the warrior a 5. Regardless, the warrior strikes first since his weapon is much longer. If the warrior hits, the boar will impale itself on the spear for double damage; otherwise the boar strikes the warrior at +2 to hit. If the warrior had only a dagger in hand, the boar would have struck first since it had an equally long weapon (tusks), but won the initiative roll.
As written, the rules for armed opponents vs. spellcasters is somewhat confusing and doesn't follow the normal flow of initiative as presented in the book. Many of us have taken that to mean that the rules are broken or don't make sense as written. This may be the case, or they were left overly simplistic to make the game run smoother. You decide which is right.
Here are some examples I just whipped up. I will attempt to explain each in as much detail as possible:
EXAMPLE 1
A melee between party A and party B has erupted in a dungeon chamber. The combatants had all engaged their opponents when a fighter from party B saw an opening and headed off to take on the magic-user in party A. They begin within melee range. Before initiative the magic-user declares he is casting a magic missile spell (casting time: 1 segment) at the offending fighter. The fighter is armed with a short sword (Speed Factor 3). Initiative is rolled and party A gets a 2, while party B gets a 1. According to the rules as written, we compare the casting time (1 segment) with the speed factor of the weapon minus the losing die roll (3-1 = 2) to get the segment when the attack occurs. Proceed from lowest number to highest. Thus the spell would come off first!
EXAMPLE 2
A magic-user is casting a slow spell (casting time: 3 segments) upon an evil cleric and his undead minions. The cleric is within melee distance of the magic-user (less than 10') and will strike at him using a footman's mace (Speed Factor 7). Initiative is rolled and the magic-user's party gets a 3 while the cleric's side gets a 5. Comparing the casting time (3 segments) to the weapon speed factor minus the losing die (7-3 = 4) we can see that the slow spell will indeed occur first.
EXAMPLE 3
An evil cleric player character is casting bestow curse (casting time: 6 segments) upon a fighter attacking him with a battle axe (Speed Factor 7). The initiative roll for the cleric's party is 1; the fighter's party rolls a 2. Comparing the casting time (6 segments) to the weapon speed factor minus the losing die roll (7-1 = 6) shows that the action is simultaneous. Thus the spell will occur at the same time as the weapon strike. Both attacks will take effect and neither will be disrupted.
EXAMPLE 4
A druid encounters a small group of goblins in the forest chopping down trees in a sacred grove. The druid engages the goblins and is able to dispatch all but one which is armed with a hand axe (Speed Factor 4). The druid begins casting his heat metal spell on the goblin (casting time: 4 segments). They roll for initiative and the druid gets a 5 while the goblin rolls a 2. Comparing the casting time (4 segments) with the weapon speed factor minus the losing die (4-2 = 2) indicates that the goblin will strike the druid BEFORE his spell comes off, despite having lost initiative. If the goblin hits, he can disrupt and spoil the spell.
EXAMPLE 5
An illusionist is casting color spray (casting time: 1 segment) at a hobgoblin armed with a longsword (Speed Factor 5). Initiative rolled results in a 3 for the illusionist and 4 for the hobgoblin. Comparing casting time (1 segment) to the weapon speed factor minus the losing die roll (5-3 = 2) indicates that the spell will go off before the hobgoblin can strike despite the hobgoblin winning the initiative.
EXAMPLE 6
A magic-user casts hold monster (casting time: 5 segments) at a frost giant wielding a huge battle axe (Speed Factor 7). Initiative is rolled with the magic-user scoring a 3 and the giant scoring a 3. Since initiative is tied, attacks are resolved in order of speed factors/casting times without adjustment by the losing die roll. In this case the spell occurs first (CT 5) and the axe after (SF 7).
Interestingly enough, this works also with activated magic items in melee, like potions, wands, scrolls, rods, staves, some rings and some miscellaneous magic items. Basically anything that lists how many segments it takes to use or activate. It doesn't work well with missile weapons or clerical turning, however, since no speed factor is listed. In such a case, use the general rule "you go on your opponent's die roll" to determine when the attack occurs. Remember though that, by the rules as written, weapons with multiple attacks in a round go FIRST and LAST. Thus, if the missile were a bow (Fire Rate 2), it would go before a spell caster and after the spell caster. This must be why magic-users cower behind their party (to gain a cover bonus, or at least concealment). It also explains the existence of spells like shield (which is better against missile weapons) and protection from normal missiles. If darts are being used, the thrower goes FIRST, on initiative, and LAST. If more than one combatant goes FIRST and LAST, use initiative to see which gets the jump on the other.
The next example showcases increased number of attacks based on speed factor. Note that this ONLY occurs on a TIED initiative, when both combatants are using weapons in melee, and only after having closed/charged; so this rule will only come up on rare occasions.
EXAMPLE 7
A thief armed with a dagger (SF 2) has been caught infiltrating an orc lair ahead of her party. She was discovered by an orc guard armed with a bastard sword (SF 6). They have traded a few blows and now find themselves tied for initiative. Since the orc's weapon is more than twice the speed factor of the thief's dagger, the thief will get two dagger strikes BEFORE the orc gets to swing his blade. This only occurred because of the tied initiative (or whenever speed factor becomes a determinant in who strikes first).
This next example indicates the use of Dex bonuses when engaged in missile fire.
EXAMPLE 8
A party of adventurers comes across a band of gnolls in the wilderness. The elf fighter/magic-user has his short bow at the ready and wants to fire at the gnolls before they close. His Dexterity score is 16, granting him a Reaction bonus of +1. Some of the gnolls are also firing arrows from long bows at the party. The gnolls have no Reaction adjustment (the DM decides they all have average scores). When initiative is rolled, the elf gets to adjust the party's roll by +1 for himself only. The party rolls a 4 and the gnolls roll a 5, so the elf also goes on 5. The elf and gnolls fire their first arrows simultaneously before he rest of the party and/or gnolls get to do anything.
Now, let's look at an example that defies rolled initiative -- charging. When charging, weapon length dictates who strikes first.
EXAMPLE 9
Assume a warrior with a spear is being charged by an angry giant boar (DM declares the charge before initiative). The warrior states he is setting his spear for the charge. Initiative is rolled with the boar scoring a 6 and the warrior a 5. Regardless, the warrior strikes first since his weapon is much longer. If the warrior hits, the boar will impale itself on the spear for double damage; otherwise the boar strikes the warrior at +2 to hit. If the warrior had only a dagger in hand, the boar would have struck first since it had an equally long weapon (tusks), but won the initiative roll.
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
AD&D Enchanting Magic Arms and Armor
As part and parcel of my research into making magic items, I still don't understand how one makes enchanted weapons and armor. If the weapon or armor has a special quality, like a flaming sword or armor of etherealness, then it's obviously a spell effect and there is a spell that matches or comes close in most instances. However, how does one make a +1 item? What differentiates a +1 item from a +5 item?
I thought the spell enchanted weapon was the answer. It basically is a 4th level magic-user spell that makes a normal weapon function as if it were a magical one (presumably to be able to hit those pesky critters that require magical weapons to hit). But the spell does not itself give the weapon any bonuses to hit or damage, merely makes it equivalent to a +1 weapon to determine what it can hit (and still cause normal damage). Perhaps if this is used in conjunction with a permanency spell, then the item achieves true +1 status from the enchant an item spell? And perhaps multiple consecutive castings increase that value by +1 per spell infused. In order to make a +5 weapon, then, a magic-user would need five castings of the 4th level enchanted weapon spell, and be able to infuse them all at once.
So, if that's the workaround for weapons, how does one provide +1 protection for armor (and rings, cloaks, and other protective gear)? I suppose that could be a simple casting of protection from evil or similar spell that provides an armor class boost. Perhaps a shield spell? And how does that also confer saving throw adjustments? At least with protection from evil, the save bonus is inherent in the spell description.
Or maybe the plus is related specifically to the material from which it is made. There was a section in the DMG that broke down what all the armor types were made from, listing +1 to +5. Perhaps it's simply the act of making the armor magical that brings out the specific plus. In this way, a weapon, shield, or armor made from mithril will always have the same enhancement bonus, so long as it is enchanted in some way. Likewise, an adamantite weapon or armor would have a higher plus simply because of its construction. Therefore, a magical blade will never be made of simple steel as it could not possibly hold the enchantment (and probably why enchanted weapon does not provide a bonus to hit or damage).
Obviously this needs more research. However, it does seem to work and be supported by such instances as drow armor and weapons which seemingly absorb magical energies simply by being crafted in some way particular to the drow from these magical metals. It is important to note, however, that since they are not enchanted with enchant an item and permanency spells, their dweomer fades over time when removed from those radiations. Of course, that's just theory...
I thought the spell enchanted weapon was the answer. It basically is a 4th level magic-user spell that makes a normal weapon function as if it were a magical one (presumably to be able to hit those pesky critters that require magical weapons to hit). But the spell does not itself give the weapon any bonuses to hit or damage, merely makes it equivalent to a +1 weapon to determine what it can hit (and still cause normal damage). Perhaps if this is used in conjunction with a permanency spell, then the item achieves true +1 status from the enchant an item spell? And perhaps multiple consecutive castings increase that value by +1 per spell infused. In order to make a +5 weapon, then, a magic-user would need five castings of the 4th level enchanted weapon spell, and be able to infuse them all at once.
So, if that's the workaround for weapons, how does one provide +1 protection for armor (and rings, cloaks, and other protective gear)? I suppose that could be a simple casting of protection from evil or similar spell that provides an armor class boost. Perhaps a shield spell? And how does that also confer saving throw adjustments? At least with protection from evil, the save bonus is inherent in the spell description.
Or maybe the plus is related specifically to the material from which it is made. There was a section in the DMG that broke down what all the armor types were made from, listing +1 to +5. Perhaps it's simply the act of making the armor magical that brings out the specific plus. In this way, a weapon, shield, or armor made from mithril will always have the same enhancement bonus, so long as it is enchanted in some way. Likewise, an adamantite weapon or armor would have a higher plus simply because of its construction. Therefore, a magical blade will never be made of simple steel as it could not possibly hold the enchantment (and probably why enchanted weapon does not provide a bonus to hit or damage).
Obviously this needs more research. However, it does seem to work and be supported by such instances as drow armor and weapons which seemingly absorb magical energies simply by being crafted in some way particular to the drow from these magical metals. It is important to note, however, that since they are not enchanted with enchant an item and permanency spells, their dweomer fades over time when removed from those radiations. Of course, that's just theory...
Further Thoughts on Recharging Magic Items
I've been doing some more research into magic item construction and recharging of charged items. It seems fairly obvious to me now that the spell enchant an item is essential to the process in AD&D. This spell (6th level magic-user spell, requiring the caster to be 12th level) enables an item to receive an enchantment - the spells to be used in the enchanting of the item. But this isn't as easy as it sounds...
Gygax never really wanted the Player Characters to make their own magic items. In fact, it's sort of the opposite of the game's premise. However, someone makes all those magic items, why not the PCs themselves? So the spell enchant an item was created and included in the rulebooks along with rules on the fabrication of magic items. The whole process is left rather nebulous -- probably intentionally. After all, if the process is known and established it becomes rather uninteresting. The downside to this is that the DM has to come up with something either on the fly during play or between sessions and this will differ from campaign to campaign. The costs are unknown, the time required is unknown, and the materials are unknown. All this is the purview of the DM.
Now, I think this is what makes being a wizard so fun and exciting! You get to learn esoteric things about the world you live in, how sympathetic magic works, what materials are gleaned from monsters to enchant different materials, etc. It also gives you something to look for in ancient tomes and lost libraries. However, the caveat is that you NEED a dedicated and invested DM to make this work. A casual campaign of occasional gaming is not the backdrop in which you should even try to make magic items. However, if you are a member of a long-standing, detailed campaign world, by all means, give this a try!
The majority of your investment will be time and money. You also need to be able to cast the spells to be placed into the magic item. Like begets like - the essence of sympathetic magic. However, I'm not sure you need to know all the magic spells when recharging an item. The only items with charges are wands, staves, rods and some rings or magic blades (usually those with wishes).
I'm more concerned with wands, however. I've rarely had a staff come into play (except a staff of curing and the Ruling Staff of Amun-Ra) and no one has ever found a rod. So, as far as I'm concerned, wands are the only charged magic items I deal with regularly. Heck, the wizard in the party has no less than 3 magic wands on her at all times (fire, frost, and conjuring), and the party thief has a wand of secret door and trap detection that sees regular usage. Even the druid has a wand of fear that sees infrequent use, and the ranger owns a wand of magic detection.
Now, interestingly, all wands in the DMG can be recharged, except a wand of negation or wand of wonder. Therefore, all their wands are potentially able to be recharged. The stickler is finding a magic-user (or cleric) with the means to do so. A magic-user would require enchant an item to perform this function; a cleric need only pray (but success is very slim). Obviously, neither would need to research the item in question assuming they already know all its properties. For example, the wizard in our group uses identify spells regularly to determine what her magic items are capable of. She knows all the functions for the wand of fire and the wand of frost, but still is missing 2 functions of the wand of conjuring. I would require her to do research only to get an idea of what is required for the wand of conjuring, should she have the opportunity and means to recharge it.
The wand of fire would require some or all of the following spells: burning hands, pyrotechnics, fireball, and/or wall of fire. Each spell cast into the wand during the enchant an item duration would restore a number of charges tied to the casting of that particular spell. Since she only knows burning hands and fireball personally, she can only restore charges of 1 or 2 per casting. Since she must be 12th level in order to cast enchant an item (and have that spell known), she will likely be able to memorize several of each spell. I would only require the one saving throw for the item to see if the enchant an item spell takes. Otherwise, the spell is wasted and the process must be started anew.
Looking at what is required for the wand of conjuring, however, it would be very difficult to replace the spells therein. The wand basically replicates the following abilities: read magic (conjuration/summoning), detect magic (conjuration/summoning), unseen servant, monster summoning I-VI, darkness 15' radius, prismatic sphere (or wall). Neither read magic nor detect magic cost charges to use, therefore they would be useless in recharging the wand (it's more a property of the wand bestowed to the wielder). She has no monster summoning spells, darkness spells, and is nowhere high enough in level for prismatic sphere. She might have unseen servant. So she could replace, at best, about 4 charges per casting of enchant an item (5 with her pearl of power).
The wand of frost would require some or all of the following spells: ice storm, wall of ice, cone of cold. These are all 4th or 5th level spells of great potency, although not as high as a wand of conjuring. Still they only cost 1 or 2 charges each as opposed to the number of charges needed by the wand of conjuring's abilities.
The cost of a wand of conjuring is grossly lower value than other potent wands, at only 35,000 g.p. for full charges. However, the experience point value is appropriately the highest on the list. The only wands more expensive are the wand of frost (50,000 g.p.) and the wand of secret door and trap detection (40,000 g.p.)! How these values are calculated is unknown, but there must be some mathematical relationship regarding spell levels, number of functions, etc.
Looking at the lesser wands, the fear wand would require only cause fear as a spell. Each spell cast into it would restore one charge. The wand of secret door and trap detection would require detect invisibility or true seeing and find traps. The wand of magic detection would obviously require detect magic as its only spell, and each casting would restore 1 charge.
Should there be a cost in the casting of the enchant an item spell? I think not for recharging, since the magic item is already created. However, this doesn't consider any possible research required to fully understand the magic item, nor would it cover any material component costs for the spells cast. Other than this, the only requirement is, therefore, time. Casting the enchant an item spell takes 2+1d8 days. Then the caster must insert as many spells as possible within 24 hours based on level of the spell used. The higher the spell, the longer it takes. If the spells cannot all be inserted within this time, the enchant an item spell must be cast again! It would probably take several castings to recharge a wand of conjuring or frost since those spells are so high in level. In any case, it would take months to recharge any wand to full charges, assuming that they were nearly depleted!
So, it seems that recharging wands is not as glamorous as it may seem. It would probably be less aggravating and time consuming to simply locate a new wand of the same type. However, some wands just don't come around too often and those that see frequent use might be worth the effort. However, if the magic-user is willing to give up their one and only 6th level spell at 12th level to become a magic battery charger, I say let them! You can always frazzle them later by making it known to others in the area that he or she can do so. NPCs would then search out the wizard looking to have THEIR wands recharged as well! This could be a lucrative business for the magic-user in question, so long as they have the required spells in their spellbooks.
Gygax never really wanted the Player Characters to make their own magic items. In fact, it's sort of the opposite of the game's premise. However, someone makes all those magic items, why not the PCs themselves? So the spell enchant an item was created and included in the rulebooks along with rules on the fabrication of magic items. The whole process is left rather nebulous -- probably intentionally. After all, if the process is known and established it becomes rather uninteresting. The downside to this is that the DM has to come up with something either on the fly during play or between sessions and this will differ from campaign to campaign. The costs are unknown, the time required is unknown, and the materials are unknown. All this is the purview of the DM.
Now, I think this is what makes being a wizard so fun and exciting! You get to learn esoteric things about the world you live in, how sympathetic magic works, what materials are gleaned from monsters to enchant different materials, etc. It also gives you something to look for in ancient tomes and lost libraries. However, the caveat is that you NEED a dedicated and invested DM to make this work. A casual campaign of occasional gaming is not the backdrop in which you should even try to make magic items. However, if you are a member of a long-standing, detailed campaign world, by all means, give this a try!
The majority of your investment will be time and money. You also need to be able to cast the spells to be placed into the magic item. Like begets like - the essence of sympathetic magic. However, I'm not sure you need to know all the magic spells when recharging an item. The only items with charges are wands, staves, rods and some rings or magic blades (usually those with wishes).
I'm more concerned with wands, however. I've rarely had a staff come into play (except a staff of curing and the Ruling Staff of Amun-Ra) and no one has ever found a rod. So, as far as I'm concerned, wands are the only charged magic items I deal with regularly. Heck, the wizard in the party has no less than 3 magic wands on her at all times (fire, frost, and conjuring), and the party thief has a wand of secret door and trap detection that sees regular usage. Even the druid has a wand of fear that sees infrequent use, and the ranger owns a wand of magic detection.
Now, interestingly, all wands in the DMG can be recharged, except a wand of negation or wand of wonder. Therefore, all their wands are potentially able to be recharged. The stickler is finding a magic-user (or cleric) with the means to do so. A magic-user would require enchant an item to perform this function; a cleric need only pray (but success is very slim). Obviously, neither would need to research the item in question assuming they already know all its properties. For example, the wizard in our group uses identify spells regularly to determine what her magic items are capable of. She knows all the functions for the wand of fire and the wand of frost, but still is missing 2 functions of the wand of conjuring. I would require her to do research only to get an idea of what is required for the wand of conjuring, should she have the opportunity and means to recharge it.
The wand of fire would require some or all of the following spells: burning hands, pyrotechnics, fireball, and/or wall of fire. Each spell cast into the wand during the enchant an item duration would restore a number of charges tied to the casting of that particular spell. Since she only knows burning hands and fireball personally, she can only restore charges of 1 or 2 per casting. Since she must be 12th level in order to cast enchant an item (and have that spell known), she will likely be able to memorize several of each spell. I would only require the one saving throw for the item to see if the enchant an item spell takes. Otherwise, the spell is wasted and the process must be started anew.
Looking at what is required for the wand of conjuring, however, it would be very difficult to replace the spells therein. The wand basically replicates the following abilities: read magic (conjuration/summoning), detect magic (conjuration/summoning), unseen servant, monster summoning I-VI, darkness 15' radius, prismatic sphere (or wall). Neither read magic nor detect magic cost charges to use, therefore they would be useless in recharging the wand (it's more a property of the wand bestowed to the wielder). She has no monster summoning spells, darkness spells, and is nowhere high enough in level for prismatic sphere. She might have unseen servant. So she could replace, at best, about 4 charges per casting of enchant an item (5 with her pearl of power).
The wand of frost would require some or all of the following spells: ice storm, wall of ice, cone of cold. These are all 4th or 5th level spells of great potency, although not as high as a wand of conjuring. Still they only cost 1 or 2 charges each as opposed to the number of charges needed by the wand of conjuring's abilities.
The cost of a wand of conjuring is grossly lower value than other potent wands, at only 35,000 g.p. for full charges. However, the experience point value is appropriately the highest on the list. The only wands more expensive are the wand of frost (50,000 g.p.) and the wand of secret door and trap detection (40,000 g.p.)! How these values are calculated is unknown, but there must be some mathematical relationship regarding spell levels, number of functions, etc.
Looking at the lesser wands, the fear wand would require only cause fear as a spell. Each spell cast into it would restore one charge. The wand of secret door and trap detection would require detect invisibility or true seeing and find traps. The wand of magic detection would obviously require detect magic as its only spell, and each casting would restore 1 charge.
Should there be a cost in the casting of the enchant an item spell? I think not for recharging, since the magic item is already created. However, this doesn't consider any possible research required to fully understand the magic item, nor would it cover any material component costs for the spells cast. Other than this, the only requirement is, therefore, time. Casting the enchant an item spell takes 2+1d8 days. Then the caster must insert as many spells as possible within 24 hours based on level of the spell used. The higher the spell, the longer it takes. If the spells cannot all be inserted within this time, the enchant an item spell must be cast again! It would probably take several castings to recharge a wand of conjuring or frost since those spells are so high in level. In any case, it would take months to recharge any wand to full charges, assuming that they were nearly depleted!
So, it seems that recharging wands is not as glamorous as it may seem. It would probably be less aggravating and time consuming to simply locate a new wand of the same type. However, some wands just don't come around too often and those that see frequent use might be worth the effort. However, if the magic-user is willing to give up their one and only 6th level spell at 12th level to become a magic battery charger, I say let them! You can always frazzle them later by making it known to others in the area that he or she can do so. NPCs would then search out the wizard looking to have THEIR wands recharged as well! This could be a lucrative business for the magic-user in question, so long as they have the required spells in their spellbooks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)