|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 30, 2009 11:37:32 GMT -6
The spell list of Chainmail 1st ed. is : As well as lightning bolts and fireballs as missiles. ( www.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1928) The list of magic sword’s powers, inspired from the various creatures powers in Chainmail, as listed in FFC, probably reflect as well the first sell list. I put a * for those who have a clear basis in Chainmail, while others are rather curious. From Tim Kask, we know he thought Monks and Assassins were overpowered, but Gary said supp. II was about Dave’s campaign, so they should stay like this. Two facts make them overpowered: - If fighters and magic-users in D&D lack the powers they have in Chainmail (see invisible, see in darkness, force morale check, multiple attacks and so on…), they’re far much less powerful they could be. - Some rules which were probably standard in Original Blackmoor were published as class specialties in supp. II (as the doge missiles and spells for monks). Dan allready suggested the Assassin was Dave version of the Thief, which seems probable. I feel the Monk could have been a first version of the original cleric. Why? - The Blackmoor Bishop is followed by monks. - Vampires fear crosses (as only sir Fang could save against crosses), which don’t mean it needed a cleric to do so. Greg Svenson said: « I do not recall when turning the undead came into it, but it was not a concept that was unfamiliar to me, either. I have to say that I am not sure. » So, probably not a major feature. The monk’s powers are: L4: speak with animals [as the 2nd level spell] L8: speak with plants [as the 4th level spell] L5: simulate death [nothing as such, even if it appeared later in UA ; but it exists as a wiard skill in EPT] L6 and up: control their minds (against ESP, then against suggestion and hypnosis, telepathy, geas and quest) [nothing as such, except later in AD&D if I’m not wrong] heal (themselves) (as the 1st level spell, and as in EPT) L13: quivering palm (death touch) [as the 5th level finger of death, and as the Grey death in EPT] The way they use powers rather than spells seems very close from EPT’s priests, which have powers as skills, and can learn bonus spells in addition. It seems me EPT is a better source than D&D for Blackmoor magic, as the dual system magic skills / spells fits better the Chainmail description of Wizard. To be continuated…. |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Dec 30, 2009 18:43:30 GMT -6
Interesting topic Snorri!
It is also worth noting that Stephen Rocklin is sometimes referred to as the Monk of the Swamp. There's not much to the Cult of the Frog that would suggest a martial artist type either.
I wonder if there can be found any similarities between Dave's original magic system and the magic rules deviced for d20 Blackmoor?
Havard
|
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Jan 1, 2010 4:36:38 GMT -6
The way they use powers rather than spells seems very close from EPT’s priests, which have powers as skills, and can learn bonus spells in addition. It seems me EPT is a better source than D&D for Blackmoor magic, as the dual system magic skills / spells fits better the Chainmail description of Wizard. Mhmm... good stuff, but remember that EPT is also EPT, too, and don't forget WoW, either (date relative to Greyhawk) or I'll send over Bigb... erm, the Hands of Krá the Mighty to give a friendly squeeze/reminder.  |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 1, 2010 14:06:45 GMT -6
Great insight Nico! While I had all but dismissed the monk as a Brian Blume invention, its nagged at me what Tim Kask wrote in response to my questions to him on DF www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23223&start=2010 " I could not tell you how much of what I was given for the editing of BM about the Monk PC was Dave's or Brian's... Gary told me to go ahead and put it in as it was part of Dave's milieu; the assassin rode in on the Monk's coattails, so to speak. I thought it was more suited to be an NPC, but was overruled." Your idea that the supp II monk started off as Arnesons version of the cleric makes good sense. I think you have been very cautious with the monk material in sup II and the points you mention all fit a priest better than Brian Blume's kung fu master. As Havard mentions TotF is crawling with Blackmoor monks and none of them are Kung Fu knockoffs. Too bad there doesn't seem to be much of a desription of them but maybe we can find something. One thing that is clear about the clerics of Blackmoor is that they make great vampire hunters and that's another avenue to pursue for insight. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 2, 2010 10:24:13 GMT -6
Mhmm... good stuff, but remember that EPT is also EPT, too, and don't forget WoW, either (date relative to Greyhawk) Eeeeh, WoM or WoW? I guess that's a typo, or was a version of World of Warcraft with perforated cards?   More seriously, as I never had WoM in hands, what could help us about Blackmoor magic and / or skills inside? By the way, Dave, do you know in which version of Chainmail did the five levels of wizards appeared? One, two or three? |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 2, 2010 11:41:43 GMT -6
Hey Nico, you should send an email to Mike Carr www.dawnpatrol.org/ . As a prominent Blackmoor Cleric, he may know a thing or two about the monk. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Jan 2, 2010 12:02:48 GMT -6
Eeeeh, WoM or WoW? I guess that's a typo, or was a version of World of Warcraft with perforated cards? ;D No, little punched squares actually. Not a typo and thanks for the smile.  More seriously, as I never had WoM in hands, what could help us about Blackmoor magic and / or skills inside? Dunno, but probably it could tell us something on some topic. By the way, Dave, do you know in which version of Chainmail did the five levels of wizards appeared? One, two or three? Almost answered your own question there by linking back to my 2005 Acaeum reply at the top of the thread. Geoffrey posted a follow-up and Stephen joined in that little war of wizards. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 2, 2010 13:19:13 GMT -6
Almost answered your own question there by linking back to my 2005 Acaeum reply at the top of the thread. Geoffrey posted a follow-up and Stephen joined in that little war of wizards. Thanks a lot! Is there any information in 1st Edition about the exact difference between Wizard and Warlock? And about counter-spells? |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Jan 2, 2010 15:49:51 GMT -6
Hey Nico, you should send an email to Mike Carr www.dawnpatrol.org/ . As a prominent Blackmoor Cleric, he may know a thing or two about the monk. This one might come in handy.... Havard |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Jan 2, 2010 16:47:25 GMT -6
No probs. Had better check first that I still wasn't (somehow!) being too subtle... This one (WoW);  You can more-or-less rely on Barker's edition to be equivalent to TSR's and thus underpin EPT's magic as published, with that "hook" back to a date no later than Greyhawk's /publication/, whereas I can't confidently state that EPT as published by TSR mirrors Barker's August 1974 version 100% since there were at least some clarifications/additions/"notes" to the original rules (e.g. that section in 420 on assassin-spy-tracker skills including "hide in shadows" and "pass unseen"). d. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 2, 2010 17:57:28 GMT -6
No probs. Had better check first that I still wasn't (somehow!) being too subtle... Oh great Dave! Sure we should watch what's inside that one! |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 5, 2010 21:00:11 GMT -6
I've seen it said that the original 'magic spells' were entirely scroll-driven, you found a scroll and used it, and that magic characters could use more scrolls or something like that, but there wasn't really 'spells known' type stuff at the beginning. That scroll story is consistent with DA also having an alternate magic system early on. Svenny, do you recall 'scroll only' magic dungeons in the very early days? Calithena's statement in this old thread has stuck in my head since I read it and was brought back to mind when reading the "More Infamous Characters" section of FFC, which seems to be some very early material. "Has a huge Laboratory that turns out spells, for selling, which are, of course, perfection itself (30% chance of failure per level of spell, i.e. III - 50%, II - 40%, etc.). Of historical interest is when the Ran of Ah Foo served in the factory as a Spell Maker but was kicked out when he "surpassed" the Egg's standard of excellence... since it was unlogical that the less than perfect Egg could make the perfect spell, when the Ran of Ah Fooh, using the same materials, could make better spells... His Magic Spells are among the most potent in the world with no chance of tham failing but with a 20% Chance that the Gin will want to remake the Spell to improve it. This means that the Gin will produce his Spells (all of which are Level IV) at a rate of one every two months..." "Spells" here are things, not magic words, that the wizard used or unleashed or whatever to cause the spell effect. The quotes seem to mean potions - like the magic berries no doubt, but could also include scrolls I suppose and other objects/components. No wonder wizards needed to build laboratories. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 6, 2010 6:14:54 GMT -6
Exactly! That was also the part I plan to study closer now. My suspicion is that, as in Chainmail, wizards can channel raw magic energy (to do ligthning bolds and fireballs) - and must prepare all others spells in the lab.
This links to D&D, where spells have to be memorized for an adventure, and where the spell book seems to stay quietly at the laboratory - for study between adventures. I suspect the process could involve ot only the stiudy / memorzation, but a full ritual / alchemy.
FFC mentions spells levels anc chances to make them, a system which is once again closer from EPT than D&D. Maybe the spells levels came before the wizards levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 6, 2010 21:27:10 GMT -6
FFC mentions spells levels anc chances to make them, a system which is once again closer from EPT than D&D. Maybe the spells levels came before the wizards levels. Sounds about right. This quote "Progression reflected the increasing ability of the Magic user to mix spells of greater and greater complexity.” (First Fantasy Campaign, p. 50.) seems to suggest that the MU gained Experience not by casting spells but by successfully making them, so maybe they leveled up and gained a bonus to make spells of a certain level after they had successfully completed a spell of that level. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 24, 2010 14:33:32 GMT -6
In Different Worlds #3 (june/july 1979) Dave Arneson tells us this about his first Blackmoor games " Rules? What rules!?!? Chainmail to handle combat at first. A system of magic based on ANIMAL-Type, VEGETABLE-Type, or MINERAL-Type with a hodg -podge of spells." (p6-7).
There is a couple things this tells us. By Chainmail he must mean the Domesday version of the rules that didn't include the fantasy supplement and its spell lists.
The other thing is the veg, min anim, organization scheme which he presumably dropped fairly early. But what is really interesting about that is that it gives us a clue to his early spells, since they must have dealt with the themes of the categories and some of those spells prolly made it into D&D.
How does "speak with animals and speak with plants sound for starters? Any other suggestions?
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Feb 6, 2011 13:18:03 GMT -6
Gentlemen, Is it possible the answer has been under our noses the whole time? Let's see shall we? First lets establish the rule for "unit costs" that Arneson used in his campaign paying attention to the rules in the bottom paragraph for heroes and anti heroes.  So, there is a 1 time cost to "purchasing" a fantasy unit, but that more get "made" depending on how big your villages/cities are. compared to:  So, what we can assume is that there is a 1 time cost to a wizard and if your PC is a wizard, perhaps a one time cost of spells and that depending on village level representing possible # of laboratories more get made every "X" months. Replenished from your initial investment similar to other fantasy units. Now comes the fun part.  This tells us that complexity 1 spells (1st level spells) have a 30% failure rate and each level above 1st has an additional +10% failure rate with 6th level spells having a failure rate of 80% compare with the text of Gygax's Men and Magic for spell creation and item creation: So under Arneson's system perhaps it was possible that, similar to your initial investment into a hero or super hero, you invested say, 2000 gp into a 1st level spell. This gives you 30% failure rate of producing a spell scroll/concoction every two months. In our modified Gygaxian system, an investment of 2000gp would give you 20% chance, once per week of producing a 1st level "spell". an initial investment of 4000gp into the research in your laboratory would improve this to being able to create that spell (light perhaps) to 40% every week of creating such a spell. The number of different spells you can create in your laboratories, are of course limited to the limitations of the CHAINMAIL magic-user from seer (2 spells), through warlock, through necromancer and finally wizard (6-7 spells). This all makes sense from a wargame perspective as battles would be fought a few times a year or every couple of months and not be a "day to day" type of adventuring. [blue]What I'm saying is that gygax used arneson's system for the "magic item creation" rules.[/blue] |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Feb 6, 2011 15:25:30 GMT -6
Looking at our wizard Gin again, his IV level spells would be produced not once every 2 months, but once every 4 weeks as per the modified gygaxian system. However, Since Gin success was predicated on his high intelligence and it is known that Egg of Coot, while powerful was described as having a, I present instead:  notice that a "level II" int aka 5-7 int has a 30% chance of understanding spells. So perhaps instead of a GP of investment increasing the likelihood of producing workable spells, have it be a factor of intelligence. So a wizard with 6 spells and a 15 intelligence has a 75% success rate with a -10% per spell level above I. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Feb 6, 2011 15:58:24 GMT -6
 Firstly, according to Arneson, the above budgets represent the income and costs every 4 months of game time. What does this tell us? Firstly, that a 3rd level wizard (I'm assuming 1=seer 4=wizard). This tells us that a warlock costs slightly less than about what a hero does 12gp per week comes to 192 gold per 4 months heros costs (200gp-500gp) so actually I think it probably means a 3rd level d&d magic-user. Anyway, lets stick with CHAINMAIL. Warlocks have 4 spells (chainmail pg. 32) Let's say he has wizard light I, phantasmal forces II, protection from evil III, and conjure elemental Vour magic user will produce with 30% likelihood, every 5 weeks a summon elemental spell, 50% likelihood every 3 weeks a prot. from evil, 60% liklihood every 2 weeks a phantasmal forces, and every week a wizard light 70% chance. After 4 months we could have a stockpile of: 11 wizard lights 5 phantasmal forces 2 prot. evil 1 conjure elemental These resources can be used in battles like other resources and matches the system that arneson seemed to use. *of note is that normally only 10% of a barony's budget could be used on "specials" meaning magic items or fantastic creatures. However at the cost of 2 spells per week a single special can be purchased. So, if you knew a battle was forthcoming, you could use 2 wizard lights+double the gp cost to pay for a troll or a magic sword if you felt the need and an additional 2 spells per week of use. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Feb 7, 2011 0:09:41 GMT -6
 seer, magician, warlock, sorcerer, wizard ok! Take a wizard as teacher with 6 spells (as per CHAINMAIL). Divide this in half =3. roll a d6 and divide the spells by the number shown. This is your starting number of available spell slots. Is this right? |
|
|
|
Post by bluskreem on Feb 7, 2011 11:26:52 GMT -6
There's much to digest here Cooper, but I think you might be on to something. it's hard to imagine these things from a modern standpoint, but if i forget about Vancian and look at your evidence with regaurds to Chainmail, it makes a lot of sense.
Have an exalt.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 7, 2011 19:48:23 GMT -6
seer, magician, warlock, sorcerer, wizard ok! Take a wizard as teacher with 6 spells (as per CHAINMAIL). Divide this in half =3. roll a d6 and divide the spells by the number shown. This is your starting number of available spell slots. Is this right? Possibly right but, in this particular instance, I believe "Wizard Magic Power ability" refers to a spell point system. This section is supposed to be Richard Sniders and should be a kind of proto Powers and Perils rules. Haven't had time yet to look too closely at your overall analysis coop, but yes, Gygax probably was working off of Arnesons material for magical research and some other sections. Would be useful to compare to AiF also. Arneson's magic system in Levels with failure rates based on inteligence seems to have been developed independantly of the one Gygax developed in the Fantasy Supplement - complexity with failure determined by rank of magic user. That may be due to the Blackmoor campaign starting several months prior to the publication of CHAINMAIL <shrug> |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 23, 2011 11:44:39 GMT -6
Okey doke,
Having had some time to look at your info more closely, I do like your analysis and tying in the % to know chart as a convenient measure of the effect of intelligence was clever. I tied it to character level in D@D but perhaps I'll offer a an optional rule in the supplement.
"spells" in early blackmoor were magic items (potions mostly) it makes sense as a source for magic item creation in D&D.
One distinction to point out is that the failure rates given for spells in Blackmoor weren't about failure to produce the "spell". Production itself was always successful, meaning that somethng was always brewed and bottled in the specified time. The failure rate refered to whether that something in the bottle would acutally work or not when the cork was removed. Whereas the in the D&D system there was no mystery - you knew right away whether you had a working potion or whether you had to pour more time and money into it to get it right.
I'm not sure about the "one time investment" idea as I think spell ingredients had to be purchased or found each time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Feb 26, 2014 20:05:00 GMT -6
|
|
