|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 21, 2012 3:34:58 GMT -6
Somebody may be able to help me with this one...
Where is the earliest appearance of the "rule" that a magic-user's spell may be spoiled, ruined, or otherwise wasted if he is interrupted during the casting of the spell? Is this an OD&D thing, or did it first appear later?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 21, 2012 5:02:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Mar 21, 2012 8:52:52 GMT -6
CHAINMAIL gives a spell failure chart for spells to be delayed or ruined by error or "distraction"
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 21, 2012 16:49:46 GMT -6
CHAINMAIL gives a spell failure chart for spells to be delayed or ruined by error or "distraction" Thanks Cooper, can you point it out the page or section for me? I'm not familiar enough with CM to know where to look. |
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Mar 21, 2012 17:24:53 GMT -6
CHAINMAIL gives a spell failure chart for spells to be delayed or ruined by error or "distraction" ...so really all you need to foil the magic users is a bag of squirrels and shiny objects?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2012 19:15:51 GMT -6
Page 33 ...
Spell Complexity (Optional): Each listed spell has a complexity value,and this value indicates how difficult it is to use such spell. Wizards can more easily employ any value of spell than can Sorcerers, Sorcerers are more able than Warlocks, etc. In addition, there may be a delay in the effect of the spell, or it may be totally negated due to some minor error or distraction. The table below gives the scores necessary for immediate, deferred (1 turn), and negated spell effects by the various levels of magic-users.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 21, 2012 19:19:42 GMT -6
Great! Nice find Cameron, thanks ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2012 19:26:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Mar 21, 2012 22:37:15 GMT -6
That was an interesting thread about scrolls in Holmes. I had a quick look and did not find anything in OD&D about this kind of prepared scroll. I did not check the supplements though, they might add something re. scrolls. I really should carefully read through the LBBs to determine what they actually say - we always played a mishmash, tending toward AD&D as it came out, so I don't necessarily know what is in the 3 original books, what is in GH, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 22, 2012 0:12:26 GMT -6
I really should carefully read through the LBBs to determine what they actually say Over on the DD project we have done exactly that. The results are very interesting indeed  |
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Mar 22, 2012 14:22:01 GMT -6
Over on the DD project we have done exactly that. The results are very interesting indeed A link would be most welcome. It might also be noted, with respect to that Chainmail quote, that the business about distractions is more flavor text than mechanic...you roll on the table (if using the optional rule) with no modifiers for any activity on the battlefield. A quick check of the LBBs didn't turn up a spell disruption rule that I could find...the nearest thing was a system on pp5-6 of Eldritch Wizardry showing how to chop the melee round into six sub-phases in order to resolve things where priority was critical. I don't have access to a PHB or DMG today, but I think that was the basis of a similar rule in AD&D that did include spell disruption. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 23, 2012 3:39:53 GMT -6
A link would be most welcome. See here. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 23, 2012 4:44:21 GMT -6
Given the d6 roll for initiative that is assumed in the FAQ, I would suppose that the rule that makes the most sense is that if you have initiative on a spellcaster, and they are casting a spell that round (intention must be stated up front), a successful hit before their initiative comes up will interrupt them. It doesn't have the kind of precision scaling that AD&D's segments do but it's much simpler.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 23, 2012 7:24:28 GMT -6
cadriel, that's assuming they can even begin casting if engaged in melee combat. I think OD&D is open to interpretation on this. Holmes went the other way: Characters are considered engaged in melee if within 10', and M-U can't cast spells if engaged in melee because "if he is personally attacked he can't concentrate to use his magic". And "if he is not involved in the melee he can get another spell of after 1 or more melee rounds". Furthermore, if a spell caster in Holmes can cast, it always goes off before melee is resolved. So there's very little potential for disrupting spells in Holmes (One possibility might be a faster - higher Dex - spellcaster casting magic missile on another caster).
In the DF thread, Kris Kobold mentioned that disruptable spells are more associated with AD&D. I'd agree after reading this thread. It seems that the idea is old (Chainmail), but was not clearly implemented again until AD&D.
Edit: Looking at B/X, there's nothing in B about spell disruption, but X (pg 11) does specify that spell casting is disrupted by by taking damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Mar 23, 2012 8:26:48 GMT -6
Given the d6 roll for initiative that is assumed in the FAQ, I would suppose that the rule that makes the most sense is that if you have initiative on a spellcaster, and they are casting a spell that round (intention must be stated up front), a successful hit before their initiative comes up will interrupt them. It doesn't have the kind of precision scaling that AD&D's segments do but it's much simpler. Is the FAQ in The Best of the Dragon #1? I sold my SRs many years ago, so no longer have access to it. Looking at the analysis of the Alternative Combat System linked above, it's clear that I used the FAQ BITD, even if I don't remember it. In any case, I think that the initiative/spoiling procedure is probably what I did as well; I don't think I used the detailed system from Eldritch Wizardry...though I think we did occasionally use the succesor system from AD&D when we (mostly) converted. |
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobold on Mar 23, 2012 13:02:56 GMT -6
Holmes went the other way: Characters are considered engaged in melee if within 10', and M-U can't cast spells if engaged in melee because "if he is personally attacked he can't concentrate to use his magic". And "if he is not involved in the melee he can get another spell of after 1 or more melee rounds". I mentioned this in the Dragonsfoot thread as well: I'm not sure whether the Holmes, ed., basic set makes it clear that a character is considered "engaged in melee" ipso facto of his simply being within 10 feet of the foe. What Holmes (3rd print, p. 20) says is "When two figures are brought into position 10 scale feet (or less) apart they may engage in melee" (my emphasis). That is, it seems that they are able to engage in melee, but aren't necessarily so engaged automatically. Keeping this in mind, I then consider the passage on p. 13, which is well known: "A magic-user must concentrate on his spell, so he can not cast a spell and walk or run at the same time, and he certainly can not cast a spell while engaged in combat." So what counts as "engaged in combat" in Holmes? Obviously, attacking in melee does. I think being the target of a melee-type attack should count too--regardless of whether an attack hits (and deals damage) or misses. AD&D (and B/X and BECMI, taking their lead, I suspect, from AD&D rather than OD&D or Holmes) clarified that being hit or otherwise physically disturbed or disrupted spoiled the spell; therefore misses, presumably, didn't interfere with casting. Since Holmes, I feel, cleaves closest to OD&D (as opposed to AD&D or BX/, etc.) I'd be inclined to apply Holmes' procedures to OD&D here, if the need arose. Kris |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 13:43:45 GMT -6
Remember also that D&D was written by wargamers, as well as play-tested by same. Wargames often grant the units a "zone of control" or ZOC. An enemy units entering one's ZOC (in some rules, at least) often meant the units engaged one another. So in a single unit type game derived from wargaming rules, it is possible that such an action was assumed and overlooked when it came to writing rules. This would also explain why it was added later, as some editor did a head-slap and "d'oh!".
Keep in mind, this is all guesswork and suggestion and in no way a statement of fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 23, 2012 13:53:58 GMT -6
Kris: see my response in the DF thread. I think we may actually agree; at least I agree with everything you wrote above.
Cameron: Great point. I was sort of thinking about that, vis-a-vis Chainmail. I don't think Holmes was much of a wargamer, but he did include some rules from Chainmail in the Giants entry, so I think he was familiar with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobold on Mar 23, 2012 15:27:37 GMT -6
Kris: see my response in the DF thread. I think we may actually agree; at least I agree with everything you wrote above. Yup. We agree! Kris |
|
