Well, if the player is lucky his detail-oriented DM could always let the magic-user find a wand instead which will avoid this unfortunate conundrum.
True enough, but not the most elegant solution. I would think that rather than making a given magic item be necessary for the use of another magic item (i.e. a wand for a scroll), it would be easier either (a) to allow MUs more spells in their spellbooks, either the guarantee of read magic plus another spell (like Mentzer), or the same plus a few spells (like AD&D DMG), or the same plus possibly several spells (like Greyhawk, Holmes, or the AD&D PHB) OR (b) more radically, not require the use of read magic for the use of scrolls. While (a) is more in line with the tradition of the game, I hardly see (b) as especially game-breaking. It is, after all, the case that clerics can use their own scrolls without read magic, as can high-level thieves. So, why not reserve read magic for magical treasure maps, clues, inscriptions that must be read to open magic portals, etc., and allow scroll-reading without any spell? (I know we tend to hand-waive that a bit in play anyway, and there have not been ill effects on game play.)
True enough, but not the most elegant solution. I would think that rather than making a given magic item be necessary for the use of another magic item (i.e. a wand for a scroll), it would be easier either [snip]
BX is not the version for over thinking... The wand is just a way to give the MU a few more spells, with just a few remaining charges. And yes it's easier to not cause the problem in the first place by reading the rules to require all beginning MU to start with read magic as their only spell.
THIS is a phenomenal idea! (I mean, heck, they can't spend the coin on weapons or armor!)
Unless I am mistaken, B/X presumes that an MU can have no more spells in his spellbook than he can cast per day. This means that the only way scrolls will be of any use to a 1st level MU is to have read magic be his only "known" spell. Otherwise, this work-around doesn't help until at least 2nd level. Indeed, it doesn't even do any good for there to be scrolls as treasure, except as delayed gratification.
There are, of course, work-arounds to this (e.g. allowing the MU to have more spells in his book), but I thought I should mention that B/X's rule about spells known makes the scroll solution generally usable in OD&D (and esp. with Holmes' rule that MUs of any level can produce scrolls) not especially helpful for a by-the-book B/X campaign.
I am not especially versed in the particulars of the B/X rules, but what appears on page B49 under the heading of "Scrolls" doesn't appear much different from previous versions to me
It says:
Quote:
Magic-user and elf spells are written in a magic language and require that the spell-caster use a read magic spell in order to understand the scroll so that it may be used later.
(emphasis added).
Assuming that a magic-user or elf knows the read magic spell (and he would be foolish indeed not to!) there is no reason why he should not have studied a stock of scrolls in the weeks prior to an adventure. He would do so explicitly so that he could use those scrolls later. I.e., during the adventure.
Re: B/X D&D Massive Player Casualties « Reply #49 on Sept 15, 2012, 12:17am »
The oddity in the B/X rules as expressed lies not in the rules regarding scrolls but rather in the rules regarding how many spells a Magic User or Elf can know. Strictly speaking, this expression of the rules states that an MU or Elf only knows as many spells as he can cast per day. This means that if a 1st level MU knows read magic, he can know no other spell until 2nd level. Sure, he can cast any spell from any scroll he finds, but he still only knows read magic. Conversely, should he know, say, sleep or some other spell at 1st level, then he will be unable to use any scroll he encounters until at least 2nd level, should he at that point add read magic to his spellbook.
However, as said above, B/X, and OD&D in general, is not meant to be parsed at this fine a level of detail. I suspect that this conundrum was unintended by Mr. Moldvay and company, so I would urge removing the rules about the limits on spells in spellbooks. I merely wanted to note the discrepancy, should someone care to follow Moldvay and Cook to the letter.
Re: B/X D&D Massive Player Casualties « Reply #50 on Sept 15, 2012, 10:25am »
llenlleawg's right. I'd forgotten about that, but I think I remember some discussions about it on Dragonsfoot in the past. Page B16 of Moldvay says "Each magic-user and elf has a spell book for the spells that he or she has learned. A first level character will have one spell (a first level spell) in the spell book). A second level character will have two spells (both first level) in the spell book; a third level character will have three spells...The DM may choose which spells a character has in the book, or may allow the player to select them". Read Magic is required to read scrolls (pg B17). So a 1st level M-U cannot use scrolls unless their single spell in their book is Read Magic. I'm sure this was ignored by most ...
This seems like an area where Moldvay was trying to simplify the Holmes "chance to know" rules and went too far, which Mentzer recognized and corrected.
"Story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of an older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.” - Holmes rulebook
Zenopus Archives - Holmes Basic D&D - website & blog
llenlleawg's right. I'd forgotten about that, but I think I remember some discussions about it on Dragonsfoot in the past. [snip] I'm sure this was ignored by most ....
Right on both counts...I didn't get into this because I understood the OP to be asking for help in running an enjoyable game, not a DF-style parsing of the rulebook. Sorry to have caused a disturbance.
Joined: Nov 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,554 Location: Austin TX USA Karma: 151
Re: B/X D&D Massive Player Casualties « Reply #53 on Sept 16, 2012, 8:07am »
I'm with you Barrataria! The spell limit is an easy house-rule "fix".
Another idea is a ring, amulet, talisman, etc. that allows the player to convert any memorized spell into a "sleep" spell. Or allows the player to "recall" any spell cast and recast it; either once or at least once plus as many times as he can save versus spells. Or a magically regenerating sleep (or other useful spell) scroll, it can be read once per day and the magic writing reappears the next day. Or ...
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 227 Location: Wake Forest, NC Karma: 4
Re: B/X D&D Massive Player Casualties « Reply #54 on Sept 16, 2012, 12:45pm »
I know quite a few game masters who house rule that a limited form of read-magic or detect-magic (or both) are permanently burned into a magic-users mind and can be used at will. So some basic magical inscriptions (like unsecured scrolls and the magic users own spellbook) are always legible to a Magic-User, but anything intentionally obfuscated (like another MU's spell book, or a protected/encrypted scroll) is not.
Re: B/X D&D Massive Player Casualties « Reply #55 on Sept 16, 2012, 3:19pm »
Indeed to one and all! I hope I didn't sound like some crazy B/X fundamentalist! When we remember that all of the older rulebooks are slightly variant expressions of the same game and that they are mutually intelligible, something written for one being easily transposed to the other, it's important not to be over-concerned with what seems to be or has become a fun-crushing or fun-impeding rule. Sure, some rules we think are bad need not be so in actual play. Still, no need to make this individual rule (which is the odd man out in any event) an impediment.
I would suggest that the easiest fix is, as I wrote above, to eliminate the spellbook limits and use either (a) Mentzer, (b) Greyhawk/Holmes, or (c) Men and Magic as the basis for how many spells there are in the book. Then, allow Holmes' permission for MUs of any level to write scrolls at 100gp and 1 week per level. Done and done.
Personally, I like the suggestion that MUs don't need to use read magic to use scrolls. I just find it adds little to the fun of the game and potentially gets in the way of it.
On the original question, re: the fragility of low-level parties, one option might be to increase hit points at low level. If the players prefer being able to hack and slash a little longer before things get iffy, I don't see this as such a bad thing. Some system that allows the hit points to level back out at higher levels would remove worries of "power creep". One possibility, off the top of my head and altogether untested, would be to allow the PC's Constitution score to serve as initial hit points. At every new level, roll the total number of dice appropriate, including Con bonuses, and compare to the Con score. If the rolled value is lower, keep the Con score as hit points. If the rolled value is higher, used the rolled value as hit points and then proceed as per the normal rules from that point forward.
« Last Edit: Sept 16, 2012, 3:21pm by llenlleawg »
Joined: Nov 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,554 Location: Austin TX USA Karma: 151
Re: B/X D&D Massive Player Casualties « Reply #56 on Sept 16, 2012, 3:33pm »
You didn't sound like that at all, I believe the general concern was the topic drift, not your initial question.
Casting of certain spells (such as read magic) as rituals, and therefore not requiring memorization, is an excellent way to proceed. The MU will always have something to contribute, even if he has cast his "big gun" spell for the day.You can limit it by required 100 gp per spell level worth of material (incense, eye of newt, et al.) and limit spells that can be cast that way to informational type spells. Finally, make it take a whole turn to cast a ritual spell, thus incurring a wandering monster check too ... you have a nice self-limiting system that increased magi utility to the party.
Increasing hit points gets back into a problem I attempted to highlight earlier. It seems a good solution at first, but a typical outcome is players who never learned cautious, tactical play. I liken it to playing Doom in "god mode" ... kind of fun for a short while but it sort of sucks all the fun out of the game after the novelty wears off. Of course, that is one gamer's opinion only; increased hit points may work fine at your table.
3. Religiously use morale checks. Remember that monsters have to make a morale check when the FIRST of their number is slain. Thus a group of 6 orcs might run away after only 1 orc is slain.
4. Also religiously use the reaction table. Most monsters most of the time will NOT attack. I don't care if their alignment is chaotic. Check-out that table. You will see that, if the players want to survive, they can avoid combat most of the time that they encounter monsters.
Yes, yes, YES!
Morale if actually used as written really changes the entire game.
Joined: Jul 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 478 Karma: 37
Re: B/X D&D Massive Player Casualties « Reply #59 on Oct 11, 2012, 10:36am »
I know I'm late to the party, but still:
No cleric, either PC or hired, no magic user, either PC or hired, and 50% of the time their tactic is "CHARGE"?
That should be a total party wipe.
However, it sounds like the players have pulled their heads out of their butts and started to play the game, so good.
Gary started re running Greyhawk in the late 90s and he often commented how appalled he was at the lack of tactics by players; his kobolds at the entrance scored over a dozen total party kills.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged
![[avatar]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/Ways_100x100.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i51.tinypic.com/34oeau1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/90x90.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2796/4306068778_4a9c6e1d90_s.jpg "[avatar]")
![[yim]](http://images.proboards.com/yim.gif "[yim]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")
![[aim]](http://images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")