|
|
Post by smubee on Jun 2, 2016 13:13:17 GMT -6
So, I have the WOTC reprints of OD&D, and I wish that they had included Chainmail, or at the very least Swords & Spells. Is there a reason why Swords & Spells wasn't included, considering that it is technically an OD&D supplement? Is it just not popular enough, and if that's the case : Why?
Why is Eldritch Wizardy discussed but not Swords & Spells?
I just found a PDF of it and am going to read it as soon as possible, but does anyone have a logical explanation?
Does anyone use this book?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 2, 2016 13:36:55 GMT -6
There is occasional discussion, like this thread from 2011: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=47886There are some overlooked gems in Swords & Spells, like the Spell Table, which has information not found elsewhere in OD&D such as Area of Effect for many spells. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 3, 2016 5:38:06 GMT -6
For me, I've owned Swords & Spells since I bought it new back in the day. I skimmed through it and just never really liked what I read. If I go to mass combats I tend to dust off Chainmail and for individual combats I use OD&D. S&S just seemed somewhere in between and I never really found a good use for it, and as such haven't ever had much to say about it. I suppose if some good S&S discussions start around here I would dust off my copy and see if I had any new impressions or maybe some input.  |
|
|
|
Post by smubee on Jun 3, 2016 10:03:33 GMT -6
For me, I've owned Swords & Spells since I bought it new back in the day. I skimmed through it and just never really liked what I read. If I go to mass combats I tend to dust off Chainmail and for individual combats I use OD&D. S&S just seemed somewhere in between and I never really found a good use for it, and as such haven't ever had much to say about it. I suppose if some good S&S discussions start around here I would dust off my copy and see if I had any new impressions or maybe some input. I can totally see that. After skimming through the PDF it looks like it's unnecessary. It's not even a fun read. Chainmail, despite me not being a wargamer so it's a little much, is actually incredibly fun to read, but maybe that's because you can tell that it was written by Gary. This one doesn't have that feel unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 3, 2016 10:22:25 GMT -6
Personally, fiddly percentages, too much of a departure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 18:24:32 GMT -6
I suspect that people who liked wargames like me just didn't want to have to worry about including every d**ned thing in D&D in a miniatures battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 5, 2016 6:44:11 GMT -6
Some really fun artwork, but Im not, nor was a mini guy, so never gave it much attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 5, 2016 8:10:28 GMT -6
I may move this thread to the CHAINMAIL section, as it's a mini rules set. Maybe it will generate more chatter there?
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjackbrass on Jun 6, 2016 13:33:50 GMT -6
Was it S&S that appeared in Murphy's Rules due to the infinite orc glitch? Orcs had a negative point cost to reflect their lack of battlefield discipline, which had the side effect of letting you have an unlimited number of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 6, 2016 13:53:59 GMT -6
Why is Eldritch Wizardy discussed but not Swords & Spells? Because druids and demons and artifacts are so much more fun to talk about than combat rules! |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 6, 2016 14:11:56 GMT -6
Part of the issue is the relative unpopularity of the modules that relied upon mass combat. The bloodstone series, which is really cool, but a little out of the mainstream as it is designed for levels up to 100. The dragonslance series of modules rely heavily on mass combat, but are maligned for the railroady nature of Hickmans writing style. Isle of the ape is another one of those fringe adventures.
Mass combat is something a DM should have familiarity with for use when he needs a Hornburg/high clerist tower set piece battle, but PC adventures into dungeons work more as gorilla combat encounters, although, for example, a savvy party could lure the monsters out of B2 and set up a mass combat between the forces of the keep, but most players just want to map a dungeon.
|
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Jun 6, 2016 20:34:01 GMT -6
It has always been my opinion that mass combat is a big part of the fantasy genre, and the rules for it should be included in whatever the current "Base set" for D&D is... but they never are. They're always off in some odd boxed set, obscure supplement, or downloadable content. And, IMHO, they never quite really mesh with the base rules or really satisfy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 23:22:43 GMT -6
Part of it is tonal mismatch. In a game about three heroes escorting a friend from Paris to London, their individualities matter. When you have 5000 men facing 5000 men on a battlefield, individual skill is much less important. Individual skill really isn't what the battlefield is about.
|
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Jun 7, 2016 21:05:40 GMT -6
It has always been my opinion that mass combat is a big part of the fantasy genre, and the rules for it should be included in whatever the current "Base set" for D&D is... but they never are. They're always off in some odd boxed set, obscure supplement, or downloadable content. And, IMHO, they never quite really mesh with the base rules or really satisfy. An interesting viewpoint, and one that I can understand from a "completeness" narrative. For me, I had Chainmail before I had D&D and so I always felt that the mass combat rules were already in place. For me, it was more like Chainmail had only limited options for individual-scale interaction and D&D filled in the gaps. Interesting how our backgrounds cause us to see the same thing in two different ways. I envy you. By the time I entered the hobby in 1981 Chainmail was already obscure and expensive. My generation got the 1e AD&D Battlesystem, which, well, umm... it had awesome cover art. And the booklet on miniatures painting for newbies was sorta helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jun 9, 2016 6:31:21 GMT -6
I suspect that people who liked wargames like me just didn't want to have to worry about including every d**ned thing in D&D in a miniatures battle. It certainly made it look intimidating to my 16-year-old self who bought it. The other thing that looked very off-putting to us at the time was the average damage calculation system; just rolling dice for morale (as I remember) didn't seem like fun. Now that I'm back to enlargiing my table top fantasy armies, I ought to take a look with my additional experience informing the reading... |
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Jun 9, 2016 12:57:36 GMT -6
I've only given it a cursory reading, never tried running a battle, but Gary himself stated that it wasn't a very good system.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jun 9, 2016 15:39:22 GMT -6
As a supplement to Chainmail it can be really useful. It aimed to include many things D&D hadn't up until that point.
For example, fortification values for balancing modules. Spell damage balancing for creating new spells. Formations by monster (and lots of other info on monsters) telling us more about each of their cultures.
I would skip overly detailed elements like Missile Fire adjustment. Cover and concealment mechanics are easier. In any respect, switching to a 3d6 or d20 roll means dropping the percentage adjustments to the above and melee.
At best, I believe the game demonstrates an example of how a referee could prepare a balanced ruleset with elements they want in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 11, 2017 22:44:43 GMT -6
FYI, Swords & Spells was just released in pdf today: www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17175From the preview it looks to be a scan of the 6th printing (11/1979) rather than re-typesetting. |
|
|
|
Post by smubee on Apr 11, 2017 23:19:06 GMT -6
FYI, Swords & Spells was just released in pdf today: www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17175From the preview it looks to be a scan of the 6th printing (11/1979) rather than re-typesetting. Wow it's so weird to see a thread that I made so many months ago revived. The real "irony" is that I am now a proud owner of a 1st print Swords & Spells.. (Thanks Gary Con!!) |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 12, 2017 7:50:57 GMT -6
I ordered Swords & Spells back when it was first offered in PDF and I just downloaded the updated version. The new one is a cleaner and crisper scan (but is still a scan) in pure black and white rather than the off-white of the older scan. They remembered to include the index at the beginning this time, and they've added PDF bookmarks. The new file size is under half the old one. Otherwise, there's no difference between the two versions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 12, 2017 11:41:09 GMT -6
Warning: it's been reported by at least two on G+ that the PDF has two blank pages, pages 7 and 36, which should have battle diagrams. At least one of them reported it to DTRPG.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 12, 2017 11:51:15 GMT -6
I see the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevemitchell on Apr 12, 2017 15:22:58 GMT -6
Just purchased it and downloaded it. Pages 7 and 36 are blank here, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by owlorbs on Apr 12, 2017 20:49:30 GMT -6
Mine were blank as well - reported.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Apr 28, 2017 10:20:20 GMT -6
There are some overlooked gems in Swords & Spells, like the Spell Table, which has information not found elsewhere in OD&D such as Area of Effect for many spells. I need to check it out for that alone! So many OD&D spells don't have an area of effect, most notably sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 1, 2017 23:20:47 GMT -6
There are some overlooked gems in Swords & Spells, like the Spell Table, which has information not found elsewhere in OD&D such as Area of Effect for many spells. I need to check it out for that alone! So many OD&D spells don't have an area of effect, most notably sleep. You may surprised about sleep - the AoE is only a 1" diameter, so a 10' diameter circle in the dungeon. That puts quite a limit on it! |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 2, 2017 6:19:42 GMT -6
There are some overlooked gems in Swords & Spells, like the Spell Table, which has information not found elsewhere in OD&D such as Area of Effect for many spells. I need to check it out for that alone! So many OD&D spells don't have an area of effect, most notably sleep. Careful of the "slippery slope" where you keep adding in new stuff. Part of the magic of OD&D (to me) is that many of these things like AoE are kept vague and simple. The more bells-and-whistles you add in the more your game looks like AD&D and less like AD&D. My theory is that if I want AD&D stuff, I just steal from AD&D.  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 2, 2017 6:33:17 GMT -6
One thing I really like from S&S is the number of melee rounds per combat turn (top of p17).
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 2, 2017 7:50:51 GMT -6
Careful of the "slippery slope" where you keep adding in new stuff. Part of the magic of OD&D (to me) is that many of these things like AoE are kept vague and simple. I'm going to disagree. OD&D is simple because it is meant to be a canvas upon which you apply your own paint: add your own rules, systems, and statistics as suits your campaign. You can remove or change anything you've added as you see fit. Add as much or as little as you want, but do so because it suits the needs of your campaign, not because you're comparing it with an arbitrary ideal or with any other game or campaign. This is what Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson were doing with Greyhawk and Blackmoor; the rule books are just snapshots of stuff they'd been trying out. |
|
