"Number of Spells" in Chainmail 3e

[harlandski]

I'd like to ask how "Number of Spells" (Chainmail, p. 32) is usually interpreted. Is it:

1. Number of distinct spells (which can each be cast once).
2. Number of distinct spells (which can be cast any number of times).
3. Number of times a wizard can choose to cast a spell during the game, whether the same spell or different ones.

I'm aware of how this developed in OD&D and beyond (essentially 3, above), but I'd be grateful to know how this was played 'back in the day', or how modern Chainmail players manage this.

[Stormcrow]

There is no indication whatsoever of any limit to the number of times a Wizard can cast a particular spell, and if there was meant to be the writers completely dropped the ball. It's "number of spells," not "number of spell catings." Your number 2 is the correct answer.

[jacar]

"Number of Spells: The power of the magic user determines the number of spells he is able to manage:" P32, Chainmail 3rd Ed.

It's funny. We started playing DnD well before ever playing Chainmail. So the magic to us was always one of memorization like in the original game. The wizard had to memorize the number of spells. However, given that a Wizard can cast a fireball/lightning bolt any number of times (ie they always get that in their spell repertoire) it does make sense that the number of spells is essentially the contents of the wizard's spell book. They can cast as many spells as they like at one per turn. The limiter is the complexity and their luck. So we played #3 but I also believe #2 is correct.

[clownboss]

The first time I've read it(pre-D&D), I assumed #1, you can cast each of the spells just once. No particular reason for it, I just assumed spells were meant to be precious since so many of these spells are completely game-changing in a blink of an eye.

[Starbeard]

I've flip flopped, but I haven't played CM with wizards enough to notice how it changes play.

On the one hand, "number of spells he is able to manage" has always sounded both quantitative and qualitative to me, meaning "how many you can cast before you can't manage anymore."

However, they also get to blast and zap to their hearts' content, so it follows that they should be able to allakazam as often as they like as well, limited only in the number of spells they know.

[stormberg]

Howdy,

Nov 30, 2017 10:51:41 GMT -6 harlandski said:

I'd like to ask how "Number of Spells" (Chainmail, p. 32) is usually interpreted. Is it:
2. Number of distinct spells (which can be cast any number of times).

I have some quotes from Gary in this trhead:

odd74.proboards.com/thread/253/spells-chainmail-edition


Futures Bright,

Paul

[jacar]

The relevant bit from Stormberg's thread...

"Paul: Regarding the rules themselves, are wizards able to cast the spells in their selection multiple times? Say a magician has conjuration of an elemental and phantasmal forces. Can he conjure a fire elemental and then an earth elemental in the same battle? Can he cast phantasmal forces more than once in a single battle? (I understand that wizard invisibility, fireball, lightning bolt, and counterspell may all be used multiple times without limit. It is the other spells I am concerned about.)

Gary: Spells selected can be cast multiple times as you note. The nimber of different spells possible is the limitation, and they must be chosen beforehand.

Paul: Does fireball or lightning bolt count against a caster's total number of spells known? Say a magician can use 3 spells, is fireball considered one of them?

Gary: Yes, both spells count against the possible number of different spells known."

Makes it rather clear, don't you think?  That and...

"Paul: Ah yes, another one that I forgot: When do spells take place in the initiative sequence?

MOVE
SPLIT/PASS THROUGH FIRE
ARTILLEY FIRE
MISSILE FIRE
MELEE

Gary: Spells are activated in the Artillery Fire phase."

I did not know this.  We always cast once per turn but whenever the caster liked. 

Thanks for posting!

John

[Deleted]

The interesting thing is how few times wizards cast spells in our games as opposed to using fireballs or lightning bolts.

I only remember them conjuring elementals once or twice. Then the enemy uses mounted archers to shoot at the wizard, and stands around and laughs.

[harlandski]

Having started playing Chainmail again with a friend, I've started thinking about this question again. Thanks to all who answered two years ago!

My friend and I are going to actively experiment with different possibilities here. When we played the weekend before last, we understood it as a magic user getting to use each spell an unlimited number of times, and that seemed pretty overpowered. (We also didn't count either lightning or fireball against the spell allocation).

We're going to look at different configurations and decide what we think works best - watch this space!

In related news, is there any canon (or wisdom from play) about what happens to spells when the caster dies? So would a cloudkill just become independent, or would it fizzle? Would troops which had been made invisible suddenly appear? We let spells persist after the caster's death, and this contributed to the feeling that the magic user decided it all (we only had one Magician on each side, by the way).

[retrorob]

jacar

Interesting! For me it's rather obvious that spells and missiles are different categories:

they (Wizards) throw deadly missiles, and Wizards cast terrible spells.

These deadly magic missiles (fire ball and lightning bolt) aren't listed under Spells. Thus I'd say that Warlock knows 4 spells AND fire ball / ligthning bolt. Note that M-U has to choose which magic missile he/she uses before play. Maybe M-U could sacrifice one of the Spells in favor of the second missile?

[jacar]

Jan 1, 2020 5:00:31 GMT -6 retrorob said:

jacar

Interesting! For me it's rather obvious that spells and missiles are different categories:

That would have been my thought as well. Obviously not.

[retrorob]

There are also special Wizard's skills, like being impervious to normal missiles, ability to see in darkness and become invisible. I'd say that these are not spells, at least not in Chainmail.

[harlandski]

Mar 13, 2020 15:47:01 GMT -6 retrorob said:

There are also special Wizard's skills, like being impervious to normal missiles, ability to see in darkness and become invisible. I'd say that these are not spells, at least not in Chainmail.

Yes when we've played we've taken them to be abilities, but with invisibility (for Wizards and elves etc) we made the house rule that you only get to 'turn on' the invisibility once. So once you've given your position away by attacking etc, you can't go invisible again.

[delta]

Feb 28, 2020 14:18:29 GMT -6 jacar said:

Jan 1, 2020 5:00:31 GMT -6 retrorob said:

jacar

Interesting! For me it's rather obvious that spells and missiles are different categories:

That would have been my thought as well. Obviously not.

This is a case where I'm really prone to count that comment by Gary as simply being a mis-recollection. He wasn't playing recently, surely didn't look up the book rule, and philosophically counted the whole CM to 1E game as a continuous whole -- hence mentally overwriting rules in one place with rules from another edition (in this case: clearly as of OD&D fireballs are a standard spell).

As another example, I've seen him claim in the ENWorld Q&A that the 0E/1E phantasmal force spell must create a force of troops, not any other kind of object, directly contradicting the explicit 0E/1E text (but matching CM).

On the other hand, there are things that he was consistent about over the years (i.e.: not single one-off comments), that match a particular reading of certain texts, and those are the things to which I sit up and pay attention.

[retrorob]

I'm not sure. Look at the "Battle of Brown Hills":

Warlock: fire balls, phantasmal forces, spell of darkness, conjuration of elementals (a warlock has 4 spells according to CM 2E)
Magician: lightening bolts, wizard light, circle of protection (3 spells)