|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 6, 2022 15:21:38 GMT -6
That is true, although if the Intelligence is 6 or less, the particular Int score is not of much importance because the sword will have no communicative power and no Ego. Alignment will then be the only factor of significance (other than any powers the sword has, which "will have to be discovered by the user"). You can see this in the Monster & Treasure Assortment Sets 1-3 (written for OD&D), where every sword has an Alignment listed, but only those with higher Intelligence have the score noted, along with an Ego score. There are some PCs who function reasonably well with Int 5 or 6! Curious: has any one done anything more than see magic swords with say, Int 5 or 6, as simple curiosities? Seems like the mind of a child is still a terrible thing to waste when in the form of a sword.  A 3 intelligence is good enough for the dungeons! |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 6, 2022 21:06:57 GMT -6
Curious: has any one done anything more than see magic swords with say, Int 5 or 6, as simple curiosities? Seems like the mind of a child is still a terrible thing to waste when in the form of a sword. :) Even though they won't have any special abilities, they will still enter into an alignment struggle with the PC who wields them, potentially changing their alignment. So if a lawful FM1 picks up a chaotic sword with 6 INT, then they would automatically become chaotic as a result. So it is not just a curiosity, at least in that sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Aug 14, 2022 13:08:05 GMT -6
Curious: has any one done anything more than see magic swords with say, Int 5 or 6, as simple curiosities? Seems like the mind of a child is still a terrible thing to waste when in the form of a sword.  Even though they won't have any special abilities, they will still enter into an alignment struggle with the PC who wields them, potentially changing their alignment. So if a lawful FM1 picks up a chaotic sword with 6 INT, then they would automatically become chaotic as a result. So it is not just a curiosity, at least in that sense. Yes, true, with respect to swords with an Intelligence of 6. A sword with an Intelligence score of 4 or 5, which is above animal Intelligence, doesn't provoke the alignment change.
All this if the handler survives the accrual of 1d6 HP (Neutral) or 2d6 HP (Opposing alignment) when gripping it, a chance at luck for a 1st-level Fighting Man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2022 14:42:15 GMT -6
Check out Paul Gorman's magic sword book: clearly derived from D&D and comparable with it but chock full of even more zanier fun -- which is my thing. Finally, I would invite waysoftheearth into this conversation because of his minute study of the exact wording of the rules. Where would Paul Gorman's magic sword book be found? |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 15, 2022 11:17:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Aug 15, 2022 14:48:17 GMT -6
Mordorandor , why do you say an intelligence of 4 or 5 would not provoke an alignment struggle? I don't see any exception explained in the rules. .... , blame that on my quick/messy read and response. What I'm thinking is, assuming you're referring to to this piece of text ... "In addition, if the Intelligence/Egoism of the sword (see below) is 6 or more points above that of the character who picks it up the sword will control the person, even causing him to become aligned as the sword is and will immediately act accordingly." ... is, if this is referring to the sum of INT and EGO, and the sum is 6+ points above "the character's level," then a sword would need to have an INT of 7 at least to be such a threat as you mentioned, because INT 6 and below swords have no EGO, and a INT 6 alone is not 6+ points more than the character's level, which is minimum of 1. The "above that of the character" could also mean above that the character's Intelligence, I suppose, in which case, the comparison is between 3d6 for character INT vs INT + EGO, with the need for INT + EGO to be higher by 6 points or higher than character INT. (I haven't read/played it this way.) Let me know if I'm way off or making nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Aug 16, 2022 6:42:33 GMT -6
Quick method. 2d6 Opposed rolls for control of the sword. Higher intelligence gets an additional d6.
|
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Aug 16, 2022 9:45:22 GMT -6
Mordorandor , why do you say an intelligence of 4 or 5 would not provoke an alignment struggle? I don't see any exception explained in the rules. .... , blame that on my quick/messy read and response. What I'm thinking is, assuming you're referring to to this piece of text ... "In addition, if the Intelligence/Egoism of the sword (see below) is 6 or more points above that of the character who picks it up the sword will control the person, even causing him to become aligned as the sword is and will immediately act accordingly." ... is, if this is referring to the sum of INT and EGO, and the sum is 6+ points above "the character's level," then a sword would need to have an INT of 7 at least to be such a threat as you mentioned, because INT 6 and below swords have no EGO, and a INT 6 alone is not 6+ points more than the character's level, which is minimum of 1. The "above that of the character" could also mean above that the character's Intelligence, I suppose, in which case, the comparison is between 3d6 for character INT vs INT + EGO, with the need for INT + EGO to be higher by 6 points or higher than character INT. (I haven't read/played it this way.) Let me know if I'm way off or making nonsense. Yeah, I thought the only relevance of alignment/intelligent nature for Int 6 and below swords was taking damage if the character character is of mismatched alignment. |
|
|
|
Post by Hawklord on Aug 17, 2022 6:33:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 17, 2022 10:39:14 GMT -6
Mordorandor, the language is rather ambiguous. I choose to read the comparison to be between sword intelligence and character level. In this case, low level characters are easily under threat of alignment change. The whole int + ego vs. str + int thing is only for ego struggles with swords who have not yet "submitted" to the wielder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2022 11:57:30 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2022 11:58:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Aug 17, 2022 17:05:19 GMT -6
Mordorandor , the language is rather ambiguous. I choose to read the comparison to be between sword intelligence and character level. In this case, low level characters are easily under threat of alignment change. The whole int + ego vs. str + int thing is only for ego struggles with swords who have not yet "submitted" to the wielder. , would that mean that INT 1-6 swords would never overpower low level characters, even a 1st level character, because the requirement is to be 6+ points greater than character level? INT 7 sword overpowers 1st level characters only INT 8 sword overpowers 1st and 2nd level characters ... and so on ...? |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 17, 2022 17:38:57 GMT -6
Mordorandor , I went back and read the rules carefully. (And I found something I had missed every time before! A magic sword may free you from a magic spell you are under! (p. 29.)) So, I realized that I have been misreading, or, to be more generous with myself, "over" reading the rules. I have been playing INT struggle analogously to the rules for "Egoism in Continuing Relationship with the User" on p. 30. So I have been using the table on that page to resolve both kinds of struggles, comparing character level to the INT or EGO of the sword, respectively, for each type of potential struggle: INT vs. FM level for alignment struggle and EGO vs. FM level for "obedience." So a FM1 picking up an INT2 sword would have a 25% chance of remaining their previous alignment, a 75% chance of changing to match the alignment of the sword, on this mis- (over?) reading. I now see why we haven't been connecting. You were reading the rules closely and I was reading a certain "spirit," rather than "letter of the law." That said, I like my misreading, I mean (ahem) over reading, and I am sticking with it IMC! (Fight on? Yes! Fight on!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Aug 17, 2022 20:57:29 GMT -6
Mordorandor , I went back and read the rules .... That said, I like my misreading, I mean (ahem) over reading, and I am sticking with it IMC! (Fight on? Yes! Fight on!) I like it.  |
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Aug 20, 2022 13:39:52 GMT -6
Mordorandor , I went back and read the rules carefully. (And I found something I had missed every time before! A magic sword may free you from a magic spell you are under! (p. 29.)) Hmm! A sort of 'jealousy' on the sword's part? That might fit with the idea that the reason they're forbidden to Clerics is that the sword is like a 'foreign spirit'. |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 12, 2022 12:41:41 GMT -6
All this if the handler survives the accrual of 1d6 HP (Neutral) or 2d6 HP (Opposing alignment) when gripping it, a chance at luck for a 1st-level Fighting Man. Also assuming a player is willing to touch the sword again. I have yet to see a player try a second time. I will admit, I also have always read the rules that the damage will happen again if there was a second try at picking it up. I took it that alignment change happened on first contact, if it happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Sept 12, 2022 14:21:20 GMT -6
Yes, same here. Players who grasp such a sword subsequent times accrue additional HP. For those who survive, best to either hold on for the ride, or let it go immediately and leave it be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 12, 2022 19:30:34 GMT -6
Not sure how or even if this alters interpretations at all, but it struck me when reading Jon Peterson's newest book that, if my understanding of it is correct, the rules for magic swords were one of the parts of the D&D text supplied by Dave Arneson. Knowing where the text comes from gives a bit of insight into why it's written that way, I think. - It helps explain why magic swords seem so extraordinarily overpowered compared to everything else in the game. My impression of reading about the process is that Gary asked for rules and Dave sent them, so comparison to and cohesion with Gary's work might not have been readily available factors. According to Gary, Dave did not write a single word of D&D. We can't have it both ways, that Gary wrote it all, but then blame Dave for the hard to understand parts. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 12, 2022 20:52:30 GMT -6
Not sure how or even if this alters interpretations at all, but it struck me when reading Jon Peterson's newest book that, if my understanding of it is correct, the rules for magic swords were one of the parts of the D&D text supplied by Dave Arneson. Knowing where the text comes from gives a bit of insight into why it's written that way, I think. - It helps explain why magic swords seem so extraordinarily overpowered compared to everything else in the game. My impression of reading about the process is that Gary asked for rules and Dave sent them, so comparison to and cohesion with Gary's work might not have been readily available factors. According to Gary, Dave did not write a single word of D&D. We can't have it both ways, that Gary wrote it all, but then blame Dave for the hard to understand parts. I agree with you, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean in this context. All I'm saying is that it's pretty clear by now that the magic sword rules were supplied in whole by Arneson from his own game notes, and pretty much complete as they made it into print (maybe I'm wrong about that?). Therefore if there is ambiguity of language, probably the best place to look for clues is in Arneson's rather than Gygax's semantic habits, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 12, 2022 22:10:57 GMT -6
According to Gary, Dave did not write a single word of D&D. We can't have it both ways, that Gary wrote it all, but then blame Dave for the hard to understand parts. I agree with you, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean in this context. All I'm saying is that it's pretty clear by now that the magic sword rules were supplied in whole by Arneson from his own game notes, and pretty much complete as they made it into print (maybe I'm wrong about that?). Therefore if there is ambiguity of language, probably the best place to look for clues is in Arneson's rather than Gygax's semantic habits, right? Gary was very clear, and this is repeated a few time in Peterson's new book, Gary states that Dave did not write one single word of the D&D as printed. This means anything Dave submitted was rendered through the filter of Gary. It is well established the basis for the rules for the magic swords came from Dave, but we see in the rules was written by Gary, with Gary's spin on it. Dave might not have been great at completing projects, likewise, Gary did not start projects or originate ideas, he expanded on what other brought to him. aldarron correct where I get the following wrong. BTW, he has a blog post on the sword matrix. If you look at the FCC, in Magic Swords & Matrix section, Dave says, he started with the Blackmoor sword family and that the rules evolved. From the Blackmoor sword list we see magic swords can help in battling certain critters, enable spells, enhance ability scores, and are definitely on a different economy than OD&D. Clearly these are running on different rules than OD&D, though some of the root concepts are forming. In the next section, Matrix we see some procedures that look more like OD&D. There are some neat bits here (rolling a 13 is a cursed sword), mind you, this is mostly Referee facing and for generating a magic item. Most of the procedures are spelled out, there are a few areas that could have used some fleshing out. Thing is, we did not get fleshing out, we got more abbreviated to fit the space they had to keep costs down. That is, if what we see in FCC is anything like what Dave gave Gary. On abbreviated content in rules, this is a Gary thing. Len Lakofka called it out in his review of Chainmail, under "Presentation of the rules," Len says, "Here we have some problems. The Authors assume too much when glvlng rules. Their explanation, although complete, ls too brief and requires a few rereadings to grasp the concepts involved. I did not like to see use of "same as ... " quite a few times, and the combat table are not, in my opinion, refereed to properly." Len's review is overall positive calling Chainmail an "Absolutely superb of rules!" Positive review aside, and we know Len was likely writing this review as favor to a buddy, we also have to agree about the quality of writing and the same issues Len pointed out still happening in OD&D. Now, authors aside, what about the Magic Swords is bedeviling you? I think i've got a good handle on it, having used these rules in two campaign. I just gave the rules another read and then read the rules in B/X to check my understanding, so ask away and I will try to help. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 12, 2022 23:18:18 GMT -6
Ah, I see. I was laboring under the impression that the mechanics and mechanical language of the magic sword rules could be demonstrably shown to be at least in large part Arneson's work, even if edited into final form by Gygax. It's been forever since I've read FCC and I'm rusty on what all pre-publication manuscripts are floating around these days and what people have deduced from them, so I'm sure it's just me misremembering that.
As far as the rules themselves go, I was only referring to the thread topic itself: the ego and intellect rules and their use of ambiguous, sui generis language.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 13, 2022 4:11:26 GMT -6
Perhaps I missed where you were going.
The two are very similar. The presentation and some tweaks make it different. When the FCC rules were written is the question. Dave mentions 3 years later from when he wrote the Blackmoor sword list, but plus or minus one or two years is common when any of these guys talk dates.
|
|
