Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 7:03:07 GMT -6
I haven't started on Vol 3 in any formal way--I've been up to my neck getting Delving Deeper V3 out  I wasn't going to start until gonyaulax was seriously into Vol 2. Sorry to several of you for the lack of feedback over the last several months . . .  I'm in the process of getting a new job and moving from Kansas back to Nebraska. The end is not in sight, yet. I've been in Kansas for 32 years and in our present house for 14 and I'm a borderline "hoarder", so guess what awaits me!!! Sigh . . . In any case, I have not given up on this project. But I probably won't get much done for another month or so. Perhaps I will surprise everyone, we'll see. Gonyaulax Good luck with your move, I feel your pain!  |
|
|
|
Post by kirbyfan63 on Jun 19, 2014 18:58:47 GMT -6
Was there any official errata released for OD&D or the supplements. My version of Greyhawk has an errata page, but that's all I have seen, can't remember if dragon ever had anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 19, 2014 19:06:41 GMT -6
Was there any official errata released for OD&D or the supplements. My version of Greyhawk has an errata page, but that's all I have seen, can't remember if dragon ever had anything. There was a one page correction sheet that came with the 2nd-3rd prints of D&D. From memory, I think these changes were included in the text of the later prints. I don't know of any formal errata thou--would be great if there was one, although I reckon it would possibly require close scrutiny even if it did exist |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 19:16:52 GMT -6
Was there any official errata released for OD&D or the supplements. My version of Greyhawk has an errata page, but that's all I have seen, can't remember if dragon ever had anything. Yes, though most of the corrections were incorporated into later printings. The Acaeum has the official errata along with annotations. |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 24, 2018 7:53:28 GMT -6
Sorry to several of you for the lack of feedback over the last several months . . . I'm in the process of getting a new job and moving from Kansas back to Nebraska. The end is not in sight, yet. I've been in Kansas for 32 years and in our present house for 14 and I'm a borderline "hoarder", so guess what awaits me!!! Sigh . . . In any case, I have not given up on this project. But I probably won't get much done for another month or so. Perhaps I will surprise everyone, we'll see. Gonyaulax Hi gonyaulax did you ever finish this project? If not, can you share what you had completed? Hope that move went well. |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 6, 2022 13:25:40 GMT -6
[edit: There are also reports of subtle variations within prints (probable mixed sets due to overruns, underruns, packing mismatches, or whatever), which makes the whole thing trickier. This is why I tend to think of it as first typesetting (or Lake Geneva Graphics typesetting), second typesetting (or Heritage typesetting, third typesetting (or WotC typesetting. Within the second typesetting there were three versions: Initial typesetting (aka 5th printing), Tolkien corrections (6th), and price changes (7th). |
|
tom
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 48 
|
Post by tom on Sept 15, 2023 10:50:54 GMT -6
Page 25; Regarding the Dispel Magic spell; <<Unless countered>> What does this mean? If one is using Chainmail combat instead of the more widely used alternative system, spells can be countered, that is, neutralized by the enemy mage in a sort of magic spell combat. Just reading through this thread and it's really interesting. I picked up on this quote "Unless countered" and I have an alternative theory regarding the meaning. Counter Spells do appear in the Chainmail rules but in my opinion they were completely replaced by use of Dispel Magic. So when the LBB's talk about "countering spells" this is referring to using Dispel Magic to counter spells. If you look at Chainmail it says "The stronger Magic-User can successfully cast a counter-spell with a two dice score of 7 or better, while a weaker magician needs a score of 8, 9, 10 or 11, depending on his relative strength. A counter-spell fully occupies a Magic-User's powers." The numbers presented "7,8,9,10 or 11" directly correspond to the levels of magic-user available in chainmail as follows: 7 - Wizard 8 - Sorcerer 9 - Warlock 10 - Magician 11 - Seer If you read the description from Men & Magic it says "The success of a Dispel Magic spell is a ratio of the dispeller over the original spell caster, so if a 5th-level Magic-User attempts to dispel the spell of a 10th-level Magic-User there is a 50% chance of success." It also says the following in the Feeblemind spell description. "A spell usable only against Magic-Users, it causes the recipient to become feeble-minded until the spell is countered with a Dispel Magic." So, I think in OD&D you need a Dispel Magic spell to counter an enemy magic-user's spell and if you ran a mass combat in an OD&D campaign using Chainmail rules I think it would be appropriate to still require a Dispel Magic spell for purposes of consistency. Hope that makes sense! |
|
rhialto
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 128
|
Post by rhialto on Sept 16, 2023 5:17:14 GMT -6
Yes, that does make sense, and is consistent with the described counterspelling text in Chainmail and the implications of OD&D magic. For a fairly divergent interpretation: in my house-ruled version of OD&D I opted to not require Dispel Magic in order to counterspell, so we'll see how that is received when we play. It means Magic-users have another option in play when confronted by an adversary spellcaster, even if they have no other useful spell. There is a thread here discussing ideas behind Chainmail-inspired Wizards, before they were deconstructed and then elaborated in OD&D. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 16, 2023 16:49:04 GMT -6
I picked up on this quote "Unless countered" and I have an alternative theory regarding the meaning. Counter Spells do appear in the Chainmail rules but in my opinion they were completely replaced by use of Dispel Magic. So when the LBB's talk about "countering spells" this is referring to using Dispel Magic to counter spells. It's a plausible theory, and I agree that Dispell Magic's chance of success being based on the relative levels of the two casters is very much like the chances specified in CM (which continued to be expanded in each successive print, including the quoted chances from the 3rd print, 1975, after D&D was published). It's only curious that the description of D&D's Dispell Magic spell itself (M&M p25) begins with: << Unless countered, this spell will be effective in dispelling enchantments of most kinds (referee's option), except those on magical items and the like.>> (emphasis mine). The implication is that in addition to Dispell Magic's main effect (dispelling a pre-existing, on-going enchantment) there is also the possibility of countering the Dispell Magic spell (and, implicitly therefore, other spells too) as it is being cast. Perhaps, this idea was carried over from CM, but got left behind as D&D marched on? |
|
tom
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 48
|
Post by tom on Sept 17, 2023 0:20:52 GMT -6
I picked up on this quote "Unless countered" and I have an alternative theory regarding the meaning. Counter Spells do appear in the Chainmail rules but in my opinion they were completely replaced by use of Dispel Magic. So when the LBB's talk about "countering spells" this is referring to using Dispel Magic to counter spells. It's a plausible theory, and I agree that Dispell Magic's chance of success being based on the relative levels of the two casters is very much like the chances specified in CM (which continued to be expanded in each successive print, including the quoted chances from the 3rd print, 1975, after D&D was published). It's only curious that the description of D&D's Dispell Magic spell itself (M&M p25) begins with: << Unless countered, this spell will be effective in dispelling enchantments of most kinds (referee's option), except those on magical items and the like.>> (emphasis mine). The implication is that in addition to Dispell Magic's main effect (dispelling a pre-existing, on-going enchantment) there is also the possibility of countering the Dispell Magic spell (and, implicitly therefore, other spells too) as it is being cast. Perhaps, this idea was carried over from CM, but got left behind as D&D marched on? it is curious but i think it could just mean that you can counter dispel magic with a further dispel magic spell? |
|
rhialto
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 128
|
Post by rhialto on Sept 17, 2023 4:24:06 GMT -6
It could, and it could not: one of the charming ambiguities of OD&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 17, 2023 16:57:29 GMT -6
it is curious but i think it could just mean that you can counter dispel magic with a further dispel magic spell? I think this is essentially the same thing. Whereas all CM-Wizards have: the ability to counter, fireball or lightning bolt, invisibility, and protection from normal missiles without any of these being listed as spells, D&D M-Us have dispel magic fireball, lightning bolt, invisibility, and protection from normal missiles as listed spells. Some M-Us will prepare some of these for any given adventure, and others not. In this case, preparing the dispel magic spell becomes a prerequisite for countering/dispelling magic. A separate question is whether or not spells can, or ever could, be countered/dispelled as they are/were being cast; before affecting anyone/anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 17, 2023 18:12:20 GMT -6
it is curious but i think it could just mean that you can counter dispel magic with a further dispel magic spell? I think this is essentially the same thing. Whereas all CM-Wizards have: the ability to counter, fireball or lightning bolt, invisibility, and protection from normal missiles without any of these being listed as spells, D&D M-Us have dispel magic fireball, lightning bolt, invisibility, and protection from normal missiles as listed spells. Some M-Us will prepare some of these for any given adventure, and others not. In this case, preparing the dispel magic spell becomes a prerequisite for countering/dispelling magic. A separate question is whether or not spells can, or ever could, be countered/dispelled as they are/were being cast; before affecting anyone/anything. I've always liked the 2nd Edition rule: it disrupts the casting or use of these in the area of effect at the instant the dispel is cast. Of course, this only works when you play with everyone declaring actions at the top of the round, which is why other means of counterspelling were devised for later editions where it's the norm for every combatant to have an individual, uninterrupted (minus certain prescribed actions which are allowed to take place out-of-turn, such as attacks of opportunity) turn within the round. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 17, 2023 21:24:59 GMT -6
Desparil Do you mean 2e CM? If so, I don't really understand what you're getting at. AFAIK, all three CM editions have both the simultaneous and the move/counter-move systems. Can you explain what you mean more explicitly?
|
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 17, 2023 22:55:43 GMT -6
Desparil Do you mean 2e CM? If so, I don't really understand what you're getting at. AFAIK, all three CM editions have both the simultaneous and the move/counter-move systems. Can you explain what you mean more explicitly? No, 2nd Edition AD&D. As far as I know Dispel Magic isn't in any version of Chainmail since it has the rule for counter-magic instead. I quoted nearly verbatim from the Player's Handbook description of Dispel Magic. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 17, 2023 23:06:46 GMT -6
Ah, my bad. Carry on...
|
|
tom
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 48
|
Post by tom on Sept 18, 2023 1:23:39 GMT -6
Ive been thinking about this alot. How would countering dispel magic in Od&D work using another dispel magic? it would have to be preempted? not really because if the spell is being cast the affects are not immediate, for lack of ultimate confirmation it seems logical that magic users begin to cast spells during their movement phase. as per chainmail to cast spells magic users must remain stationary so this is an intuitive assumption.I would love the know whether anyone has ever been able to determine what part of the turn sequence is dedicated to casting spells in chainmail, but presuming its the movement phase when it begins the magic user begins to cast a spell and the opposing magic user (if conditions allow) would see that the other magic user is concentrating on a spell and would then begin to cast dispel magic in order to counter it (the magic user would not necessarily know what spell their opponent is casting) then it is a matter of who gets the spell off first. it makes no sense to me that this is purely based on who has initiative as that would imply the decision to counter would need to be made before the other magic user begins to cast and the mu countering would require the initiative. I wouldn’t rule this out as being the case, but other options are using dexterity to see who is faster “men and magic does attribute dexterity as being a factor in “getting off a spell” or the there is the optional casting time rule? spells can be failed or delayed or immediate.
|
|
tom
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 48
|
Post by tom on Sept 18, 2023 1:25:46 GMT -6
Ive been thinking about this alot. How would countering dispel magic in Od&D work using another dispel magic? it would have to be preempted? not really because if the spell is being cast the affects are not immediate, for lack of ultimate confirmation it seems logical that magic users begin to cast spells during their movement phase. as per chainmail to cast spells magic users must remain stationary so this is an intuitive assumption.I would love the know whether anyone has ever been able to determine what part of the turn sequence is dedicated to casting spells in chainmail, but presuming its the movement phase when it begins the magic user begins to cast a spell and the opposing magic user (if conditions allow) would see that the other magic user is concentrating on a spell and would then begin to cast dispel magic in order to counter it (the magic user would not necessarily know what spell their opponent is casting) then it is a matter of who gets the spell off first. it makes no sense to me that this is purely based on who has initiative as that would imply the decision to counter would need to be made before the other magic user begins to cast and the mu countering would require the initiative. I wouldn’t rule this out as being the case, but other options are using dexterity to see who is faster “men and magic does attribute dexterity as being a factor in “getting off a spell” or the there is the optional casting time rule? spells can be failed or delayed or immediate. Apologies for the awful typing. I’m on my phone whilst walking to work  |
|
tom
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 48
|
Post by tom on Sept 18, 2023 7:14:18 GMT -6
Another random thought regarding counter spells in chainmail. One way to interpret the text is that to counter a spell you would need to cast a suitable opposing spell. Examples include:
Wizard Light counters Darkness and vice versa
Haste counters Slow and vice versa
Detection counters concealment
It does also say in Monsters & Treasure that a transmute rock to mud spell can only be countered by the casting the same spell.
|
|
rhialto
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 128
|
Post by rhialto on Sept 19, 2023 3:56:12 GMT -6
Another random thought regarding counter spells in chainmail. One way to interpret the text is that to counter a spell you would need to cast a suitable opposing spell. Examples include: Wizard Light counters Darkness and vice versa Haste counters Slow and vice versa Detection counters concealment It does also say in Monsters & Treasure that a transmute rock to mud spell can only be countered by the casting the same spell. I think these are all examples of spell effects being countered after the original spell is cast (i.e., reversed) , and Chainmail includes countering while the original spell is being cast (i.e., thwarted). |
|
