RSA: Protections from Evil

Neither of these are hardly an uncommon spell, but they do seem to generate a fair bit of confusion from time to time. I don’t pretend to be the final word on interpreting B/X D&D, but it is a game I spend a fair bit of time pondering.

Depending on how you count things, there are two to four spells in this category: 

The “personal” vs the 10’ radius and the Clerical vs MU/Elf versions. For the purposes of this Random 

Spell(s) Assessment, we’ll just be (mostly*) looking at the former.

Starting off with the first one of these spells that players are likely to get their hands on, there is the 

classic: Protection from Evil.

(from Moldvay)

Cleric 1/MU 1

Protection from Evil Range: 0 (caster only)

Duration: 12 turns

This spell circles the cleric with a magic barrier. This barrier will

move with the caster. The spell serves as some protection from

"evil" attacks (attacks by monsters of some alignment other than

the cleric's alignment) by adding 1 to the clerics' saving throws, and

subtracting 1 from the "to hit" die roll of these opponents. The

spell will also keep out hand-to-hand attacks from enchanted

(summoned or created) monsters (such as living statues), but not

missile fire attacks from these creatures (see COMBAT). The cleric

may break this protection by attacking the monster in hand-to-hand

combat, but still gains the bonus "to hit" and saves.

*Both MU versions are nearly identical to the clerical versions, so there’s no need to list both descriptions here. The one big change is that the duration for the MU 1st level spell is half that of the clerical: Six turns instead of twelve. I guess those arcane types aren’t getting a divine assist. Everything else is the same.

There is a fair bit to unpack in this description, so let’s dig in, shall we?

In essence, the spell creates a sort of force field around the cast that blocks or limits attacks by “evil” creatures. Since this is BX, there is no “Evil” alignment, just Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. As in the “Detect Evil” spell, evil is defined as a differing alignment having an “evil” intent (malice, etc.). So a Neutral Elf would be protected from lawful or chaotic beings wishing him harm, etc. 

The first effects listed are pretty straightforward. The caster gets a buff to saves and the baddies get a penalty to attacks (+1/-1). The next part is interesting, though. 

“The spell will also keep out hand-to-hand attacks from enchanted (summoned or created) monsters (such as living statues), but not missile fire attacks from these creatures (see COMBAT).”

This point is probably where I see the most confusion from people: Notice that the stuff about differing alignment is no longer in play here? That chaotic chieftain is getting a -1 to hit you, but he can absolutely try to smash you in the face with his battleaxe. That Bone Golem? Not so much. This is an important distinction. I’ve seen games where this wasn’t clear to the group and a lot of confusion arose about how exactly the baddies could do anything to the caster after this measly 1st level spell was in effect. 

The next thing to remember is that the caster cannot engage in melee combat with the warded monster without breaking the effect. It doesn’t say anything about missile fire, though. Also, the +1/-1 is still going even if the force field is gone. 

The area of effect version is pretty much the same, except it can protect more than one person at a time. It’s also the only way to put the effect on anyone else (both spells are centered on the caster, no other target is valid as written). 

(from Cook)

Cleric 4/MU 3

Protection from Evil 10' Radius Range: 0'

Duration: 12 turns

This spell circles the caster with a magical barrier that will protect

all friendly creatures within 10' of the cleric. This barrier will move

with the cleric. The spell serves as some protection from "evil"

attacks (attacks by monsters of an alignment other than the

caster's) by adding 1 to the caster's saving throw and subtracting 1

from evil opponents' "to hit" roll. This spell will also keep out

melee attacks from enchanted monsters (such as elementals) but

not missile or magical attacks from these creatures. Enchanted

monsters can melee if any of the protected creatures attempt to

attack them with hand-to-hand combat.

(Once again, the MU version is weaker in that it’s a higher level spell than for clerics. Otherwise, no differences.) The new takeaways from here are that multiple people are protected, but only if they stay close to the cleric, and that if anyone even tried melee with the warded monster(s), they can ignore the force field effect in general (“...if ANY of the protected creatures ATTEMPT to attack them with hand-to-hand combat). This means not only that INT 6 fighter could negate that protection with a swing and a miss, he dispels the field for *everyone*. Again though, missile fire is fine for some reason. I guess it’s a look don’t touch kind of thing?

Now, there is some ambiguity regarding the nature of the 10’ radius field. Part of the text seems to indicate that it simply creates a protective field for all the people in the radius, other parts make it sound like it could be used to block a corridor or similar. Personally I’m inclined to the latter, as a 3rd-4th level spell should have a little oomph, IMO. Also the idea that one person attempting melee dispels the effect for all makes it sound like one big field, not multiple personal ones. Fun tidbit: Remember that the alignments you are protected from are determined by the caster’s alignment, not each individual friendly getting the effects. So if a lawful cleric casts it on the party, it won’t grant penalties or bonuses vs. lawful for that neutral thief.

The duration for both of these spells are obviously applicable over more than a single combat. However, given how easily the “force field” can be dispelled, it seems that the +1/-1 is the more durable benefit. Smart timing could grant those receiving the spell’s benefits with a nice little modifier as they move into an area where they expect to be butting heads with folks of other alignments. Entering Area K in the Caves of Chaos would be a great example of when to use it!

Moldvay Musings XIII: Reactions

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

-Newton's Third Law                           

Sorry, Isaac. Not necessarily in D&D.

Like morale, reactions rolls have also faded from the later editions of the glorious mess that is Dungeons & Dragons. Sure, there are skills and such that allow for things like diplomacy and bluffing, but I am not a fan of too many defined skills in D&D. It's fine in games that were designed from the start for them -Runequest/BRP springs to mind- but they as much a hindrance as a benefit in old-school play (whatever that means). 

Back on topic, the encounter reaction rules in versions like BX are incredibly simple. Other than the Charisma adjustments table, they are one paragraph of text and one 2d6 table of five possible results (B24). The rules simply state that while some monsters will nearly always behave in the same way (e.g. mindless undead attacking), it is possible for some creatures' actions to vary.  

I've covered a bit about hirelings in an earlier post, so I'm mostly sticking to the encounter mechanics here. Suffice to say, the retainer reaction rolls (B21) help add a layer of detail to an integral part of the BX-style game. Adventuring parties were assumed to include meatshields and the like. Uncharismatic PCs, miserly offers of pay, or poor treatment could make life difficult for a party that needs to pad its ranks or flesh out weak spots in its lineup.

As stated in the preceding section on party actions, if they choose to talk, they might influence the monsters' (or NPCs') attitude toward the encounter and, by extension, the PCs. In my games, I interpret "talk" loosely. A common language isn't always required. An offer of food to a predator can be as effective an overture as speaking confidently and calmly to a goblin patrol in their tongue. (Side Note: This can be a case for using alignment languages and making those INT bonus language slots worth something in one's game!)

We didn't deserve you, Steve!

A couple of caveats to consider. One, the DM always has the right to veto making a reaction roll and simply decide how monsters, etc. will act. An elven patrol is unlikely to let the party go after they just burned down the Sacred Oak, no matter how charismatic the PC spokesperson is! 

Two, even if a roll is made, there could be negative modifiers. The goblins mentioned earlier might be fine with avoiding a fight under normal circumstances. However, if the PCs are there to stop their shaman from performing a blood sacrifice that will give them victory over the villagers, the patrol just might be less inclined to believe the party is "just passing through." Even unintelligent creatures can have circumstantial biases. In real life, encountering a bear in the woods will usually not result in an attack (if you aren't stupid about it, that is), but a grizzly sow with cubs can be another matter! Tossing her some iron rations is probably not going to cut it, even for evasion purposes.

I guess what bothers me about this mechanic falling by the wayside is it removed a big incentive for actual roleplay in a dungeon environment, as opposed to just chatting up the tavern wench for -ahem- "rumors." To me, the BX reaction mechanic was an elegant solution that allowed for player agency and a bit of luck.

I confess I don't know much about 5th ed. What little I've played of it didn't seem to lend itself to this, but I could be wrong. 

RMA: Blink Dogs

I always think of these as an AD&D creature. Partially because of the quirky 1e monster manual Tom Wham illustration, but mostly because that's what we were playing when I first encountered the creature. They are however, also in the BX rules as well as their nemeses, the displacer beasts.

What is up with that tail?

I think these are an unusual encounter because of their lawful alignment (not generally hostile) and running the mechanics of their short-range teleport ability can be complicated.

Blink Dog (from Cook)
AC: 5
HD: 4*
Move: 120' (40')
Att: 1 bite
Damage: 1d6
No. App.: 1d6 (1d6)
Save: F4
TT: C
AL: L

One thing that jumps out at me from the stats is that these are pretty tough dogs. They're roughly on par with a dire wolf (B44) in terms of raw fighting ability (a bit less damage on the bite). Despite that, they are skittish (low morale). This probably stems from their lawful alignment and the fact that they are "highly intelligent." It's worth noting that  the 1st edition Monster Manual lists them as of "average" INT (human level) and possessing a "fairly complex language consisting of barks, yaps, whines, and growls." (MM10) Whether a DM wants to bring that to his or her BX game is another question, but I personally like the idea of a PC learning the language and having to bark and growl to make themselves understood.

The intelligence level means 1) the dogs can be clever in their tactics, and 2) they may choose to not fight (eg low morale). If you allow for the idea that blink dogs have a language, it's also possible that they could know "PC" languages like Common, Elvish, Lawful, etc. which means parley is possible with good reaction rolls.

Moving on to the blink part of blink dog, these canines can "bamf" in and out during a fight. They do so without error and at random distances (1d4 x 10 feet).

Couldn't write this one without a shout-out to Kurt!

Blinking has two main effects during an encounter. 1) if they have the initiative, the dogs can attack someone and then blink away without allowing for a melee counter attack. 2) the constant shifting of position makes fighting or targeting them very difficult. They also can just "blink out" when/if they decide to flee a fight. They have OK treasure in their lairs, but given that they can teleport away, you might have a hard time tracking them there if randomly encountered.

The exception to their skittishness are displacer beasts. They "always attack" them and they are considered natural enemies. This is less a consideration for typical encounters and more of a delightful bit of flavor that could be mined for plot hooks. I like to imagine that the two creatures' were both initially from some other plane and arrived in the world via some sort of accident or freak occurrence. Both exist partially out of phase with the material world, but it manifests differently for each. Maybe they had some sort of Autobot/Decepticon thing going on. Displacer beasts are semi-intelligent, and they "hate and fear" blink dogs. So the antipathy could be baed upon something more than just competing for space in an ecosystem. Food for thought anyway.

More than meets the eye!

Reverse Engineering

This is the section from Cook Expert (X11) about reversible spells. I’ve read this before, but hadn’t thought about all the ways it can open up amusing plot fodder.

“Clerics can reverse a spell simply by reversing the required words and hand gestures. However, using reversed spells is looked upon with disfavor by the powers the cleric serves, and may result in penalties (or even an alignment change) if overused. Lawful clerics use the normal form of the spell and should use the reversed form only in life-or-death situations. Chaotic clerics normally use the reversed forms and will only use the normal forms to benefit those of the same alignment or those directly serving the same power. Neutral clerics will have either the normal or the reversed form available, depending on the nature of the power they serve. No cleric should have both forms available.”

Let’s look at each of these points in turn:

• “Clerics can reverse a spell simply by reversing the required words and hand gestures.” Unlike magic-users, they don’t need to decide ahead of time which version they will prepare, which makes sense when you look at the next parts.
• “...using reversed spells is looked upon with disfavor by the powers the cleric serves, and may result in penalties (or even an alignment change) if overused.” This is the sort of thing that has been bandied about my games over the years but has rarely been explored as an actual consequence. Granted, I haven’t seen a lot of reversed casting, but it has happened occasionally. I could see a great deal of playing material generated from a cleric switching from L to C and having to find a new divine power to follow. Either that, or some sort of atonement/penance. Not to mention the potential difficulties of the next part with “good guy” party members.
• “Chaotic clerics normally use the reversed forms and will only use the normal forms to benefit those of the same alignment or those directly serving the same power.“ So if a party’s lawful cleric suddenly finds himself chaotic, he’s not supposed to cast things like Cure Light Wounds except on other chaotics and the like.
• “Neutral clerics will have either the normal or the reversed form available, depending on the nature of the power they serve.” Now this is very interesting. To me, it assumes a level of detail about clerics and religion that is not really spelled out in BX. I’ve seen campaigns where clerics are simply described as followers of Law or Chaos and are played accordingly. But when you start talking about different powers a cleric may serve within Neutrality, then your cosmology gets more complex.
• Lastly, “No cleric should have both forms available.” I interpret this as simply underscoring what was said before. Not that the opposite versions are unavailable, but that using them should not happen without consideration and consequence.

By using these guidelines for clerics’ spell availability, the DM could also nudge a party to seek out different temples or priestly types. Your go-to NPC may be fine for you quick healings, but maybe he’s not so comfortable with casting some spells that are restricted by his faith.

Granted, this may not come up all that often. After all, when we look at the clerical spell list, there are a total of 34 spells, of which only ten are reversible:

1. Cure Light Wounds
2. Light
3. Remove Fear
4. Bless
5. Continual Light
6. Cure Disease
7. Remove Curse
8. Cure Serious Wounds
9. Quest
10. Raise Dead

For some of these, the alignment caveats make more sense to me than others: Reversed castings like Finger of Death or Cause Disease are pretty nasty magic! But others seem fairly tame in terms of reversals. Sure, casting Darkness isn’t sunshine and puppies, but it’s not like it’s actually dealing damage or anything. In the case of Remove Quest, you could actually be helping someone enchanted by a chaotic cleric. DM judgement applies as always, I should think.

The BX setting (part 1)

[Edit: this started to ramble a bit, so I decided to cut myself off and save the rest for a later post.]

While there is certainly no shortage of settings for fantasy RPGs, it seems that some are better suited to certain games than others. I’m not interested in dissecting every published setting out there. Rather, I’ve found myself mulling over those aspects of some fantasy worlds (whether it’s a game setting or a piece of fiction) that seems -merely in my own personal opinion and experience- to embody some facet or facets which fit a Basic/Expert D&D game.


 To begin with, I find BX and OD&D lend themselves a little more towards "swords & sorcery" and little less to "high fantasy." I'm not sure I have hard and fast definitions for either of those terms, but let's see if we can't parse that a little bit.


 Wikipedia defines the swords & sorcery genre as:

"... a subgenre of fantasy generally characterized by sword-wielding heroes engaged in exciting and violent conflicts. An element of romance is often present, as is an element of magic and the supernatural. Unlike works of high fantasy, the tales, though dramatic, focus mainly on personal battles rather than world-endangering matters. Sword and sorcery commonly overlaps with heroic fantasy."

And high fantasy as:

"High fantasy is defined as fantasy set in an alternative, fictional ("secondary") world, rather than 'the real', or 'primary' world. The secondary world is usually internally consistent, but its rules differ from those of the primary world."

The theme of good vs. evil features heavily in such stories as well. Whereas S&S tends to have more personal battles. But I don't think of Moldvay/Cook or Labyrinth Lord quite as "Swords & Sorcery" games. They are after all, still Dungeons & Dragons; and while the roots of D&D may be more John Carter than Aragorn, it's not quite pure Conan to me either. The truth of it (if there is one) seems to lie somewhere in between. Which brings me to alignment.

3 v. 9

Classic D&D uses the three-point alignment spectrum as opposed to the nine of AD&D. There is no 'Good' or 'Evil'. Just law, chaos and neutrality. I have heard the opinion that this is a simplification for a "basic" game, but I don't find that to be the case. Rather the opposite really. I've rambled about this in the past, so I won't rehash it here. But I do feel that keeping the three point system and what it entails firmly in mind influences the nature of the setting. One need look no further than the introductory text of the seminal B2: Keep on the Borderlands for an indication of how Gary envisioned Chaos in the world:

"The Realm of mankind is narrow and constricted. Always the forces of Chaos press upon its borders, seeking to enslave its populace, rape its riches, and steal its treasures. If it were not for a stout few, many in the Realm would indeed fall prey to the evil which surrounds them."

One could read this as a classic "good vs. evil" set up, and -to be fair- that's perfectly valid. But reading the wording closely, I notice two things: Firstly, it's the "Realm of mankind." A human nation. This realm is "Narrow and constricted," seeming to imply that civilization has a limited reach. Much of the world is wild and quite possibly chaotic.

Second, while the text does talk about "evil" preying upon the populace, the fact that this evil seems to be interested in personal gain (slaves, riches, etc.) and not necessarily covering the world in darkness makes this less about EVIL and more about Us vs. Them. Sure, the "them" in this case are primarily humanoid monsters, as opposed to just some other country of people, but this IS a fantasy game after all.

It makes sense to me that the majority of people you'd meet would fall under Neutrality in this model. Most people have a natural desire to just get along and live their life. They recognize the utility of law & order, but they also don't want to jettison their desire for a level of personal freedom. Benign self-interest is the rule of the day. I'm reminded of a quote from The Hobbit about the dwarves when Bilbo goes through the hidden door.

“Dwarves are not heroes, but a calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money; some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots; some are not but are decent enough people like Thorin and Company, if you don't expect too much.”

That last part pretty much sums up my idea of neutrality. So in a world where that's where most people fit, it's pretty reasonable to expect their motivations to be more personal and self-interested. As opposed to altruistic world-saving. It also follows that players are more likely to accept the hooks that benefit their characters directly, as well as trusting NPCs who seem motivated by self-interest as well. Adventurers tend to be a greedy bunch, as a rule. Especially in a game where advancement is largely achieved through the finding and gaining of wealth. At least, I've also found that a better fit in my BX games.

Curious Objects: Staff of Withering

There are several cursed objects in the BX magic items lists, but only a few seem to bestow curses or curse-like magic for the wielder instead of upon him. The Staff of Withering is one of them.

I've never placed this item or rolled it randomly. Nor do I recall a game where it appeared. It's strange for several reasons, so let's get to it.

First, it is a clerical item. Yet its extremely malicious nature would make it likely to only be used by chaotic types, so it seems like many PC clerics would avoid or destroy it. Sure, I can imagine scenarios where it could be helpful. e.g. A person has been cursed and turned into a baby and needs to be brought back to their correct age (or closer to it); but mostly, it's for stealing away a person's life a chunk at a time. This also lends itself to torture scenarios. A victim could be threatened with shortened lifespan unless they comply. Another decidedly un-Lawful kind of activity. I imagine many clerical types risking severe disfavor with their gods by employing this stick of incremental doom.

Secondly, there are no hard and fast rules about aging in BX. Not that I feel they are missed or needed, but this is one of the only times the issue of a PC's age comes up. There aren't even ghosts in the BX monster lists to unnaturally age a character. It's not hard to make some simple rulings about a 20-something fighter that suddenly find himself on the wrong side of 50, but as it can drastically affect the rest of the character's career (if any), it bears consideration.

One line stand out about this to me: "The effect of old age will be fatal to animals and most character classes," Now, there are two ways I can interpret this. One is the obvious, that old age kills and that the staff can –even with limited charges– age someone enough to put them in the grave. The other is that the effects of suddenly aging so much so quickly is a shock to the system and warrants a "save or die" roll. Personally, I think it's the former.

Another character aging issue is the line about elves and dwarfs ignore the effects for at least the first few hits. Demihuman lifespans vary from game to game and setting to setting, but I find the inclusion of that caveat interesting. The fact it does not affect the undead makes perfect sense, though a zombie turning into a skeleton would be a fun side effect.

Lastly, remember that as a staff it has limited charges. 3d10 in fact. That means it can steal a maximum of 300 years before it is used up. That, plus the fact it must touch the target, makes it even less of an adventuring item and for more specialized purposes.

Intelligent Swords: A Dumb Idea?

Disclaimer: There are several variations of the intelligent sword rules in different editions. I am basing the mechanics discussed here on the B/X "Cook Expert" rules. 

Turning the WayBack™ machine to 1983 and the salad days of TSR, I remember many a 1st edition game after school, on weekends, vacations, etc. We were kids and we were sometimes shamelessly Monty Haul by our standards today. Multiple artifacts and relics floated through the campaign, millions of gold pieces rattled around in bags of holding, and more than one PC was psionic and/or had an 18/00 strength (along with maybe a belt of storm giant strength). 

One of the more interesting items that crossed the party's path was a +5 Holy Avenger. Rare enough, to be sure, but it was also two-handed and it was sentient.

Leaving aside the odds of all that (if rolled randomly), it had several additional powers beyond the impressive array that the +5 H.A. already boasted. The player was ecstatic, and the sword was his favorite new toy. Over time, I came to see such items as unbelievably munchkin and disliked them on principle. 

Back now, in the present day, I recently re-read the B/X and Labyrinth Lord rules for such items and it got me to thinking; just how good or terrible an idea is such an item in a campaign, really? 

A few things that I noticed looking at the rules as written. First off, I hadn't realized how COMMON an intelligent sword is! 30% of magic swords have an Intelligence score (!) The second thing I noticed about intelligence and swords is that some sentient swords are quite dim (INT 7-8).

What's much rarer is for a sword to have a "Special Purpose" (Deliberately skipping the obvious Steve Martin jokes). Only 1:20. An oddity I hadn't picked up on before is that a special purpose swords are automatically maxed out at INT 12. 

Sword alignment heavily favors Lawful (65%), which chaotic swords comprising only 10% of the mix.

Although they have their superstars.

Fun fact: conflicting alignments between the sword and wielder results in automatic damage to the wielder, at up to 12 points per round! So your lawful PC picking up that chaotic sword might be instantly killed.

The Primary Powers of the swords are an odd lot. 30% of the time it has to do with detecting things like sloping passages or shifting walls (isn't this why we let dwarfs into the party? jk). While you can use most of these abilities over and over, they aren't all terribly powerful.

Every now and then, though, you get an Extraordinary Power. These powers are bit cooler, like ESP and teleportation. Plus, most can be used 3/day!

To me, what's far cooler are the Special Purpose powers, but obviously these are much rarer. For example: A chaotic sword that was forged to slay magic users (and elves) will, upon striking a lawful MU or Elf, force a save vs. spells. Failure means the target is TURNED TO STONE! You can bet this is working its way into a game at some point! (hee!)

Finally, after all the rolls and charts you figure out the weapon's Willpower. Basically this is number that is used when the sword decides it has a chance to take over its wielder's mind! Considering a typical sentient weapon has a Will of around 19 and the PC's rating (STR+WIS) is more like 20-22, this won't be a gimme. But if the PC is badly wounded (at less than 50% hp), things can change quickly, deducting 2d4 pts from his Will score. 

Once the sword is in control, the DM is supposed to have it control the character's actions in certain situations. Some fun suggestions in the book include:

• Making the PC spend all his money on a fancy scabbard, etc.
• Forcing him to surrender to an opponent that the sword thinks would make a better wielder. 
• Discarding other weapons.

So, after looking at all this, the question remains; are intelligent swords a good idea in a game? Looking over the number crunching, the odds of a really POWERFUL one is fairly low, and the ones that are more likely to turn up are a nice way to add some spice to "generic" magic weapons.

I decided to roll one up randomly to see what I'd end up with. I started on the magic sword table and went from there:

% roll on Magic Swords =17: Sword +1

d20 Special Purpose = 5: No special purpose

d20 INT roll = 16*: INT 8 (2 Primary Powers), Communicates via Empathy

d20 Alignment = 8: Lawful

% roll for first Primary Power = 84: Detect Magic

% roll for second Primary Power = 59: See Invisible Objects

d12 for Ego = 9

Will: 18 (9 Ego + 8 Int +1 to hit)

*I did re-roll this to get a result with an INT score. 

So what have we got here? Well, the +1 is no great shakes, but seeing invisible at 20' range 1/round, and detect magic (but limited to 3/day) is SWEET and no mistake! With a lack of special purpose, it's unclear why this sword has a sentience locked inside it. It's not bright enough to talk, so I guess the DM doesn't have to develop some huge backstory. It has a high Ego, so I'm guessing a level of "stubbornness" about it. 

Here is my "stab" (hur hur!), at what the sword's deal is.

"SENTINEL"
A scrying spirit was bound into the sword at its forging for use by royal bodyguards,  who used it to check that no hostile enchantments or invisible foes threatened their charges. The spirit was aware of the pomp and ceremony that surrounded it on a daily basis and, as a result, has a rather high opinion of itself. If it succeeds in seizing control of its wielder, it will force him to take the lead, checking for danger in each room or situation before allowing anyone else to enter. 

I think I'm going to have to try this a bit more often when I randomly roll magic treasure. If it seems to work out, I may add other weapon types into the mix, who knows?

Vlog Ep.29 - Alignment is up!

Almost through my D&D tropes ramblings: