2017-07-31
Spells Through the Ages Polymorph – Polymorph Matrix
2017-07-29
Saturday Software: Wizard's Spell Index
In this case, the program doesn't do anything very interesting; just read the entirety of the Compendium index, do an integrity check, look for duplicate spell names, and compile lists of all the special origins and schools of magic that appear. But if you're a Java programmer then you may appreciate being able to hook into this and read, use, modify, and possibly write out a new spell index in a few lines code. (It's what I used to programatically check and reformat the index myself.)
Perhaps more immediately useful, here's also an alternate spell list that you can drop into the spellbook generator program from last week, including everything from the Wizard's Spell Compendium General Mage List -- with 1,278 spells! Note that, following that work, spells marked "C" (Common) are identical to those in the AD&D 2E PHB (which is mostly the same as in 1E), excepting spells named after some NPC (which are "U" for Uncommon); spells from other supplements are at lower frequency levels. (Rename to SpellIndex.csv to use.)
2017-07-24
AD&D Wizard's Spell Compendium Index
We wrote previously about our appreciation for the AD&D Wizard's Spell Compendium, compiled by Mark Middleton, here. Although released in the years 1996-1998, it wasn't branded as "2nd Edition"; rather, the intent of the product was to be a general AD&D resource covering publications from the game any time from 1975-1995. (That said, you'll find it categorized as "2E" in most places online just because of the time frame, and the format of the spell matches 2E, e.g., ranges in units of yards by default).
The four volumes have been missing from DriveThruRPG for some time, but as of this May, the first two volumes reappeared with improved scans, OCR, and indexing. Personally, I downloaded those, along with the older copies of volumes 3-4 I had, merged them with a PDF tool, and now have a single document close to 1,200 pages in length with all the AD&D spells in one place. It's pretty sweet.
Compiling The Index
One thing I'm not alone in searching for in the past is a digitized index of those spells to possibly use for analysis and input to software applications. James Rizza at Dragonsfoot made what seems to be the first attempt at this (here). We should be very grateful for that work (I'm pretty sure it was all manually entered, including schools, ranges, durations, material component listings, etc.), but it has a number of limitations. The most glaring is that every spell was entered multiple times, once for each school of magic to which it belongs. That runs up against the cardinal rule of database management, that is, to not duplicate the same data in multiple places -- because every copy is another opportunity for errors to creep in, fields to fall out-of-synch, etc. (and indeed they did in this case). It makes it impossible to gather vital statistics on the work, starting with simply knowing how many different spells there are. (I'm sure that was done to enable sorting by school, which was an important mechanic for 2E specialty spellcasters, but an immensely better way to do that would be to use the spreadsheet FIND function appropriately.)So, below you'll see a version that I massively re-formatted and corrected. Where the original spreadsheet was all-caps, I put this one in title case (matching the text of the Compendium itself). I de-duplicated all of the spells and collected the schools into one field each. I separated out reversed spell names from the name field, where they were previously appended. I did the same with any special origins (like Old Empire, Red Wizards, Dragon Knights, etc.) -- except in the dozen or so cases where it was necessary to avoid duplicating another spell's name. I programmatically reformatted most of the ranges, durations, areas, with more standardized abbreviations, and shortened many of the material component listings. I deleted the extra columns for various specialty wizards which could be discovered by inspecting the schools listing (but were in many places out-of-synch). I corrected some spell name typos and missing spells. And I inserted the frequency data indicated in the Compendium Vol. 4 table for generalist mages.
We shouldn't feel surprised at errors in the original table; granted that it had 3,442 records × 24 fields/record = 82,608 total fields, even if the original author was working at 99% accuracy, we would still expect close to a thousand fields to have errors. I'm sure there's still a bunch of errors that I haven't yet caught. Feel free to send me more corrections if you find them (esp., missing spells?).
Statistics and Conclusions
Now we can present some descriptive statistics on the overall work:Here are the level statistics in chart form:
For the levels, note that levels 3-4 are modal; this seems to be the "natural" thing to happen if someone doesn't enforce an outside requirement on level frequency -- it's the same thing that appears in Original D&D Vol-1. And here are the frequencies in a chart:
As you may expect, the letters C, U, R, V stand for the frequencies Common, Uncommon, Rare, and Very Rare. These are only entered as they appear in the Volume 4 "General Mage Spell List" (p. 1093-1101). The implication is that the 38% of spells marked as "None" here, that is, not appearing in that list, are "Restricted" spells given only to some specialty wizard type, and presumably appearing in one of the many other tables that follow in the Compendium. It's interesting that Uncommon is the most infrequently-used frequency.
We can also dis-aggregate the spells by level and frequency on separate axes. Consider the following chart:
Looking down the depth of that 3D chart, notice that at 1st level, more of the spells are Common than any other frequency. Meanwhile, around levels 2-5 there are more spells at the Rare or Very Rare ratings (and these are approximately the same at levels 3-4). However, at levels 6-9 the spells are mostly Very Rare (and the Rare category is almost totally unused at the uppermost levels).
Finally, here are compilations of the special origins and schools of magic to be found in the database:
- Special Origins: 21 [Alhoon, Bard, Beholder, Dragon, Dragon Knight, Drow, Elf, Galeb Duhr, Ghul, Hishna, Necromancer, Neogi, Ninja, Old Empire, Paramander, Phaerimm, Pluma, Red Wizard, Savant, Witch, Wu Jen]
- Schools of Magic: 28 [Abjuration, Air, Alchemy, All, Alteration, Artifice, Charm, Chronomancy, Conjuration, Dimension, Divination, Earth, Enchantment, Evocation, Fire, Force, Geometry, Illusion, Invocation, Mentalism, Necromancy, Phantasm, Shadow, Song, Summoning, Universal, Water, Wild]
Further Research
Among the limitations in the current index are the lack of data for setting-specific information, which are indicated in the Compendium with graphical icons next to many of the spells (e.g., Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc.; see p. 1126-1136). While the information for many specialty wizards can be parsed from the schools field (assuming no errors there?), other specialty mages appear at the end of the Compendium that would need additional field(s) to include (e.g., Deathmaster, Frost Mage, Red Wizards, Storm Mage, Witches, etc.; see p. 1137-1148). If you're generous enough with your time to add those, then do please forward it here so that we can share them.Of course, many of us use a ruleset with different spell formatting than 2E. If I were to use a few entries here as surprise spice in my games, I'd probably convert all the ranges to either 6, 12, or 24 inches (depending on whether the listed range was closest to 60, 120, or 240 yards for a 12th-level wizard [i.e., 5, 10, or 20 yards/level]). And I'd convert durations to either 3, 6, or 12 turns (depending on whether the listed duration was closest to 1, 2, or 5 rounds per level). This is actually the conversion protocol that I generally used when analyzing spells for the 2nd edition of the Book of Spells work.
Data Download
Get the revised Wizard's Spell Compendium Index at the link below!And if you need the original text, you can use the following affiliate link to get all volumes 1-4 volumes of the AD&D Wizard's Spell Compendium (and help support the Wandering DMs channel at the same time):
2017-07-22
Saturday Software: Minidice
Minidice.
2017-07-17
Climbing Through the Ages
OD&D
AD&D Core Rules
AD&D DSG
B/X Rules
Edit: Scott Keeney points out that Moldvay does briefly mention climbing for non-thieves in his two pages of "Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art" advice at the very end of the book (p. B60-61). In this case, it's "To perform a difficult task (such as climbing a rope or thinking of a forgotten clue), the player should roll the ability score or less on 1d20." Cook backs this up with a paragraph on Climbing in the Expert rules, suggesting a Dexterity-based check when "climbing a tree in a high wind, or climbing up a crumbling wall." (p. X51)
AD&D 2E
D&D 3E
The rule for rapid and easy downward rappelling is missing. But, a rule is added for something that I do think was overlooked in any prior editions: “Someone using a rope can haul a character upward (or lower the character) through sheer strength. Use double your maximum load... to determine how much a character can lift.”
This is, of course, the furthest possible cry from the 1E DSG where such a climb was strictly prohibited. But if a character is of lower level, or does not have maximum possible ranks in the Climb skill, then the chance of success will be lower -- and due to the multiplication rule for compound probabilities, the total chance to make the climb without a fall degenerates at a shocking rate. For example: At only one level lower (3rd), the fighter in plate will have a 5% less chance to make any particular climb roll (1 pip in 20). But then that opens up the possibility for a fall (on a natural "1"), and over the 10 Climb checks necessary in the example above, the chance for succeeding at the whole climb is only 52.4%. For a 1st level fighter with max skill the total chance is just 12.5%; and for an unskilled climber in plate, the chance becomes less than 1%! (Assuming no Strength bonus, which would move the example back in the other direction.) 1
Poll Results
I also asked this question on the Facebook 1E AD&D group. The results were approximately 3:2 in preference of a check every round (i.e., following the official 1E DMG rule), with another group answering some form of "it depends" (often by distance or surface type).For what it's worth, everyone whom I know personally picked "one check per climb" (offering a good case study in how your friends can be non-representational of the population at large). EGG Jr. selected "one check per round".
Open Questions
So: Which of the above rules for climbing do you like the best? How risky should climbing be for an unskilled man, a fighter in plate mail, etc.? Do you prefer the frequency of checks to be once per climb (OD&D, B/X, 1E PHB, DSG, 2E), or once per round (1E DMG, 3E)? Should failed checks prohibit any further climbing (as in DSG, 2E), or not? What would be the best simulation of the real thing?
2017-07-16
Rappan Athuk Week – Postmortem
What Went Right
- Index Cards: This may seem like a minuscule change, but for the first time I tried running the game encounters via index cards, and it really worked like a charm. I’ve got one card with PC summary stats (name, class, AC, weapon-in-hand, effects in pencil), and another card with monsters that gets filled in as an encounter starts (AC, MV, HD, hp). Previously I would document that on a standard pad of paper, taking up four times the space. With this I can stand or walk around with the two cards in my hand and run a whole encounter. Then I can document any after-effects (treasure found?) and put away the monster card, so my crazy scribbling don’t visually distract me thereafter. If some monster gets charmed or controlled that then becomes a new “live” card in play, and I don’t have to go hunting for it in my notepad. I have more free space behind the screen. And a nice coherent stack that I can go through later as an adventure log/ XP record/ notes for a narrative write-up. It seems silly, but boy, it improved my game.
- Spell Cards: On a thematically similar note, Paul’s design of Spell Cards for the OED Book of Spells was a complete master-stroke. I was a little reserved when he first came up with the idea, because I’ve always lobbied that it’s a nice thematic echo to have wizard-players riffling through books just like their wizard-PCs are doing. But both of us have been giving players in our games the option of book or cards, and everyone has been unanimous in picking the cards since we started doing that. This allows players to take out the cards for the spells they’ve memorized on one day and only look at those from now on. The OED spell text easily fits on each card in its entirety. If a wizard casts an effect on another PC, the card just slides over to that player to remind them what the exact effect is. That’s really killer. Paul wins.
- Rolling in the Open: An oldie but a goodie; I make all rolls in the open (excepting surveillance/ searching/ hiding type stuff). It increases the drama and the tension. It make things count. It actually makes it much easier for me as a DM, because it takes away the mental load of whether I “want” to override a die-roll or not. Even wandering-monster checks are declared and rolled in the open. So many moments of the game, both glorious and horrifying, would not have been possible (or believable, or as effective), without this. I’ve been doing this for years, and I honestly can’t imagine anyone wanting to do it otherwise now.
- Using a Tablet: For the first time I was running a dungeon via a PDF on my tablet. Partly as an experiment, and partly as a way to manage the ~500 page adventure text. This was essentially a big success, and I’d be happy to do it again in the future. The only complication was the PCs going into unexpected areas and my needing to swipe back-and-forth constantly between map and text. Ideally (according to original plan) I’d have a paper map in front of me and just need to browse text on one page at a time. Even better if the adventure text was digest-sized (instead of full-letter-page size). Also at one point I did run the power down and need to get an extension cord.
- Miniature Usage: I find that I’ve gone back-and-forth about miniature usage multiple times over the years, which is surprising. I was trying to use them heavily in the 3E era, and at some point I snapped and swore to god I’d never use them again for anything. Then multiple players started setting up marching orders for their own benefit, and that did seem helpful. Then occasionally I couldn’t resist putting down a scary miniature from one side or the other to show (or ask) which PC was getting attacked. Occasionally now I have a prepared battlemap, or ink out a critical area. There are no complicated 3E-era rules for movement (diagonals, attacks-of-opportunity, etc.). It seems to work very well for everyone. I think my current rough rule is; we have a marching order in front of us all the time, and only when some player asks or gets confused about positioning do I put down a few monster miniatures around that to clarify. (Paul has a supply of Dwarven Forge dungeon blocks but we never used that all weekend.)
What Went Wrong
- Main Secret Door: Gads, that initial secret door to level 1! Arguably that’s a really bad design decision – and yet it seems really integral to the way the initial encounter and introduction to Rappan Athuk is set up. I think I’ve had that lesson pounded into me numerous times over the years and I still got hit in the head by this. Partly this is a criticism of my capacities as a DM that I couldn’t avoid it. Granted that I only DM about 3 times a year currently, I find that I tend to start off a bit OCD/literalist to the text, and then later on start to massage or bend encounters a bit more for dramatic or pacing purposes. It’s possible that in the future that I’d move the secret door to the sarcophagus itself (a clear point of interest to be searched), or give it up automatically. Numerous accounts on the Necromancer forums seem to indicate players finding the secret door without difficulty – but I’m not sure on the details DMs are using to adjudicate that (e.g., if it’s 3E/Pathfinder then everyone can use a “Take 20” for automatic success if they have the time in-game). This threw my players in a different, much more dangerous direction that I really wasn’t prepared for all weekend long.
- Climbing Up/Down: Coupled with the fact that my players became convinced that there was no way into the dungeon aside from the Well (see above), the biggest single point of contention was frustration at the risk of falling and damage/death from climbing ropes up the 90’ well or cliff areas. Honestly, I’m pretty confident that there has to be some amount of risk here, especially for non-thieves making such a climb. But I have to listen sympathetically when the players get half-pissed off about this. If I’m hearing correctly, I think some argued that their PCs should know about the need to use a backup rope/rappel seat type setup in that kind of situation in the first place. Maybe I should explicate or investigate that more in the future.
- Maze/Labyrinths: Oh my god, those stupid maze locations. They just go on and on and on. And the fact that the text says to magically screw with the PC directions in random and utterly untraceable ways makes the labyrinths, by the book, absolutely impossible to get through. At least I knew enough to abort that particular aspect in our game. I would prefer if there was simply some purely abstract mechanic to it (like I think there was in earlier editions). Or be smaller or have some mechanic that the players could engage with, puzzle through, or out-think.
- Opaque Saving Throws: The OED house rules turn saving throws into a mechanic whereby PCs roll 1d20 + level + modifier based on category (spells/breath/stone/wands/death, respectively +0/1/2/3/4). It’s pretty close the equivalent to the RAW saving throw rules. On Saturday, I would tend to call for a save, the players would add d20 + level, and then I would do the rest of the math in my head to save them the effort. But as a result they couldn’t tell which category or bonus was in use, or how to gauge the chances of success. (In stock D&D you have target numbers on the PC sheet, but that’s something I clear off.) On Sunday I got more explicit about the type of save and exactly what modifier was being added, and that helped (not perfect, though). The numbers are on the Player Aid Card, but that was getting shuffled out of sight on the table – in the future I should probably post it in larger text on the outside of the DM screen. Thanks to Paul for pointing this out on Saturday night.
- Prepping on the Fly: This wasn’t a total catastrophe, but it did make last weekend one of the most challenging DM experiences I’ve ever undertaken. When the PCs went off from the prepared main levels (having read, prepared, annotated, printed maps, and noted monster tactics in main levels 1-4; see item #1 in this list), I was in emergency mode for two days straight trying to read a few pages ahead to see what was coming up next in the dungeon. Or thinking about how to adjudicate some of the stranger (or possibly more frustrating) challenges. And swiping back-and-forth to see the map and the text. Or scrambling to get a sense of the multiple branching side levels where the PCs might possibly go next. Hoo boy! I was sweating bullets. It was soooo worth it, though.
More Tales of Rappan Athuk
2017-07-15
Rappan Athuk Week – Part Six
Priests of the Lower Temple of Orcus |
Goddamn it. |
2017-07-14
Rappan Athuk Week – Part Five
A tiny fraction of the mazes of Rappan Athuk |
2017-07-13
Rappan Athuk Week – Part Four
Paul maps the mazes of Rappan Athuk |
Hobbit slays the Minotaur King |