DT&T - First Level Spells

I remember looking at the 1st Level spells in 7.5 - there sure were a lot compared with 5.5. I thought 'Hold That Pose' was ridiculously over-powered for a L1 spell and lampooned it cruelly - but with game application, it became clear that because it lasted just 30 seconds and could easily fall foul of the khrem resistance mechanic it actually turned out to be an excellent addition, along with 'Dem Bones Gonna Rise' - great fun because you never know what will rise up in most locations.

I knew in advance that HTP was booted out (much discussion on the currently-demised Trollhalla where I pitched in to defend HTP) but what else was going to be in the candy jar?

Numerically, we get 11 spells. I think 5.5 was 10 and 7.5 was 20. So, looks like a harder but simpler row to hoe for the fledgling wizard.

The first new spell here is 'It's Elementary'; this seems to replace 'Call Flame' and 'Call water' from 7.5. I like this being rolled into one 'elements' spell and the WIZ cost (4) is better vis a vis other L1 spells ( 8 and 7 for those 7.5 spells).

'Unerring Bllade' is also here (it wasn't in 5.5 and was L2 in 7.5). It costs 3 WIZ and does 1 point of spite damage regardless of defence. As a GM, I've never had a player use it; as a player, I could think of reasons to cast it but that would be rather contrived. I'm voting this one a dud.

What's missing? 'Vorpal Blade'! It's L2 now... Gosh, it was hardly a game-winner at L1 - one combat round with a bladed weapon's attack doubled... As a GM, I liked it when players forgot to cast it. No, this is a L1 spell for me.

Both 'Teacher' and 'Magic Fangs' used to be L1 spells in 5.5 and are now L2. Teacher needed a big revamp, so fair play. 'Magic Fangs' was ejected from the 7.5 L1 spellbook but was hardly a big deal - they are both L2 now and the former I agree needed a change while the latter could easily be L1 still - is a wizard ever going to pay 2000 GPs to learn it at L2?

'Dem Bones' is now a higher level spell and again I think it could have stayed at L1 but I'm not overly fussed; I regret the loss of 'Sparkle' and 'That's a Natty Beard'. Both fun spells, I suppose they are the sort of spells a wizard can make up on the fly under the elaborated dT&T rules (if that's so, I can live with it). 'Know Your Foe' is gone too and was occasionally useful - maybe it's been kicked upstairs. 'Suppress Khrem' and 'Khrem de la Khrem' are likewise departed but maybe they aren't needed now with no khrem resistance.

The ones that I'm including at L1 in my games are:

• Hold That Pose
• Vorpal Blade
• Magic Fangs

 These L1 spells still need a minimum INT and DEX of 10 to cast.

Correction - 'Know Your Foe' is still there - dozy me!

Spirit Mastery Game

...was listening to a shuffle on my iphone when the Stones' "Under My Thumb" came up. Great song and it nudged me to thinking about the Spirit Mastery spell and what an unscrupulous wizard might get up to with it....

Neither the 5.5 nor the 7.5 rulebooks explain it that well - is the victim aware of the foreign control, does he/she remember, what does 'subdue' really mean???

The game idea developed in to being a L2 wizard (Donald Nerf) coming to a town with no powerful wizards and very few at all . Donald had just given up his dungeon delving career as too dangerous, having just acquired a Spirit Mastery ring.

I house-ruled that the victim could not resist while under the spell and, if the wizard, commanded the victim to forget, it would take a higher INT SR by the victim than the level of the wizard for the act of control to be remembered.

We stuck Donald in Cartheph't, a small town I wrote a solo about when my car was stolen, and decided petty crime was the norm there with the only security for wealth being that the banks limited themselves to a 20% rip off.

After some though as to how to misuse his ring (sic), Donald booked a meeting at the bank to ask for a loan. Being a wizard, the bank agreed to see him and was soon in an interview room with the uninspiring assistant manager, Mr. Serpell.

Donald stunned Mr. Serpell while he was rummaging in a drawer for a loan agreement and then used his ring. Next he got Serpell to take a loan out in his own name and then to transfer money into his account from Mr. Serpell's account. Serpell's loan was a at 30% per annum rather than the 20 Donald had been quoted.

He topped things off by telling Mr. Serpell he was very good friends with Donald and this had been a social call. Mr. Serpell did not make a L3 SR on INT so he failed to recall what has happened to him.

Donald know has his sights set on the eligible and nubile daughter of his boss, Michaeldobber...

Armour Ablation

dT&T makes warriors have a SR on LK to avoid armour damage IF they choose to make use of their double-protection advantage and it has to be used during battle. OK, let's think about that....

First off, what advantages to warriors get over wizards and rogues? In 5.5, really just the double protective value for armour; in 7.5 they also go one extra add per level for a weapon in combat (now I thought that was so infinitessimally small a bonus that I made it a whole dice per level, something that hardly made them dominate the game). In dT&T, they get the armour bonus plus the whole dice per level for weapons BUT they alone may suffer armour damage under game mechanics as opposed to GM fiat.

Secondly, does armour damage seem reasonable? I'd say yes - not essential and few want to take away from the pace of the game by cluttering it with clunky rules but worth considering.

Third up, is the new rule simple? A LK SR - what could be easier? I think we can remember that and get it down without loosing the plot.

Fourthly, is it fair? (I accept fairness is not guaranteed in life, the game or anywhere I've been.) I think not...

dT&T already does away with INT SRs for wizards casting spells (Hah! but I won't!) so why ping the less desirable warrior? More pressingly, why shouldn't everyone run the risk of armour damage? How about a LK SR for anyone whose armour takes more hits that its maximum defensive capacity? Take that, wizards and rogues! It just takes more whacking away to get a warrior to run the risk of holey armour.

I like the notion in dT&T that warriors can make running repairs to their armour and that of their mates.

So - I give this rule change a plus but will house-rule it myself in the Elaborative Spirit :)

Solos for Higher Level Characters

I was asked what to recommend - but I don't have many that would fulfil the specifications...

As for my efforts, The Arena of Khaboom has its moments as does Strangebrew, while Wizard Went a-Wooing caters for L13 wizards.

Here's my suggestion...

1. Saving rolls: either a) follow 5.5 and make 1,3 a failure as well as 1,3 or b) raise all INT, LK and DEX SRs so that you need a minimum of 6 to make the roll e.g. your INT is 54 so you need a L9 SR for success (you can imagine a tougher situation to fit the level of the SR).
2. For MRs, roll 1d6 then:

• 1 or 2 - start with a MR that gives 50% of your combat adds (e.g. your CAs = 100 so base MR is 100) then add 2d6 DARO x 10
• 3,4 or 5 - start with 75% (e.g. with CAs = 100 the base MR is 150)
• 6 - start with 100%

You can do something similar for foes with attributes, substituting 50, 75 and 100% with their CAs equaling 75, 100 and 150% of your CAs depending on the roll of 1d6.
There - that might give you more of a challenge!

Elaborations

I realise that the Elaborations section is one big permission slip to discard any of the core rules and to do something another way!

There are good examples given but it is hard not to extrapolate the approval to go your own way.

I think this is excellent!

There is still at times a semi--preachy tone (like where we are told in the core rules that the 7.5 idea of spells sometimes failing for wizards - i.e. needing an INT SR to cast - is not right because, after all, warriors never lose their double-armour protection bonus (well, actually they kinda do because of the new ablation core rule!) but, what the hey!, we can let that go amongst old friends.

So, whereas I was going to critique the notion of giving bakers an extra 2d6 on every SR to bake a loaf of bread (representing the number of years they have trained/worked), I am just going to say 'thanks' for the nice ideas and a very big 'YAY!' for the top brass' 'yes' to tinkering.

Another big tick marked up in the Ledger of Judgement.

What I'm Listening To

I had never read the Tarzan books before. I remember reading an article in a Sorceror's Apprentice by Ken comparing Conan and Tarzan and being surprised that Tarzan came off slightly the better of the two. Now I'm not so surprised.

Mind you, I'm too lazy to read now and so I listen as I pound the streets:

 

Librivox is free, easy to download and many of the readers are really good! Give it a try...

Languages - What dT&T Did to the World of Communication

In the Elaboration section, at page 201, we find '14.0 Languages'.

I remember asking about languages on Trollhalla and Ken replying that there was a major overhaul but he wasn't going to spoil the surprise.

My first question regarding a rule change is: "Was the old rule seriously flawed?". I'd say 'yes' to that, pretty much as the book does - to have a bunch of new languages 'arrive' as your INT goes up is a stretch too far even in a magic-rich world.

Next question: "Does the new rule solve the problem?". Answer: yes, it does. Languages are split into groups in a sensible fashion and every 3 INT points over the bar gives you a shot at a new language. Fair call, I'd say.

Last question: "Is the rule simple to apply?" Answer: yes, it is.

This time round, characters don't necessarily get literacy. Oracy is the norm but for wizards or  those making a L2 INT SR, reading and writing comes as well as reasonable conversational ability.

I like the naming of the languages e.g. not 'ogrish' but 'Hroga' and the division of the Common Tongue into major dialects based on geography is cool.

You might think it it too rooted in Ken's Trollworld but it is so straightforward to take what you want, adapt where you will and leave what you don't care for.

So, I'm giving this 10 out of 10. I didn't bother to make a major revision myself but waited patiently for this and that turned out to be a good call.