tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post5972501647109680200..comments2024-02-24T20:03:24.846-05:00Comments on Hidden in Shadows: Chaaracter Sheet Clues to Early Blackmoor.pt. 1DHBoggshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02170439175265397893noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-68855675359210432892012-12-14T09:50:28.634-05:002012-12-14T09:50:28.634-05:00This wizard is 8th level and he has, apparently, a...This wizard is 8th level and he has, apparently, a +5 bonus with axes. An 8th level OD&D wizard has 5 hit dice. Coincidence? Hedgehobbithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17606283586332210195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-38715123161203950752012-09-12T02:51:29.505-04:002012-09-12T02:51:29.505-04:00Oddly enough I always thought that the positive ma...Oddly enough I always thought that the positive magic weapon bonuses would have added to the d20 to-hit roll, not subtracted from it; While the Positive Armor bonus on Magic Armor should have added directly to the armor class increasing it (as opposed to decreasing the d20 to-hit roll as though it were a negative value/ like the Dexterity bonus to hit with missiles and avoid being hit as positive numbers).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-8960655152209407502012-09-02T12:20:07.534-04:002012-09-02T12:20:07.534-04:00Hi Fred. Thanks for digging in to that. The comm...Hi Fred. Thanks for digging in to that. The comments that you mentioned there are actually by Robert Lionhart and are also a part of the Fight On! article I mentioned. I don't think it likely that the bonus is a reference to a particular magical weapon since it is written right after the general score in the column. If Pete had a special magical battleaxe we would really expect to see that listed seperately and with a few more details. As written, the bonus apparently applies to any battleaxe Pete uses.DHBoggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170439175265397893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-84539310153408198072012-09-01T22:09:45.120-04:002012-09-01T22:09:45.120-04:00Concerning that +5 Battleaxe, I remember an old rp...Concerning that +5 Battleaxe, I remember an old rpg.net post by a guy who played in a Blackmoor game run by Arneson in 2006. Heres what he had to say about Arneson's "+" weapons:<br /><br />6) The +X on a magic sword represents the amount of positive magical energy in that weapon. When you meet a AC -3 creature, you need to make your THAC0 roll and you must have a +3 weapon because you need that much "positive" magic to counter the "negative" magic that protects that creature - thereby allowing your physical weapon to hurt things like ghosts and stuff. Part of going into dungeons was to retreive these things and most monsters would not weild magic items because they were "positive" magic.<br /><br />http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?286043-Dave-Arneson-Blackmoor-and-Me<br /><br />Maybe that's what was meant?<br />Fred C. Dobbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00627436662913241416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-45317958578579484432012-09-01T14:26:22.127-04:002012-09-01T14:26:22.127-04:00Thanks for the reply Jon. yeah, I agree there'...Thanks for the reply Jon. yeah, I agree there's not much to be made out of 1-8 worst to best as in the Man to Man table vs 2-9 best to worst as in OD&D. Its much the same either way. Elsewhere, i've argued that 1-8 may have been the current form in early Blackmoor particularly as the "how to become a bad guy" section makes little sense otherwise. <br /><br />The FFC swords are permitted to wizards, and the Ran section of Infamous characters has those who have levels in both "warrior" and "magic", so there doesn't seem to be any weapon prohibitions for wizards. Weapon restrictions seem to be a D&D innovation.DHBoggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170439175265397893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-30902933745783580252012-09-01T14:05:52.050-04:002012-09-01T14:05:52.050-04:00Thanks AndreasThanks AndreasDHBoggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170439175265397893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-68566993111459259202012-09-01T12:58:49.380-04:002012-09-01T12:58:49.380-04:00I couldn't make much sense of those weapon num...I couldn't make much sense of those weapon numbers myself. The single +5 for battle axes also intrigued me. The hardest thing to explain is why a Wizard would be wielding all of these different weapons in the first place...<br /><br />On one small ancillary point, about armor class, it's a matter of simple historical fact that the term "armor class" is a Chainmail term and that its usage there carried over to OD&D. How fundamentally it changed is more complicated question. Yes, the Chainmail "Man-to-Man" table matrixed a list of weapon types against the armor classes, while OD&D matrixed a list of levels and classes and monster types against the armor classes. The Chainmail system seems to be oblivious to skill, whereas the OD&D system is oblivious to potential differences of efficacy in weapons for various targets. Obviously the introduction of the OD&D level system motivated that change.<br /><br />However, a quick look at the Chainmail "Individual Fires with Missiles" table shows the "class of armor worn by defender" quantified up from 1 to 8, and the behavior of each missile weapon getting worse as you go up in armor. It's true that this system has 1 equal to the worst armor and 8 equal to the best, rather than 2 equal to the best and 9 to the worst. But this doesn't seem so different to me. <br /><br />This is why I think we're safe in saying that armor class existed in Chainmail. It wasn't consistently applied, but, then again, it isn't in OD&D either. You can still find places in OD&D where "armor class" is listed not by a number, but by a descriptor of armor worn (look at the various human "monster" types at the beginning of M&T, for example the Berseker). You also didn't increment or decrement armor class in OD&D when you put on magic armor or a Ring of Protection - these detract from hit rolls against you rather than decrementing your armor class. But OD&D needed an abstraction of armor to model the various monsters that had natural armor, and hence the numeric classifications from Chainmail return in OD&D.Jon Petersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824427209908111302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3138202318040749770.post-49780744814217036812012-09-01T11:55:18.232-04:002012-09-01T11:55:18.232-04:00As always, very intriguing studies in gaming archa...As always, very intriguing studies in gaming archaeology! Thanks for sharing!AndreasDavourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17170806742393291962noreply@blogger.com