Old School Open Book Spellcasting

I actually enjoy Vancian magic. I don't prefer it in every fantasy role-playing game, but I find it effective, interesting, and fun when it is employed appropriately. That is not to say it can't be improved. The following is a house rule I intend to use the next time I run Swords & Wizardry or earlier editions of Dungeons & Dragons.

Open Book Spellcasting

As per established rules, a magic-user may memorize a certain number of spells of various spell levels according to their class level. These spells, once cast, are "erased" from the caster's memory, but may be re-memorized given time and access to the right spell book or scroll.

A magic-user may, however, choose to cast directly from the spell book or scroll without causing the written spell to disappear (which is what happens when non-magic-users are able to cast a spell from text). To do this, the magic-user must read directly from the open spell book or scroll and make an attack roll versus an armor class equal to 10 + the spell's level (using ascending armor class). The magic-user is, in a sense, attacking the difficulty of the spell through brute force of will. If the roll succeeds, the spell is cast. If the roll fails, the spell is not cast and each subsequent attempt to cast it raises its armor class by 1. Normal difficulty is restored the following day. If the magic-user fumbles by rolling a 1, no more attempts may be made to cast that spell until the following day and the spell, if already memorized, is instantly forgotten.

In retrospect, the house rule I described in "Time for Another Spellcasting House Rule" in which the cost of casting an unmemorized spell is 1 hit point per spell level should probably be a variant of open book spellcasting and likewise require the use of a spell book or scroll. One could use both variants in the same game: one requires a roll, the other requires a sacrifice of hit points, but both require the reading of the written spell.

The Price of Loot

Sometimes, when I am reading a published adventure, my eyes fall upon entries of things the player characters might loot—and the value in gold pieces of those things—and I can feel the subtle prodding of a headache behind my orbs. One jade bracelet worth 150 gold pieces. Two silver candlesticks worth 25 g.p. each. One sapphire worth 328 g.p. You see, there are two schools of thought on how a player character might discover the value of loot, and neither of them appeal to me. One school of thought insists that a player character cannot know the monetary value of an item until that item is appraised by a professional who works with that particular material, such as a jeweller, goldsmith, or other craftsman. In the absence of such expertise, the player character must take a chance in the marketplace with merchants of questionable honesty. This is all well and good for those gaming groups who enjoy the art of haggling and have time for it, but even so, the referee still has to record the true value of each item found by each player and devise a way to reference that information in the event the player character a) remembers having the item, and b) decides to sell it or have it evaluated. This might be a job for spreadsheets, and that never inspires me.

Another school of thought is happy to rattle off the value of loot as soon as it comes into the player characters' possession. Somehow, every adventurer has an immediate, almost supernatural awareness of the true value of every item found, as if they were characters in a video game instantly gaining points for every item and power-up they touch.

I admit it: I have been guilty of following both schools, but I have never approved of either. Somewhere, there must be sane middleground wherein realism and playability can meet amicably. Here is my proposal...

• Characters who are thieves, rogues, traders, or merchants instantly know the estimated value of common nonmagical loot.
• Characters who are dwarves, goblins, or members of other mining cultures instantly know the estimated value of gems, jewelry, and metal objects, both magical and nonmagical.
• Characters who are elves, faeries, or other sorts of fairy folk instantly know the value of art, scholarly works, and ancient artifacts.
• All characters know the estimated value of items related to their class/profession/occupation. (For example, warriors know the value of weapons, armor, and steeds; clerics know the value of religous relics and accoutrements; wizards know the value of occult books and alchemical ingredients, etc.)
• Outside of the above, characters who need items appraised must seek a specialist or try haggling.

By "estimated value" I mean the actual listed value. What you can get for an item varies depending on the skill of the seller, the desire of the buyer, the scarcity of the item in the region where it is being sold, and other factors.

As usual, results may vary. This rule awaits playtesting.

Zombie Dice and All-Purpose Spellcasting

[The following rule utilizes the Zombie dice from Zombie Dice, a game published by Steve Jackson Games. Zombie dice, which will hereafter be referred to as dZ, have the following faces: brain, footprints, and shotgun blast (abbreviated here as simply blast). The distribution of faces varies by color. A green dZ has 3 brains, 2 footprints, and 1 blast. A yellow dZ has 2 brains, 2 footprints, and 2 blasts. A red dZ has 1 brain, 2 footprints, and 3 blasts.*]

Twelve years ago (!), I posted an article entitled "Zombie Dice and Spell Interruption." Today, I would like to offer another method of using Zombie dice with spellcasting.

Each time a spellcaster casts a spell, the caster must roll 1dZ. If the casting is not interrupted, the caster rolls a green dZ. If the casting is interrupted, the caster rolls a yellow dZ. If the casting is interrupted through injury to the caster, the caster rolls a red dZ. The result of the roll is compared to the table below:

dZ	Effect
brain	The spell is cast and retained.
footprints	The spell is cast and forgotten.
blast	The spell is disrupted and forgotten.

All of this presumes that the baseline magic system is Vancian, i.e. the caster may memorize a certain number of spells of each allowable spell level; once cast, a spell is forgotten and cannot be cast again until it is re-memorized. Contrarywise, with this rule, there is always a chance that a spell may be cast and retained in the memory, cast and forgotten normally, or disrupted and forgotten.

One could also give the caster the option to cast in standard Vancian fashion (spells cast are always forgotten, but never disrupted unless interrupted) or risk the Zombie dice method on a case by case basis.

* Standard six-sided dice may be substituted as follows:
"Green" d6: 1-3 = brain, 4-5 = footprints, 6 = blast.
"Yellow" d6: 1-2 = brain, 3-4 = footprints, 5-6 = blast.
"Red" d6: 1 = brain, 2-3 = footprints, 4-6 = blast.

The Burden of Adventuring: Addendum

In "The Burden of Adventuring," I presented a modified version of "Save vs. Encumbrance" from Aeons & Auguries by JDJarvis. It occurred to me there is one matter I failed to address, which I shall address below.

Encumbrance checks may be required if a character attempts to do something that is made more difficult by being encumbered even if that task would not ordinarily require a check. If a task already requires a check and being encumbered is a significant hindrance, two checks must be made: the initial check and the Encumbrance check. If the initial check is successful and the Encumbrance check is not, the character succeeds, but at a cost: −1 fatigue penalty or loss of (or damage to) the item corresponding to the number rolled for the Encumbrance check.

Heightening the Heightened: Abilities and Passive Mutations

Overall, I like the streamlined nature of the rules of Mutant Crawl Classics RPG, but sometimes the streamlining erases important details. One such detail is the nature of certain passive mutations. Mutations by their nature are things that stray from the norm. They are abnormal. So, why do some passive mutations have the possibility of yielding results that are indistinguable from the normal non-mutated range? Here, I am referring especially to mutations that have a chance of altering a character's ability scores, such as Heightened Intelligence. Unless the player rolls 20 or higher, the ability score improves by merely +1, +2, or +3. In many cases, the character might not even gain any tangible benefit. If the ability score were 9, for example, a +3 improvement wouldn't even boost it beyond the average range.

I have an alternative.

When rolling passive mutations such as Heightened Agility, Heightened Stamina, Heightened Strength, Heightened Intelligence, Dual Brain, etc., ability increases refer to the ability modifier rather than the ability score. The ability score is then increased to the threshold of that ability modifier.

For example, a mutant, manimal, or plantient with Intelligence 6 (−1) who acquires the Heightened Intelligence result, "The mutant's Intelligence score is increased by +1," now has Intelligence 9 (+0) because 9 is the minimum ability score at which the modifier becomes +0.

Granted, having one's low Intelligence raised to the dizzying heights of average seems at odds with the term Heightened Intelligence, but at least this method offers a guaranteed tangible benefit with each increase.

Passive Mutations During Level Progression Alternative Rule

In Mutant Crawl Classics RPG, there is a rule on page 42 stating that a mutant character may choose to re-roll a passive mutation upon gaining a level and may burn Luck or use glowburn in the process. In practice, this gives a slim chance of improvement made somewhat greater only at the expense of Luck, which does not regenerate for mutants or manimals, or physical abilities (Strength, Agility, or Stamina), which regenerate slowly and probably not in time to prevent a character from suffering severe disadvantages during an adventure. In addition, there is a significant chance that a character's passive mutation will worsen.

The question I ask myself when I think about a rule is: Is this fun? ("Is this fair?" is another question I ask and is often linked to the first.) Is it fun to survive long enough to achieve the next level just to see one's passive mutation devolve or see it improve at the expense of one's general ability to survive? It seems contradictory. I can understand the risk involved in radiation exposure, which might be to the mutant's benefit or detriment, but that risk is part of the adventure itself, not a rule pertaining to levelling up. It wouldn't be as much of an issue if mutants and manimals could at least regenerate Luck even if it were only 1 point per day. For me, this rule is neither fun nor fair.

So, here's my house rule...

Each time a mutated character gains a level, the player may opt to re-roll a passive mutation. If the roll exceeds the current result, the character's passive mutation improves by one step. If the roll is a 1, the passive mutation regresses by one step. Otherwise, the passive mutation remains unchanged. Neither Luck nor glowburn may be used to alter results.

Alternate Spellburn and Glowburn Rules 2

Suppose I wish to incorporate the incompetence spiral of spellburn and glowburn without resorting to the reviled recalculation of modifiers. How would I go about it? It's time to pull out the dice chain...

Whether you burn attribute points normally or use Burn points, each instance of burning causes you to suffer a −1d penalty to all physical actions, Fortitude saves, and Reflex saves until you rest. The penalty is cumulative. For example, if you spellburn twice during a battle, your penalty is −2d until you rest. Rest, in this case, means a cessation of physical activity for at least one hour per instance of burning. Or, to put it another way, the penalty is reduced by 1d per hour of rest.

So, if you like your spellburn or glowburn to reflect physical sacrifice or hardship, but you dislike taking the time to fiddle with a character's established modifiers, just use the dice chain.

Again, this may require some playtesting.

Alternate Spellburn and Glowburn Rules

What would I do to improve my enjoyment of Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG and Mutant Crawl Classics RPG (besides using DCC Lankhmar)? I would change spellburn and glowburn. One of things I have always disliked about fluctuating attributes in games that do not utilize dice pools is that it becomes necessary to adjust modifiers and derived attributes (and their modifiers). This slows down the game (if the players even remember to do it) and I hate slowing down the game for the purpose of crunching numbers.

So, what would I do differently? I would create a separate characteristic called Burn, which is calculated by adding Strength, Agility, and Stamina and dividing the sum by 3. If you want to spellburn or glowburn, you spend Burn points, not attribute points. If you fall below 1 Burn, you may continue by directly spending hit points. Hit points thus spent may be regained normally. Burn points are regained at the rate of 1 point per day during which no burning has occurred.

This solves my problem with recalculating modifiers, but retains the significance of the physical attributes and transforms the risk of high intensity burning from an incompetence spiral to actual wounds.

I think this is worth playtesting.

Magical Spell: Globe of Quietude

The idea for this spell may or may not have been inspired by a loud vehicle that disturbed my sleep last night.

Globe of Quietude

Spell Class: Magic-User
Spell Level: 3
Range: Special
Duration: 1 hour

This spell create a sphere of silence 8 cubits* in diameter centered on any being or object the caster can see or hear. If the target is unwilling, a successful saving throw will cause the globe of quietude to bounce to the next nearest being or object and so on until a target accepts it or fails its saving throw. Inanimate objects are not entitled to a saving throw. Once the globe hits its mark, it will move with its target, nullifying all sound within its area of effect. The globe of quietude persists until it expires, is cancelled by the caster, or is dispelled.

Unlike the clerical spell silence 15' radius, which prevents sound from issuing from its area of effect whilst permitting external sound to enter it, the globe of quietude is a barrier to all sound within its confines.

* 12 feet or 4 m.

Dungeons & Dragons My Way

If I were to revise Basic/Expert D&D or Old School Essentials for my own purposes (and that's the "edition" I favor), these are the changes I would make:

• The players roll their own dice for attacks, skills, and damage.
• Alignment only exists for supernatural beings. These beings embody their alignment. Some supernatural beings are non-aligned. Listed alignments for monsters and NPCs reflect tendencies to side with the forces of that alignment, but are not mandatory.
• Experience points are awarded for experiences in the adventure, not treasure and body count. (I'd probably use a variant of the system in DCC RPG.)
• All classes advance at the same rate.
• The value of precious metals is akin to that of Europe's actual medieval period. All price lists must change. (Also: coin sizes and weights are based on historical coins.)
• Combat sequence: Each side rolls 1d6. The side that rolls highest acts first. Individuals on a side act in the order of their choosing.
• Ascending Armor Class.
• Classes use "To Hit" bonuses. No attack matrices. (See Swords & Wizardry.)
• Unified saving throws with possible modifiers based on class or other factors. (See Swords & Wizardry.)
• There is no total dark vision except via magic. Some creatures can see better in low light conditions, but none can see in total darkness.
• Revise weapons and armor lists to be historically accurate in nature and nomenclature.
• Weapons made for smaller folk (dwarves, halflings) are reduced 1 die step. Weapons made for giant folk are raised by 1 or more die steps (ogres, giants).
• Any class can use any weapon, although clerics might be restricted according to their religion. Player characters may choose to specialize in one weapon appropriate to their class for which they get a +1 bonus to attack and damage.
• Revise spell advancement.
• Revise thief skills.
• Class hit dice as follows: d6 for magic-users, thieves; d8 for clerics; d10 for fighters.
• No level limits.
• No minimum attribute requirements for classes.
• Any player character kindred can be any class, but each kindred has both advantages and disadvantages. Some classes will be more common to some kindreds than others, e.g., thieves (or scouts) are the commonest class amongst halflings, whereas fighters are the commonest amongst dwarves, and elves have a higher proportion of magic-users than any other kindred. (Yes, I use "kindred" from Tunnels & Trolls to denote different species that can be played.)

O.K., this sounds almost like a completely different game (and a heresy to some), but tailoring the game to suit a group's preferences has been how many (if not most) people have played D&D throughout much of its existence. I spent most of my AD&D years resenting its limitations, but if I am to run D&D again, this will be the way I run it — part D&D, part Swords & Wizardry, part DCC RPG, part Applied Phantasticality. That's the way I like it.

(Incidentally, I made many of these changes a few years ago when I started running Basic/Expert D&D again and it morphed into a modified Swords & Wizardry White Box, but I'm just trying to organize my thoughts for my own optimal D&D.)

Fly, You Fools!

The wisdom of knowing when to fight and when to flee in a role-playing game is of paramount importance in those games that eschew the concept of "balanced" encounters, and of this matter I am in complete agreement. It is an elementary aspect of strategy that is as true in a game as it is in fiction or life. Why, I must ask, do those very same games then punish player characters for availing themselves of this legitimate tactic? Let us examine their ways. First, the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide (p. 70) has this to say:

At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the mêlée. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.

From the 1980 Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (p. B25), we are given this version:

RETREAT: Any movement backwards at more than 1/2 the normal movement rate is a retreat. If a creature tries to retreat, the opponent may add +2 to all "to hit" rolls, and the defender is not allowed to make a return attack. In addition to the bonus on "to hit" rolls, the attacks are further adjusted by using the defender's Armor Class without a shield. (Any attacks from behind are adjusted in the same manner.)

From the 5th printing of the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (p. 95), we are given this version:

Once a character is engaged in mêlée, he cannot back away without opening himself to attack. If a character or monster withdraws from an active melee — whether to retreat, move to a new position, or attempt some action — his opponents immediately receive a single free attack.

Granted, there is a distinction to be made between retreating from combat versus choosing not to engage in it in the first place, but I would suggest that breaking off from a fight ought to have only two possible negative consequences: either the opponent will pursue or the opponent will attack with a ranged weapon (and the character in flight will have no ability to dodge, parry, or block such an attack). No special rules are needed. Combatant A chooses to retreat. Combatant B, when her turn comes up, may choose to give chase and make a mêlée attack if and when she is close enough, or make a ranged attack where she stands. It's a natural result that requires no intervention.

What is served by ignoring the rules above? Besides not having to commit them to memory, it preserves a viable tactic that one can see in fiction and reality. Sometimes combatants retreat. Not every fight is to the death. The rules as written would have you believe otherwise, however, as combatants are forced to consider opening themselves to attack in order to avoid attacks.

And how exactly does one achieve this seemingly magical "free attack" when an opponent is literally moving out of range of close combat? All it does is enforce static — and therefore unrealistic and boring — fights. And none of us wants that.

So, in summary, my house rule on free attacks against retreating combatants is that there are no free attacks against retreating combatants. Follow the normal flow of action.

The Burden of Adventuring

Encumbrance has been a thorn in my side since the dawn of my gaming experience, and with the exception of the Ghostbusters role-playing game (with its carrying limit of three pieces of equipment—that's pretty much the entirety of its encumbrance rules), I inevitably resort to that old hand-waving standby: whatever seems reasonable. There ought to be consequences for overburdening oneself, but if calculating the weight or encumbrance units of every item carried is the price, I'm not willing to pay it.

There is a solution. In Aeons & Augauries, JDJarvis introduces the idea of "Save vs. Encumbrance". I have vowed to try it in the next session of DCC RPG I run, with a few additional rules. I have codified it thusly:

---

A character can carry up to 20 items, which are listed numerically on the character sheet. Backbacks, pouches, bags, and the like (and their contents) count as one item each. Armor worn counts as one item.

Whenever a character attempts an activity that would be hindered by a character's encumbrance, a d20 Encumbrance check must be made. The difficulty of the check is the total number of items carried. If the check is successful, things proceed normally. If the check is unsuccessful, then there is a complication.

Complications could take the form of outright failure, partial failure, a −1 fatigue penalty (that is cumulative and affects all d20 rolls until eliminated), or the loss of (or damage to) the item in a character's inventory corresponding to the number rolled for the Encumbrance check.

N.B. One carried item is always protected from loss or damage in an Encumbrance check: the last item on the list. Since a check succeeds when the roll is equal to or higher than the target number (i.e. the total number of items carried), the item corresponding to the target number is automatically safe.

Example: An adventurer is carrying eight items:

1. sword
2. backpack (containing food, cooking gear, a blanket, extra clothes, a waterskin, a tinderbox, a knife, and a mirror)
3. shield
4. pouch (containing coins)
5. hand axe
6. lantern
7. flask of oil
8. scroll case (containing maps)

The adventurer attempts to leap across a crevasse. Ordinarily, this would not require any kind of roll because the crevasse isn't that wide, but since the adventurer is being pursued and is carrying equipment, an Encumbrance check is deemed necessary. The player rolls 1d20 and gets a 4. The GM can rule that the character fails and falls into the crevasse; partially fails and is hanging on the edge (requiring a further roll or help from a comrade); succeeds, but now has a −1 fatigue penalty to further rolls; or succeeds, but drops the pouch of coins (item #4) into the crevasse. Had the player rolled 8 or higher, the adventurer would have made the leap with no complications.

[Edit: See also this addendum.]

---

Again, this was inspired by "Save vs. Encumbrance" by JDJarvis.

Eat, Drink, and Avoid Penalties

This is a simple method for penalizing player characters who neglect a basic survival necessity, and rewarding those who make the effort to do more than the minimum. It's compatible with nearly any iteration of old school Dungeons & Dragons, its retro-clones, its OSR relatives, and maybe more.

Characters must eat to survive, and they must eat regularly to function normally. For each day that a character fails to eat at least one substantial meal, the character suffers a -1 cumulative penalty to all actions and saving throws, i.e. -1 on the first day, -2 on the second day, -3 on the third day. The DM will determine, based on the character's Constitution and species, how many days the character may survive until starvation ends the character's life. Penalties commence each day as soon as the characters become active until they have their first meal.

If a character manages to have three meals in a single day and the third meal is consumed whilst resting, he or she recovers 1d3 hit points upon finishing it.

Water, or an acceptable liquid substitute, is also a necessity, and failure to drink also results in a -1 cumulative penalty to all actions and saving throws for each day of deprivation as above. The DM will determine how many days the character may survive until death by thirst occurs. Penalties commence each day as soon as the characters become active until they have their first drink.

Characters who fail to consume both food and water will suffer the penalties for both.

Starting on the fourth day of deprivation of either, characters will begin to lose 1dx hit points per day, where x equals the hit die type of the character's class.

The Armor Class Equalizer

Sometimes the best weapons to use against armored opponents are not those that inflict the most damage, but those that deprive them of the advantage of wearing armor. Armor is best for deflecting or absorbing attacks, but it is the worst for avoiding attacks. The mounted knight or man-at-arms is particularly vulnerable to the hooked pole arms used by footmen and peasantry to pull them off their steeds.

This is a simple rule that can be added to any role-playing game that utilizes armor class in combat resolution.

Any attacker who uses an appropriate weapon with the intent of pulling, pushing, toppling, entangling, or unhorsing an opponent may consider that opponent to be unarmored in terms of armor class regardless of whatever armor that opponent may be wearing. If the opponent is aware of the attack and able to react, the opponent's armor class will be modified by his or her Dexterity bonus or penalty, if any. Appropriate weapons include whips, bolas, man-catchers, and most pole arms (namely those with hooks and/or tines). If the attack is successful, it causes no damage, but the victim is affected as follows:

• whip: entangled (potentially tripped or disarmed)
  
• bola: entangled (potentially tripped)
  
• man-catcher: caught (potentially pushed or pulled)
  
• pole arm: unhorsed or tripped
  

Effects may be adjudicated by GM fiat, GM-player negotiation, attribute checks, or any extant rules covered by the system being used.

How to Knock Out a Foe in One Easy Rule

Knocking out — or being knocked out by — an opponent ought to be a viable tactic in an adventure game, but more often it is made too obscure or unwieldy in the rules of Dungeons & Dragons and its offspring. As an alternative (and as an encouragement in the use of this tactic), I offer the following house rule.

Any attack with a blunt instrument (either unarmed or with a weapon) can be made with the intent to knock out an opponent. The victim is entitled to a saving throw. If the saving throw succeeds, the victim takes no damage if a helmet is worn or half damage if the head is unprotected. If the saving throw fails, no damage is sustained, but the victim is knocked out and will remain unconscious for 1d6 turns or until revived. Opponents who are surprised suffer a -2 penalty to their saving throw; opponents who are attacked from behind suffer a -4 penalty.

Edged weapons with suitable non-edged surfaces (such as a sword's pommel or an axe's handle) may also be used as a blunt instrument for the purpose of this rule.

Time for Another Spellcasting House Rule

Eventually, I will decide exactly how I want to handle spells in my Swords & Wizardry White Box games. The number of spells that can be cast per day are so scanty at low levels that it's a wonder anyone ever wants to be a spellcaster, especially since magic-users in particular are ineffective at anything other than spellcasting. My last house rule has been unsatisfying (unmemorized spells can be cast, but the casting time is extended to a turn and the caster must make a saving throw or suffer a temporary loss of strength). The casting may or may not have consequences, and even if it does, the cost is negligible. For my next house rule on the subject, I think I'll let unmemorized spells be cast at a cost of 1 hit point per spell level. This is an idea inspired by Microlite20, although in those rules it's the default method for all spellcasting. In Microlite20, the hit point cost is 1 plus double the spell level, but hit points spent in this manner are recovered after eight hours of rest. In my house rule, the hit point cost is lower, but the hit points spent are actual damage and are recovered in the same manner as other wounds (1 hit point per day of rest). This makes it simpler, but it makes the consequences of casting unmemorized spells greater, thus preserving the importance of wisely choosing which spells to memorize. I'll probably also add the Holmes rule for creating spell scrolls. Will any of this work or will I be trying another house rule in the near future? We shall see...

[Edit: After writing "Old School Open Book Spellcasting", I have decided that the house rule above should also require the use of a spell book or scroll containing the spell to be cast.]

Equal Opportunity Energy Drain

Despite the bookkeeping hassle and the strained in-game explanations, level drain has one thing in its favor: inciting terror amongst players. This is a good thing, as the undead ought to incite terror, but it has its drawbacks: namely the fact that high level characters are far less vulnerable than low level characters. Some may assert that this is justifiable for the same reason that high level characters have more hit points, and thus are more difficult to kill, but I would respond that true terror ought to transcend the relative safety of experience. In fact, that's one of its most unsettling characteristics. This is why I have decided that in my own games, energy drain refers not to levels, but to how many six-sided dice you roll to determine your reduction in strength (which, at least in the version of Dungeons & Dragons I play, is independent of character level). Most undead will cause 1d6 points of strength to be drained. More powerful undead, such as vampires, will drain 2d6 points of strength. Zero strength equals death (and probably eventual undeath). If one survives such an attack, strength is restored at the rate of 1 point per week of rest. The usual spells (i.e. restoration and wish) will fully restore lost strength. As with the traditional energy drain, there is no saving throw to avoid its effects.

We Are Sorry to Interrupt This Spell

I have come to the conclusion that spell interruption makes no sense in the context of Vancian spellcasting. In the Dying Earth stories by Jack Vance, it may take hours to memorize a few spells, but once a spell is in the magician's mind, coiled like a spring, all he or she needs to do is utter a few syllables to unleash it. I imagine the effect being as immediate as the killing words in Dune. Ritual spellcasting is another matter. Spells cast ritually are not memorized (at least, not in the same manner), but the casting time is greatly extended, affording ample opportunity for interruption. Coupled with an additional cost (such as possible hit point loss or temporary attribute reduction), ritual spellcasting becomes a viable method of extending the spellcaster's usefulness without resorting to power inflation (in theory, I should add, as I am currently playtesting it with Swords & Wizardry White Box). Dispensing with the idea of spell interruption for memorized spells helps me in two other ways. First, since I am no longer using the complicated combat round sequence of post-OD&D, I no longer have to worry about requiring spellcasters to commit to a spell before initiative is rolled — they are as free to cast or not cast as anyone else who is free to use or not use a weapon. Why does this matter to me? It matters because the game flows better, and when the game flows better, my players and I enjoy it more. Second, it preserves the value of memorized spells in contrast to ritually cast spells. And since I'm using Brendan's Simplified Spell Progression (i.e. reduced spell capacity), it's all the more important that the memorized spells become the reliable ones.

(I probably ought to note here that I am not observing the variable casting times of certain editions of Dungeons & Dragons. In my campaigns, memorized spells are cast instantaneously, whereas ritually cast spells have a uniform casting time of one turn [ten minutes].)

Here, then, are my latest revised rules for ritual spellcasting...

Ritual Spellcasting Variant 3

The standard rules of normal spellcasting apply (verbal and/or somatic components only; casting time of 1 round; memorization of all spells in 1 hour after 8 hours of sleep), but spellcasters may also cast any currently unmemorized (or unprayed for) spell that they are qualified to cast (i.e. are of a high enough level to cast) with the following restrictions:

1. Casting time is increased to 1 turn, after which the spellcaster makes a saving throw vs. magic. If failed, the caster loses 1 point of strength per level of the spell. Strength lost in this manner is fully recovered after 8 hours of sleep.
   
2. The casting must be uninterrupted. If it is interrupted, the spell is disrupted, but the caster must still make a saving throw or lose strength as described above.
   
3. Material components must be used. Magic-users may use either a magic circle with candles or incense, or an alchemical catalyst to be imbibed, poured, or otherwise destroyed. Clerics may use items appropriate to their religion and culture such as censors, holy water sprinklers, bells, chimes, gongs, prayer wheels, candles, bonfires, etc.
   
4. For magic-users, the book containing the spell must be available to consult during the casting. For clerics, a holy symbol, holy book, or sacred object must be present.
   

Concise Shield Rules

These are my final rules on shields.* As usual, they are adapted from Shields Shall Be Splintered.


Normal Shields

All shields improve the wielder's armor class by 1 against attacks coming from an appropriate direction, i.e. the front or the shield flank.

Any shield may be used to absorb the damage from an attack after the damage has been rolled and announced, but the shield is thereby destroyed.

Large shields may be used to absorb the damage of spells, breath weapons, and the like in the same manner. Small shields may not.

Shields of normal construction are no defense whatsoever against ballistae, catapults, trebuchets, cannon, or firearms.


Magic Shields

Magic shields usually improve the wielder's armor class by an additional +1, +2, or +3.

Any time a magic shield is used to absorb the damage from an attack, its bonus decreases by one. Once the bonus is reduced to 0, it loses one magical ability (if any) per attack absorbed. Once it has lost all magical properties, it functions as a normal shield.

Magic shields are effective against all weapons. If used to absorb the damage from a siege weapon (including artillery), the shield is destroyed regardless of its degree of enchantment and the defender is thrown clear.


N.B. "Small shields" refers to bucklers and other small handheld shields. "Large shields" refers to heaters, kites, tower shields, round shields, etc.


* Until such time as I grow weary of them.

Use Your Shield

This is my third attempt to make sensible shield rules incorporating both Shield Saves and Shields Shall Be Splintered (and now my own Use Your Helmet rules).

All shields improve armor class by 1 vs. mêlée and missile attacks if they are carried only (not wielded), i.e. if they cannot be actively used to block an attack, but the attack is coming from an appropriate direction. For example, if the shield is being worn on the back, it would improve the defender's armor class against attacks from the rear; or if the shield is being carried normally and the defender is surprised, the defender could benefit from the shield's armor class improvement, but would be unable to actively block any attacks.

If wielded, there is no improvement to armor class, but the wielder may use the shield to attempt to block blows by making a saving throw. Fighters roll their most favorable save; non-fighters roll their least favorable save. A successful save blocks the attack and deflects the damage. Blocking can only be attempted if the wielder is both aware of the attack and in a position to defend against it.

The number of mêlée attacks that can be blocked depends on the size of the shield. Small shields can block one attack per round; large shields can block three attacks per round. A saving throw must be made for each blocking attempt.

The number of missiles that can be blocked also depends on the size of the shield. Small shields can block one missile per round; large shields can block any number of missiles per round (but only one saving throw is necessary). Missile attacks can only be defended against from one direction at a time.

The defender may opt to sacrifice the shield. The defender suffers no damage, but the shield is destroyed by the attack. This tactic may also be used against area effect attacks such as dragon breath, fireballs, lightning bolts, etc.

Shields of normal construction are no defense whatsoever against ballistae, catapults, trebuchets, cannon, or firearms.

Magic shields are effective against all weapons. When carried, they generally improve armor class by +1, +2, or +3 beyond the normal improvement afforded by shields. When used to block, the magical bonus is transferred to the wielder's saving throw. All missiles except cannonballs can be blocked by magic shields (if the saving throw is successful). Magic shields can be sacrificed to defend against any damage-dealing area effect attack or weapon including cannon. (In the case of cannon, the shield is destroyed and the defender is thrown clear.)

Optionally, a magic shield may be sacrificed twice. The first sacrifice nullifies its enchantment. The second sacrifice destroys the shield itself.

[Edit: See Concise Shield Rules for my current perspective.]