Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Blinded By The Light - My DMG Journey Continues

After getting sidetracked...

I'm now on page 50, having just finished the section on Spell Explanations and moved on into  The Adventure (Land Adventures.)

The Spell Explanations section gives further rules for adjudicating select Spells. They seem to be a mixture of Mr. Gygax deciding some things needed to be expounded upon for DM's (and the knowledge kept from players) and, I would think, Rulings he came up with and passed along, from actual play experience.

"Earthquake: ... An earth elemental in the spell area has the effect of negating 10% to 100% of the spell effects (d10,0 +100%) if the elemental is of forces opposed to the cleric casting the earthquake spell."

I'd like to think that a player came up with that one and Gary thought it a good enough idea, to incorporate into the notes on  the spell. Or, that he used it to screw up a player's plans. The notion of either event, makes me smile.

Here's one, which my early gaming group found rather early and used quite frenquently:

"Light: It should be noted that if this spell is cast upon the visage or before the visual organs of a creature, it will tend to blind it (rather as if a strong light were placed before its eyes), and its attacks and defenses will be a -4 on "to hit", saving throw, and even armor class. Note also that the spell is not mobile, although it can be cast upon a movable or mobile object or creature."

Pretty damn nifty, for a 1st level utility spell, huh? The Player's Handbook doesn't mention the possibility of Blinding, but does state that if the spell is cast upon a creature, said victim receives a Saving Throw to avoid having the spell manifest upon it. There are several instances, where Mr. Gygax makes sure to tell the DM that he shouldn't let the Player's in on all their options, but rather to bloody well make them figure it out for themselves.

There are some Rulings in this section, which I don't care for. Like the Heal spell not curing Mental Illnesses.

Alas, there's only a handful of Illusionist spells, explicated more fully. I wonder how many Illusionist's Gary DM'd?

The DMG has been, thus far, filled with good advice, excellent ideas and useful information. But, I'm left with the feeling that Gary is doing too much of my imagining for me.

Surprise!!! You're Scewed!

So, both sides roll a d6 for Surprise. On a 1 or 2, you're surprised for the number of segments you rolled, minus any segments of Surprise on the other side. If there's a Ranger in your party, you're only Surprised on a 1 in 6. Unless a monster has a special Surprise vs. opponents. Say, a Lurker Above who Surprises on 1-4 in 6. With a ranger in your party, he'll only Surprise on a 1-3. If you roll a four and he rolls higher than a 2, you'll be Surprised for 3 segments. If you have a Ranger. Otherwise, you'll be staring agog with your thumb up your ass for 4 segments. Why is this a big deal?

It's only a really big deal, if the monster is close enough to attack. Like a Lurker Above, who would probably just drop on you. In AD&D, he'll get his full attack action, each segment the party is Surprised! The Lurker only does 1-6 in damage, but I might could still kill the MU. Imagine a foe, who does more damage and has multiple attacks, getting 4 such full attack opportunities. Or, multiple monsters.

Reaction adjustments do help, but only for individual PC's. So, your Thief probably will recover fairly quickly and manage to close with the Lurker, thus saving the MU's sorry butt. Unless, you know, he takes that opportunity to filch some treasure, or something.

All in all, when dealing with an encounter where a Surprising monster is close enough to engage, multiple segments of attack are just too much! Unless the party is maybe eating dinner or otherwise engaged in really casual pursuits, I just don't see a battle-hardened, experienced Adventurer, being flat footed for 40 seconds. Or, even 20. Personally, unless special circumstances were involved, I wouldn't allow more than 1 segment of unanswered, full attack action from a Surprising monster.

10 comments:

  1. The AD&D surprise rules were, if I recall that mess correctly, sheer hell if you got surprised by an opposing party with bows. I think they got their full rate of fire per surprise segment. May be remembering that wrong, but I do remember it sucking mightily. (Much like getting surprised by multiple Rogues in 3.x)

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's fairly brutal: "Even if distance prevents striking with weapons, the discharge of arrows, bolts or hand-hurled weapons is permissible at three time the normal rate providing the weapon/missiles are ready, otherwise at normal rates for rounds."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've been reading through OSRIC recently, and came upon the surprise rules. I'm curious: To your knowledge, has anyone ever used the AD&D 1st edition surprise rules EXACTLY as written? Or did most groups just use the much simpler D&D surprise rules instead?

    ReplyDelete
  4. @navdi - no idea. I never did.

    I got my math twisted in the last paragraph above, which should read "24 seconds and 12 seconds."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I used the surprise rules as written. Still do and yes, it's brutal. Makes have a ranger wonderful, however.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is a good thread on Dragonsfoot on this subject: Missile Fire: King of Surprise Encounters?

    One thing to notice is that the surprise rules change between the PHB and DMG. I have used them as written, but that sort of literal interpretation does not necessarily yield the best, nor the intended, results.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Granted, I used an extreme example and most surprise encounters wouldn't play out that way. But, I'm not sure what you mean by "literal interpretation." The DMG isn't an allegorical text.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ha, ha. No, but it is a guide, rather than a set of iron clad rules, and the organic way in which it was developed and the results of the editing process make for a less than cohesive whole. There are a few ways to interpret that passage, and a few reasons not to take it too seriously, which are all fully elaborated in the above linked thread. In an earlier version of the surprise rules (those in the PHB) only one attack was permitted, rather than a full routine, which of course brings up the question of what constitutes a routine when using missile weapons? Is "rate of fire" the same thing as "rate of attack"? If so, then rate of fire is the number of attack routines, if not it is the number of attacks in a single attack routine. Under what conditions are triple rates of fire allowed, and is that really supposed to permit six attacks in six seconds or was something less clear intended? Not allegorical, no, but not straightforward either. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry, I was trying to do five things at once when answering the above and my mind got a little side-tracked. I think he meant at triple the rate for the whole time of surprise. Yes, rather unclear. Otherwise, we're talking an arrow a second, for every segment of surprise. Movie Legolas.

    ReplyDelete