Random D&D Notes

The following thoughts are things I could probably wrap whole posts around, but I've been a little busy lately and (thus) don't know when I'll get to it. Rather than lose these in the ether, I figured I'd just jot them down, perhaps to examine more deeply in the future:

Some great replicas, but
this one was real.

Viking Treasure: had the chance to check out a great exhibit at the Nordic Museum (in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle) on loan from Uppsala University in Sweden. Called "The Vikings Begin" it was a great collection with a lot of historical information. Didn't know that that the Norse didn't really have a currency before the 10th century or so; they collected coins from their travels, and would still use them for trading (as silver), weighing them with small (portable) scales. Also, silver coins? Really f'ing tiny (about the diameter of a nickel and thinner than a dime), though otherwise fairly uniform across multiple centuries and cultures; the exhibit included English pennies, coins from Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire, Arabic dinars, and some sort of Russian coin, all dating from the 7th to 9th centuries). Norse people liked to use wealth (gold and jewels) to decorate their stuff, especially weapons and armor.

Viking Shields: really big. Something along the line of Alexis's rule for large shields is appropriate, if a little generous (the +2 versus small missiles in the original DMG might model better; your call, of course).

Magic Swords: I keep wanting to write about this and I keep finding it hard to make the time. Magic swords in Original D&D (and also continued in Holmes Basic) only added their magical bonus to attack rolls, NOT damage. As far as I can tell, this is simply a continuation of the rules for magic swords in CHAINMAIL, the tabletop war-game which doesn't record "damage" anyway: one hit = one kill. Miscellaneous magic weapons, on the other hand, add their bonus to both attack and damage, save in the case of certain weapons (like magic bows). This wasn't changed until the 1st edition of the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, where bonuses became universally applied to attack and damage rolls for ALL weapons (including bows), presumably for simplicity and consistency...I can find no other reason/information for the change I've spent the last couple-three days combing through every issue of The Strategic Review and early Dragon magazines leading up to the DMG's release (and afterward) to see if there was mention of this change, finding nothing.

Here's the thing: I actually LIKE the original rule better; I like how it models abstract combat in D&D. Armor does not reduce damage; it prevents damage being inflicted at all. A magical bonus to hit reflects the magic weapon's ability to penetrate the armor. I don't require the weapon to inflict "more grievous wounds" especially as a successful attack roll with a low damage roll can still indicate two parties grappling in fierce melee and thumping each other with fists and feet, while they try to get their blade in position to strike home. Adding a damage bonus to a sword attack means every blow is more likely to have been a killing stroke...and I just don't like that. Leave that to the axes and spears and arrows. I find this is yet another thing I really like about the original game and the Holmes version of Basic.

[also, for some reason, my D&D groups have always played that magic bows do not inflict their bonus to damage. I have no idea why this is, as both the B/X and AD&D rules are clear that magic add their bonus to both attack and damage. Weird....really don't know where we learned to play like that...]

Old School Advancement: And this will be the final thought of this post, as I've got stuff to do. In reading these old magazines, I've found a lot of info, much of it fascinating, insightful, or informative. No, not all of it is great, but there ARE kernels/nuggets of "good stuff" in there, one of which is Gygax's own thoughts and ideas on how advancement was supposed to look in D&D: a successful player who's character participated in 50-70 game sessions per year could expect to reach 9th to 11th level after the first year of gaming, and then another 2-3 levels per year thereafter. At the time he was writing this, his Greyhawk campaign had been going on for four years and Arneson's Blackmoor had been going for five, and he could "definitively" state that no character in either campaign was higher than 14th level...presumably (it isn't explicit) due to a combination of character deaths, energy drain, and retirement from active adventuring. By my calculations, this rate of advancement amounts to a (rough) average of 4,000 experience points per character per session over the course of a year, which seems a little high but perhaps he was still using the pre-Supplement I system when it came to awarding XP for defeated monsters. For certain the article was written prior to the publication of the AD&D books.

[the reason for the high level spells in D&D (which became part of the system with the advent of the Greyhawk/Sup1 booklet) then appears to be neat and/or legendary effects that can be found on scrolls or provided through the good graces (or by paying) of high level NPCs]

I have to admit this seems entirely reasonable rate of advancement to me, and makes old tournament modules like Tomb of Horrors and Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth really look like worthwhile "epic paydays" for adventurers. Tomb of Horrors, especially, finally starts to inspire ambition as it's potential treasure payout is 437,409 g.p. Given that destruction of Acererak is another 100,000 x.p. that's a pretty substantial chunk of advancement for even a large party of adventurers. It really makes me turn up my nose at the paltry 53,035 g.p. one might pull out of White Plume Mountain...though, I suppose the original idea was that players would find the (campaign-wrecking) power of the magical weapons to be reward enough for their endeavor (all later publications/variations of WPM have insisted that the weapons be removed from PCs possession following the adventure).

All right...that's really all I have time for today. Later.

No Such Thing As "Normal" (Part 2)

[continued from here]

I know I said I wouldn't be examining the PHB in this series but guess what: I lied. I wanted to look at the dimensions of a short sword to figure out what exactly the hell it is. Because there's really no such thing as a "short sword" proper. There are swords that are shorter in length than others...but as swords have a variation of...oh, say, 24" (blade length) up to the monstrous two-hander...well, suffice is to say there's no such thing as "normal," either.

While I'm not a historian, I am something of a sword fanatic. I've studied swords, I own lots of books on swords, I like looking at swords in museums (and have done so all over the world), I fenced and read about/studied fencing for a number of years, I own real (non-replica) swords. Swords are my bag, baby. And for a geeky number-crunching, categorizing, pigeon-holin' dude like myself, swords are maddening, because for the most part they don't fall into hard and fast categories.

The easiest way to look at swords is to see them for what they properly are: the weaponized evolution of knife (and cutting/slicing) technology. Nothing beats a spear for poking, and its hard to argue against an axe for chopping. But the sword is a versatile weapon that can be used to harm folks in a variety of ways, including chopping, poking, slashing, and bashing. They're quick and maneuverable, and yet they're long enough to keep shorter, faster weapons at a good distance. Even though various "types" of swords are specialized for different types of combat (rapiers versus gladius versus broadsword versus saber) in general a sword is still a sword and two swords of different types are still more similar to each other (in how they are wielded) than they are to other weapons. A scimitar and an estoc are quite different, but they are much closer to each other than either is to a pike or mace.

[you can quibble but...well, you can quibble; leave it at that]

Hence, we find in Chainmail only a single entry called "sword" that falls into that intermediate scale between maces/picks and the flail weapons. The two-hander, used and wielded much like a big, edgy pole arm is a few more rungs up the ladder (between halberd and lance), but there's no "short sword, long sword, broad sword, bastard sword, blah-blah-blah." Everything not a dagger or a zwiehander is a sword. Period.

So what the hell is a "short sword?" Because we need to answer that before we get to the even more strange "normal sword."

The PHB has all their weights in GP and their way off real world weights (due to representing "bulk" not just poundage, I suppose), so we can't really rely on that. Length may be a better clue: the short sword is listed as "circa two feet," and with no other info to go on, one assumes this is overall weapon length (like the 6' two-hander), making the short sword only slightly longer than the dagger.  Considering 4-5" for a one-handed hilt, that leaves us room for a 19" blade, smaller than even the ancient Greek xiphos or (most) examples of the Roman gladius. It's barely bigger than a seax, which is really considered a knife, not a sword.

Here's something I was told by a guy who is a historian, as well as a real-life blacksmith, who does quite a bit of sword-work for Ren-fairs: in the olden days, if you were using a sword to fight, it would probably break...and sooner the more you used it. Battle is as hard on equipment (if not harder) than it is on people, and people heal. What's more, swords were fairly expensive weapons, so when your sword broke, you didn't just throw it away. Instead you took it to a smith who'd file it down for you into a shorter blade. This process would repeat when the blade would (inevitably) break again, and then you'd have the thing filed down into a largish knife called a dagger (or dirk, though that's a Scottish term). Could the "short sword" entry on the extensive AD&D weapon list be a stab (pardon the pun) at trying to be comprehensive in including these broken/mended weapons? Perhaps. Though it's maybe just as likely that Gygax wanted a weapon that would be the standard "broadsword equivalent" for shorties like gnomes and halflings.

In fact, if the latter is the case then Moldvay's normal swords becomes a bit easier to swallow: "short swords" are for halflings (and perhaps dwarves) while "normal swords" are for normal-sized folks (like humans and elves). Now, that actually makes some sense (and would also explain why a dwarf would choose to use a battle axe, as such a weapon would become their best melee damage option with regard to variable weapon damage).

But I still dislike the term "normal sword." Not only because there's no such thing as a "normal" sword but because, if you really want to categorize blades, there IS an easy way one could (somewhat) distinguish between them. And that way is to divide them into longswords and one-handed (short) swords, in addition to the two-hander group.

The longsword is "long" (the largest a bit more than 4' in total length, though that's not all blade), but what distinguishes the longsword is a hilt (with a grip of around 7-9") designed to allow two-handed use...despite the weapon being light enough to wield one-handed. This two-handed use was a crucial development (as was a forte...the base of the blade...that allowed easy gripping), in order to make the weapon more effective against the stronger armor being fielded on the battlefield. Along with more typical "anti-armor" weapons (the pick, the mace, etc.) the longsword became the knightly weapon of the late middle ages. It's ability to be used one or two handed (the former when riding or with a shield) just added to the versatility of the already versatile sword, and it would be a mainstay until armor started falling into disuse altogether (with the rise of gunpowder) and one-handed, dueling-style weapons became more the norm.

But D&D is a game of dudes (and dudettes) in armor, right? We don't need basket-hilted blades when we're wearing plate armor.

Longsword and arming sword...not that "short."

With the rise of the longsword, the old one-handed blades...like the Viking broadsword or knightly arming sword...are (were?) sometimes called "shortswords" but that's only in comparison to a longsword. The blade length of an arming sword (a typical "sidearm" in the age of the knight) is 30"...nearly a foot longer than the Gygaxian short sword of the PHB. 11" is a lot of distance...that will poke out the back of a person with a good thrust, and gives a lot longer slicing edge to "draw" in a slash. Despite lacking the armor piercing qualities of a longsword, these one-handed blades are plenty good weapons; you just need to be a bit more careful with your distance (because you're dealing with an opponent at closer range).

"Longsword"

OKAY, so...in a pseudo-medieval, non-gunpowder, non-battlefield setting that works combat in the abstract (i.e. is not as detailed as the system found in The Riddle of Steel RPG), I would definitely want to limit weapons to three basic categories: the one-handed sword, the one/two-handed (long) sword, and the 6' long monster that can only be used with two-hands. For me, everything from typical "earthly" fantasy...even across different real world sword cultures...can fall into one of these three categories, regardless of length, curve, edge, tang, guard, whatever. All that stuff is just extraneous "dressing" or "color" for how the weapon works in the game.

"Longsword"

If you really want to model specific types of swords and how they maneuver differently, I'd strongly recommend picking up a copy of TROS instead.

No Such Thing As "Normal" (Part 1)

Much as I'd like to get sidetracked by a couple different subjects (specifically, "Changing Gamer Culture" and "Wandering Monsters"), I'm going to get back to my series on basic (D&D) weapons because...well, because I said I was going to, darn it! Jeez. One thing at a time, JB!

Now I wrote before that, up through Holmes Basic (i.e. prior to 1st edition AD&D) the weapons available to a D&D player character were the exact ones found in the Man-to-Man combat section of Chainmail. That wasn't entirely accurate, however, as Supplement I (Greyhawk) added a couple additions to the "standard starting thirteen," specifically the military pick and dwarves hammer which, considering my thoughts on hammers, makes perfect sense. The military pick and war hammer are pretty much the same weapon and as I describe them, fall into the same basic section as the mace. Gygax echoes this sentiment by keeping the same 12 step order (as from Chainmail) and lumping both these weapons in the same slot as the Mace (before Sword, after Hand Axe); he likewise gives them the same damage range.

I had not bothered to review Greyhawk prior to my first couple posts in this series, and so I was happily surprised to find Gygax had considered some of the same things I had and was not quite the blithering idiot he's been made out to be be. Here we find some ideas about what "space required" (from the PHB) actually means: for a flail, halberd, or two-handed sword the weapon require "not less  than 6' of space on each side of the wielder" to use the weapon effectively (meaning such a weapon cannot be effectively used in a 10' wide corridor). Morning stars (the one-handed flail) require 5' on either side and battle axes require 4'. And check this kicker...pole arms and pikes?

"These weapons are not usable in dungeons as a general rule due to length."

Ha! Makes you wonder why gnolls (who are "subterranean 85% of the time," per the Monster Manual) have 35% of their soldiers carrying pole arms.

[okay, maybe Gary was a little idiotic at times]

ANYway...

The Moldvay version of Basic cleans up the weapons list, reducing it to "dungeon-worthy" gear and re-organizing it not by length (as such doesn't matter to the basic rules) but by weapon type. Specifically by five weapon types: axes, bows, daggers, swords, and "other." The bows section (which I realize I haven't to this point discussed in the series) is cut down to the short, long, and cross- varieties, leaving out the heavy crossbow and composite bow found in earlier editions. Axes and daggers remain the same weapons found earlier (though with the addition of the "silver dagger," its first mention in any version of D&D). "Other" lumps in the mace, hammer, pole arm, and spear, as well as two new weapons: the club and the sling. The cleric never had it so good.

[actually, the sling was introduced with the 1E PHB. However, I'd contend that part of Moldvay's objective here was to provide a number of options for all class types...hence the silver dagger (for magic-users with too much gold in the bank) and a plethora of blunt (cleric) options]

Flails and morning stars were dropped from the list; likewise halberds and pikes (unless they were subsumed into "pole arms" and "spears"). It's in the sword category however that we find what may be my one (main) gripe about the Moldvay's list:

Short Sword
Sword (normal)
Two-Handed Sword

"This is a really big sword."

The two-handed sword, what the Germans call a zweihander (hey, zwei is German for "two!"), has been around since Chainmail and has been a mainstay of D&D editions until 3rd edition when it was replaced by something called a "greatsword" which, as far as I can tell is a term first used by Michael Moorcock in his Elric books (at least the term "greatsword" is found as in the Stormbringer RPG as early as the 1st edition, 1981), though it is the literal translation of claymore, the two-handed weapon of Scottish highland fame. For swords, two-handers are heavy (5-7 pounds), long (5'-6'+), and carried like a pole arm...over the shoulder and without scabbard. Aside from various movies featuring guys in kilts, Verhoeven's 1985 film Flesh and Blood has an excellent depiction of a typical zwiehander in the hands of a Landsknecht merc (played by a young Rutget Hauer, ladies!).

I've got no problem with the two-hander as an adventurer's weapon...so long as one accounts for the pole arm-like space requirements needed to wield the thing. It's the other entries on Moldvay's sword list that I dislike.

But this post is getting pretty long, so I'm going to have to break it up into two parts...sorry, folks.

[to be continued]

Red Sonja (and Swords)

So besides Dave Arneson’s Blackmoor, the other thing I picked up over the weekend was Volume 1 of Red Sonja, the latest re-boot of the Marvel Comics heroine from their Dynamite imprint. I don’t buy many comics these days (trade paperback or otherwise), and lately I’ve mainly purchased them for “research” purposes (i.e. because the story somehow pertains to a game I’m designing). Heck, I think the last one I bought was Xenozoic Tales when I was first tinkering with the idea of a “dinosaur game;” and that was…when? August or September of last year (2011)? Oh, yeah…I picked up a collection of The War That Time Forgot (again, for the dinosaur game) back in September, too.

So, yeah, once every 10-12 months I might pick up a comic book, so the fact that I pick up Red Sonja should say something. Mainly that I am and have been a huge fan of Red Sonja. Back in the waaay back past I owned the first half dozen or so issues of her original Marvel series, and I had several of the later issues of the original series as well (after artists started drawing her with more clothes than the chainmail bikini). Red Sonja was one of my favorite titles to pick up, though once I actually got into my “collecting phase” (which wasn’t till high school and didn’t last all that long) her regular series had been cancelled. Many of her comics I picked up at Ye Old Used Book Store in Missoula, Montana. And as with many of those comics I read them many, many times with great enjoyment.

Now unlike other boys of the 12-14 year old range that may have collected or enjoyed the “She-Devil with a Sword,” my interest in Red Sonja had absolutely zero to do with her usual state of undress, nor her voluptuous body. Really. Comic book “titillation” has never done anything for me, no matter how sexy or how risqué. It doesn’t; it hasn’t. I was never “turned on” by Vallejo art, either, for what that’s worth (or any other chainmail bikini-type artistic imitators)…which may make me weird by the standards of male gamers, but I came to grips with MY weirdness a long time ago. I design RPGs for fun, folks: I’m strange.

So then what made me such a huge Red Sonja fan as a young pre-teen? Simple: I wanted to see her kill shit with a sword. Red Sonja was badass, man…and if I’m guilty of any vice with regards to the red-haired temptress it’s the average American male’s addiction to visual violence and action. I guess you could call it “sword porn.”

Sure, there were several Conan titles I collected on occasion, including Conan the King and the beautifully drawn, black and white, Savage Sword of Conan. But you know what? Conan was never as badass as Sonja. For all his toughness, Conan has always been based on the Howard character, and Howard was a man of his time: 1930s gentleman/chauvinist. Which made Conan into a character that was capable of gullibility or soft-heartedness, especially with regard to the “fairer sex” or other defenseless, innocents. It’s something that always felt dated and a bit out of place in the lawless, ancient “Hyborian Age” tales.

Red Sonja had no such softness. She killed EVERYone, without compunction. Oh, she could be merciful, and championed the weak, but she never got taken in by a pretty face. In the new graphic novel I just picked up, she only hesitates a moment before butchering a pack of knife-wielding children (demon-spawn children, we learn, but still…). Sonja had a particular idealistic code she held herself, too, different from Conan’s “lusty gusto for life.” She was a much more “non-nonsense” slayer. And that’s what made her and interesting character and (for me) a better comic to read.

Because it reminded me much more of D&D and my D&D games. It still had weirdness and monsters and the supernatural and perilous danger. But for the most part, I don’t think the Red Sonja stories were based on anything in particular (as opposed to, say, Savage Sword which was based directly on Howard stories). I mean, I realize the character is based on Howard’s Sonya of Rogatino (though to me the She-Devil personality is much more reminiscent of Howard’s Dark Agnes), but the stories are spun from whole cloth as much as I can tell. And they (the stories) could and can serve as a great inspiration for D&D adventures. I know because I’ve used ‘em for such in the past, more than once.

The new Red Sonja is pretty darn good, though I was never a huge fan of the chainmail bikini (I mean, the artwork is great, but I always enjoyed the more “clothed” style of the later-day Marvel issues). However, the artwork IS top notch and the story is better than passable, and a couple days after reading the book, I kept catching myself thinking back on it as if I’d watched a FILM rather than reading a trade paperback. Which is different from pretty much any other comic book I’ve ever read.

Now, there...I’ve said my piece on Red Sonja (except to say that I saw the Red Sonja movie in the theater when in was released…it was PG-13 and I was 13 and by God I was going to see Red Sonja…and was subsequently disappointed. Not just by the cheesy, spring-loaded decapitations, but mainly by the poorly cast lead who A) was not a very good actress, and B) looked NOTHING like the Red Sonja of the comic books. And I say this as a kid who LOVED The Golden Child at the same age…I was not a kid of hugely discerning tastes!). *ahem!* Now let me put my game designer goggles on for a moment to point out something that stood out bright and clear to me in the latest Red Sonja comic:

Where’s the shield?

Here’s a character who’s a fighter-type. Sure she doesn’t wear armor (no, her outfit does NOT count as “half-chain”), relying instead on agility, sword-play, and sheer berserk fury…but why not use a shield? She occasionally makes use of an off-hand weapon, but she’s no Moonglum or Drizzle the Drow. What’s the deal?

Well, besides being a stylistic choice of the artists, one can see that having a free off-hand gives Sonja a degree of versatility and control she wouldn’t have otherwise…the ability to one-hand OR two-hand her blade as the need arises within the moment of combat.

With a little thought, I realized this isn’t quite as uncommon as it might appear. For example, I’m still watching those Game of Throne episodes on the DVD and one often sees a character wielding only a single blade sans shield, and using it to good measure. Same holds true for a number of films that feature the use of a long blade, from more recent films (like Conan and John Carter) to historical movies featuring crusaders in armor.

Now I’ll admit my sword training is limited to fencing, not broadsword. But I know that historically one of the strengths of the long blade was its versatility. Sometimes you WANTED to put that second hand on the hilt (or even grip the forte of the blade with your off-hand gauntlet) in order to put extra “oomph” into a blow, especially when facing a foe in stout armor and wanting to drive the point home (literally).

Wearing a shield provides you additional DEFENSE, but limits your versatility on OFFENSE, reducing you to chopping or one-handed slashes or clumsy (with a long blade) one-handed thrusts. And isn’t the best defense (at times) a good offense?

Nice as “sword and board” sounds, a simpler weapon…like an axe or mace or short bladed gladius…works better with the shield because the offensive action with the simple weapon is already limited based on its capability. You don’t lose anything (or not much) by carrying a shield with such a weapon. Carrying a shield with a LONG sword, though, you gain defense at the cost of some of your offensive technique…or so it appears to me.

But perhaps I’m completely ignorant. I will say that all the long blade “slashing demonstrations” I’ve seen on YouTube…whether with a broadsword or a katana…have been done with a two-handed grip. And since my fantasy games tend to be more cinematic or literary (or comic book inspired), this is something I want to take into consideration and model within the game.

Which, of course, flies in the face of all the D&D rules I’m familiar with. Right now, you have three choices for sword wielders:

- Sword and board (er, “shield”)
- Two-handed sword
- Dual wielding (sword plus off-hand weapon)

No one just uses a sword by itself. At least, not in the game. But in film and television and comics and literature? Characters use a sword all by its lonesome ALL THE TIME.

I have an idea how to do this with D&D Mine. For B/X? Well, off the top of my head I’d say:

“Fighters who choose to wield a normal sword with two hands receive a +2 bonus to attack rolls.”

[NOTE: that’s fighters only, not thieves, though some DMs might apply it to elves and/or dwarves as well]

That’s actually a pretty hefty bonus for B/X (the equivalent of giving the character +3 levels of experience). Maybe +1 would be enough (need to play-test it)…but I know a lot of people think shields should be “more useful” in D&D than a simple +1 bonus to armor class. If you choose to give a +2 bonus to AC for shields instead of +1 then the attack bonus for using a normal sword with two hands should definitely be +2 to compensate.

Of course, I’d probably ONLY to do this when using the standard B/X rule “all weapons do D6 damage.” If you use variable weapon damage, you might want to consider the following instead:

“Normal swords do only D6 damage (instead of D8) if the character wields a shield or 2nd weapon in her off-hand.”

With that, normal swords don’t achieve the “be-all, end-all” default melee weapon status they currently receive…you have to sacrifice some armor class to get that awesome D8 damage. However, I personally consider “offensive versatility” better modeled by “bonus to attack roll” than by “extra damage.” You’ll have to decide how YOU prefer to model it in your game world.

How you decide to model the rules for a chainmail bikini, on the other hand, is a subject for an entirely different post.
; )

Land of Ice (Treasure, Part 2)

[continued from here]

SWORDS

Unless otherwise stated, all swords function as “+1 swords” unless psychic attunement is achieved. A wielder is never forced to attempt psychic attunement with a weapon. Bonus is added to wielder’s attack roll, and increases the damage die rolled (as described in Chapter 5; for example a +1 sword does D8 damage and a +2 sword does D10 damage, rather than the standard D6).

Magic weapons are less likely to break in combat: a magic sword will only break when being used in melee against a weapon of equal or greater enchantment (i.e. equal or greater “+”), or when wielded against a monster with hit dice greater than three times the weapon’s enchantment (for example, a +2 weapon would never break against a monster with less than seven hit dice). Always count a weapon’s highest bonus when determining its chance to break, regardless of psychic attunement. A broken sword that is still useable (as a dagger or short sword) has a 50% chance of losing any psychic imprint powers, although it will still retain a value of “+1” for the duranium with which it is constructed.

Sword +1: a finely crafted weapon of duranium alloy.

Sword +1, +2 vs. Beast: (stage 1) additional bonus is applicable against any non-psychic creature of animal intelligence (like bears, wolves, frost worms, etc.) found in LAND OF ICE. In addition, the first time a subject creature is struck with the weapon, it should make a morale check adding the weapon’s bonus to its roll. These abilities only apply when the weapon is attuned.

Sword +1, +2 vs. Proto-Human: (stage 1) as a sword +1, +2 vs. beast but bonuses apply against sub-human creatures found in the LAND OF ICE (snobolds, trolls, and troglodytes).

Sword +1, +2 vs. Psychic: (stage 1) as a sword +1, +2 vs. beast but applies to creatures with psychic ability (including magicians and witches) and psychically corrupt (like draugar, ghouls, and wraiths). Creatures not normally subject to morale checks must check morale when struck as if they had a morale score of 9 (sword bonus applies to roll).

Sword +1, +3 vs. Dragon: (stage 2) as a sword +1, +2 vs. beast but bonuses apply against dragons.

Sword +1, +3 vs. Jotun: (stage 2) as a sword +1, +2 vs. beast but bonuses apply against jotun.

Sword +1, Berserker: (stage 1) a psychic character sees a blood-red haze around the blade of this weapon. When attuned, character is able to enter a frenzy when in melee combat, gaining a 2nd melee attack, a +2 bonus to all attack rolls, and D8 extra hit points (which disappear at the end of combat). Once all opponents are downed, the character must make a save versus petrifaction to stop fighting, or will turn on his own companions to slake his blood lust.

Sword +1, Firebrand: (stage 2) to a psychic character, this weapon seems to glow with a. When attuned, the weapon becomes white-hot in its wielder’s hand, doing an additional 2D4 damage to opponents struck (unless they are immune to heat and fire, like jotun), and capable of setting flammables alight. Wounds caused by the firebrand cannot be regenerated by a draugr.

Sword +1, Illumination: (stage 1) when attuned, this weapon can exude illumination upon command, equal to a very bright lantern or bonfire. Primitive sub-humans (trolls, troglodytes, etc.) must make an immediate morale check or flee in superstitious dread. The light lasts until sheathed or the death of its wielder.

Sword +1, Necromantic: (stage 2) to a psychic character, this weapon seems to have a deathly pall about it and is cold to the touch. When attuned the blade acts as a vampiric conduit, draining D4 constitution points from any creature hit, and awarding an equal number of hit points to the wielder. Monsters that do not have constitution points lose an additional D4 hit points instead (the number drained being added to the wielder of the blade). Lost constitution returns at a rate of 1 point per day of rest. Hit points awarded to the blade’s wielder cannot exceed the character’s maximum (though they will heal any damage taken to hit points and constitution).

Sword +1, Pathfinder: (stage 1) when attuned, the wielder can use the weapon as a sort of divining rod to direct him towards any object on which he concentrates. The object of desire must be within 50 yards of the character; the blade points in the proper direction. Useful for finding lost friends, metal ore, and running water the blade always picks the closest object when more than one option lies within range. Using the blade in this weapon is draining; the sword wielder takes D4 damage from using this ability.

Sword +1, Resurrection: (stage 2) a psychic who handles this weapon will see a golden aura of healing light about its blade. When attuned, the wielder may use the weapon to save a mortally wounded character from death. The ability must be used within D4 turns (10-40 minutes) of death, and the deceased body must be present (not disintegrated or in the belly of a frost worm, for instance). The dead character is brought back to 1 constitution point and cured of any effect that may have caused death (for example, poison or disease; the effects of major wounds remain, however). Using this power is very draining; the sword wielder takes D8 points of damage just attempting the resurrection. If this damage would incapacitate the wielder, then the blade will NOT function; the damage suffered is too severe for the power of the blade (and its wielder) to heal.

Sword +2: (stage 2) save for its psychic imprint, this weapon is much like a +1 sword. When attuned, it is capable of damaging wraiths.

Sword +2, Enchantment: (stage 3) as a sword +2; in addition, the character can use the weapon to mentally control another individual. The target is allowed a save versus spells to resist; control lasts until the blade wielder releases the individual (the controller can take no other action while controlling the target). The process of control is exhausting; the sword wielder takes D6 damage upon release of the controlled subject.

Sword +3 (Runeblade): (stage 3) a duranium weapon covered in ancient runes denoting a particularly powerful psychic imprint pattern. Openly carrying such a legendary weapon gives the character a +2 bonus to reaction rolls with northmen, or a +1 with alfar and dvergar.

Sword +1, Flawed: although this weapon appears to be a standard duranium weapon, a flaw in its construction makes it as brittle as a standard sword; further it will immediately shatter if an attack roll achieves maximum damage. 25% of these weapons have a corrupt psychic imprint; they give off a psychic resonance as a normal imprint item, but any attempt to bond with the weapon increases the character’s corruption points by D4 and forces a save versus corruption.


ARMOR

Except for leather jacks, all armor is made from light-weight, super-strong duranium alloy and weighs one-half its normal weight (though see the notes on encumbrance in Chapter 4). All armor and shields with bonuses of +2 or greater, and all leather jacks, require psychic attunement to function at the proper level; however, characters are never forced to attempt psychic attunement. Armor must be worn to attempt attunement.

Shields subtract their bonus from a character’s armor class, improving AC (in addition to the normal improvement afforded for using a shield). Armor bonuses do NOT change the wearer’s armor class; instead the armor’s bonus is subtracted from the damage roll of any successful attack. For example, a character wearing +2 half-mail has an armor class of 6 (as per half-mail armor) but reduces any damage sustained by 2 points from the damage rolled. If the damage is reduced to 0 or less, the attacker immediately checks to see if the weapon breaks (see Chapter 5). Monsters using natural weapons (claws, teeth, etc.) take D4 damage instead.

When mail is rolled check on the following table to see which pieces are found:

Roll D% – Metal Armor Found
01-10 – Full Helm*
11-30 – Full Mail
31-45 – Full Mail + Full Helm*
46-80 – Half-Mail
81-00 – Half-Mail + Full Helm*
*a full helm, when worn, will reduce damage taken by 1 additional point, so long as it matches or exceeds the bonus of the mail worn. A helm +2 or +3 is a psychic imprint item and must be attuned separate from the suit proper or else it will function as +1 only.

Leather Jack +1: (stage 1) this ancient leather armor is a psychic imprint item incorporating very little duranium metal. As the northmen’s technological ancestors ran low on duranium supplies, they sought other ways to create defenses, and many of these leather jacks were crafted. With proper attunement, the armor becomes +1 (absorbing 1 point of damage from attacks); without attunement it is simply a nicely crafted suit of leather armor.

Jack & Shield +1: (stage 1, armor only) as for leather jack +1; however, this set includes a matching shield of duranium (+1) that does not require attunement.

Mail +1: a suit of well-crafted of duranium metal alloy.

Mail +2: (stage 1): as mail +1, but with attunement provides a more stable defense, bolstered by latent psychic energy. Still functions as +1 armor without attunement.

Mail +3 (Rune armor): (stage 2): duranium metal armor covered in intricate runes insuring the attuned wearer receives the maximum defense possible (functions as +1 armor without attunement). Openly wearing this legendary armor provides a character with a +2 bonus to Reaction rolls with humans, alfar, and dvergar, and reduces the morale of sub-human creatures (snobolds, trolls, and troglodytes) by -1.

Set: Mail & Shield +1: armor and shield of matching style

Set: Mail & Shield +2: (stage 1, each individually) as a set +1, but this matching set is psychically imprinted. Each piece of the set (shield plus armor and/or helm) requires individual attunement; will function as +1 without psychic attunement.

Shield +1: a lightweight, duranium alloy shield, often crafted into fantastic (if practical) shapes.

Shield +2: (stage 1) as a shield +1 but with psychic attunement can actually provide a stronger defense. Without attunement, still provides benefit as a shield +1.

Mail, Flawed: although this armor appears to be a standard duranium suit (+1), a fatal flaw in construction renders it unsuitable as protection. The armor shatters into pieces the first time the wearer is struck with a successful attack. 10% of this armor has a corrupt psychic imprint; it gives off psychic resonance as a normal imprint item, but any attempt to bond with the armor increases the character’s corruption points by D6 and forces a save versus corruption. Flawed helmets increase corruption by D8.

D6 Dopplehanders

So, I spent a good part of today thinking about shields in the D&D game because, to be quite honest, I think there's a damn crapload of ignorance out there. Shields in D&D are plenty awesome and a lot of the nay-sayers sound a might silly to my ears.

However, in running the numbers for shields (in anticipation of throwing up a blog post that proved my my point of view - duh) I had to work out the math on two-handed weapons, some of my personal favorite things in the whole world and something that I've attempted to deal with in a number of different ways over the last couple years.

I figure we better deal with that issue first.

OD&D (the original Little Brown Books) state that all hits inflict 1-6 points of damage "unless otherwise noted" (there aren't any notes regarding weapons, though some monsters inflict more damage). There are many two-handed weapons on the LBB equipment list...none are any different from any of the single-handed weapons.

In the B/X Basic rules (based largely on the LBBs), Moldvay writes this:

AMOUNT OF DAMAGE: All weapon attacks by characters (PC or NPC) will do 1-6 (1d6) points of damage, adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses, if applicable. If the Variable Weapon Damage system (hereafter) is used, check the weapon type to find how much damage each weapon will do (adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses or penalties).

Directly beneath the Variable Weapon Damage table on page B27, we find the following notes:

Whenever a two-handed weapon is used (including pole arms), the attacker cannot use a shield (this may reduce the Armor Class of the attacker) and will always lose the initiative, whatever the roll (see page B23).

Interesting that the VWD table distinguishes quarrels as two-handed and arrows as not. In the past, I assumed this was to show crossbows attacked last in combat like two-handers. However, this is left unclear, and it is equally unclear whether or not the "two-handed weapon strikes last" rule is standard OR if it is an optional rule to only be used in conjunction with the VWD table.

The Cook/Marsh Expert set is more explicit. On page X4 it discusses some of the differences between the Holmes and Moldvay Basic sets including the following:

WEAPONS (Optional)

Two-Handed Weapons. Heavy two-handed weapons (flail, battle axe, pole arms, etc.) may strike once per round, but strike last in the round, regardless of initiative.

Crossbows. Crossbows may be fired once every two rounds, taking one round to load and one to fire.

In the Encounter chapter, it again lists - and expands - the Variable Weapon Damage table, although this time there is no mention of the table as being optional or of D6 being the standard damage for all weapon attacks by characters (PC and NPC). Interestingly, crossbow bolts are still listed as "two-handed" (and arrows are NOT) and there is no mention of the flail anywhere, despite the reference on in the Introduction.

[*sigh*] B/X isn't perfect, folks. But we knew that.

We'll skip the later editions which make the VWD table (or variations thereof) the "standard practice." For me personally, I have found that the D6 damage for all weapons works the best...both practically and philosophically. And, yes, in my youth I used ALL the variant tables I could find...back then, I played AD&D and it was the height of cool to use a pickaxe from the Dungeoneers Survival Guide when said weapon did 1D20 damage.

I've gotten smarter since then.

But two-handed weapons have continued to trouble me...all the moreso because I LOVE a big ol' axe or two-handed sledge. I want their to be an advantage to using such a beast in combat...after all, people DID use them in combat, forsaking the benefit of a shield (more on that later) for the sure grip and intimidating reach such a weapon would give them.

But there is no benefit to using a two-handed weapon in melee in B/X play. Well, sure, if you use the VWD then a two-handed sword or pole-arm allows you to roll D10 damage...but a battle axe only does D8 damage, the same as a "normal" sword...and the axe was a LOT more prevalent on the field of battle during most of the bronze-iron age than the arming sword. And for good reason: it kicked hella' ass.

And anyway, I'm not using the VWD anymore, for reasons I explained in my earlier post.

And let's back-up for a quick second...just what constitutes a one-handed versus a two-handed weapon anyway? A Scottish claymore was generally considered a two-handed weapon, though many highlanders still carried a shield and used it with one-hand. The German zwiehander (a weapon very similar to the Otus illustration on page B12) was even bigger, being about 6' long (with a 4'-5' blade) and was only used two-handed.

On the other hand, many one-handed swords were used with a two-handed grip: the estoc, the knightly arming sword, the "longsword" were all useable both one- and two- handed, and often were...especially when being used to pierce heavy (plate) armor. Many were designed to be gripped with one hand on the blade, in order to work like a medieval pry-bar when stabbing your opponent to death.

Especially when considering these weapons were designed for use in man-to-man combat, it is ridiculous to think that they would provide some sort of extra damage bonus when used against monstrous fantasy creatures. Against these beasts, one would be well-advised to stick to tried and true methods of destruction: lancing the beast with a long spear or hitting it with the sharp end of an axe.

The battle axe is terribly maligned in most every edition of D&D, though most especially AD&D as I've written before. And it shouldn't be, dammit! Even if I miss with the sharp end, smacking someone with the blunt end of a mass weapon is going to ring his bell, if not induce death from blunt force trauma. How many whacks with the axe is your wood and hide shield deflect before, oh, I'm sorry, did my blade bite a 3" gash in your forearm and smash your ulna? What did you expect? It's an axe. Good thing you had a vambrace.

But I digress (as usual)...here's the thing. A two-handed war sledge, or axe, or greatsword that splits the head of an opponent is accomplishing the same thing as a one-handed mace or hatchet or saber that splits the head of an opponent. The two-handed weapons mind do it in a slightly messier fashion, and may require a bit of a "wind up" but dead is dead is dead.

I don't have a problem with two-handed weapons striking last in a round; a lighter weapon or a natural beast attack is faster by comparison. But there IS a reason for using two-handed weapons and that reason is, for the most part, the same as the reason for most weapon development over the years.

Armor penetration. To get to the squishy parts on the inside.

A one-handed blade or hatchet might glance off a heavy templar helm, whereas a two-handed flail or bearded axe might can cave the damn thing in. Two-handed weapons - blunt, sharp, or stabbing - were crafted with a mind towards getting the killing part of the tool into the frail human body that was so well protected by man's ingenuity. That being said, a two-handed weapon does do some truly impressive damage with a direct hit, even on a blow that's not immediately mortal.

So here're the new rules for play-testing:

• Two-handed weapons strike last in a melee (already standard in my games).
• Two-handed weapons do D8 instead of D6 damage (already implemented; worked great in my "B/X Shadowrun" game as well).
• Two-handed weapons enjoy a +1 bonus to attack rolls (to represent damage penetration).

I do not want to do different types of weapon versus different types of armor, or anything like that...combat in B/X is abstract and keeping things as simple as possible seems the best policy at this point.

Now some folks who think shields are "too weak" as written may feel these rules are too much incentive for characters to not use shields; but we'll get to that in the next post. Suffice is to say, I feel two-handed weapons NEED a huge incentive, 'cause as it is, the shield-bearer has some pretty big advantages over the warrior with the dopplehander. The question is not "why would anyone use a shield?" The question is, why would anyone NOT use a shield?

But we'll get to that later. Time to hit the hay.

Happy Birthday To Me - Again!

Just in case anyone's wondering...I'm taking a lazy weekend for myself. Mostly, anyway. If I blog at all, expect it to be half-assed, as my mind is elsewhere. I'm feeling self-indulgent.

: )

And speaking of self-indulgence, as I snack on tasty marzipan purchased O So Long Ago in Spain, I am reminded that I never did put up any photos from my trip. Here's a photo of me with my sword and the sword-maker, Mariano Zamorano:

[I'm the taller one]

And for those who are more into the "sweet side" of life than the sharp side, here's what else you can find in Toledo:

All right, that's it for now. Hope everyone's having a good Saturday!

Football and Epic Duels

All apologies, folks…it was a distracting weekend.

I mean, when the Seahawks can go into Chicago and cream a fairly good Bears team in their home stadium (blowing ‘em apart on the ground), it bodes well for the team’s overall progress…it’s been a looong time since we’ve seen that complete a performance from the ‘Hawks on the road.

Of course, the Huskies had a good game this weekend, too, but the UW ain’t my alma mater so it’s not as big a deal to me. It IS nice that the rest of Sea-Town seems to be in such a good mood over it. But it would have been small solace to me had Da’ Bears spanked the Seahawks as (nearly everyone) predicted they would.

Then, of course, there’s Star Wars.

Picked up a copy of the Star Wars board game Epic Duels this weekend. Yes, I purchased it down at Gary’s for a pretty penny; however, I did make use of their 20th anniversary, 20% discount deal to ease the pain. I spent a lot of Saturday and Sunday playing it with AB or Steve-O…when we weren’t watching football.

Frankly, I don’t know what’s wrong with me; why do I find games like this so damn appealing? But I do…for me, the coolest visual images from the prequel movies are the damn lightsaber fights, and I love them enough that I own all of ‘em on DVD, despite finding them (cinematically and SW-fan-wise) less than stellar films. But they ARE great, spectacular even, and everything about the films seems to be in service of this particular hand-to-hand laser-sword fight-fests.

I mean, sure…they also help tell “the backstory” of the original film trilogy (as if such was needed…leaving things like the “Old Republic” and the “Clone Wars” to the imagination is so much cooler, as has been discussed often enough around the blogs). But really, that’s not the point…at least not to me. I can stomach an awful lot of JarJar Binks and “Force amoebae” discussion if it means I get to watch Qui Gon and Darth Maul duke it out in a climactic, badass fight scene. And Count Dooku, despite his offensively silly name, is hands down my favorite character in ANY of the prequel films, as I watch the Ol’ Geezer take on two Jedi (or one Yoda) over-and-over again. The guy is arrogant as hell to play around with that much sabre-danger, but he survives a lot longer than he has any right to…specifically because he IS a badass.

There is a lot of great lightsaber scenes in the Star Wars franchise (the Battle of Geonosis, Obi-Wan’s fight with Jango Fett on Camino, Luke Skywalker on Jabba’s hover-barge, etc.), but there are only twelve “lightsaber on lightsaber” fights in the film franchise (thirteen if you count the holographs of the Jedi temple purging…I don’t). Of those twelve fights, two end in stand-offs with no clear victor: Qui-Gon’s first encounter with Maul on Tattooine and Yoda’s duel with Dooku on Geonosis. In all the others, someone gets their ass handed to ‘em…and it is great fun for the audience (me, anyway) to watch.

Here’s how I rank the duels (a Top Ten list for Monday!):

#10 Grievous versus Obi-Wan: Let’s face it…Grievous is never really in this fight. Despite being trained in lightsaber combat by Count Dooku, Grievous is no Jedi. Still, a four-armed saber-wielding cyborg is fun to watch.

#9 Mace versus Palpatine: Despite some bad/weird dialogue, this scene starts (visually) strong before kind of petering out. I understand that this is all in aid of setting up Anakin to betray Master Windu and go over to the dark side, but the editing makes the whole scene feel a bit (unnecessarily) drawn out. If Mace is going to kill Palpatine, why doesn’t he? If he’s going to fight scrappy (giving the Emperor the boot), why doesn’t he do so from the beginning? If Palpatine is strong enough to off Yoda, why doesn’t he cut down Samuel L. Jackson? And it’s lame that a third party (Anakin) steps in and “finishes” a finished fight.

#8 Obi-Wan versus Darth Vader (Death Star): Compared to later films, this fight is fairly anticlimactic. Sorry to all those folks who love and cherish the first Star Wars as “one-and-only,” I want a little more than what Lucas was able to give us with his early foray into lightsabers. Describing the scene (in retrospect) as an “old warrior versus a clunky cyborg” is a lame ret-con attempt at explanation…especially considering Vader’s later strong performances.

#7 Yoda versus the Emperor: While visually spectacular, no one gets cut which is a bit of a “lightsaber let-down.” Also, Yoda…the best Jedi sabre-ist ever…gets bested by the guy who was punked by Mace Windu? Kind of lame. What about the light side being stronger? And why is Yoda so quick to admit defeat? Obviously he is deciding discretion is the better part of valor and all that, but I expected him to at least “put a hurtin’ on” Palpatine before dropped on his ass.

#6 Dooku versus Obi-Wan and Anakin (fight on Geonosis): Nice to see the Sith actually showing what power is all about. Dooku is brilliant and sadistic in his wounding of Obi-Wan, and takes Anakin to task as well. Along with the visually stunning Camino platform fight and the pitched Jedi/droid battle, this set piece is the main reason I can stomach an otherwise forgettable movie.

#5 Darth Maul versus Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan: Wow, that Maul guy is spry! A fantastically choreographed set piece, and pretty much the only reason to watch the film more than once. Qui Gon gets the best death of any Jedi in the entire film franchise (and while the Jedi are not warriors by nature, the Viking in me can’t help but wish they could all get such a heroic death against such a worthy opponent). On the other hand, Obi-Wan’s slaying of Maul nearly defies belief…how did such a cool and collected opponent suddenly turn into such a chump? The expression on Qui-Gon’s face when he knows he can’t win but is resigned to try is classic.

#4 Dooku versus Obi-Wan and Anakin (re-match): Dooku is brilliant (again), but Anakin shows what devastating power can do to finesse, and is equally brilliant in execution (figuratively and literally). Of the top four fights (all very good), this one is ranked a little down because there is less passion/emotion inherent in the scene…something that actually makes “yet another duel” fun/important to watch. But Dooku’s footwork and near effortless handling of the two-on-one scenario is fantastic. Poor, stupid Dooku…

#3 Anakin/Vader versus Obi-Wan: Definitely the most spectacular lightsaber fight a film chock-full of lightsaber fights (see #10, #9, #7, and #4 above), it is also the final lightsaber duel of the entire film franchise and Lucas pulls out all the stops. Fun, and powerful to watch, the fantastic resolution (in which Obi-Wan puts a serious hurtin’ on Anakin) is marred only by the stupid dialogue and the way Anakin morphs from a prodigy into a chump at the last second. The last bit is difficult to explain…I find it immensely satisfying (cinematically , story-wise, and personally) to see Obi-Wan turn Vader into a quadriplegic and drop him in the fire…after all his whining and stupidity, this is a fitting spanking for the brat. I just don’t like the dialogue that sets it up. “I have the high ground.” What are you talking about? Morally? Are you talking about some tactics lesson that was taught in basic Jedi training? If it’s a taunt to fell Vader with his own arrogance, than make it a taunt…otherwise, just run the sequence in silence. I don’t know…I’m no film director and am not sure how I would have staged the scene, but cool as it is, it’s a tad clunky.

#2 Luke versus Vader (Bespin): This fight gets high marks for a number of reasons. Visually stunning, fought across a several locations (the freezing chamber, the bowels of Bespin, out onto a tiny bridge over a huge drop), it showcases what a badass Vader is…and makes Luke all the more heroic for trying to tackle him with his minimal training. Vader is a beast, battering Luke with heavy blows and Force-thrown objects, knocking him down and just intimidating the hell out of him. It’s like watching the Seahawks tee-off on Jake Cutler all day long. The maiming of Luke is a great climax to the fight, and the admission of paternity is more than just dramatic gravy…it’s the freakin’ exclamation point/cherry-on-top that kicks the whole resolution up to a whole ‘nother lever. Love it.

#1 Luke versus Vader (Death Star): Again, high marks but there’s a slight edge over #2 based on the extra emotion that’s put into the whole sequence. Luke is torn by so many emotions, he’s a cauldron boiling over. Hatred and loathing for the Emperor. Fear at having already been beaten once by the powerful Vader. The whole mind-f**k of knowing (now, unlike the prior fight) that Vader is really, truly his father. And then, of course, the whole “fear/revenge for his sister/friends” thang…the last of which helps him release an onslaught of Vader-esque power that utterly dominates the Sith lord. The musical score is powerful, as is the final action of Luke…throwing away his weapon after thoroughly beating/humiliating his father into submission. It’s an act of pathos…and one that highlights what the whole Jedi-thang is all about. It’s a great, emotional sequence, and a fun duel to watch despite Luke sometime’s looking like a guy trying to swat flies with a baseball bat.

So anyway…I dig on sword fights; even laser sword fights. But I may dig too much as picking up a game like SW Epic Duels led me to hours of distraction (on top of an already distracting weekend). And then, of course, it gets me thinking again about Star Wars RPGs and how one might best model this kind of thing in a game, and gets me thinking of ways I could model it in a game myself, etc., etc. And before you know it, it’s Monday morning and the entire weekend flew by without any new blog posts.

Jeez.

So sorry, folks. I will try to make it up over the next couple days (AND I’ll try to get some pictures from Spain uploaded AND I’ll give an update on the 2nd printing of the B/X Companion). Hopefully, anyway.
; )

Back in the U.S. of A.

Well, Texas, actually, which many folks both in AND outside of the state will tell you is NOT exactly the same thing.

However, it IS (officially) U.S. soil which means that I have beat the scare-monger's odds and NOT got blown-up in some sort of international travel incident...though I almost had some pewter olive picks (in the shape of Toledo swords) confiscated in Madrid. ALMOST...they must have decided I looked "mostly harmless" and allowed me to re-pack 'em back in my carry on (little did the pilots know I was deadly with the throwing toothpick!). Once we got to Dallas, I checked them (along with my Toledo sword) so that I wouldn't have to worry about it with American security...they have a notoriously low threshold for humor on such matters.

Yes, I AM bringing my blade back with me, rather than mailing it. It made it to Dallas without damage, we'll see if it gets all the way to SeaTac. I am hopeful...but then I am NOT traveling Continental this trip (which has had a history of losing luggage).

[*sigh*]

Anyhoo, though it may not look like it, I DID do some blogging on the flight over from Spain. Unfortunately, I didn't have access to the internet, so these various thoughts will get posted up over the next few hours. People may begin resuming orders of the B/X Companion without fear...while my "secondary mail service" (AKA my house-sitting brother) was able to mail out half-a-dozen packages for me this week, I will be resuming mail operations manana (I ain't going into work till Wednesday).

Yay!
: )

***EDIT: Oh, yeah...and apparently while I was in the air, Mr. Maliszewski gave a fairly positive review of my B/X Companion over at Grognardia. That's pretty cool; check it out when you have a chance!****

Holy Toledo!

Yes, I am still in Spain.

For the most part, I am loving it, though I will be back stateside soon enough (i.e. in roughly two to three days). I'm sure you folks can wait THAT long. Jeez!

While I've had internet access for the last couple-couple, I've been mainly too busy sightseeing or too exhausted (from sightseeing) to bother blogging. Also, it sure would have been smart if I'd bothered to bring a cable for uploading photos from the cam to the blog, 'cause I'm sure I'd have plenty to say when one considers the mishmash of cultures and multi-thousand year history of this incredible country. Pretty f'ing fantastic.

Right now, I'm in the city of Toledo, the main city I wanted to see on our trip (though the Basque country was a lot of fun and Granada and Madrid were nice as well...all right, as I said, everything has been cool. Though I would strongly recommend NOT driving in Granada. No! NOOOoooo!!). Toledo, not to be confused with the city in Ohio that bears its name (they even have a street here named after Toledo, Ohio)...TOLEDO, the REAL Toledo is about 2500 years old, and was the capital of Spain until Phillip the Dos (that's "II") decided he'd rather move the political seat of the country to a little village called Madrid in 1561.

I'm not sure what's more impressive...that Madrid will be celebrating its 450th birthday next year (only about twice as old as the United States) or that the original capital has more than 2000 on THAT. Well, actually, that's a lie...I DO know which is more impressive to moi.

Anyway, MY reasons for wanting to go to Toledo were a little more...um..."base" than simply wanting to soak up the beautiful architecture, history, and cultural gumbo (Islam, Catholicism, and Judaism have been peacefully coexisting in Toledo for several centuries). Nope, all that is great, marvelous in fact. But I came here for the swords.

I can remember the first time I handled a replica katana in some Seattle cutlery shop, more than 20 years ago, and naively asking where in Japan it had been made. "Spain," was the reply. I was told there weren't any swords being forged in Japan (at least not for export) and the only real blades still being commercially manufactured THESE days (this would have been the late 80s) were being forged in Spain.

Now, of course, there are plenty of replica artisans all over the world. Ahh, the magic of the internet which allows hack writers like myself to self-publish all over the world...and hobbyist sword-makers to manufacture all sorts of edged goodies for a profit.

But still, there's a difference between buying an "authentic Scottish claymore" hand-forged locally from your neighborhood Renaissance fair, and picking up some real Spanish steel in the world's sword-making capital. Or maybe there ISN'T a difference...except in MY mind.

But you know me...I'm kind of "old school," like that.

So, anyway, Toledo. I heard that swords were big in this town...hell, in the whole country for that matter, and yeah, it appears to be true. Even up North in the Basque region, the wedding we went to featured sword salutes and sword dancing (outside the church) not to mention a big-ass broadsword being used to cut the wedding cake. And yes, there's plenty of sword history in the country (what with the violence of the Reconquista and Crusades). But Toledo?

This town is something else entirely.

Now, of course I should note that Toledo isn't just the "place of swords." It's really the "place of swords and marzipan." You know, that sweet almond-paste candy? Apparently it was invented here. There are nearly as many shops selling marzipan as selling swords...which is a good thing, since my wife is far more interested in the tasty confections than the edged bad-ness. But pretty much EVERY shop, EXCEPT the confectioners sell swords.

Every shop. Like every single window has a prominent rack of blades of all types, styles, designs, and craziness. For a sword enthusiast, this place is hog heaven.

Moreso...I've actually become a bit jaded to the whole experience. The place is also a Mecca (no pun intended) for tourists and history buffs (duh) and the place must sell more swords than...

Well, shit. Than anywhere in the world. I mean supply and demand right? Could these businesses stay in business without moving all this inventory? Come on!

Every time I turn a corner (and like Venice, this place is filled with medieval, winding streets...all old, all stone, though thankfully all marked) I half-expect to see a pair of tourists, duking it out with replica swords like some Highlander-style alley fight. I mean, what else could they be used for? Is there some type of underground, Toledo duelist club (Spain's answer to Fight Club?) that I'm not privy to? If so, they must be doing it somewhere well concealed...the main thing I see cruising the streets at night are young people in tiny cars, blasting loud dance music and looking for a party. That particular scene is no longer my thang, but honest-to-God fencing in the streets of historic Toledo? I have to admit, the idea holds a certain appeal as I find myself approaching middle age.

Too much D&D I suppose.

; )

Anyway, I did buy a sword today...much as I would have liked to forge my own (I've read too many books as well), I did get an excellent piece from a real Toledo sword-smith...a 4th generation hombre who's been forging for 40 years and works out of a shop more than three times that old (we got to tour the shop...it looked like your average extremely crowded garage plus forge, work tables, and stacks upon stacks of half-finished pieces). Much as it would have been nice to pick up a cruciform broad sword or bell-guarded rapier, I settled on a tasty small-sword...all hand-crafted, even the quillons (several of his commercial pieces incorporated molded pieces into the hilt as a means of expedience). It's simple and elegant, and the blade is supple enough the espadero could bend it at a 90 degree angle without snapping it, the whole flexing swiftly back into its original position. Ugh! It's so beautiful and so completely impractical (I certainly hope never to poke someone with it!) that I'm really at a loss for words. As with other parts of this trip, the thought of it just fills me with...well...with a lot of feeling.

Fortunately, it was in my price range (it wasn't made with meteoritic iron after all!), and my wife and I both knew there was a very good chance I'd purchase a sword in Toledo (I never did have much of a poker face). Wow...I can only hope it clears customs so I can unwrap it and revel in its shininess...right now, it is boxed and taped and it ain't coming out till we get back to Sea-town. Hopefully, no fat tourist in the midst of a mid-life crisis slaps me with his glove while I'm prowling the city, looking for a churro (the wife is already stocked-up on the marzipan).

However, if some deathwish-craving Yankee DOES hit me up for a duel, I'm sure I'll be able to pop into whatever shop I happen to be browsing, and nip back out, blade in hand. I mean, really, it is THAT easy in Toledo. I kid thee not...every single block. There are enough armas blancas in this town...replica AND authentic...to arm every single tourist and stage a mass battle scene that would put Nightwatch to shame. Maybe not enough claymores to do Braveheart...but I wasn't a huge fan of that flick anyway.

All right, all right. That's enough for now. I've got another 48 hours or so "in country" and I need to spend some of it sleeping. Adios, amigos! Nos vemos!

: )