Dungeons & Dragons White Box 15

Light: A spell to cast light in a circle 3” in diameter, not equal to full daylight. It lasts for a number of turns equal to 6 + the number of levels of the user; thus, a 7th-level Magic-User would cast the spell for 13 turns.

And thus the danger of "rules as written," complimented by the DM who resents a player who points out grammar and language as evidence that the rule says something very different than the DM supposes. The above would make an excellent example of bad grammar if ever we need to write something brief and interesting on the blackboard for students to deconstruct. As written, it clearly specifies that the light is cast into a circle, and not that it creates one.

What circle is it, to begin, that light is cast into? The spell does not read, as it should, "A spell that creates light as a 3-inch diameter circle." Cast is a verb, here in present tense, whereas it plainly references something that is already accomplished. A six-word phrase somewhere in the book that simply said "all circles are measured by diameter" would have saved the need to keep including the explanation over and over. Moreover, like the need to use gold pieces as a unit of measure, why is it that "inches" must be used for distance, always? Yes, I understand, this was the measurement used on the battle map, but surely that could also be stated once somewhere in the document, allowing us to use "30 ft." throughout the book, which would have been clearer. In fact, I do think it is mentioned somewhere, though I haven't encountered it yet, which obviates the use of inches here.

What is "not equal to full daylight"? Is that a measurement of some kind? Night is not equal to full daylight, as is dusk. The definition of "full daylight" is the natural light of the sun and sky during the day from sunrise to sunset, so this includes light during storms, light under overcast, light during fog and so on... since it's not a measure of illumination. When we say, "the crime was committed in full daylight," it means "during the light of day." A newspaper is not apt to specify if it was cloudy or sunny at the time. I know, I know, you think it's a quibble, but it's not. I have zero idea from this how much illumination is involved... if the spell caused "full daylight," instead of "not equal to," it would be clearer. As written, it provides no real information at all. We might as well say, "not as hot as a fire."

Turns again imposes the ridiculous measuring approach that inches and gold pieces do. Here it says 6 turns + the number of levels of the user. The example helps, since otherwise we'd be stuck adding "turns" to "levels" which are not math terms. In any case, the reader is forced to calculate, (6 turns = 60 rounds = 60 minutes = 1 hour) + (7 turns = 70 rounds = 70 minutes = 1 hour, 10 minutes) = 2 hours, 10 minutes. Whereas the spell could say, 1 hour +10 minutes per level. The alternative language is just baffling... especially when you consider that in terms of a wargame conflict between units represented by miniatures, a battle is almost never going to last more than 30 rounds... which means that the only reason to keep track of the light spell is for non-combat simulation purposes. So why measure it in combat simulation terms?

I take the time to speak about this at length here because it comes up throughout the book, quite stubbornly, like a dumb-ass mule-headed asshole that won't let go of something that plainly isn't working. This is the prime, number one bit of evidence I have to show that Gygax (for this is absolutely his baby, it shows because he was still espousing this crap 10 years later in text) wasn't a genius. I'd argue he probably wasn't housebroken. The reader may take umbrage — but stripped of the need to worship the man's memory, this is the same critical discipline we'd apply to any work that was more than 40 years old, about a writer who didn't know how to edit himself. It's egregious and there is no justification, nor is there a justification of any present-day individual who feels that "rules as written" makes sense as an approach to any sort of writing.

Charm Person: This spell applies to all two-legged, generally mammalian figures near to or less than man-size, excluding all monsters in the "Undead" class but including Sprites, Pixies, Nixies, Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins and Gnolls. If the spell is successful it will cause the charmed entity to come completely under the influence of the Magic-User until such time as the “charm” is dispelled (Dispel Magic). Range: 12".

One small thing... what does the spell do? We see who it affects; we are told the individual "comes under the influence" of the caster. Exactly what does that mean?

Influence to what extense? Does the target obey direct orders? Does it interpret those orders literally or contextually? Does it retain self-preservation? Does it act of its own will but with shifted loyalties? Does it remember what's happened while influenced? How does it react therefore when dispel is imposed? While obeying, does the subject retain self-awareness? Can it give warning? Can it express remorse? Can it swear and rail against the caster? If the spell allows the monster to suicide, how is this spell in any way different from a much more powerful "death" spell?  Isn't that pretty much a far too powerful spell to be counted in the same breath as "light" and "read languages"?

None of that is answered, and without those answers, the spell has no defined behaviour.

I have found defining "Charm Person" as one of the most difficult spells to include in the mage's arsenal. Culturally, it's most likely the foremost spell associated with myths and legends, reaching back to Greek mythos and continuing forward through Le Morte de Arthur, Grimms and virtually everything else. That said, why 1st level? In rebuilding my own spells, I included it as such, but drastically winnowed down to the level of power a spell of that level should have — in no way equal to a traditional fairy tale. It's an awful conundrum of a spell... yet the above is written as though the participants are blissfully unaware of the power here.  Perhaps within chain mail there was as assumption that they only purpose to which the spell would be put was to force the affected creature to change sides, to fight for us rather than against us, in a battle without stakes, personalities or history. But the spell completely breaks down in a campaign setting, if the players give just that much thought to what it means.

Also, how many can be charmed? Since it lasts until dispelled, what's to keep the 1st level caster from piling up an army equivalent to a 9th level lord (no limits on the target's level listed, you'll notice), kept in train for whatever dungeon awaits? There’s nothing in the rules to prevent it, and nothing in the culture of the time that treated that as a moral issue. That silence says more about the authors’ blind spots than their intentions—they were thinking in tokens, not people.

Naturally, any high level caster can come along and cast dispel magic and end the horde... but again... do they remember their enslavement? And if so, does it make any sense not to immediately have the creature self-execute first? Suppose I have 30 humaoids in train (is a giant "mammalian" the way that a human is?), and I get a whiff of a mage. Can't I just immediate cast the blanket order, "Kill yourselves," and have them all do it at once, before they can be freed?

As written, the spell is a mess. It's a relic of a rulebook that hadn't yet realised it was modeling a world instead of a skirmish.

Sleep: A Sleep spell affects from 2-16 1st level types (hit dice of up to 1 + 1), from 2-12 2nd-level types (hit dice of up to 2 + 1), from 1-6 3rd-level types, and but 1 4th-level type (up to 4 + 1 hit dice). The spell always affects up to the number of creatures determined by the dice. If more than the number rolled could be affected, determine which “sleep” by random selection. Range: 24".

Once again, we assume the spell puts the recipients to sleep... but it doesn't provide any more details than charm person. Can the affected creatures be murdered in their sleep? When I played this game in 1979 and 1980, we certainly thought it meant that, playing it as written, because we were 15 or 16 and we knew no better. About the end of that conversations began along the lines of, "This spell is ridiculously overpowered and a little stupid, since it obliterates an enemy force way too easily." There's no hint that a saving throw against sleep is present, so we used to play without one. In a wish to make our games better, we went against the spell, rewriting it for ourselves, as teenagers. Why grown adults didn't do the same, before publishing the rule, I have no idea. As written, it's the game's death spell, and remains so right into AD&D. Why wait for the 6th level spell, Death?

The other obvious problem is, of course, that the spell assumes homogeneity among the targets. If I'm fighting an enemy human character party comprised of two 2nd-level, three 3rd-level and 2 4th-level, what dice do I roll? I'm sure the reader can figure it out themselves instantly... but ask yourself... is it the same way someone else will figure this out? Can you rely on your answer being "as logical" as another person would see it?

Quite a number will say, it doesn't need to be. It only has to be consistent for my party. That's fine, but I watched a lot of sessions break down over the interpretation of this one rule, with casters wanting every inch they felt they were due against DMs who did not want to give that to them. The badly written rule is a session wrecker. Consistency without clarity breeds resentment because the next party will interpret it differently. That kind of vagueness metastasises. Players internalise their house rulings as the "real" rule, and suddenly half the community is arguing over which childhood misreading of Sleep is canonical.

2nd Level:

Detect Invisible (Objects): A spell to find secreted treasure hidden by an Invisibility spell (see below). It will also locate invisible creatures. Durations (sic): 6 turns. Range: 1" x the level of the Magic-User casting it, i.e. a "Wizard" would have a range of 11", more if he was above the base value.

I adore that in 47 words, we first identify that the spell detects objects and then that the spell also detects non-objects. Real genius there. I appreciate that we are given a range of effect; the language "1 times the level" has always been odd since English includes the preposition that fill this in, "per"... as in "1 per level." But never mind. Not everyone's vocabulary is replete with such rarely used three-letter words.

Two inherent issues emerge, of course: first, how do we know when to cast the spell? Well, of course, in a Gygaxian universe, in every room. You just never know, right? Which is fine, since the spell lasts so long, we might just as well always cast the spell upon entering a dungeon, so it's always up and running. On the other hand, that is a spell-slot we could be using for a spell like levitate or phantasmal force. There really aren't any attack spells of the 2nd level for the mage in the White Box set, which means that the first four levels are thick with discovery spells until the character reaches 5th. Overall, charm person and sleep are your ONLY attack spells until then. Magic missile, shocking grasp, strength, web, even push, are all in later versions of the game. It's a bit sad, really, how ineffectual a 1st to 4th level mage is. If the DM is the sort to make treasures invisible, it may seriously be useful to blow the slot on this spell.

Course, that "invisible treasure" thing is really old school silly. It takes a third level spell to cast invisibility — and point in fact the spell on the next page does not include "objects" in its description. But assuming it does, the casting of it assumes the lair has someone in it whose able to cast the spell. Otherwise, the DM is just randomly and for no reason reaching into the campaign to make things invisible out of either spite or the will of practical joking gods (also not in the rules of the White Box set).  Which, of course, gives cause to question the motivation of the DM behind such shananigans.

But let's handwave that off; let's skip over the fact that early dungeon design often consisted of the DM as "trickster" antagonist whose joy lay into screwing parties out of well-earned treasure as the purest expression of make a dungeon as a gotcha machine, and just assume that the 3rd level mage does exist and can cast invisibility on a treasure. Does that make sense? Imagine that you have $45,000 (or £ or €) in a pile in your room, or in a box, or whatever. You can't have it in a bank, they don't exist. And to keep it "safe," you make it invisible. Now, whenever you come into the room, you can look at where it is and not know if it's there or not. Seriously. You know that "detect invisibility" exists in the world, so every time you leave for any extended period of time, you can't know if someone has entered your room, cast the detect spell, found your money and taken it. To know if they have, you have to bend down, feel around and see if it's physically there. But then, if that's all that it takes, then why coudn't a party member just carry a broom with them to "sweep" the corners and see if there's an invisible chest there?

To be really sure your miserable sister hasn't felt around for your money and moved it three feet to the left, just to mess with you, you have to use the detect invisible spell, just to be sure.  How in the hell is this a good idea?

It's what happens when magic is treated as an arms race instead of a system. Every new "defense" spell creates a counterspell, which creates a counter-counterspell, until the world is full of mages living in invisible houses surrounded by "detect" wards and still patting the floor to find their invisible chairs. It's stupid. Detect invisibility does make sense as a spell: but only for the purpose of identifying a danger that happens to make itself known somehow by visibly knocking over an object in the room or leaving footprints on the floor. As a location device for treasure, it's just silly.

I should do another, but these are very trying.