Dungeons & Dragons White Box 18

I think it must be said, and this goes to the decision in Basic to specify the fly spell at 120 ft. per round, and the round at 10 seconds, that most probably the White Box set is using "rounds" and "turns" interchangably throughout, having not yet decided that there are a set number of "rounds per turn." It's the only rational way that the fly spell works, and the levitation before it. "Turn" was thinking in "combat turns," as nearly every war game calls the game metric, and "rounds" just happened because Gygax & crew were incapable of being disciplined. Then later, Gygax, probably in one of his delusional fever dreams of "brilliant" game design, thought "Hey, we can't have people counting things in number with more than one digit... that would make this way to hard for them.  Let's insert "turns" as separate from "rounds" so that they'll have to learn two measurements where only one would make this easier!  It's genius!

I don't know this is the case, but it feels it probably is, so going forward lets just assume rounds and turns are the same thing. There's nothing in the White Box that defines either one, nor distinguishes one from the other, so this is a reasonable assumption. And it only took me 18 posts to get there.

Hold Person: A spell similar to a Charm Person, but which is of both limited duration and greater effect. It will affect from 1-4 persons. If it is cast at only a single person it has the effect of reducing the target's saving throw against magic by -2. Duration: 6 turns + level of the caster. Range: 12".

Charm person was poorly defined. It also said that those influenced would "come completely under the influence" of the mage. So, if this is just a "charm person" with a limited duration, then it's played very, very differently from the later version of the spell, which assumed "hold" means exactly that, a person held in place and rendered helpless. As far as "greater effect," since charm person has no listed limits of any kind except that it excluded monsters and undead, are those limits now off the table? Or are we saying that it will let the mage charm 4 persons at a time, enabling complete influence over them (a player could absolutely, from this, argue as much). Since we're saying "persons," I assume monsters and undead are still exempt, but it doesn't say so here. Since "hold", in the sense of, "hold others under our sway" can mean charm, the way is open to assume this is a mass domination spell.

Dispel Magic: Unless countered, this spell will be effective in dispelling enchantments of most kinds (referee’s option), except those on magical items and the like. This is modified by the following formula. The success of a Dispel Magic spell is a ratio of the dispeller over the original spell caster, so if a 5th-level Magic-User attempts to dispel the spell of a 10th-level Magic-User there is a 50% chance of success. Duration: 1 turn. Range: 12".

So much to unpack. Why is the duration 1 turn/round? I assume, because the spell already has dispelled the magic it intends to dispel, the duration assumes the spell is active and can be applied to other things after it's initial use. The language does say "enchantments," though that's probably a reference to it being able to dispel different kinds of things in general, not different enchantments the moment it's cast. But does it sweep the area like a vacuum cleaner, dispelling every persistent effect that it touches?

And, with respect to the earlier discussion of turns/rounds, then this is one action that can be taken in one round, so another action can't be taken, since there isn't another turn/round to take it in. But then, why list the duration at all? Why not just say, "it can only dispel one magical effect"? 

Then, if the spell can be used in one turn/round, we assume I've taken my turn and then my enemy takes theirs. How, then, is dispel magic "countered"? Says plainly, "unless countered." Countered by what? A dispel magic on my dispel magic spell? But then, hasn't my spell already passed... but then, is that what's meant by the 1-turn duration? So that the actual dispelling happens over a sufficient period of time that someone can step in and say, "Oh no, dispelling your dispelling... sorry!"

And why leave it up to the DM what kinds of magic it can dispel? Doesn't that introduce plot armour into the DM's more favoured features and persons, that can't just be dispelled because it "ruins" the adventure? And what does "and the like" mean with respect to magic items? What things in the game are "like" magic items but in fact are not magic items. I've been playing for 46 years and I can't think of an example. Seems like text space that could have been used for something else.

The formula is... fine I guess. If you're a higher level than the caster, then your success is guaranteed. Still, there's something in it not just dispelling, regardless of the caster, that rubs me the wrong way. The concept works, so far as it goes. But it does mean, a lot of the time, if you take this spell at 3rd level, it's going to be Hail Mary pass compared to just grabbing a mook and tossing him into the space, letting him take the heat. I mean, it's just one time a day. And presumably, if you're entering a dungeon or a designed lair, that won't get you far. It'd be nice if the one time you wanted to use it, it worked.

Clairvoyance: Same as ESP spell except the spell user can visualize rather than merely pick up thoughts.

Visualise what, exactly? The opponent standing right in front of me, that I've decided to cast ESP upon? Oh, right... the one whom I know about, in advance, before casting the spell, behind something. Can I hear conversation, or only thoughts? That is, unless we assume it doesn't work like "ESP," which requires a mind to read; that, in fact, I can just see behind the wall, whether there's a person there or not. Which, in fact, is what "clairvoyance" actually means, which allows the entire extremely short description tell you nothing about the spell that the actual name of the spell tells. The could have used that space to, you know, tell us how far it reaches. There's actual space on the page (the second line is only about 1 quarter used of the white space available) to tell us range, duration... even how much mass I can see through. You know, the stuff that's been said to define other spells. If you're on the next continent, can I see you?

Heck, we are in 3rd level spell territory, right? I mean, your slot can include "fireball." I assume we'd like this one to have a little gravitas.

Clairaudience: Same as Clairvoyance except it allows hearing rather than visualization. This is one of the few spells which can be cast through a Crystal Ball (see Vol. II).

Point-in-fact, not all crystal balls include the ability to hear or read the minds of what you're seeing. However, other than a carnival mindreader's tent, I've never seen such a ball depicted in a film or a story where the user couldn't both see and hear. But then, there are very few examples of this that I can name occurring in films prior to 1973, so perhaps the geniuses of the White Box had seen more Hammer Films than I have. In either case, it suggests that the clairvoyance spell doesn't work like ESP, since that's also a characteristic that only some crystal balls have, but not all.

Does it not seem a little strange that a magic item is being used to define how a spell works? For the record, though, the crystal ball appears on page 36 of Monsters and Treasure, volume 2 as stated... and what it does or how it works isn't explained there, either... except a bunch of stuff to explain what spells can be cast through it, and how it relies on "attempts" to succeed... a thing that isn't actually defined. But we'll get there eventually. But heck, we know how a crystal ball works, right? It's not like we need a game rule to tell us.

There's a lot of this throughout the books. The reader is trusted to come to this thing preloaded with enough pop-mythology to fill in behaviour, ecology, morality, diet, tactics, whatnot, regardless of a lack of range increments, time constraints, the meaning of "attempts"... it's game design by dangling participle. "Go on, you'll figure it out. You don't need us."

Fire Ball: A missile which springs from the finger of the Magic-User. It explodes with a burst radius of 2" (slightly larger than specified in CHAINMAIL). In a confined space the Fire Ball will generally conform to the shape of the space (elongate or whatever). The damage caused by the missile will be in proportion to the level of its user. A 6th-level Magic-User throws a 6-die missile, a 7th a 7-die missile, and so on. (Note that Fire Balls from Scrolls (see Vol. Il) and Wand are 6-die missiles and those from Staves are 8-die missiles. Duration: 1 turn. Range: 24".

To start, "proportion" here is not the word the writers think it is. "Quantified" would have been more accurate. It's a malaproprism. "Elongate" is wrong also, since we must assume the writers did not intend it to exceed the spell's radius. "Narrowed" would have been more accurate. Language. It's like words mean things.

Since the rule about wands and staves occur, I presume, in the section that describes wands and staves, why is space taken here to repeat it? And, if not repeated, why is this information not included under wands and staves? It's one of those things that obliterates the argument, "There was no space available to better describe this spell... they did the best they could with the limited space they had." Right here are two whole lines on the page, one of which could have been given to "clairvoyance" and one to "clairaudience." There is no excuse.

So, the "fireball" (at some point we stopped using two words and I'll embrace that) is a "missile." For readers who have lately recognised that they've grafted rules written at a later time upon this system, this is a glaring reveal. The text plainly states that the spell travels from the mage's finger to the target. If that's the case, can the spell be obstructed? And if not, then what's the point in describing it as a "missile." In fact, since the spell happens entirely in the caster's turn, and an obstruction can't be interposed while the spell is being cast, then why specify that this spell — unlike, say, any other spell, since magic missile hasn't been invented yet — is a "missile"? For the glitz? How come my dispel magic has no glitz? Huh?

Since line-of-sight is assumed for most spells (even clairvoyance, which doesn't dictate in the rules that it can be cast behind things), that can't be the reason. And if it is, then why not say, "it needs line of sight"? Though the spell does reveal the earlier argument I made about spells being bullets in the mage's gun. Here, the fireball is actually using the language we'd use for a tank shell. Fire, BANG!

Again, why is the duration 1 turn/round? How slow does this missile move? Fireball has a duration and clairvoyance/clairaudience don't? Huh?

Once again... this was written by different people and then slapped together. One writer would not have worked down this page, in order that the spells were written, and produced work this disjointed. These things were handed to a person that compiled the page, who had no say in the text, who set the type for the printing from the things he/she was given, squeezing them in however they fit (which is why the spells are NOT listed alphabetically, for reasons that surpass all understanding), probably without the least idea of what was being typeset or why. Typesetters very rarely question or even care what the work was. In that day and age, they sat morning 'til night, setting selected work in order, compiling their way through page after page that was given them, sorting it, fitting it into shape on the page, willy nilly, like a modern day film editor hired by a studio who does not care what the director's vision was. And most likely, the creators of the White Box had no say in this, given that they likely, with their skimpy $2,000 ($12,000 thereabouts in modern money), had to rely on the skill of other people.

When I made a zine in the 1990s, I knew how to design and I knew how to phyical lay out pages because I learned that at the University of Calgary Gauntlet, where every Thursday meant thirty students digging in, for free, without pay, until midnight, to get the thing ready for the printer, who did not need to do any of the work for us. Because that's what the business had become in 1988, when I joined the Guantlet's staff. But in 1973, this crew, plainly, had zero control over how things looked on the page, and zero ability to sit and establish templates for what each spell would include, in what order, in the rational way it was done later, when they had money to hire someone competent, who they could control. It's very clear that when these books were assembled, when this sausage was made, the writers were not in the room.

It is, incidentally, one of the reasons I feel I'm uniquely in a position to criticise this thing. I'm not just another D&D writer. I've spent 30+ years in the business, I've designed my own products (which is why The Lantern does not look like a mess) and I know the amount of work it takes after writing to make it look both efficient and pretty. And sorry, it does aggrieve me to see these amateurs succeed when so many people in this business — the far more competent J. Eric Holmes, say — did not become the sun around which this game spun, instead of the gas giant we got.

Those two Gs can't be coincidental.

Lightning Bolt: Utterance of this spell generates a lightning bolt 6" long and up to 3/4" wide. If the space is not long enough to allow its full extension, the missile will double back to attain 6", possibly striking its creator. It is otherwise similar to a Fire Ball, but as stated in CHAINMAIL the head of the missile may never extend beyond the 24" range.

Generates a lightning bolt from where? And why, precisely, is there a "double back" effect? Is this a characteristic of lightning bolts? I know it's not, because a Tesla coil will make "lightning" in a very tiny, tiny space. Moreover, lightning doesn't "travel" towards an object, it's electricity ionising in tiny branching feelers, sniffing for a path of least resistance, then erupting with incredible speed along a conductive path that suddenly exists, like a newly-formed channel in space. It has no physical quality. Even if "magical lightning" is distinct from "natural lightning" (ideas that did not exist at the time of this set's writing), it would make no sense to ascribe substance or mass to lightning that would allow it to "double back" or "rebound" against a fixed object.

Thus, it's clearly a jerk move, a design intended to make the caster favour the fireball over the lightning bolt. There are no other effects of magic that "bounce," or act anything like this in a constrained space. Only lightning bolt demands spatial accommodation like a petulant yardstick, and only lightning bolt punishes the caster for daring to operate in three-dimensional space.

Plus there's the "similar to a Fire Ball" note. It's not an area spell, this may mean it comes from the caster's finger... but yes, like most readers here, I take this to mean only that it causes 1d6 per level of the caster. Unlike the fireball, there's no clear reference to the area of effect, not to how many persons are affected. Does the lightning fork? No idea. Can it be made to arc in an unstraight line, as lightning often does naturally?  No idea. Does it prioritise metal armour and wet surfaces, like lightning also does? Does it cause more damage if it interacts with conductive material? Can the spell reach further if it touches water? If you're in water and the water is hit, and you're in that deadly circle lightning affects, are you absolutely dead? No idea.

And being a DM who has had these questions disrupt a session, as players who are educated enough to know how lightning works, only to find the spell called "lightning" doesn't work that way, want answers that I'm not willing to shut down as a dick because, well, I respect my players. I want to know too. Why doesn't lightning work like the actual physical phenomenon, and if not, why is the spell called "lightning"?  I suppose "light burst" had less chutzpah.

Protection from Evil, 10' Radius: A Protection from Evil spell which extends to include a circle around the Magic-User and also lasts for 12 rather than 6 turns.

I think we can leave this alone. We don't have to go through protection from evil all over again. Point in fact, briefly. Spell doesn't say the radius moves, or what it's wrapped around if it does move. I'd run it like AD&D, but that's only because I've seen AD&D. Who knows what it was run like among strangers who knew none of the makers, lived nowhere near them and had never seen the game played.

Invisibility, 10' Radius: an Invisibility spell with an extended projection but otherwise no different from the former spell.

So, makes everything, objects, people, the ground, other living things, invisible as well? Since the original (forgot the underline under the referred-to spell here) transformed whatever. That's quite the effect. Useful. Lean against the wall of a tower, building, whatever... cast, make a 10-foot visible window in the side of the edifice and then get out of the way. The physical wall is still there, of course, but if you can see, a charm person will work fine. Pick a corner in a dungeon and poof, the walls are bubble-glass. While the monsters freak out, as they can see you, they can't reach you, because the wall's still there. And you and you're party are invisible anyway.

Infravision: This spell allows the recipient to see infrared light waves, thus enabling him to see in total darkness. Duration: 1 day. Range of infravision: 40-60'.

Sorry, am I reading that right? Is that a single tic after 40-60?  Did they just use actual feet instead of writing 4-6"? Wow, who knew it could be written that way.

Get ready: this is the only instance in the rules that explains what infravision is. This is it. Not under The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, where it's referenced. Here. Interesting choice, don't you think? As such, the spell description here becomes the de facto definition for every creature in the game that has infravision, even though most of them gained it through anatomy, not magic.

The issue, of course, is that "infra-red" is understood by most persons, today as well as then (though the average person was less informed about science, which I've discussed), as merely a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. At the time, engineers were building early heat-seeking missiles using IR signatures. Astronomers were mapping stars using IR telescopes because IR penetrated cosmic dust differently. Meanwhile, popular media talked about “infrared goggles” as though they worked like flashlights or night-vision binoculars. An article in Popular Science from the era might describe "heat seeing" in a single paragraph that glossed over the physics entirely and emphasized the effect as "seeing shapes in darkness." Spy fiction when to town with this, pointing light cameras at objects at night in James Bond films with an overlay that dubbed it, "night vision," giving the impression that this is what it looked like when using infrared goggles. D&D seized it, slapped it on various monsters and humanoids as "perfect night vision," and sparked off a hundred thousand arguments around game tables about "if this is ice cold, how does 'infravision' see it?"

But we don't need to talk about it's presence in the game. That's another subject for another day, and I think this blog has already done that. I know the wiki has. And no, it doesn't make everyone happy. That's impossible.

The above is a screen-shot of page 25. Tell me if you notice anything odd about it.

I'd lay money the typesetter looked at what was provided, shrugged, then typeset this exactly as provided. Given how sparse the White Box is, there's a whole chunk of available real estate on the same page to give clairvoyance and clairaudience a range.

Yes, gawdammit, I am gonna dance on the laurels of this sacred relic. Get used to it.