"D&D Supplement II: Blackmoor": TSR, 1975.

[Big Mac]

http://www.blackmoor.mystara.us/pdfs/D& ... 20(TSR2004).pdf

The forum is not passing that link properly (as it has "illegal characters in it").

I've tried surrounding it with URL tags, with and without quotes, but that doesn't work either. I think it would be possible to find the % codes for the open and close bracket characters, but that is not going to solve the problem for people trying to repost the link elsewhere.

Is there any chance that the document could be put up again with a "non-illegal" URL (i.e. with "&", "(", ")" and all the spaces removed)?

No idea. You have mod powers now. Go and try. :twisted:

I was wondering about that. I thought it might be a mistake and was about to ask.

"URLs in external links" at the Wikimedia Meta Wiki gave the substitute code for "(" and ")".

Is there any chance that the document could be put up again with a "non-illegal" URL (i.e. with "&", "(", ")" and all the spaces removed)?

I will see what I can do

Thanks. I got it working, but the URL looks pretty ugly, as it is.

[Big Mac]

Do you own the 3rd edition D&D PHB? I'm referring to the way that that book uses a very small number of Greyhawk elements (with the 3e deities being the GH-lite element that stands out the most).

Yep. I know what you mean. It is hard to compare to Supp II, because it is done in a very different manner, but I guess primarily it would be the same thing.

Fair enough. I was trying to compare it with something that I knew better. But I suppose with the 3e PHB being a core book and Supplement II being an add-on book, they don't have the same "mission".

Maybe I should ask you to compare it with Suppliment VI: The Majestic Wilderlands, which does a more similar job (but for a different setting).

[Rafael]

You can't really compare that, honestly. S II is half rules and half dungeon. And it was written for a completely different line of publications. PHB 3 is like the first booklet of the White Box, if you have to compare it.

[Havard]

You guys seem to have fixed the issue with the URL, but here's an alternate one if needed:
http://blackmoor.mystara.us/pdfs/D&D_Supplement2.pdf

Supplement II is unique in that it was the first D&D supplement to present anything close to setting information. Supplement II had the original version of the Temple of the Frog, including the backstory with St. Stephen.

Some other sections have also proven to be useful to raid for tidbits of possible Blackmoor lore.

Unfortunately, the editors over at TSR at the time failed to see the brilliant ideas in Arneson's works and thus removed some of the Arneson content that might otherwise have been found within this supplement. Likely, this is the information that instead was passed on to Judges Guild and published as the First Fantasy Campaign.

-Havard

[DungeonDevil]

Re: combat in S2:

I know I've seen this issue raised on a forum in the past two weeks. I can't remember where though:

What do the phrases "double value fighter (Hero type)", and "triple value fighter (Super Hero)", "quadruple value fighter" and "quintuple (Leader)" mean?

Does that mean that the Hero fights at 2x the value of the "Flunky" and so on?


Sorry, if this has been asked before. My knowledge of the primordial Arnesonian combat system is virtually nil. :oops:

[Havard]

Yikes,
this sounds like something Aldarron might be better suited to answer. Your interpretation sounds right to me, but I'm not really much of a rules guy...

-Havard

[aldarron]

Re: combat in S2:

I know I've seen this issue raised on a forum in the past two weeks. I can't remember where though:

What do the phrases "double value fighter (Hero type)", and "triple value fighter (Super Hero)", "quadruple value fighter" and "quintuple (Leader)" mean?

Does that mean that the Hero fights at 2x the value of the "Flunky" and so on?


Sorry, if this has been asked before. My knowledge of the primordial Arnesonian combat system is virtually nil. :oops:

Heh, sir you have stumbled on a secret. Although double and triple value references appear in the ToTF section (and in the FFC) you are clearly refering specifically to the Sahaugin entry. I asked both Steve Marsh and Tim Kask about this and the summary can be found here http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewt ... start=2520

Basically, its clear neither one of them knows for certain, despite the fact that Marsh is credited with writing it.

What that tells me is this: while the Sahaugin were Marsh's creation, some portion of the text was woven together by Kask, likely from some arnesonian material he maybe didn't quite understand (the values bit). In any case a mistake crept in that nobody caught. I'm convinced that the text should have (superhero) after the quadruple value fighter, not the triple value. Kask said they should be "additive" and that is consistent with how Arneson used the term. In other words, as 2HD creatures, a double value Sahaugin is a 4 HD creature (hero), a triple value is a 6 HD creatute, Quadruple value is 8 HD (superhero)

These are CHAINMAIL terms and mean you would attack as that many men doing that many dice in damage but also that you would have your D&D Hit Points multiplied too. Dave Arneson was probably the only one to play it that way.

[aldarron]

I posted this over on ODD74 a while back, but it might be worthwhile to post a duplicate here. Sorry if you have already read this.

Earlier I posted some thoughts on the authorship of Supplement II Blackmoor but I’ve been having some more fun plumbing its mysteries more closely. Supplement II strikes me as a kind of bastard stepchild because, unlike the other supplements, most of it either never made it into later D&D or AD&D products or did so only with a serious amount of revision and change. And yet, there is really a lot of gold in there to be mined.

Maybe one thing that discourages some from making more use Supplement II is that it is mostly known for three things – two new and controversial classes, an unwieldy hit location system that was later disowned by its own author, and the Temple of the Frog. Another is that it’s seen as a hodge-podge of ideas that are difficult to sort out.
Authorship of the various parts of the supplement is a topic that comes up from time to time, sometimes with the claim that little of Dave Arneson original text is present or that Steve Marsh and Tim Kask and/or Gary Gygax wrote all the “goodâ€

[Rafael]

I take these comments with a grain of salt, because Kask is, sadly, nothing but an old egomaniac.

[Havard]

Thanks for posting this here Dan!

You mention that some of the information in the Sahuagin entry (Rules stuff) could be a result of Arnesonian ideas being mixed in. Do you think that it is possible that some of the description/background information on the same monster could also be from Arneson? The reason why I ask is because it reads very much like a setting section more than a monster description...

Thoughts?

-Havard