“The possibilities for employing such creatures are almost endless, and the abilities and weaknesses of each should be decided upon prior to the game they are to be used in. For example, a giant spider might be unkillable by normal men, but will kill them unless they roll a save of 8 or better, and it would combat fantastic opponents as if it were a Lycanthrope” (Chainmail, 36, entry Giant Spiders and Insects).

In the last few monster descriptions (36-7), Gygax and Perren give examples of adding new creatures to the Chainmail system using the framework of the rules. Chimerea and other such mythical flyers, for instance, are treated “as the most nearly corresponding type of creature covered herein.” Giant Wolves attack as Light Horse and move as Medium Horse. Versus fantasy creatures, they get two attacks “as men” (which I read as two Light Horse), and they defend as a Wight. In the example cited above, a spider’s poison is modeled by a saving roll.

To assign attacks and defenses as an existing creature on the Fantasy Combat Table, some analysis is required. Scrutinizing the table, we see that each creature attacks with varying success against the others, and the creature’s defense is subsumed into the opponent’s attack. So, a dragon hits a wizard with a two-dice roll of 10, while the wizard hits the dragon with a 9. There is no separate defense roll.

Totaling all a creature’s attack target scores, we get a clearer, though simplified, view. Likewise, for defense.

The score required for each attacker-defender pair makes sense—or at least can be justified. Figuring out whether one creature is more or less powerful than another, however, is difficult. Totaling all a creature’s attack target scores, we get a clearer, though simplified, view. Likewise, for defense.

Fantastic Opponents by Attacks and Defenses

In the two tables below, creatures are ranked by best attacks and best defenses, respectively. The stronger attacker has a lower total. The stronger defender, a higher.

Using these tables, we can more easily find the general power of a new creature. Once narrowed to a range of two or three existing creatures, we decide on an equivocal creature by a brief examination of those creature’s attacks and defenses, perhaps choosing one creature for attacks and another for defenses. One step further, if a couple scores vary widely from our vision of the new creature, we might assign different scores, taking the example of some opponents versus True Trolls (table, 34).

Comparing Creatures by Rank

Further analysis reveals the order of attackers mostly corresponds to that of defenders. Dragons and elementals, for example, are ranked first and second in both orders. Wights are last.

In this table, we see that some types are ranked differently for attacks and defenses and that these are paired (italicized). Super-heroes are ranked third as attackers, sixth as defenders, while wizards are the reverse: third as defenders, sixth as attackers. The same with the pairs hero-wraith and lycanthrope-ogre.

Chainmail doesn’t say how to determine which spells a Wizard may cast. Perhaps it is implied that the referee choses the spells according to the scenario. Or we might assume a Wizard may cast any spell.

If we want to determine a particular spell list for a Wizard, we could use a random method, either by drawing cards from a deck or by rolling dice. One way to get a number from 1 to 16 on dice is to roll a d8 and d6. The d8 determines a pair of numbers: 1 is 1-2, 2 3-4, and so on. Between the two numbers, choose odd or even based on the result of the d6.

I use the general term magic-user hereafter to refer to a Wizard of any power level, reserving the specific term for the more powerful of the class.

In the Valormr Campaign, Zosimos and the Elf King and Queen are seven-spell Wizards. All other magic-users have a point value of 80 (close to average by number of spells), and I dice for the power level. Spells are determined by drawing from a deck.

Complexity

In addition to this randomosity, I added Chainmail’s optional Spell Complexity (33). Because the complexity was often higher than the user’s level, spells rarely took effect. A fireball, certain of effect, was more worthwhile than a spell with little chance of success. Magic-users became 80-point missile throwers.

After a brief trial, I did away with it. Spell Complexity is better used when the spell list is determined with some judgment.

Player Choice

To preserve some power in spell-use while incorporating Complexity, we might allow the player to choose spells of any complexity, either before play or in game. In both cases, the player judges the risk of failure.

Restricted by Complexity

To lean in the direction of later adventure games, we might throw out the chance of spell failure and restrict a magic-user to complexity levels at or below his or her power level, based on number of spells. A Seer has access to only Complexity 1 spells, for example; a Warlock, Complexity 4 and below.

Choose From a Subset or the Entire Spell List?

While the adventure game that grew out of Chainmail restricts arcane magic-users to a subset of spells—usually acquired over time and collected in a spell book, we might allow access to the entire spell list, possibly restricted by complexity as above. This carries the potential to slow play, as the player must consider more options. On the other hand, it makes magic-users a little more powerful and makes them appear more prescient, as they are more likely to have just the right spell for the situation.