|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 24, 2015 18:30:52 GMT -6
"Today, as Earth dies, a hundred spells remain to man's knowledge, and these have come to us through the ancient books."
(from "Turjan of Miir" in The Dying Earth by Jack Vance)
The above quote shows the eldritch exactitude of the spell lists I use for magic-users. Here are the chaotic ingredients that make a hundred spells:
1. I go with Gabor Lux's intuition that 5th level spells are as high as the game needs. If it's 6th level or higher, I don't need it.
2. I start with the 1974 spell lists for magic-users in Men & Magic. No 6th level spells need apply.
3. I add the new spells (5th level and below only!) in Supplement I: GREYHAWK. Who can live without magic mouths?
4. Matt Finch's spells in Eldritch Weirdness are primordially cool. They feel like lost and secret spells that Gary was using in his home campaign before he ever even published the rules. Again, Matt's spells that are no higher than 5th level.
Crunch all those together and you get... 100 spells! Not 99. Not 101. You get the crisp and precise number 100.
If that's not a proof of the blessings of St. Gygax and St. Vance, then water isn't wet.
Here you go:
1st-Level Magic-User Spells
1. Charm Person
2. Detect Magic
3. Hold Portal
4. Light
5. Magic Missile
6. Protection from Evil
7. Read Languages
8. Read Magic
9. Shield
10. Sleep
11. Ventriloquism
2nd-Level Magic-User Spells
1. Continual Light
2. Darkness, 5' Radius
3. Detect Evil
4. Detect Invisible
5. ESP
6. Excruciating Cauterization
7. Force of Forbidment
8. Invisibility
9. Knock
10. Levitate
11. Locate Object
12. Magic Mouth
13. Mirror Image
14. Phantasmal Forces
15. Pyrotechnics
16. Strangulations
17. Strength
18. Tarnu's Collaring Coiffure
19. Web
20. Wizard Lock
3rd-Level Magic-User Spells
1. Ball of Ice
2. Clairaudience
3. Clairvoyance
4. Dispel Magic
5. Explosive Runes
6. Filigree
7. Fire Ball
8. Fly
9. Haste Spell
10. Hold Person
11. Infravision
12. Invisibility, 10' Radius
13. Lightning Bolt
14. Monster Summoning I
15. Omar's Mistake
16. Protection from Evil, 10' Radius
17. Protection from Normal Missiles
18. Red Bull
19. Rejectment
20. Rope Trick
21. Slow Spell
22. Strange Waters
23. Suggestion
24. Tarantella
25. Water Breathing
26. Word of IOUN
4th-Level Magic-User Spells
1. Beast of Chaos
2. Charm Monster
3. Confusion
4. Deadly Bliss
5. Dimension Door
6. Extension I
7. Fear
8. Growth of Plants
9. Hallucinatory Terrain
10. Hylogenesis
11. Ice Storm
12. Imperfect Suspension
13. Infuse
14. Massmorph
15. Monster Summoning II
16. Polymorph Others
17. Polymorph Self
18. Remove Curse
19. Seven Gates
20. Wall of Fire
21. Wall of Ice
22. Wizard Eye
5th-Level Magic-User Spells
1. Animate Dead
2. Cloudkill
3. Conjure Elemental
4. Contact Higher Plane
5. Crystallogenesis
6. Deadly Dissolvative
7. Extension II
8. Feeblemind
9. Growth of Animals
10. Hold Monster
11. Magic Jar
12. Magpie, the
13. Monster Summoning III
14. Most Horrible Absorption
15. Pass-Wall
16. Six Mouths of Horror
17. Telekinesis
18. Teleport
19. Transmute Rock to Mud
20. Wall of Iron
21. Wall of Stone
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 24, 2015 18:51:02 GMT -6
No geas? What will NPC wizards in their wilderness fortresses cast on PC's now? You could replace geas with a generic "bestow curse" spell. Better for sorcerers and witches to curse rather than clerics imo.
Maybe "curse" instead of Feeblemind (which could be a curse).
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 24, 2015 19:28:54 GMT -6
No geas? What will NPC wizards in their wilderness fortresses cast on PC's now? You could replace geas with a generic "bestow curse" spell. Better for sorcerers and witches to curse rather than clerics imo. Maybe "curse" instead of Feeblemind (which could be a curse). That hadn't occurred to me, since the PCs have been spending all their time in the dungeon. Gabor Lux keeps the geas spell (making it 5th level). One of my favorite short stories is Clark Ashton Smith's "The Seven Geases". That said, I can't change the lists. They are too perfect. Pristine. Celestially determined by St. Vance and St. Gygax. Instead, I will use tortured exegesis to figure something out. That's what we mere mortals have to do when handed holy writ.  |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 24, 2015 20:18:27 GMT -6
No geas? What will NPC wizards in their wilderness fortresses cast on PC's now? You could replace geas with a generic "bestow curse" spell. Better for sorcerers and witches to curse rather than clerics imo. Maybe "curse" instead of Feeblemind (which could be a curse). That hadn't occurred to me, since the PCs have been spending all their time in the dungeon. Gabor Lux keeps the geas spell (making it 5th level). One of my favorite short stories is Clark Ashton Smith's "The Seven Geases". That said, I can't change the lists. They are too perfect. Pristine. Celestially determined by St. Vance and St. Gygax. Instead, I will use tortured exegesis to figure something out. That's what we mere mortals have to do when handed holy writ. If you assume that the 100 known spells are all of the "gesture + couple magic words" sort, with no material component other than obvious targets like a rope for the Rope Trick, then you could treat "non-standard" spells as not being separate spells at all, but modifications of the original spell. So Geas might actually be Charm Person with vampire blood as an added ingredient. Specific monsters can be summoned with one of the Monster Summoning spells + body parts related to the monster: MS III + heart of lion + eye of eagle = Summon Griffon. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 24, 2015 22:05:21 GMT -6
Or, if wizards can create potions at 7th and Magic items at 11th, let them "curse and geas" at 9th. 1x per day or something.
"the wizard raises both hands into the air and points at his target and intones the curse loudly". The victim receives a saving throw vs spells (+4 if he also uses a sign to ward off bad luck and says the word "avert"). The caster choses 1 stat. This stat is reduced by 1 point per day until it reaches 3. The curse is permanent until lifted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jan 25, 2015 0:25:39 GMT -6
Could geas be available only by ritual? The charm person + vampire blood is so... Right
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 25, 2015 2:15:01 GMT -6
Rituals aren't very vancian. They get experiments (like vat creatures and animal/plant hybrids). Giving Vancian wizards rituals just makes a pastiche!
|
|
otiv
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133 
|
Post by otiv on Jan 25, 2015 5:34:21 GMT -6
I kind of wish there was an even 20 spells in each level for random spell determination.
If there's a d21 floating around somewhere, I sure haven't seen it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 25, 2015 5:56:37 GMT -6
This is an awesome post, and looks like a really impressive spell list. However, for those who don't have Matt's book is it possible to post some sort of synopsis of what those spells can do? Matt Finch's spells in Eldritch Weirdness are primordially cool. 2nd-Level Magic-User Spells6. Excruciating Cauterization 7. Force of Forbidment 16. Strangulations 18. Tarnu's Collaring Coiffure 3rd-Level Magic-User Spells6. Filigree 15. Omar's Mistake 18. Red Bull 19. Rejectment 22. Strange Waters 24. Tarantella 26. Word of IOUN 4th-Level Magic-User Spells1. Beast of Chaos 4. Deadly Bliss 10. Hylogenesis 12. Imperfect Suspension 13. Infuse 19. Seven Gates 5th-Level Magic-User Spells5. Crystallogenesis 6. Deadly Dissolvative 12. Magpie, the 14. Most Horrible Absorption 16. Six Mouths of Horror Looks like around 1/5 of the total spell list are omes which I don't recognize.  |
|
otiv
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133
|
Post by otiv on Jan 25, 2015 6:43:46 GMT -6
Strange Waters looks familiar. Didn't Lamentations of the Flame Princess feature a spell called Strange Waters II?
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 25, 2015 9:05:40 GMT -6
I kind of wish there was an even 20 spells in each level for random spell determination. If there's a d21 floating around somewhere, I sure haven't seen it. Saints Gygax and Vance will provide. Actually, I kind of like the unusual number of spells at each level. It makes it seem... more unusual, less polished, more OD&D.  |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jan 25, 2015 10:42:02 GMT -6
Upon reading this thread last night, I bumped around online looking for the document in question. $4.50 USD on Lulu. There are about five or six excerpts detailing a few spells here and there. The one with the floating blob of water containing goldfish-- that's just amazing
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 25, 2015 14:48:11 GMT -6
I kind of wish there was an even 20 spells in each level for random spell determination. If there's a d21 floating around somewhere, I sure haven't seen it. There are ways of handling random selection from lists with unusual numbers of items, even if the lists aren't numbered. Try this: Roll 1d6 and 1d4. Result of d4: 1. start at the top of the list and count down. 2. start at the middle of the list and count up. 3. start at the middle of the list and count down. 4. start at the bottom of the list and count up. The d6 is the count. Treat a roll of 6 as zero. This handles a list of 11 to 23 items. For more, replace the d6 with a d8 (15 to 31 items), a d10 (19 to 39 items), a d12 (23 to 47 items), or a d20 (39 to 79 items), again with the highest result treated as a zero. It's not an even distribution; some results will be more likely than others, but at least you don't have to worry about padding out lists to match a give die roll. You can, of course, expand this, with extra dice rolls to select a page, or a column on a page. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 25, 2015 14:59:15 GMT -6
This is an awesome post, and looks like a really impressive spell list. However, for those who don't have Matt's book is it possible to post some sort of synopsis of what those spells can do? has a total of 23 spells of levels 2-5. (It has zero of 1st or 9th level, two of 6nd level, three of 7th level, and two of 8th level.) Here are short descriptions of the 23 spells: Excruciating Cauterization: a healing spell that makes the recipient writhe in pain Force of Forbidment: blocks the target from going past a certain point Strangulations: strangles both the target and the caster Tarnu's Collaring Coiffure: a target with long hair get strangled by his own hair Ball of Ice: entombs target in ball of ice Filigree: jump up to a mile in height Omar's Mistake: strange spell that is mostly bad for the caster (I can't really describe it all without quoting the whole spell.) Red Bull: target goes nuts when he sees the color red Rejectment: hurls target backwards Strange Waters: conjures fish to eat that are mostly beneficial [Lamentations of the Flame Princess has a Strange Waters II that turns this up to 11.] Tarantella: victim dances Word of IOUN: IOUN stones circle the caster's head Beast of Chaos: caster turns into fearsome beast Deadly Bliss: target might become addicted to the spell's bliss Hylogenesis: a liquid mass can transform into number of creatures Imperfect Suspension: puts target in suspended animation Infuse: infuses liquids with magic potential Seven Gates: a crazy form of teleportation Crystallogenesis: crystals grow and entrap people Deadly Dissolvative: target melts into slime, then comes back Magpie, the: silver is teleported into target's bag Most Horrible Absorption: a slime-monster is conjured Six Mouths of Horror: big mouths form in the ground and eat you up |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 25, 2015 15:06:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 25, 2015 19:42:03 GMT -6
Eldritch Weirdness does sound pretty darned cool. I think I can spare $5 for a PDF copy. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Jan 25, 2015 23:28:02 GMT -6
This is one of the best posts ever! Thank you Geoffrey
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 26, 2015 0:19:13 GMT -6
To continue as a devils advocate, if one thinks about the literature (not the game world). 1st level spells read magic and read languages...isn't one or the other redundant? Is magic writing on a weapon elvish if the sword is made by elvish smiths? Is the language of magic the language of dragons or demons?
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 26, 2015 15:21:02 GMT -6
To continue as a devils advocate, if one thinks about the literature (not the game world). 1st level spells read magic and read languages...isn't one or the other redundant? Is magic writing on a weapon elvish if the sword is made by elvish smiths? Is the language of magic the language of dragons or demons? Which literature? In fairy tales, Arthurian romance, and children's fantasy, magic is a property of things, mostly, not words. If you mix the right ingredients, you make a love potion or healing salve; if you pluck a feather from a magical bird, you can use it to summon a favorable wind. Magic words show up mainly as passwords connected to a magical item, like "open sesame" connected to the magical entrance to the bandit hideout in Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves, or the doors of Moria in LotR. So, there is no language of magic, just magical lore in many different languages. In swords & sorcery, you have a little of that, but also some spell casting involving words and gestures only, but whether it's the words and language itself, or something else, varies from writer to writer. Moorcock: magic is mostly pacts with demons and elementals, who only answer calls made in Melnibonean. Leiber: Magic scrolls exist, so it might be a specific language, or specific symbols, it's unclear which. Vance: magic spells are simultaneously words/symbols and living beings. Zelazny: magic is a way of thinking (Wizardworld books, second Chronicles of Amber) or sometimes a feature of a language (the Awful Sayings in the Dilvish stories.) Miscellaneous Others, like Andre Norton, Katherine Kurtz, Robert Asprin: magic is in the magician, the words are either a focus, or a smokescreen to what's really going on. Knowing a specific "language of magic" would help for Moorcock, maybe Leiber, probably not Vance, definitely not Norton, Kurtz, or Asprin. Zelazny's interesting, because when he's not talking about the Awful Sayings, other magic in the Dilvish stories seems to be about a state of mind, perhaps also about psionics; words and symbols *must* be used, but which ones are irrelevant except to the individual. In D&D terms, Read Languages is not going to help to understand a Zelazny-esque magician's spell notes, because they are idiosyncratic. It all depends on whether Read Magic deciphers a magical language, or deciphers the magical intent attached to possibly otherwise meaningless symbols. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 26, 2015 15:38:22 GMT -6
with limited spell slots available, forcing a narrative distinction between the magical ability to read other languages and a magic ability to read magic words, is a distinction that is contradictory or not applicable to lots of literature (as you have shown) and forces wizards to make a purely narrative choice of reading "ancient elvish words" on a hidden door like gandalf, or "ancient magic words" on a hidden door...like, well, Gandalf.
With only 100 spells in the campaign. I would want the some spells not to be totally irrelevant based on a DM's personal interpretation of a fictitious and arbitrary element about what are and aren't words.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 26, 2015 15:40:07 GMT -6
My impression is that Read Magic is intended to decipher magical scrolls and also to reveal magical command words required to invoke the powers of magic items. These might not otherwise be detectable at all.
Read Language appears to be primarily for deciphering treasure maps.
Note that thieves can read languages, but not read magic*; some magic swords can read magic, but not read languages.
* to reveal command words.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 26, 2015 15:44:03 GMT -6
Yes. Fair enough. But thats a post hoc rationalization for a separate spell. Not a big deal if there are 1000 spells in the game. But only 100 should all be interesting.
I kind of have a similar dislike of protection from evil and protection from evil 10'. It's basically, protection from evil (for one person) and a separate protection of evil for 2 people.
That's a very boring distinction. There is probably nothing game breaking just making protection from evil 10' as the default level 1 spell.
Same goes with light and continual light, the distinction between and purely gamist reason for the latter is for dungeon crawling arbitrary resource management.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 26, 2015 16:31:59 GMT -6
I actually like for some spells to be of doubtful utility. Take the 3rd-level spell, Omar's Mistake: Range: 60ft Duration: 1d6 days The subject’s eyes glow, and glass rattles when he is within 20ft. Dogs flee from him, cats are attracted into his presence. Members of the opposite sex have a 1% chance to be affected as if by a charm person spell, and members of the same sex have a 1% chance to attack him for no reason. The spell’s subject finds the color blue objectionable, and he may steal shiny items. If that can't be one of my 100 Vancian magic spells, then life has no meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 26, 2015 16:54:36 GMT -6
with limited spell slots available, forcing a narrative distinction between the magical ability to read other languages and a magic ability to read magic words, is a distinction that is contradictory or not applicable to lots of literature (as you have shown) and forces wizards to make a purely narrative choice of reading "ancient elvish words" on a hidden door like gandalf, or "ancient magic words" on a hidden door...like, well, Gandalf. What I was getting at is that there is no consensus in "the literature". Each writer had different ideas. The majority of them don't have spells at all, just knowledge of magical properties. The next biggest grouping is psionics. Only a few have magical languages, and another few have word-based magic that does not have a magical language: these two are about equally as common. Gandalf didn't use Read Magic. But he didn't use Read Languages, either, and arguably didn't use Knock. He knew a bunch of lost passwords, which he tried, until he had a d'oh moment and realized the password was written right on the door. Arguing for or against Read Magic based on Tolkien doesn't seem like a good move, since Tolkien seems to rely more on a mix of the Arthurian and the psychic powers approaches. You'd want to tweak D&D if you wanted to be "true" to Middle Earth, but those tweaks won't work for other examples of fantasy literature, because each is different. You *have* to customize. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 21:23:49 GMT -6
I love this thread, there is enough here to keep me busy for the next year. Very cool! Thank you for posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 27, 2015 0:21:37 GMT -6
I love the spells of "doubtful utility" for the same reasons as you Geoffrey. What I'm a bit wobbly on is repetitive spells, or spells that are simply "power ups" of lower level spells. I'm being a bit more strident in print that I feel, so apologies if I come off heavy handed. In a way, they are somehow backwards from vancian magic. Imagine the process of creation. A powerful wizard makes a new spell. He calls it "continual light". What should be the next step? To make a worse spell? Or, as I think Vance says (or dying earth rpg intuits) that wizards then refined "complex" spells and made them easier and more streamlined, making them simple spells. In this view, the 2nd level spell should be light and the 1st level spell should be continual light or there should be an identical light spell at 1st or 2nd level and its a crap shoot which one the player finds. anyway, since we're on the subject of Vance. I did a complete conversion of a "true" Vancian magic system as originally presented in CHAINMAIL. HERE Which some of you are familiar with. |
|
otiv
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133
|
Post by otiv on Jan 27, 2015 3:24:57 GMT -6
This may very well add a layer of complexity that people aren't comfortable with, but I kind of like the idea of omitting powered-up versions of spells from the spell list and instead listing spell power-ups separately as an option for all spells.
That is, you can research continual, delayed, or 10' radius versions of any spells that are already known to you. This allows for shorter spell lists, a more concise grimoire, and tighter customization for people who are into that sort of thing.
That might not be everybody's cup of tea, but if I were making my own retro-clone that's the sort of thing I would do.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 27, 2015 10:30:11 GMT -6
On that subject, one very unvancian thing is in d&d spells, the fact that almost all spells increase in power as the character levels.
Why is the light spell 1 turn per level of the caster and not a fixed amount? Why isn't fireball just 5d6 damage end of story?
Besides the status quo (which is fine of course). All spells could increase in power (protection from evil is 1' radius per level, summon monster can summon 1HD per caster level).
Part of me likes the idea of fixed spells (light lasts 10 turns. No 1 turn per level type stuff). To me it makes the spells seem less about the characters power. More discrete and separate. Which is an argument in favor of, if you want a better protection from evil, then it needs to be a new spell. As it stands it's both. Protection from evil and protection from evil 10' both get better durations as the caster levels, but are discrete spells and their area doesn't increase, but fireballs volume and range increases with level...
Of course this idea of spells getting better with level is a nod to the fantasy literature non-Vancian, where magic is an outward manifestation of a character inner growth and power. The young apprentice learns how to make a magic light early and as he himself progresses in power he can maintain it longer.
However why don't spells thave unlimited duration, but wizards can only sustain a given number of simultaneous spells at once?
Anyway, the real question is many of the design decisions made at the begining of the hobby were only one of various decisions that could have been made and given their collaborative and iterative nature, like the evolution of species over time, non-ideal, but workable systems have organically grown; giving us human males with nipples and protection from evils that don't increase in volume over levels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 10:59:00 GMT -6
Part of me likes the idea of fixed spells (light lasts 10 turns. No 1 turn per level type stuff). To me it makes the spells seem less about the characters power. More discrete and separate. Which is an argument in favor of, if you want a better protection from evil, then it needs to be a new spell. However why don't spells thave unlimited duration, but wizards can only sustain a given number of simultaneous spells at once? I actually made both these changes to in my own games (except my Fireballs do 6d6). Most spells that have duration, I have changed to "until dispelled" and can last forever. However, if you have a spell currently active it holds that spell slot so you can't use it to cast another spell. This allows magic-users to have a series of charm-types spells providing bonuses to AC or saving throws, etc active at all times at the cost of a few spell slots. In effect, it replaces the need for cantrips (ala 5e) and one first level spell can be used to grant the magic-user a free magic attack each round. I'm pretty much the opposite of Geoffrey in that I won't be happy until I have 100 spells of each level up to 15th. I have 5 different light spells and 7 different Fly spells, one which causes glittery butterfly wings to spring from the caster's back and makes a rainbow trail behind him as he flies. |
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Jan 27, 2015 11:15:30 GMT -6
I actually like for some spells to be of doubtful utility. Take the 3rd-level spell, Omar's Mistake: Range: 60ft Duration: 1d6 days The subject’s eyes glow, and glass rattles when he is within 20ft. Dogs flee from him, cats are attracted into his presence. Members of the opposite sex have a 1% chance to be affected as if by a charm person spell, and members of the same sex have a 1% chance to attack him for no reason. The spell’s subject finds the color blue objectionable, and he may steal shiny items. If that can't be one of my 100 Vancian magic spells, then life has no meaning. I, for one, have no use for a spell like this. IMHO, while amusing, it is a waste of space in a D&D rulebook. When will players ever select it? The 1% thing looks like a rolling nightmare in cities. I have always seen D&D magic and D&D magic users as people who approach magic in a exploitative, materialistic, utilitarian and abusive mindset. I can't find a reason to select this spell over any of the other, very powerful 3rd level spells. Or the reason is, in the best case, super narrow. I can be convinced otherwise! |
|
