|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 25, 2019 0:38:08 GMT -6
I've tried a couple of games by now without clerics, and simply giving magic-users access to all spells, and allowing them to wear whatever armor they wish, but they have to roll against their armor's AC to cast successfully if they do. Turning undead is covered by giving that to elves (who still only get MU spells). It's been a lot of fun, and I haven't really noticed any game-changing balance issues with this method; but then again, none of the magic-users have ever moved past 6th level, so I'm not too sure about the high end of things. Lately, though, I've been pondering putting clerics back in, partially because nobody ever puts their MU in armor. Undead turning would still be moved over to the rare elves, and clerics would learn and cast magic exactly like magic-users: that is, they have access to both lists, but must record their learned spells into a spell book. This would essentially mean that clerics are fighter/magic-user hybrids who level much faster, but in the longterm fall behind the classic MU in terms of number and level of spells. Here's a breakdown of spells per level for each class as they appear in the 3 LBBs, based on experience point gains: | xp | cleric | magic-user | | 0 | 0 | 1 | | 1.5k | 1 | " "
| | 2.5k | " "
| 2 | 3k
| 2 | " "
| | 5k | " "
| 3/1 | | 6k | 2/1 | " "
| | 10k | " "
| 4/2 | | 12k | 2/2 | " " | | 20k | " "
| 4/2/1 | | 25k | 2/2/1/1 | " "
| | 35k | " "
| 4/2/2 | | 50k | 2/2/2/1/1 | 4/3/2/1 | | 75k | " "
| 4/3/3/2 | | 100k | 2/2/2/2/2 | 4/3/3/2/1 | | 200k | 3/3/3/2/2 | 4/4/3/3/2 | | 300k | 3/3/3/3/3 | 4/4/4/3/3 | | 400k | 4/4/4/3/3 | 4/4/4/4/4/1 | | 500k | 4/4/4/4/4 | 5/5/5/4/4/2 | | etc. | etc. | etc. |
You'll notice that our MU generally stays ahead of the game in terms of how many spells he can cast of any given level, but our cleric gets access to 5th level spells much earlier (50,000xp vs 100,000xp), and then it's a long road to 400,000xp when our MU finally starts outpacing the cleric in 5th level spells, plus access to 6th level spells. If both classes get access to all spells regardless of list, would this actually constitute a problem? I haven't put too much thought into the possible what-if scenarios, but I'm inclined to just leave the spell gain tables as they are and assume everything will be okay in terms of class 'balance'. Has anyone thought about this or tried something like it? |
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Sept 25, 2019 13:38:59 GMT -6
I had considered lumping all of the spells into one list and being done with the cleric, but not with the having magic-users in armor or using the cleric progression as you proposed.
Glad to hear you are having success with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 25, 2019 14:07:04 GMT -6
I had given this some thought but decided against it. In fact, I once played with even more spell lists: Using spell lists by "magic school" (taken from AD&D) rather than class.
Funnily that'd give a necromancer the healing spells of the cleric, which are of the necromancy school and reversible. It was an interesting implication about the morality of necromancy and led to fanatic white (healers) and black (defilers) necromancy in our game - and those who just used the schools power for whatever goals they had, being the grey necromancers.
We felt that a smaller spell list and more focus on one school of magic made for an interesting change and forced some players to be more creative with their spells. The ref would usually be more willing to apply a broader range of possible effects to most spells, as long as the caster could explain it.
We never played to higher levels but were planning to allow some kind of secondary school at some point, or an even greater focus in exchange for more spells per day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 25, 2019 14:12:50 GMT -6
Funnily that'd give a necromancer the healing spells of the cleric, which are of the necromancy school and reversible. It was an interesting implication about the morality of necromancy and led to fanatic white (healers) and black (defilers) necromancy in our game - and those who just used the schools power for whatever goals they had, being the grey necromancers. If I organized spells into school lists rather than class lists, this is exactly how I'd handle it! I like the idea of having 'necromancy' draw heavily on its etymological root and being the power of both life and death—maybe a bit like the Light and Dark sides of the Force being treated as a single powers list given to all Jedi. |
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Sept 28, 2019 21:59:29 GMT -6
I have considered the idea of an OD&D/Swords and Wizardry rules "hack" for a Barsoom/sword and sorcery-inspired setting, in which there is one spell list combining Cleric and Magic-User spells (but not necessarily including ALL standard spells).
Cleric-types aren't really a thing in these kinds of stories. Even when the *effects* are there (Xaltotun being raised from the dead in "The Hour of the Dragon", for example, or the Lotharians in "Thuvia, Maid of Mars" surviving by psionically creating food and water) they aren't separated from the more standard magic (or psionics, in the Barsoom stories).
The MU (probably renamed, but same mechanics) would have full access. The Cleric "replacement" class would gain spells much more slowly than an OD&D Cleric, in exchange for getting attack spells.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 28, 2019 23:43:35 GMT -6
I've tried a couple of games by now without clerics, and simply giving magic-users access to all spells, and allowing them to wear whatever armor they wish, but they have to roll against their armor's AC to cast successfully if they do. Turning undead is covered by giving that to elves (who still only get MU spells). It's been a lot of fun, and I haven't really noticed any game-changing balance issues with this method; but then again, none of the magic-users have ever moved past 6th level, so I'm not too sure about the high end of things. Lately, though, I've been pondering putting clerics back in, partially because nobody ever puts their MU in armor. Undead turning would still be moved over to the rare elves, and clerics would learn and cast magic exactly like magic-users: that is, they have access to both lists, but must record their learned spells into a spell book. This would essentially mean that clerics are fighter/magic-user hybrids who level much faster, but in the longterm fall behind the classic MU in terms of number and level of spells. Here's a breakdown of spells per level for each class as they appear in the 3 LBBs, based on experience point gains: | xp | cleric | magic-user | | 0 | 0 | 1 | | 1.5k | 1 | " "
| | 2.5k | " "
| 2 | 3k
| 2 | " "
| | 5k | " "
| 3/1 | | 6k | 2/1 | " "
| | 10k | " "
| 4/2 | | 12k | 2/2 | " " | | 20k | " "
| 4/2/1 | | 25k | 2/2/1/1 | " "
| | 35k | " "
| 4/2/2 | | 50k | 2/2/2/1/1 | 4/3/2/1 | | 75k | " "
| 4/3/3/2 | | 100k | 2/2/2/2/2 | 4/3/3/2/1 | | 200k | 3/3/3/2/2 | 4/4/3/3/2 | | 300k | 3/3/3/3/3 | 4/4/4/3/3 | | 400k | 4/4/4/3/3 | 4/4/4/4/4/1 | | 500k | 4/4/4/4/4 | 5/5/5/4/4/2 | | etc. | etc. | etc. |
You'll notice that our MU generally stays ahead of the game in terms of how many spells he can cast of any given level, but our cleric gets access to 5th level spells much earlier (50,000xp vs 100,000xp), and then it's a long road to 400,000xp when our MU finally starts outpacing the cleric in 5th level spells, plus access to 6th level spells. If both classes get access to all spells regardless of list, would this actually constitute a problem? I haven't put too much thought into the possible what-if scenarios, but I'm inclined to just leave the spell gain tables as they are and assume everything will be okay in terms of class 'balance'. Has anyone thought about this or tried something like it? I like the idea, but the cleric advancement doesn't sit quite right with me. Part of the balance of their fast advancement is that cleric spells are less powerful as MU spells, except for the very small subset of spells that are on both lists but are given to clerics at a lower level - really, the major standout is Hold Person, but even this isn't that big of a win for the cleric since Sleep is a 1st-level MU spell that performs a similar function. Incidentally, this is something you would have to resolve when combining lists: is Hold Person a 2nd-level spell or a 3rd-level spell? And of course, this goes both ways; the MU list has Continual Light and Locate Object at a lower level than the cleric list. But generally, there's no contest between the raw power of MU-exclusive spells vs. cleric-exclusive spells. Cure Light Wounds can undo a hit, but Sleep or Charm Person can end or avoid an entire battle, and Hold Portal can secure an escape from faster pursuers without having to drop a sack of loot (and more effective, since treasure only has a chance of distracting enemies). Similarly, Find Traps is a great cleric spell for its level, but on the other hand the MU can use Knock to safely open up that trapped door, Phantasmal Forces can scare off an encounter or convince them to parley, and whereas Find Traps performs a function that can be non-magically accomplished by thieves, dwarfs, and/or prodding with 10' poles - albeit with assured success and noiselessly - the MU gets Detect Invisible, which no one else has any way of doing at all unless they have an external reason for suspecting an invisible object in a specific location and do a meticulous manual search. Ditto for 3rd-level spells - clerics get two spells that the MU already knows, plus Remove Curse and Cure Disease, while the MU gets a plethora of awesome spells. The wonky cleric spell advancement would also be a slap in the face to MUs between 25K and 50K experience - the cleric would get access to powerful 4th level spells before the MU, in addition to wearing armor, getting a modest selection of weapons, and having on average something like 60% more hit points. I might favor something more like the BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia advancement for clerics; see the table below, comparing BECMI cleric advancement to LBB magic-user advancement. I also included the alternative BECMI-style HD since I've always found it anomalous that the LBB tables allow the MU to catch up to to cleric in hit points, and even surpass the cleric by 11th level. | Experience | Cleric Spells | MU Spells | Cleric HD | MU HD | | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 or 1d6 | 1 or 1d4 | | 1500 | 1 | 1 | 2 or 2d6 | 1 or 1d4 | | 2500 | 1 | 2 | 2 or 2d6
| 1+1 or 2d4 | | 3000 | 2 | 2 | 3 or 3d6 | 1+1 or 2d4
| | 5000 | 2 | 3/1 | 3 or 3d6 | 2 or 3d4 | | 6000 | 2/1 | 3/1 | 4 or 4d6 | 2 or 3d4 | | 10,000 | 2/1 | 4/2 | 4 or 4d6 | 2+1 or 4d4 | | 12,000 | 2/2 | 4/2 | 4+1 or 5d6 | 2+1 or 4d4 | | 20,000 | 2/2 | 4/2/1 | 4+1 or 5d6 | 3 or 5d4 | | 25,000 | 2/2/1 | 4/2/1 | 5 or 6d6 | 3 or 5d4 | | 35,000 | 2/2/1 | 4/2/2 | 5 or 6d6 | 3+1 or 6d4 | | 50,000 | 3/2/2 | 4/3/2/1 | 6 or 7d6 | 4 or 7d4 | | 75,000 | 3/2/2 | 4/3/2/2 | 6 or 7d6 | 5 or 8d4 | | 100,000 | 3/3/2/1 | 4/3/3/2/1 | 7 or 8d6 | 6+1 or 9d4 | | 200,000 | 3/3/3/2 | 4/4/3/3/2 | 7+1 or 9d6 | 7 or 10d4 | | 300,000 | 4/4/3/2/1 | 4/4/4/3/3 | 7+2 or 9d6+1 | 8+1 or 11d4 |
I think it still maintains an acceptable progression for the cleric so that he's not excessively held back, but is still suitably slower at gaining spells than the dedicated magic-user who didn't learn how to use armor, maces, hammers, flails, etc. Another random thought would be that you could add an actual spell for turning undead, so magic-users and clerics would both have the ability to do so, but only if they memorized that particular spell today. Possibly more than one spell, with the basic 1st-level version functioning at the Acolyte level of ability, a 2nd-level version working as per the Village Priest column, 3rd-level as per Bishop, and 4th-level as per Patriarch. Having a slightly better than 50/50 shot at scaring off a vampire, automatically shooing away mummies and specters, and destroying up to 2d6 lesser undead doesn't seem overpowered to me when compared to Wall of Fire, Charm Monster, and Confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Sept 29, 2019 19:13:30 GMT -6
“Need” is a strong word. Try a unitary spell list out in your next campaign I guess.
Here: maybe you can turn cleric spells into rituals that take time to perform but any lawful guy with a ritual book can do them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Oct 19, 2019 10:52:00 GMT -6
“Need” is a strong word. Try a unitary spell list out in your next campaign I guess. Here: maybe you can turn cleric spells into rituals that take time to perform but any lawful guy with a ritual book can do them? True, it is strong. I didn't mean it as a qualitative word, just as a word. What I'm pondering is whether it's simply by force of habit that we default to keeping them separate, and that certain spells should belong only to one list or the other. I've started running a game for my nephews, exploring the mystical dungeons beneath Disneyland. We're a few sessions in, and so far we've been playing with a simplified version of my usual OD&D house rules—you're either a wizard or a warrior, and if you're a wizard you get access to all spells—but I've been pondering how to take our house rules forward as they become more familiar. While pondering I've noticed that there are certain systems and game truths that I never realized I had a knee-jerk reaction against changing, nor have I ever heard of anyone else changing them. One is changing the level table for fighters. In my experience it seems that the most constant complaints about overall weakness and player disinterest are leveled against the 'boring' fighter, and I think I could resolve most of those issues simply by allowing the fighter to use the cleric or thief xp table (or even better, say at a 1,000xp base); but then my gut tells me I shouldn't mess with the canonical xp table, and that the fighter needs to require 25% more xp than the cleric to advance. I've never heard of anyone else trying that approach either, which leads me to believe I'm not the only one who has a sort of deference for the canonical 1.25/1.5/2/2.5 xp ratio between classes. Another, which is this conversation, is that in my head the magic classes can go one of two ways: either you have magic-users and clerics with separate spell lists, or you just have magic-users and give them all spells. I've played both ways, and both work just fine. But, when I think of keeping both classes but losing the spell lists, it just seems wrong. You have either one magic class, or two classes with different spells. Having both classes with no spell restrictions feels uncomfortable, like it's going to break some important aspect of the game. I don't think it's just me either: I've seen others run without clerics (with or without cleric spells for the magic-user), but I've never heard of anyone giving clerics magic-user spells. The only thing is, I'm not sure it really will. The classes advance differently, receive different numbers of spells at different levels, and have different fighting capabilities. One can make magical things and the other can turn undead. Would it really be a game breaker if a cleric can learn invisibility and fireball? |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Oct 19, 2019 10:55:20 GMT -6
It sounds like a marvelous campaign idea. I also like the lower XP thresholds for fighters. If you look at abilities vs XP, you might actually want to switch clerics and fighters.
|
|
