|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 6, 2024 16:01:06 GMT -6
The Cleric Spell progression table in OD&D is odd - you gain 3rd and 4th level spells at the same time (6th level) - something which is not carried forward into AD&D. It is preserved in B/X, but changed in BECMI.
Whenever I've looked at the table I've pondered why it's like that - it seems a very odd choice.
This evening I was looking at a pdf of the "Beyond This Point be Dragons" manuscript (found in a box in M.A.R. Barker's garage by Keith Dallhun, this is a retyped version of Gary's 1973 draft). Since only fragments remain of Gary's draft we can't be sure about specific content, but it seems highly probable that the Cleric spell chart from BTPbD is taken directly from the D&D draft.
The MU spell progression in BTPbD is almost identical to that in Men & Magic - there are a three variations in the 2s, 3s and 4s but these are minor tweaks.
In contrast the Cleric spell progression is:
-----
1----
2----
21---
22---
221--
2221-
22222
So that's almost exactly the OD&D progression but with the 1s that don't fit removed. Hence it seems highly plausible to me that the differences are an error in Men & Magic - that the odd progression in ODD is not on purpose. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 6, 2024 19:36:04 GMT -6
Yep. The d**n thing is a typo. A line of numbers must have been accidentally dropped from the cleric spell progression. The cleric's spell progression in BTPBD is the smoking gun, but there is also some circumstantial evidence. Consider: If 7th-level clerics were supposed to gain access to 5th-level spells, then why does their spell power for raise dead and create food not increase when the cleric becomes 8th level (but increases at every level thereafter)? The texts of these two spells hint that 5th-level spells were supposed to be first acquired at 8th level. Assuming that the 1974 cleric spell progression has an error sheds light on the unusual jump for 6th-level clerics. Why in the world would they acquire not only the ability to cast 3rd but also 4th-level spells? Here is the 1974 spell progression: 1st: none 2nd: 1 3rd: 2 4th: 2,1 5th: 2,2 6th: 2,2,1,1 7th: 2,2,2,1,1 8th: 2,2,2,2,2 9th: 3,3,3,2,2 10th: 3,3,3,3,3 But if we assume that a 6th-level cleric's allotted spells should have been 2,2,1, then by supplying that missing line (which looks to have been accidentally dropped before publication) we shift the spell progression of higher level clerics by one level. For example, a 7th-level cleric was supposed to have the (as printed in the 1974 rulebook) 6th-level cleric's allotted spells of 2,2,1,1. Let's put that in a fixed table: 1st: none 2nd: 1 3rd: 2 4th: 2,1 5th: 2,2 6th: 2,2,1 7th: 2,2,1,1 8th: 2,2,2,1,1 9th: 2,2,2,2,2 10th: 3,3,3,2,2 11th: 3,3,3,3,3 That would make better sense of the descriptions of raise dead and create food. And BTPBD proves the point. Thanks for the reference!  |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Feb 6, 2024 20:56:37 GMT -6
50 years later and we are still erratta-ing the darn LBB's.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 6, 2024 22:02:35 GMT -6
Also, it makes more sense for 5th-level spells to first be acquired when the cleric attains name level (patriarch)...which is 8th level.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 6, 2024 23:23:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 7, 2024 3:32:26 GMT -6
Also, it makes more sense for 5th-level spells to first be acquired when the cleric attains name level (patriarch)...which is 8th level. I agree that is an appealing symmetry, but shouldn't M-Us then attain 6th level spells at their own Top (aka "Name") Level or 11th? |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 7, 2024 9:31:28 GMT -6
Also, it makes more sense for 5th-level spells to first be acquired when the cleric attains name level (patriarch)...which is 8th level. I agree that is an appealing symmetry, but shouldn't M-Us then attain 6th level spells at their own Top (aka "Name") Level or 11th? Yeah, admittedly that does weaken my point. |
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 7, 2024 13:57:23 GMT -6
Thanks Geoffrey. I was prompted to write this based on your thread over at Dragonsfoot. You suggested that the obvious explanation for the strange progression was a mistake, backed up by the fact that the text makes more sense that way. I reasoned that if it was a mistake, then since I'd just learned BTPbD was almost an exact copy of a draft of D&D I should look at that for evidence - and I found it.
Now someone might have a fuller copy of that draft containing the table (I thought there were only fragments) and if so that would show if Mark Bufkin made the change or not, but...
I don't see anyone else suggesting this change in any of the many fanzine articles at the time, so it seems highly unlikely that Mark would decide to fix exactly that item we think was an error and were checking in his book.
You had a theory, from that I deduced that if it was true then it predicted something, I checked and that prediction was true.
|
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Feb 7, 2024 15:27:12 GMT -6
1st: none 2nd: 1 3rd: 2 4th: 2,1 5th: 2,2 6th: 2,2,1 7th: 2,2,1,1 8th: 2,2,2,1,1 9th: 2,2,2,2,2 10th: 3,3,3,2,2 11th: 3,3,3,3,3 I like the way this progression feels, and it also follows a nice logical flow that makes more sense than the 2,2 -> 2,2,1,1 jump. |
|
Elphilm
Level 3 Conjurer
ELpH vs. Coil
Posts: 68 
|
Post by Elphilm on Feb 7, 2024 17:07:39 GMT -6
I also like Geoffrey's suggested progression better than the printed one. Clerics no longer get access to higher level spells before M-Us -- they both get 4th and 5th level spells at 50,000 and 100,000 XP. Clerics starting without spells but catching up to M-Us feels justified, but pulling ahead of M-Us is less defensible to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 7, 2024 17:23:53 GMT -6
But do either of you prefer the version in the original D&D draft to the published one, and/or think the published one has an error?
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 7, 2024 18:05:59 GMT -6
There are (at least) two other contemporaneous sources that can easily be examined. The first is Greyhawk, p10, which extends the cleric spells per level table (albeit, from level 10 up only). If M&M p18 really was a typographical error, then the GH spells table would have been the next opportunity to correct it. However, GH duplicates the 10th level clerical spells per day exactly as in M&M. I.e., it doesn't shift everything down one row. So... either GH persists with the same error, or both are correct. The second is M&M, p19, which also explains spell progression for levels above those listed. This is similar to above, but an earlier incarnation. It says an 11th level cleric has 44433 spells, a 12th level cleric 44444, a 13th level cleric 55544, and so on. This builds upon the assumption that a 10th level cleric has 33333 spells per day, and extends the pattern in M&M p18 that begins at level 7. (Arguably, it would be nicer if this pattern started at level 8, but it is what it is). Again, it's possible that this text propagates the same error, or that both are as intended. Either way, we have three contemporaneous sources (M&M p18, M&M p19, GH p10) that all appear, at first glance, to align with one another...  |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 7, 2024 19:37:52 GMT -6
... Either way, we have three contemporaneous sources (M&M p18, M&M p19, GH p10) that all appear, at first glance, to align with one another... All true, but the implied assumption is that Gygax made a deliberate change from the draft. I think it is quite possible the change in the print version was accidental and unnoticed. These are tables of numbers and an accidental change could be easily overlooked, forgotten and incorporated in subsequent copies without ever realizing it was accidental to begin with. Could happen pretty easily I think and after a while it is hard to remember what changes you made and why you made them when it is something so unremarkable as numbers on a table. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 7, 2024 19:49:05 GMT -6
I don't have an opinion about it either way. Both arguments are plausible.
I do think a design decision like: Top level spells should be attained at the Top/name experience Level would be memorable.
|
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 8, 2024 1:18:28 GMT -6
But I'm not arguing that an extra row was added. That's not what the evidence says. The evidence is that two 1s were added by mistake.
Once the mistake is in print it is indeed persisted, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an error in copying the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesmishler on Feb 8, 2024 9:07:52 GMT -6
I figured I might check with someone who was there at the time, and here is the answer I got from Ernie Gygax (emphasis mine):
"Back in the old Greyhawk days I remember that a raise dead only occurred when someone reached patriarch at eighth level. I did not play a cleric, although later on I did have Serten, my cousin, as a cleric when everyone thought that I (Tenser), was dead with Rob and Terry when it said we taking the slide to China. After 6 months he then became an NPC for I was back to claim my goodies, and it all worked well especially well when Tenser became a lawful good mage with the crown.
"I have no concept of whether Dad did make the change on purpose or whether it was just an error and editing in the print shop but the progression as you suggest sounds very appropriate to me."
|
|
|
|
Post by atlantean on Feb 8, 2024 9:17:24 GMT -6
Question: assuming geoffrey's revised spell progression is correct (it almost certainly is), if you're running original D&D, would you change from the error in the book and use the revised table? It's gonna make some cleric unhappy.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 8, 2024 10:08:48 GMT -6
I figured I might check with someone who was there at the time, and here is the answer I got from Ernie Gygax (emphasis mine): "Back in the old Greyhawk days I remember that a raise dead only occurred when someone reached patriarch at eighth level. I did not play a cleric, although later on I did have Serten, my cousin, as a cleric when everyone thought that I (Tenser), was dead with Rob and Terry when it said we taking the slide to China. After 6 months he then became an NPC for I was back to claim my goodies, and it all worked well especially well when Tenser became a lawful good mage with the crown. "I have no concept of whether Dad did make the change on purpose or whether it was just an error and editing in the print shop but the progression as you suggest sounds very appropriate to me." Good show!  |
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 8, 2024 11:28:35 GMT -6
Question: assuming geoffrey's revised spell progression is correct (it almost certainly is), if you're running original D&D, would you change from the error in the book and use the revised table? It's gonna make some cleric unhappy. Contrariwise I'd say that the BTPbD progression is almost certainly the correct one (though the difference is slight - I think Geoffrey's guess was extremely accurate). I think I'll use that version of the table in future. |
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 8, 2024 11:39:21 GMT -6
I figured I might check with someone who was there at the time, and here is the answer I got from Ernie Gygax (emphasis mine): "Back in the old Greyhawk days I remember that a raise dead only occurred when someone reached patriarch at eighth level. I did not play a cleric, although later on I did have Serten, my cousin, as a cleric when everyone thought that I (Tenser), was dead with Rob and Terry when it said we taking the slide to China. After 6 months he then became an NPC for I was back to claim my goodies, and it all worked well especially well when Tenser became a lawful good mage with the crown. "I have no concept of whether Dad did make the change on purpose or whether it was just an error and editing in the print shop but the progression as you suggest sounds very appropriate to me." Thanks for that - great news. I've also asked Jon Peterson if he could check what was in the D&D draft that BTPbD was based on. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Feb 8, 2024 12:01:03 GMT -6
The BTPbD progression still has some weirdness going on in that it gets two 5th level spells right off the bat at eighth level, instead of the 1->2 progression every other spell level has. The "dropped line" chart looks a little more logical to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 8, 2024 12:08:43 GMT -6
The BTPbD progression still has some weirdness going on in that it gets two 5th level spells right off the bat at eighth level, instead of the 1->2 progression every other spell level has. The "dropped line" chart looks a little more logical to me. Yes, but the question is if there was an error made - which is the more likely progression that was intended to be in OD&D. It's perfectly possible that BTPbD has the draft D&D version of the table and it was then ammended to Geoffrey's version and then a line accidentally dropped. But it appears that 2 was what was originally intended. |
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Feb 8, 2024 16:34:24 GMT -6
But do either of you prefer the version in the original D&D draft to the published one, and/or think the published one has an error? Seeing what was revealed here. I definitely think the published version is in error. I'm going to use Geoffrey's progression going forward. It suits my campaign very well.Edited 2/10 - the whole discussion following is fascinating, so still considering if to alter per above or below w/Geoffrey's proposed 6/7/8th level "smoothing". |
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 9, 2024 11:12:25 GMT -6
Jon Peterson has got back to me and confirmed that the glitch was not present in the GD&D draft, which contains levels 1-8. He says "There are a number of anomalies that resulted from increasing the level count in OD&D from draft material."
I've asked for clarification, but a reasonable interpretation (given that the Raise Dead text shows Gary did not intend it to be available before level 8) is that he made an error when he was adding levels 9 and 10 to the table. So it appears there was no intermediate 11-level version of the table from which a row was subsequently removed in error.
The changes made to the table were the addition of two rows at the bottom, and also two '1's were added higher up.
Why he did this we can't be certain, but the following seems reasonable...
The 8 level version of the table tops out with 5th level spells, and so going from 0 to 2 in one jump was sensible (so that you max out with two 5th level spells). However, in the 10 level version that doesn't look sensible (e.g. many people on this thread have pointed out they prefer a version which goes from 0 to 1 to 2).
Hence when adding the 9th and 10th level rows he probably decided to smooth out the progression by adding in those two 1s, not noticing that he had accidentally broken the table.
So if you want to recapture Gary's true intention you should take the BTPbD version:
1st: -----
2nd: 1----
3rd: 2----
4th: 21---
5th: 22---
6th: 221--
7th: 2221-
8th: 22222
Add in levels 9 & 10 at the bottom (as Gary did):
1st: -----
2nd: 1----
3rd: 2----
4th: 21---
5th: 22---
6th: 221--
7th: 2221-
8th: 22222
9th: 33322
10th: 33333
Then smooth out the progression (as Gary intended) without lowering the level at which you gain spells by simply reducing by one the # of 5th level spells at 8th level:
1st: -----
2nd: 1----
3rd: 2----
4th: 21---
5th: 22---
6th: 221--
7th: 2221-
8th: 22221
9th: 33322
10th: 33333
Note this has just one difference from the published tables at levels 6th, 7th, and 8th and still tops out at 10th (as clearly intended by Gary).
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 9, 2024 16:45:11 GMT -6
Jon Peterson has got back to me and confirmed that the glitch was not present in the GD&D draft, which contains levels 1-8. He says "There are a number of anomalies that resulted from increasing the level count in OD&D from draft material." I've asked for clarification... If and when he replies, please share. |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Feb 12, 2024 20:06:16 GMT -6
Wow. Nice one. There is a recent topic discussing the cleric spells per day table, which speculates about whether BTPbD reproduces the draft exactly, or includes its own edits. Any chance you could post an image (or text reproduction) of the draft's cleric spells table, either here or over in the other topic? (Draft M-U spells table would be interesting too!) BTPbD is word for word same as the draft in many places. In fact, one research trick I have is to check inventory lists for "leather sack," it's a tell the work is based on the draft. Cleric Spells, differences from OD&D 1974: 1st level: Light is listed before Detect Evil, no Protection from Evil at this level. 2nd level: Protection from Evil listed after Find Traps, followed by Bless, then Hold Person, no Speak with Animals. 3rd level: Order of Locate Object and Continual Light are reversed. 4th level: Only the first three listed in M&M are listed here, no others. 5th level:Only the first three listed in M&M are listed here, no others. MU spells: 1st level: Read Magic and Read Languages are one combined spell, and there is no Sleep. 2nd level: Detect Invisible is Detect Invisible Objects, no Knock. 3rd level: list ends with Invisibility 10' r. 4th level: list ends with Charm Monster 5th level:No Telekinesis, ends with Contact Higher Plane. No 6th level spells Also, above 11th level, animate dead ca n Raise Dead. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 13, 2024 11:54:58 GMT -6
Page 18 of 1974's Men & Magic has a table of the number and spell-level of spells that a cleric can memorize per day, as follows:
1st-level cleric: none
2nd-level cleric: 1
3rd-level cleric: 2
4th-level cleric: 2,1
5th-level cleric: 2,2
6th-level cleric: 2,2,1,1
7th-level cleric: 2,2,2,1,1
8th-level cleric: 2,2,2,2,2
9th-level cleric: 3,3,3,2,2
10th-level cleric: 3,3,3,3,3
How does the Guidon D&D draft differ from that, or is it identical?
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 13, 2024 16:37:40 GMT -6
Page 18 of 1974's Men & Magic has a table of the number and spell-level of spells that a cleric can memorize per day, as follows: 1st-level cleric: none 2nd-level cleric: 1 3rd-level cleric: 2 4th-level cleric: 2,1 5th-level cleric: 2,2 6th-level cleric: 2,2,1,1 7th-level cleric: 2,2,2,1,1 8th-level cleric: 2,2,2,2,2 9th-level cleric: 3,3,3,2,2 10th-level cleric: 3,3,3,3,3 How does the Guidon D&D draft differ from that, or is it identical? Thanks Geoffrey; this is also what I was asking after upthread |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Feb 13, 2024 18:16:34 GMT -6
Page 18 of 1974's Men & Magic has a table of the number and spell-level of spells that a cleric can memorize per day, as follows: 1st-level cleric: none 2nd-level cleric: 1 3rd-level cleric: 2 4th-level cleric: 2,1 5th-level cleric: 2,2 6th-level cleric: 2,2,1,1 7th-level cleric: 2,2,2,1,1 8th-level cleric: 2,2,2,2,2 9th-level cleric: 3,3,3,2,2 10th-level cleric: 3,3,3,3,3 How does the Guidon D&D draft differ from that, or is it identical? First, sorry waysoftheearth for misunderstanding your question. The cleric spells per day progression in Guidon is identical to Bufkin's Beyond This Point Be Dragons. The MU spells per day progression is the same as well, with one hiccup. For the 10th level of MU, for 2nd level spells, it looks like Gary typed a 3 and 4 in the same spot. For the copy I have, it is hard to tell which was intended. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 13, 2024 18:51:07 GMT -6
The cleric spells per day progression in Guidon is identical to Bufkin's Beyond This Point Be Dragons. The MU spells per day progression is the same as well, with one hiccup. For the 10th level of MU, for 2nd level spells, it looks like Gary typed a 3 and 4 in the same spot. For the copy I have, it is hard to tell which was intended. This is exactly what we needed to know, thanks Malchor I wonder whether we should move these last few posts over into the other topic? |
|
