|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 13, 2024 19:32:48 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? I know that I like the idea of moving it.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 14, 2024 2:07:09 GMT -6
I've moved the last half-dozen, cleric-spell-related posts from the GD&D topic to here. [Guidon D&D thread is here --- Zenopus]
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 14, 2024 2:32:40 GMT -6
Thanks waysoftheearth. Malchor - I don't suppose you have any insight from the drafts you've seen as to the error in the Cleric spell advancement table introduced sometime between GD&D and the rules as published? For example, is there a version of the original table which has been ammended by hand to the published version, or is there an intermediate version? I know it's esoteric, but I'm quite interested as it's a broken rule still in play widely today - in OD&D and B/X and all(?) clones of the pair - including my own current campaign.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 14, 2024 2:50:37 GMT -6
...it's a broken rule still in play widely today - in OD&D and B/X and all(?) clones of the pair - including my own current campaign. FWIW, I just checked Delving Deeper, and both v4 and v5 (despite their other flaws) have cleric spell progressions close to Bufkin's. v5 has exactly (i think?) what you proposed upthread, at least to level 8.
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 14, 2024 3:31:12 GMT -6
...it's a broken rule still in play widely today - in OD&D and B/X and all(?) clones of the pair - including my own current campaign. FWIW, I just checked Delving Deeper, and both v4 and v5 (despite their other flaws) have cleric spell progressions close to Bufkin's. v5 has exactly (i think?) what you proposed upthread, at least to level 8. S&W and OSE have the glitch copied from OD&D and B/X. Delving Deeper from what I can see has had a different spell progression from day one. From one of your old posts you say "WB clerical spell progression is very close to the original, while DD's is SRD-based (same total number of spells per day in each)."
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 14, 2024 4:03:17 GMT -6
That quote must be from a while back I suspect it refers to DD4, which was SRD- based for sure (because the SRD was what WotC allowed OGL games to copy). Still, the v4 spell table coincidentally differs from BTPbD by only 1 spell at each of 6th and 8th levels (the latter being your recommended change from 2 to 1 5th level spell). Above 8th level, I agree DD4 differs more; at 12th level a DD4 cleric ends up with the same spells as an 11th level LBB cleric). Fun times
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Feb 14, 2024 6:53:53 GMT -6
Thanks waysoftheearth . Malchor - I don't suppose you have any insight from the drafts you've seen as to the error in the Cleric spell advancement table introduced sometime between GD&D and the rules as published? For example, is there a version of the original table which has been ammended by hand to the published version, or is there an intermediate version? I know it's esoteric, but I'm quite interested as it's a broken rule still in play widely today - in OD&D and B/X and all(?) clones of the pair - including my own current campaign. Clean typing there for the cleric. Only ambiguity is what was noted for the MU.
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 14, 2024 10:14:55 GMT -6
Thanks waysoftheearth . Malchor - I don't suppose you have any insight from the drafts you've seen as to the error in the Cleric spell advancement table introduced sometime between GD&D and the rules as published? For example, is there a version of the original table which has been ammended by hand to the published version, or is there an intermediate version? I know it's esoteric, but I'm quite interested as it's a broken rule still in play widely today - in OD&D and B/X and all(?) clones of the pair - including my own current campaign. Clean typing there for the cleric. Only ambiguity is what was noted for the MU. For clarity - you mean it's clear typing in the GD&D draft, and you've not seen any other versions of the table except BTBbD and published OD&D?
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 14, 2024 22:39:50 GMT -6
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 After reading and pondering all of the stuff in this thread, I am leaning towards this as the best solution.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 15, 2024 0:16:12 GMT -6
I agree it's an appealing change. My niggling doubts with it would be that 22222 appears in GD&D, BTPbD, and D&D, but not here, and that the cleric would then suddenly gain 4 spells at level 9, compared to 1 spell each level up to 6th, then 2 spells per level up to 11th, then alternating between 3 lower spells or 2 higher level spells per level thereafter. So... 4 would be the lone outlier. joenuttall could you elaborate on what you meant by "as Gary intended" at the bottom of the quote in geoffrey's last post? Is there some other reference or evidence behind this?
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 15, 2024 13:39:42 GMT -6
joenuttall could you elaborate on what you meant by "as Gary intended" at the bottom of the quote in geoffrey's last post? Is there some other reference or evidence behind this? I only mean that I believe that Gary's intention when he added the 1s was in order to smooth out the progression (and he had no other motive). I think that's the simplest interpretation. The evidence is that (1) it had the effect of smoothing out the progression, and (2) when anyone sees the table without the 1s added they say "hey, why does it jump straight to 2". So all purely opinion and conjecture...
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Feb 15, 2024 13:54:30 GMT -6
My niggling doubts with it would be that 22222 appears in GD&D, BTPbD, and D&D, but not here, and that the cleric would then suddenly gain 4 spells at level 9, compared to 1 spell each level up to 6th, then 2 spells per level up to 11th, then alternating between 3 lower spells or 2 higher level spells per level thereafter. So... 4 would be the lone outlier. I think that any change would always leave doubts - if Gary had noticed this perhaps he would have rewritten the table, as he did for AD&D and Frank did for BECMI. You could make the table less irregular by changing 9th level spells to 33222. But several OD&D tables are quite irregular, so I wouldn't say Gary was that bothered by irregularities. Amusingly, on page 536 of those legal documents you can read that Gary thought that you could certainly tell John Snider "is a mathematician rather than an english-literature type person". I think from reading OD&D we can certainly tell that Gary was the reverse!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 15, 2024 16:21:05 GMT -6
You could make the table less irregular by changing 9th level spells to 33222. Yes, I think 2222 1 at 8th and 33 222 at 9th is the likely progression I will adopt for dd5.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 16, 2024 12:30:29 GMT -6
The one thing that I am absolutely sure of is that the cleric's spell progression (in both OD&D and AD&D) is a mess, such that there is no perfect fix. That said, I am leaning towards adopting the following clerical spell progression (levels 1-8 taken from joenuttall, levels 9-20 taken from GREYHAWK, and levels 21-29 extrapolated from GREYHAWK by myself) for my "OD&D-style AD&D campaign":
1st: ------- 2nd: 1------ 3rd: 2------ 4th: 21----- 5th: 22----- 6th: 221---- 7th: 2221--- 8th: 22221-- 9th: 33322-- 10th: 33333-- 11th: 44433-- 12th: 444441- 13th: 555441- 14th: 555552- 15th: 666552- 16th: 666663- 17th: 7776631 18th: 7777741 19th: 8887742 20th: 8888852 21st: 9998853 22nd: 9999963 23rd: 9999964 24th: 9999974 25th: 9999975 26th: 9999985 27th: 9999986 28th: 9999996 29th: 9999997
(Interestingly, my 28th and 29th levels end up identical to those in the AD&D Players Handbook.)
|
|
|
Post by peelseel2 on Mar 6, 2024 17:56:59 GMT -6
Here is the Cleric spell progression from the OD&D court case draft:
Draft from court case Title HD FC 1 2 3 4 5 Acolyte 1 Man – – – – – Adept 2 Man +1 1 – – – – Village Priest 3 2 Men 2 – – – – Vicar 4 3 Men 2 1 – – – Curate 4+1 3 Men +1 2 2 – – – Bishop 5 Hero –1 2 2 1 1 – Lama 6 Hero 2 2 2 1 1 Patriarch 7 Hero +1 2 2 2 2 2
Here it is from the 1st print: 1st Print Title HD FC 1 2 3 4 5 Acolyte 1 Man – – – – – Adept 2 Man +1 1 – – – – Village Priest 3 2 Men 2 – – – – Vicar 4 3 Men 2 1 – – – Curate 4+1 3 Men +1 2 2 – – – Bishop 5 Hero –1 2 2 1 – – Lama 6 Hero 2 2 2 1 – Patriarch 7 Hero +1 2 2 2 2 2
I am afraid it does not clear much up.
|
|
|
Post by joenuttall on Mar 7, 2024 2:46:35 GMT -6
I am afraid it does not clear much up. It confirms that it's the same as in BTPbD, which is what we guessed and then Jon confirmed.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Mar 14, 2024 18:06:11 GMT -6
Nothing enlightening to add, just that to my mind, the double-level gain in OD&D is probably a typo because it happens nowhere else in D&D, strengthened by the apparent intention of 5th level spells requiring 8th character level. Likewise, I suspect the two-slots gain for 5th level spells in the Guidon/PTPBD table is probably a typo, for the same reason: I don't think gaining a new spell level with 2 slots right away happens anywhere else in D&D, which is exactly why it draws attention to itself. My guess is the Patriarch line was supposed to read 22221 (or maybe 22211, like geoffrey figures it).
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Mar 18, 2024 8:57:28 GMT -6
EDIT: Please see Analysis of 0e Spell Progressions thread . . . thank you
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Mar 18, 2024 14:52:26 GMT -6
EDIT: Please see Analysis of 0e Spell Progressions thread . . . thank you
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Mar 18, 2024 15:14:39 GMT -6
EDIT: Please see Analysis of 0e Spell Progressions thread . . . thank you
|
|