So, which extra spells are worth including?

[Zulgyan]

We have been discussing why magic missile should not be included in the game.

Are there other spells in Greyhawk or other sources worth the inclusion? Which spells make OD&D a better game?

I'll go over the magic-user spells of greyhawk and draw some fast conclusions:

1st Level
Magic Missile - NO
Shield - with no MM, this spell makes much less sense. It also messes up with the OD&D AC system. NO
Ventriloquism - could be considered a worthy inclusion.

2nd level
Darkness, 5' r. - could be.
Strength - HELL NO! the beginning of the "buff" madness. I hate this kind of spells.
Web - this makes the Staff of Wizardry much less interesting and unique.
Mirror Image - i have always loved this spell.
Magic Mouth - a fun, but silly IMO spell, that could get into the list.
Pyrotechnics - interesting, but a bit boring IMO. Gotta think.

3rd level
Explosive Runes - could be included.
Rope Trick - never liked this silly spell and the "hide in another dimension" stuff.
Suggestion - Charm person is already stronger than this spell if you follow the M&M description literary. So, NO.
Monster Summoning I - could be included.

4th level
Ice Storm - is this spell really nessesary if you have Wall of Ice?
Fear - I like this spell very much.
Monster Summoning II - could be included.
Extension I - never liked this kind of spells that help spells.

5th level
Monster Summoning III - could be included.
Extension II - nah.

6th level
Legend Lore - thought decision.
Repulsion - i really like this spell
Monster Summoning IV - could be included
Extension III - nah


7th, 8th and 9th level spells are not my cup of tea.

[coffee]

zulgyan said:

Are there other spells in Greyhawk or other sources worth the inclusion? Which spells make OD&D a better game?

Here's my opinion; your mileage may vary...

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Don't add any spells to the mix to begin with. There are rules included for player characters to research their own spells: Let them do so.

If you want a certain spell to exist in your campaign, you can always plant it on a scroll or in an enemy's spell books (the latter of which also allows you to use the spell on them before they get it...)


(Please note by the way that I am of the school of thought that the above are the ONLY three ways players get new spells -- there's nothing automatic about it. Just because they've made 3rd level and can now cast a 2nd level spell doesn't mean they know a 2nd level spell!)



Anyway, that's my 2 coppers.

[Zulgyan]

I understand what you mean. But I'm really considering to completely erase certain spells. The most probable candidate: Strength.

Your insight is good.

[Falconer]

Agreed. Personally, I won’t give players access to Greyhawk. If I want to use a spell from it here and there as I please, I’ll drop it in a scroll. That’s how I would do it. I don’t have any thoughts per se on which they would be, as I would make my decisions on a very case-by-case basis. Regards.

[coffee]

zulgyan said:

I understand what you mean. But I'm really considering to completely erase certain spells. The most probable candidate: Strength.

Okay, so if I understand correctly, there are some spells that not only are not on the list, but flat out never will be? Like, the players can't even successfully research them? Oh, I see now.

That's a good idea. That gives you even more control over your game than what I was suggesting.

I'll have to think about that for a while, but right off hand I'd say I love it.

Your insight is good.

Thanks!

[Deleted]

Solid reasoning, everyone. Basically, IMC, when it comes to spells available for PC use, I control that with an iron fist--Period. My players learned long ago to never assume anything. I also agree with you on 7th, 8th, & 9th level spells, Zulgyan--not really up my alley. It's not that their NOT available, but the chances that my players will stick with their characters for that long of a time are pretty slim (we only play once or twice a month, & that's pushing it), as well as for the fact that my campaign is extremely low magic. I also practice the same method as yourself, coffee: book, research, or scroll. IMO, introducing a new, powerful spell is best served by unleashing it at the unsuspecting adventuring party...

And as for "Extension" & "Strength"--dump 'em.

[coffee]

Extension I've never understood -- but my mages preferred instant zap spells, anyway.

Strength doesn't bother me. Sure, it makes the fighter a lot stronger (and if you're using Greyhawk ability mods, it makes a huge difference). But that's one spell slot not used on any other spell, and it does have a duration.

Plus, the bad guy could have a Dispell memorized...

[WSmith]

I would stick with just what is in M&M and let them research what it is they want, or find whatever spells on scrolls that you want to provide, beyond the original. I also think some spells (like summoning and higher level spells) should be more like rituals, and be expensive in money and/or spell components. That stuff would actually be up to the referee to add at his pleasure if wanted. I wouldn't ban "x" spell forever in a blanket motion, but that is just me.

[Zulgyan]

Yes. I think I'll do it that way.

Now. If a player wants to research. Would you show them the Greyhawk list for ideas??

Also, even though you may not include Greyhawk spells in the campaign, you can use them as a tool for creating new spells. Using them as a guide of what would be balanced.

[Deleted]

Sure, I'm not opposed to that. But if the player wants her/his M-U to have those spells, they need to spend the resources to research them.

[Stonegiant]

I might not show them Greyhawk for ideas just to see what their own imagination would create and thus give you an idea on what way they want to take their spellcaster. YMMV.

[coffee]

I agree; there's no reason to channel their ideas along Greyhawk lines.

Back when I first ran GURPS, I didn't give my players any lists of skills; I wanted to see what they would come up with. (And, as a result, I don't run GURPS any more. But that's another story...)