Strict OD&D: Cleric Spell Books?

[cyclopeatron]

This weekend I was reading M&M and I noticed that it says explicitly that OD&D clerics use spell books just like magic users.

This was a wonderful revelation to me! One of my favorite aspects of D&D is the Vancian spell book. Having magic users quest for scrolls, books, and mentors in order to expand their magical repertoire is always a major, if not central, character motivation in the games I run.

I relish the thought of applying this mechanism to clerics as well. Searching the planet for lost prayers, meditations, inscriptions, and holy books in hopes of gaining the ability to invoke favors from ancient, and possibly forgotten, supernatural beings would add a lot of fun and mystery to a campaign. I also think it makes things a lot less technical and gamey than every cleric simply picking the same old spells from the same old list before every game session. Certain orders or cults would of course have their favorite holy books with selected canonical spells and prayers. What good cleric wouldn't want to bring back new invocations for their order to add to their canon?

As far as I can tell, the clerical spell book first was discarded by Holmes. I am disappointed that none of the editions of Swords & Wizardry, including the so-called "White Box" edition, use traditional OD&D clerical spell books. Does anyone else have any insight on how/when/why the clerical spell books were abandoned?

Tomorrow I am switching one of my campaigns over to clerical spell books. I am curious if anyone else out there has been playing using the traditional OD&D clerical spell books as well...?

[tombowings]

Your right, cyclopeatron. Page 34 of M&M certainly seems to imply that both clerics and magic-users have books of spells. Good find!

[Deleted]

Hmm ... there were editorial changes over the various editions but though my copy of M&M contains an implicit reference to cleric spell books on page 35, I cannot find an explicit one.

Is page 35 the reference of which you speak, or is there another?

[cyclopeatron]

Page 34, under "BOOKS OF SPELLS":

"Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level."

Further...

"Loss of these books will require replacement..."

The term "...acquire books..." has adventure written all over it.

From my casual reading, M&M seems to make little or no distinction between MU and clerical magic systems beyond simply having different lists of spells. This includes the Vancian casting mechanism, the Magical Research rules, and the requirement for spell books.

[snorri]

M&M, p.34 "Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level."

I think this is all, but tis is fairly clear enough: it apply to all spellcasters, they got access to all spells known, and one tome contain all spells for that level. I think this is the reference you checked, DB?

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2010 15:08:45 GMT -6 cyclopeatron said:

I am curious if anyone else out there has been playing using the traditional OD&D clerical spell books as well...?

To answer your question. . .

I considered that approach when I started my campaign (way back in the 1970's) but discarded the approach. Not, mind you, because I thought it was a bad idea.

The Cleric is an accepted class among fantasy role-players now, but back then there was a bit of confusion regarding the archetype. I decided to avoid Cleric spell-books as a way of highlighting to the players the differences between the two classes. It also, if memory serves, helped convince a few to take the class.

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2010 15:51:10 GMT -6 cyclopeatron said:

Page 34, under "BOOKS OF SPELLS":

"Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level."

Further...

"Loss of these books will require replacement..."

The term "...acquire books..." has adventure written all over it.

From my casual reading, M&M seems to make little or no distinction between MU and clerical magic systems beyond simply having different lists of spells. This includes the Vancian casting mechanism, the Magical Research rules, and the requirement for spell books.

Ah, thanks. That seems a bit more of an implicit statement to my reading but I can certainly understand your interpretation.

I've already basically answered your question about use of cleric spell books in my campaign so I won't repeat it with this post. Instead, I'll reinforce my oft-stated position:

Play the game your way! The "world" works the way you (or your ref) says it does.

[Random]

I use spell books for clerics. It ties in superbly, perfectly even, with the way I handle spell books in general.

(Yes, I had been aware of this passage for a while. I think it may have come up around here in the past if I'm not mistaken.)

[Finarvyn]

Well, my page 35 is a full-page drawing, so I know that it can't be what has everybody excited.

Here's the quote that Snorri suggested:

M&M, p.34 "Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level" (emphasis mine)

Hmmm. Don't remember that part being in there, either. I think that I've always assumed that characters have one "master" book with everything copied into it.

And of course there is the mysterious use of the word "level"; are they implying that each time a character reaches a new level they need a new spellbook, or that only spells of the same level should go into a given spellbook.

[kenmeister]

Jan 18, 2010 15:08:45 GMT -6 cyclopeatron said:

As far as I can tell, the clerical spell book first was discarded by Holmes.

Clerics use spell books in Holmes.

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2010 16:31:38 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Well, my page 35 is a full-page drawing, so I know that it can't be what has everybody excited.

Mine, too. It was the power of suggestion from a previous post. The text appears on page 34.

[cyclopeatron]

Jan 18, 2010 15:55:39 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Jan 18, 2010 15:08:45 GMT -6 cyclopeatron said:

I am curious if anyone else out there has been playing using the traditional OD&D clerical spell books as well...?

To answer your question. . .

I considered that approach when I started my campaign (way back in the 1970's) but discarded the approach. Not, mind you, because I thought it was a bad idea.

The Cleric is an accepted class among fantasy role-players now, but back then there was a bit of confusion regarding the archetype. I decided to avoid Cleric spell-books as a way of highlighting to the players the differences between the two classes. It also, if memory serves, helped convince a few to take the class.

Thanks for your historical background on this. It is very interesting, and I am curious to learn more. Was it pure coincidence that you adopted the Holmes rules for clerics, or did you start your campaign with the Holmes Basic Set, or were non-book clerics a common pre-Holmes house rule?

[tombowings]

Yes, my post should have read and has now been corrected to read p34 of M&M, not p35. Sorry.

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2010 16:56:52 GMT -6 cyclopeatron said:

Thanks for your historical background on this. It is very interesting, and I am curious to learn more. Was it pure coincidence that you adopted the Holmes rules for clerics, or did you start your campaign with the Holmes Basic Set, or were non-book clerics a common pre-Holmes house rule?

My pleasure! It is always fun to discuss OD&D with a fellow enthusiast.

There was a great deal of variation between campaigns during those days. As I did not participate in more than a few, I'm not certain I may authoritatively state what was commonplace and what was not.

As a historical reference, I will point out that Gygax's stated purpose of publishing AD&D was to standardize the game for tournament purposes. He even stated in "The Dragon" (later renamed "Dragon") that OD&D was for free-form games but AD&D was expected to be played by the book or "it is not AD&D".

My main purpose, as stated previously, was to heighten awareness the Cleric was not a Magic-User. The M-U studied his spells and was capable of some pretty powerful magic, the cleric prayed for his spells and was more along the lines of LeGuin's Wizard of Earthsea.

I even changed the name of the Cleric's "spells" to "prayers" ... again, to emphasize the difference. After a while, such a change became unnecessary but lingered on by force of tradition.

I should also state how impressed I am you are looking at the original rules set with a unjaundiced eye. Some really great campaigns have been born the same way.

[Random]

Jan 18, 2010 16:31:38 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Here's the quote that Snorri suggested:

M&M, p.34 "Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level" (emphasis mine)

Hmmm. Don't remember that part being in there, either. I think that I've always assumed that characters have one "master" book with everything copied into it.

And of course there is the mysterious use of the word "level"; are they implying that each time a character reaches a new level they need a new spellbook, or that only spells of the same level should go into a given spellbook.

I make them have one book for each level of spells.
Each book weighs in at 150 gold pieces.

That may seem like it would add up to be too hard to carry, and that's because it does!
Considering that in Holmes, characters are technically forbidden to carry their books on adventures; this makes the situation similar.

Additionally, my spell books are generic and sharable, with the spells actually being "known" by the individual casters.
They just need the complicated formulae, prayers, or whatever from the spell books to really gear themselves up ("memorize") for casting.

And finally, I have special magical spell books that grant bonuses to those memorizing spells from them.

This method may seem a bit wacky, but it makes for cool situations where an entire cult memorizes spells out of the same book, kept deep within their temple. And with the cost of creating spell books, what a prize it would be to steal! (Not to mention you would cripple the cult.)

Note: Clerics I still give access to the generic list. Magic-users roll using the Greyhawk info each time they gain access to a new level of spells. Additional spells may be learned from scrolls. This also lets me use lots of spell casters without throwing access to a zillion spells at the PCs.

There, I've gone on a complete tangent.

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2010 17:07:53 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Yes, my post should have read and has now been corrected to read p34 of M&M, not p35. Sorry.

Hey, nothing to apologize for ... I should have carefully checked the reference instead of merely glancing at the page! After all, our big emphasis here is actually reading the TLBBs and not assuming what is there by virtue of our knowledge of later editions.

[Finarvyn]

Jan 18, 2010 17:07:53 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Yes, my post should have read and has now been corrected to read p34 of M&M, not p35. Sorry.

Don't apologize too much for the typo. I know that various printings of the LBB have some variations in them, and just assumed that the material on p.34 of my copy certainly could have been on p.35 in yours.

As long as we're talking about the same passage, it's cool!

[tombowings]

That's what I love about this site, everyone's so accepting.

Before posting, I went back to check my copy of M&M, a 2nd printing, and it is indeed on page 34.

Since mine was the first post with a page number, I thought I would correct the notion as to avoid confusion.

In another note, I talked with the Cleric player in my home game and he wasn't exactly pleased with the idea of having to carry around a book. Collectively, we decided we are going to ignoring this rule, at least until the conclusion of this campaign.

[cyclopeatron]

Jan 18, 2010 16:33:00 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

Clerics use spell books in Holmes.

I can't find any reference to cleric spell books in Holmes. Could you please tell me what page you find it on?

On Page 17 under "CLERICAL SPELLS", Holmes says:
"Since clerical spells are divinely given, they do not have to be studied to master them. A second level cleric can call on any first level spell he wants to use, thus the entire gamut of spells is available to him for selection prior to the adventure."

On Page 13 there is fairly detailed discussion of the magic-user spell system, including spell books, but nothing about cleric spell books...

[capheind]

My two bits, but aren't clerics essentially warrior saints in the making? I rather like the idea of their spells being miraculous gifts from their god for the furtherance of the faith against the heathen hoards. This wouldn't preclude Mage-priests casting spells from ancient prayer books (but created as Magic-Users).

in Fact in a Vancian system where Magic texts contain the spells themselves stored in a mathematical language that magic-users can read, but only a few understand enough to generate their own mystic writings, new spell texts gifted to an order by a prophet of their gods would seem a natural gift for the defense of the faith....

[paleologos]

Jan 18, 2010 19:54:04 GMT -6 cyclopeatron said:

Jan 18, 2010 16:33:00 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

Clerics use spell books in Holmes.

I can't find any reference to cleric spell books in Holmes. Could you please tell me what page you find it on?

Hey, wow - the lists of clerical spells in Holmes are listed as "Book of First Level Spells" and "Book of Second Level Spells" on pg 17

I think that what Holmes meant by "since clerical spells are divinely given, they do not have to be studied to master them" ie. there is no % chance to know as with MUs.

The implication is that clerics pray from their spell/prayer books at home prior to the adventure (much like MUs studying from their magic books at home prior to the adventure) although have a 100% chance to know any given spell...

Hard to wrap one's mind around at first, for sure. The basic game mechanic is that clerics need to go home to recharge on spells just like MUs.