Expanding Spells

[Mr. Darke]

In my games I have been using AD&D to supplement the OD&D spell lists. I recently decided that instead of drawing from my books I would rework the AD&D spells to OD&D standards. While preparing the compilation I decided that I would just pull from what I felt was the more complete 2e AD&D lists and 'back-convert' them to OD&D.

So far this seems to be working well but I was wondering if anyone has done this and if so, if there were any issues in doing so? So far I have just copied lists and have roughed in one to two sentence descriptions. This seems satisfactory enough especially when dealing with just Magic-Users and Clerics. But, I feel that if I add in Druids or Illusionists it may get more complicated.

Any suggestions?

[Falconer]

Seems like it would be easier to work from AD&D 1e rather than 2e. In 2e they mixed the Druid spells in with the Cleric spells, and the Illusionist spells in with the Wizard spells, then re-sub-divided them by school. Methinks that takes you too far afield from OD&D, so unless you specifically wanted to go that route, taking spells from 1e would be easier. If you add the spells from UA you should have as “complete” a list as 2e. Though I personally never felt like I needed more spells than were in the 1e PHB. The only spell from UA that I ever used was Tasha’s Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter.

[Mr. Darke]

I decided on using the 2e PH since it had spells from both UA and the PH in it. I do see the issue with druids and illusionists but I am not sure I will be using those classes. Right now the only classes I have seen beyond the core OD&D classes are my own thief and ranger variants and an experimental class I am play-testing. Only one of those classes have any spellcasting ability.

The spells are being rewritten to be more OD&D like in nature thus no components and, at the most, a paragraph in length. This is also my first pass so I may trim many of the spells down. For example, Shield and Armor are so close together that I could make one spell out of them.

The goal is an expanded spell list that looks like it could have come from the OD&D era.

[waysoftheearth]

I've done something similar for my games.

I used ODD, PHB and UA as my primary sources, from which I created new lists of OD&D-style spells for magic-users and templars (clerics). I gave all my spells mysterious names, and dropped most of the "detect alignment", "detect secret doors" etc. type spells.

I've detailed spells for each character level (not spell level) 1 thru 4, with 12 spells per level for magic-users and 6 spells per level for templars (clerics).

I like to think that in doing so I've provided a bit of extra variety for spells casters, and perhaps added an alternate sense of balance.

The main issue is letting go of a lot of the additional detail around duration, range, number of targets etc. which is provided in later sources. I replaced most of this with a general rulings to be applied to all spells unless noted otherwise. I.e., unless stated otherwise, any spell with a duration spell lasts until sunrise, range is always within ear-shot or within sight and so on.

It all seems to be working out rather well so far

[tombowings]

Likewise, I've always used expanded spell lists for my games. Inevitably, my players have found of some need for even the most seemingly useless spells. In my hinterlands game, the magic-user has a spell that expands the size of her pockets until sunset without giving any indication that the pockets are at all full that. It get's used in just about every game session.

[Mr. Darke]

Some of my 'need' for more spells comes from my starting with and using AD&D 2e for a long time. No matter what game 1e, OD&D, C&C or BECMI the spell lists all look a bit light. So, I figured a document that brings in the lists I am used to with trimmed descriptions would be the best answer.

[Mr. Darke]

I shelved this for a couple days and then pulled it back out to look at it with fresh eyes. Here is what the fresh look gave me:

*AD&D, especially the PH and MM read more like an expansion to OD&D. 2e Is more of it's own game.

*The 1e lists work great for the most commonly known spells while UA could be read as recently discovered secrets.

* 1e is closer to OD&D which makes conversion easier.

My solution then, is to convert the PH spells first and then convert the UA spells as I use them. I will be using the UA spells mostly as treasure found in dungeons.

[coffee]

Aug 19, 2010 9:07:44 GMT -6 Mr. Darke said:

My solution then, is to convert the PH spells first and then convert the UA spells as I use them. I will be using the UA spells mostly as treasure found in dungeons.

That's what I've done, except that I used the M&M spells as 'commonly known' and the Greyhawk spells as 'special'.