|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 1, 2011 17:49:18 GMT -6
Peruse the 26 clerical spells in Men & Magic. With 2 exceptions (find traps and locate object), all these spells are right out of the Bible and the Lives of the Saints. This makes the class work quite well in a fantasy Earth setting, with clerics being Christian saints. (And, thus, anti-clerics being devil-worshippers.)
On the other hand, non-Christian clerics do not work for me. I excluded them completely from Carcosa. I planned on including them in a new campaign I'm working on, but they simply do not fit in this campaign. It's not a fantasy Earth. There are no Christians there. Thus I'm tossing clerics completely from the campaign, leaving only fighters and magic-users for classes.
I'm to the point that my modus operandi will henceforward be to automatically exclude clerics unless my setting is a fantasy Earth. I'm tired of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 1, 2011 18:05:00 GMT -6
I like the idea of the 4e warlord character class. Or to use another name, "the captain" as a sub-class of fighting man. This is a fighter type who increases the combat effectiveness of his allies. This works especially well when hit points are part "morale" as well.
"You're not dead yet soldier! Get on your feet!" = cure light wounds and explains the need to put your hands on your target. You're picking him up by the scruff of his neck!
"Rally to my banner friends, attack!" = bless spell
The "bless spell" for example hearkens back to CHAINMAIL actually, as heroes raised the fighting capabilities of any unit they were attached to. So in a way, it's not totally out of left field. Super-Heroes could by their very nature force morale checks on enemies, which could be what a spell like, "hold person" could do AKA make your enemies dumb with fright. These abilities were lost in the move from CHAINMAIL to d&d.
The standard "fighting-man" then is more of a beserker with high combat abilities, but few leadership qualities.
Drop turn undead and let them use any weapon. Give 1 attack per level vs. 0-level foes. A fighting-man that gives up some prowress for some leadership abilities. Think of spells as more "abstract" abilities. Which is kinda what d&d does with monster "spell like abilities". Drop any spell that reeks of "old testement" like sticks to snakes etc.
All of a sudden it begins to make sense that they don't get spells at 1st level (just a normal soldier with wisdom as his prerequisite instead of strength) But I hear ya.
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Jan 1, 2011 18:29:14 GMT -6
I like the idea of the 4e warlord character class. Or to use another name, "the captain" as a sub-class of fighting man. This is a fighter type who increases the combat effectiveness of his allies. This works especially well when hit points are part "morale" as well. "You're not dead yet soldier! Get on your feet!" = cure light wounds and explains the need to put your hands on your target. You're picking him up by the scruff of his neck! "Rally to my banner friends, attack!" = bless spell The "bless spell" for example hearkens back to CHAINMAIL actually, as heroes raised the fighting capabilities of any unit they were attached to. So in a way, it's not totally out of left field. Super-Heroes could by their very nature force morale checks on enemies, which could be what a spell like, "hold person" could do AKA make your enemies dumb with fright. These abilities were lost in the move from CHAINMAIL to d&d. The standard "fighting-man" then is more of a beserker with high combat abilities, but few leadership qualities. Drop turn undead and let them use any weapon. Give 1 attack per level vs. 0-level foes. A fighting-man that gives up some prowress for some leadership abilities. Think of spells as more "abstract" abilities. Which is kinda what d&d does with monster "spell like abilities". Drop any spell that reeks of "old testement" like sticks to snakes etc. All of a sudden it begins to make sense that they don't get spells at 1st level (just a normal soldier with wisdom as his prerequisite instead of strength) But I hear ya. This is relevant to my interests. Warlords are one of my favorite 4E classes. |
|
bert
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 138
|
Post by bert on Jan 1, 2011 22:21:34 GMT -6
Given the constants of human nature, Cracosa will IMO definitely have something resembling clergy. Loons who think they can influence the likes of Cthulhu and Shub Niggurath with regular prayers and once a week blood sacrifices, loonier loons who gibber at the lights in the sky while off their crusts on magic mushrooms in the hope that the Grey Ones will come and take them away, and perfectly sane folk who know that quoting whacko theology and 'ancient learning' are as good a way of justifiying a kleptocracy and pacifying the proles as any.
None of these have any magic ability bar the odd sorcerous summoning/binding/dismissal ritual they may have picked up along the way and may have incorporated into their religion, claiming it derives from a deity. But in Carcosa as we know there are no dieties, just the vast monstrous Old Ones, and they lend their power to no one.
The ODD Cleric is a poor model for such demagogues I agree, and the Men and Magic Spells are inappropriate, but have a look at the OEPT Priest class. At each level he gains an ability that may derive from ancient learning and occult knowledge, or psionic powers, or maybe both (Control Person = mundane hypnotism plus scary theological brainwashing or real telepathy? Scares the congregation into handing over tithes/their first born for sacrfice either way...).
In this view the Temples are organisations that maintain order and preserve knowledge in a crazy world by using their theology as a framework, the deities are not actually 'real', though a bunch of very clever priests with a woking knowledge of holographic projectors and/or mass hypnosis and a holy hand grenade or two could convince a lot of people otherwise.
Might be a nice plot hook, are those nice missionaries really agents of a real god? Or is this fervent following they are gaining dupes in some horrible sorcerous scam? If a deity gives them hope in the face of cosmic horror is it right to disillusion them?
|
|
leon
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by leon on Jan 2, 2011 9:23:08 GMT -6
How about Druids? And if you drop the class completely, what about healing magic? Will it be integrated in the MU spell list or will it not exist at all? I think D&D without healing magic can be nigh on unplayable.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 2, 2011 21:46:50 GMT -6
How about Druids? And if you drop the class completely, what about healing magic? Will it be integrated in the MU spell list or will it not exist at all? I think D&D without healing magic can be nigh on unplayable. No, I'm not using druids. Only fighters and magic-users. I've replaced the 1974 spell list with the 30 spells in Matthew Finch's Eldritch Weirdness and 3 new spells in James Raggi's Lamentations of the Flame Princess RPG. No healing spells are in this compiled spell list. As for healing, I plan on being very generous with natural healing. |
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Jan 3, 2011 10:18:39 GMT -6
Honestly, I like the idea of using original lists of spells as a standalone rule. In a campaign with experienced players, I feel like using the same spells all the time makes them seem less special and more like standard issue gear.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 3, 2011 10:21:11 GMT -6
Well, yes, there's definetly a Christianness in the Cleric class. Probably this is an artifact of the way Mike Carr played it - Church of the facts of Life and all that. I'm not convinced that makes the class a square peg though.
OD&D really has two class Archetypes. The User of Magic class, and the Non User of Magic class. Cleric "magic" was no different in principle from any other magic except in how the character recieved his ability. The cleric achieved thier powers as gifts "from above" whereas MU's had to work it up for themselves. Arneson even mixed Cleric and MU spells on scrolls as you know. So ditching the cleric really isn't a "problem", but really isn't necessary either. All the Cleric class suggests is that some people (wizards, witches etc.) have to work for thier spells (use arcane language, potions etc.) wheras others can achieve similar effects as gifts from some source. I think its a useful distinction in game worlds where gods are real and undead a common threat. Implied here is the idea of intelligent powers vs raw untames powers, but it could just as easily be special bloodlines vs common ones or whatever.
Moses vs the Egyptian magicians may be a good example here. The magicians knew how to do most of Moses magic but had to do so through more complicated means. Its interesting in this light that Arneson had divine magic being able to defeat "normal" magic in some of his notes.
Anyway, I'm suggesting that you don't have to ditch the idea because you don't like the spell list. In fact, there's no reason all clerics would or should have the same lists, or abilities, or even why clerics and MU's couldn't all simply have one master list for both.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 3, 2011 22:40:35 GMT -6
Honestly, I like the idea of using original lists of spells as a standalone rule. In a campaign with experienced players, I feel like using the same spells all the time makes them seem less special and more like standard issue gear. Exactly so. I've tossed all standard monsters and magic items, and NPC spell-casters possess unique powers rather than spell-lists. So I decided to let the players get in on the novel fun by having spell-lists of all-new spells. Charm person, light, wizard lock, etc. are all old-hat (though they were new and mysterious to us when we started playing D&D back in 1980). With the Eldritch Weirdness and Raggi spells, the players of magic-users can have that same sense of wonder and newness as they had 30 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 3, 2011 22:52:39 GMT -6
OD&D really has two class Archetypes. The User of Magic class, and the Non User of Magic class. I thoroughly agree with this, though I might take it in different directions than many others. Carcosa has only two classes (fighting-men and sorcerers), and the campaign I'm cobbling-together now will have only two classes (fighters and magic-users). The PC magic-users will be the only ones with access to the list of 33 spells. NPC spell-casters will have their own, unique powers. Some of these spell casters will serve the only campaign deity: the White Goddess (a la Robert Graves). Others will not. Forgive me if this sounds garbled. My conceptions for this campaign are at an early stage. |
|
|
|
Post by vito on Jan 4, 2011 18:03:22 GMT -6
Question:
If you're ditching clerics, will you be throwing out the wisdom ability as well? That ability doesn't seem to do anything except serve as a prime requisite for clerics.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 4, 2011 21:30:05 GMT -6
I'd use Wisdom as "an ability to sense when something's wrong", basically a combo of danger sense, common sense, and moral sense. In fact, I'm considering renaming Wisdom to Sense. That makes it more useful when not using clerics.
As for clerics themselves, I'd like to replace them with a spiritualist class that doesn't cast/memorize spells, but rather gets a reaction bonus when dealing with spirits, who can cast spells for the spiritualist. Basically, it's the turn/command undead ability with wider application, since it applies to invisible spirits as well and covers all sorts of commands.
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Jan 4, 2011 22:04:08 GMT -6
I'd use Wisdom as "an ability to sense when something's wrong", basically a combo of danger sense, common sense, and moral sense. In fact, I'm considering renaming Wisdom to Sense. That makes it more useful when not using clerics. If this is D&D, it's going to need a longer, fancier name. Perception? Too obvious. Acumen? Cognition? Percipience? Sounds like a good idea though. Maybe characters with a high score in this ability get bonuses to detect traps or spot hidden doors? Could be very useful for thieves. |
|
bert
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 138
|
Post by bert on Jan 4, 2011 23:12:32 GMT -6
I'd use Wisdom as "an ability to sense when something's wrong", basically a combo of danger sense, common sense, and moral sense. In fact, I'm considering renaming Wisdom to Sense. That makes it more useful when not using clerics. To invoke EPT again, why not Psychic Ability? Improves your chances of getting a spell to cast right (EPT has pretty high spell failure rates at low levels) and a low score limits the levels of spells you can cast. You also get an XP bonus for high scores if you are a sorcerer (Intelligence is the prime requisite for priests in EPT). I'd use it for things like sensing magic/demons/nexus points and the like as well. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 5, 2011 0:24:34 GMT -6
Question: If you're ditching clerics, will you be throwing out the wisdom ability as well? That ability doesn't seem to do anything except serve as a prime requisite for clerics. Nah. Ever since I started playing D&D in 1980, I've been used to making all kinds of rulings based on a casual perusal of the PC's ability scores followed by DM fiat and percentile dice: "You want to do what?... OK, what is your wisdom? 15, you say? Then you have a 74% chance. Roll." ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 5, 2011 7:14:43 GMT -6
I'd use Wisdom as "an ability to sense when something's wrong", basically a combo of danger sense, common sense, and moral sense. In fact, I'm considering renaming Wisdom to Sense. That makes it more useful when not using clerics. If this is D&D, it's going to need a longer, fancier name. Perception? Too obvious. Acumen? Cognition? Percipience? Sounds like a good idea though. Maybe characters with a high score in this ability get bonuses to detect traps or spot hidden doors? Could be very useful for thieves. Arneson used "Cunning" instead of Wisdom. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 5, 2011 7:30:19 GMT -6
I'd use Wisdom as "an ability to sense when something's wrong", basically a combo of danger sense, common sense, and moral sense. In fact, I'm considering renaming Wisdom to Sense. That makes it more useful when not using clerics. As for clerics themselves, I'd like to replace them with a spiritualist class that doesn't cast/memorize spells, but rather gets a reaction bonus when dealing with spirits, who can cast spells for the spiritualist. Basically, it's the turn/command undead ability with wider application, since it applies to invisible spirits as well and covers all sorts of commands. That would be basically be Geoffrey's Sorcerer class reskinned in a non Carcosa setting. Interesting way to treat the undead table though. I worked up a "Conjuror" based on the Sorceror a while back, but merged with features from Moldveys' Taltos in Dragon Magazine # 247 The Taltos, if you are not familiar is a really interesting "class" to look into. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 5, 2011 19:32:32 GMT -6
I'd use Wisdom as "an ability to sense when something's wrong", basically a combo of danger sense, common sense, and moral sense. In fact, I'm considering renaming Wisdom to Sense. That makes it more useful when not using clerics. As for clerics themselves, I'd like to replace them with a spiritualist class that doesn't cast/memorize spells, but rather gets a reaction bonus when dealing with spirits, who can cast spells for the spiritualist. Basically, it's the turn/command undead ability with wider application, since it applies to invisible spirits as well and covers all sorts of commands. That would be basically be Geoffrey's Sorcerer class reskinned in a non Carcosa setting. Interesting way to treat the undead table though. I worked up a "Conjuror" based on the Sorceror a while back, but merged with features from Moldveys' Taltos in Dragon Magazine # 247 The Taltos, if you are not familiar is a really interesting "class" to look into. I haven't picked up Carcosa yet, although I plan to at some point... so I was unfamiliar with Geoffrey's sorcerer class. And I don't remember the Taltos. All my stuff is in storage, so it may be a while before I locate the Dragon cd-rom archive and look that up. But I'll keep it in mind! The reaction roll to turn undead is actually based on the OD&D mechanic. I examined it closely, noted both turn undead and reaction rolls are rolled on 2d6, and then figured out that if you roll 2d6, add twice the difference between the cleric's level and the creature's HD, and aim for a Good or better reaction, the result is identical to the turn undead table. The one exception is that if the cleric's level is 2 or more levels above the target's HD, you don't make a reaction roll at all, but instead roll the number of undead that are automatically turned (or destroyed, if the cleric's level is 4 or more levels above the target's HD. So my substitute class has a somewhat less powerful ability than the original cleric, but works in much the same way. |
|
monk
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 237
|
Post by monk on Jan 7, 2011 0:46:27 GMT -6
"You want to do what?... OK, what is your wisdom? 15, you say? Then you have a 74% chance. Roll."
Heck yeah. That's exactly what I do, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by dekelia on Jan 7, 2011 20:17:54 GMT -6
I agree. The more I think about the Cleric, the less I like it. They ruin undead for me and just generally seem unnecessary. If I start another OD&D game, I think I'll go with just Fighting Man and M-U.
I don't think you lose much by not having healing spells. I've always found cure light the most boring and disappointing spell anyway. I'd make up for it by having healing potions more readily available, "healers" in town (not clerics and not PCs) for a price.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Jan 7, 2011 21:24:26 GMT -6
No, clerics work for the gods.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 13:58:01 GMT -6
I sympathize with your view Geoffrey. My current campaign is more or less based on Medieval Europe and they work great, but I'm thinking about using OD&D to power my weird lost world/swords & sorcery setting set in the Hollow Earth. They're absolutely terrible for those purposes.
I'm not entirely sure what to do since I'm not necessarily comfortable with limiting characters to "Fighter" and "Squishy spell-jockey." Maybe I need to edit the Magic-User like you did with the sorcerer.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251 
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jan 27, 2011 14:23:58 GMT -6
Try this variant I used in a darker, low magic game I ran once.
Magic-Users are called Sorcerers and are all evil, and produce spectacular spells through demonic bindings. Thus, they are not trusted by most; though they sure as blazes are respected for what they can do. Sorcerers can wear leather armor.
The traditional Cleric is now a "white wizard". They always wear white robes and neither shave nor cut their hair as part of their vows and to mark themselves as separate to the MU's. Spell list is very much like that of clerics, lots of curative and supportive type magicks, and offensive spells are subtle (sleep) rather than spectacular (fireball).
Think of a druid sort of mindset in which, instead of a forest, his charges are humanity and demi-humanity. Powerful and flashy magic equates with sorcery in the mindset of the rest of humanity and are avoided.
edited for grammar (sorry)!
|
|
|
|
Post by Random on Jan 28, 2011 7:50:21 GMT -6
Me either. But, (tweaked) thieves are a necessary replacement.
It sucks (as a player) to have only two possible varieties of character to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Kilgore on Feb 7, 2011 14:26:05 GMT -6
In some settings, the Christian-ish medieval warrior priest class is just fine, but with so much focus on Sword & Sorcery among the oldschool crowd, sometimes it plain doesn't fit.
I tend to view clerics more like Jedi Knights: warriors with mystic powers rather than holy priests who can fight. I pretty much ditch the holy aspects of the class and don't bother with deity worship.
But in our homebrew we have only wizards and warriors (though different flavors of each). We combined INT and WIS into one (we only have 5 ability scores) and called it Wisdom.
|
|
