Clerics use magic

[aesdana]

Disclaimers : it's my second post here (the first one was to introduce myself) and, although I peruse the whole Men & Magic sub-forum, I may have missed a similar topic. English is not my native tongue (I'm French like Snorri but he writes English better than me).

The subject title I use says it all : clerics are magic-users of a sort and it could be interesting to treat them as such.

By which I mean you should then have to strip them of their martial training (no more blunt weapons or armors, just dagger and poor hit dice and fighting capability).

You end up with a class casting beneficial or white magic spells (barring the fact clerics cast no spells at level 1). To even the odds or to just make this revised class appealing, you could give it a lower XP requirement or more spells per level. I would say twice more to make for the loss of their martial training.

I still don't think this revised cleric would interest some players although it could make interesting npcs and your cleric class has now more relationships to real world figures (just think normal priests, shamans or exorcists).

This magic strong cleric would still be not so interesting as the classical class fills also a defensive role : he would still defend well against magic or undead and would give more healing but he would lack physical means to defend himself or the others.

This leads to the natural and final conclusion : let the cleric class disappear and its spell list and turning undead ability be a part of the magic-user class.

You could have it so : 2 spell lists, the clerical one and the magic-user one. A magic-user still has to memorize his spells but can choose between the 2 lists considering that 1 normal spell slot equals 2 clerical spell slots.
For the turning undead ability, you could state it's available only if your spell slots are all clerical or the majority thereof or only if your alignment is lawful as the other magic source could be chaotic...

This could have interesting consequences on the game world. You never know what to expect from the local priest (does he know some magic ? And which one ? He may heal but could still make you sleep with a spell). Wizards could then encompass the broad range of white magicians to necromancers and could heal people (maybe at a price). Magic-users would have a more sword & sorcery style but not too much so as to stay compatible with more classical d&d game worlds.

Besides if white magic is to be learnt like the other, one could wonder where this knowledge comes from : strong entities serving gods, old prayers still useful (whether one prays or not the god whom the prayer relies upon) or just simple, natural magic (explaining why it's less powerful and easier to memorize).

One could also integrate the druid spells to make a green magic list. This sounds perhaps strange but I have fond memories of Jack Vance magicians using magic of differing colors (battling green demons with pink magic in The Lyonesse trilogy).

[Deleted]

You English is just fine, mon ami.

As for your approach to the Cleric's divine magic? I've considered an approach similar to yours but have never actually tried it. If you do implement this rule, let us know how it works out for you.

[inkmeister]

I don't like clerics and I don't really like thinking of a separate class of magic user that focuses on "white magic." Just isn't in line with my tastes. But I think a good solution could be to fold the cleric spells into the magic user's spell list and simply have a two class game. That is roughly what I do.

I decided quite awhile back that what makes the most sense to me is a highly simplified 2 class style D&D. I don't see it as restrictive, but rather as highly flexible, since any concept can be represented by one or the other class, or some combination of the two. The other approach (that the official game has taken from very early on) is to add new classes with tiny little differences and quirks from the others, trying to mechanically represent every minor difference. Then you get into crazy balance considerations and what not. Just not my way.

So yeah, fold the cleric into the MU class and have two class D&D - that'd be my preference.

[talysman]

I'm thinking of folding the spell lists together, but keeping differences in casting and keeping the official lists as restrictions on what spells are normally available for each class. All cleric spells are white magic, except reversed spells which are black magic; all M-U spells not shared with clerics are grey magic. Clerics can research grey magic spells, but using grey magic is like using black magic: they risk corrupting themselves (change alignment to Chaos.) M-Us can research white/black magic, but their alignment affects how they use the spells; Chaotic characters can't cast white magic, and Neutral characters can't cast 5th level white/black magic.

Also, only M-Us can create scrolls.

[aesdana]

Apr 14, 2013 10:21:57 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

I decided quite awhile back that what makes the most sense to me is a highly simplified 2 class style D&D. I don't see it as restrictive, but rather as highly flexible, since any concept can be represented by one or the other class, or some combination of the two. The other approach (that the official game has taken from very early on) is to add new classes with tiny little differences and quirks from the others, trying to mechanically represent every minor difference. Then you get into crazy balance considerations and what not. Just not my way.

So yeah, fold the cleric into the MU class and have two class D&D - that'd be my preference.

I intend to simplify things for many reasons, some of which include my young children I hope to introduce to od&d ("what do you want to play ? A fighting or a magic using guy/girl ? A magic-user ? Ok : which kind of magic ? etc) or, the simple fact I can't, like many others, think of interesting heroes you could describe as clerics (Van Helsing being a fighter with magical items for me).

So we're on the same thing !

Apr 14, 2013 11:03:28 GMT -6 talysman said:

I'm thinking of folding the spell lists together, but keeping differences in casting and keeping the official lists as restrictions on what spells are normally available for each class. All cleric spells are white magic, except reversed spells which are black magic; all M-U spells not shared with clerics are grey magic. Clerics can research grey magic spells, but using grey magic is like using black magic: they risk corrupting themselves (change alignment to Chaos.) M-Us can research white/black magic, but their alignment affects how they use the spells; Chaotic characters can't cast white magic, and Neutral characters can't cast 5th level white/black magic.

Also, only M-Us can create scrolls.

That's a good idea : I want as well to keep different magics specific but not overly so.

Clerical magic users could still know and cast other types of magic but, maybe, at a price (save mandatory ?) or just by requiring the memorization of more spells from one's specialty than from the others'.

[aesdana]

If I want to go further and make different spell lists and simple specialization rules, I need your advice on what I decided about cleric spells being twice less powerful and thus deciding that a magic-user casting clerical spells would get twice the amount available at his magic-user level (e.g. 2 clerical spells at level 1).

Do you see some gross imbalance ? (Do not forget that clerical spells will be cast by magic-users having the HD, THAC0 and armament of a normal magic-user.)

Specializations would be simple :
- first rule : everyone can cast every spell,
- second rule : you choose a spell list representing your area of magical expertise or field of interest (clerical spells, druid or traditional magic-user ones and more, why not ?) which gives you a cool power : turn undead, ability to use every magical item (except weaponry) or I still don't know what for druids (pass without traces ? animal friendship ?),
- third rule : 2 druid or clerical spells count as 1 magic-user spell.

Everything else would come from the game logic : your 6th level magic user specializes in clerical magic but you like throwing around fireballs ? Your healing god might frown upon this... Your necromancer trades its low level spells for cure light wounds ? OK, but your healing leaves horrible scars that stench, make ugly and attract undeads !

PS : there's some confusion between magic user as the traditional class and as its new and broader version I try to "promote" or at least explain : I hope all remains understandable.

Does it seem simple, funny and "right" ?

[Finarvyn]

Apr 16, 2013 11:32:12 GMT -6 aesdana said:

...different spell lists and simple specialization rules...

You might want to take a look at the spell lists in AD&D 2E. They break spells down by specialization such as alteration, abjuration, divination, illusion, and so on. This could be a huge help in putting together specialist spell lists and I think many of the spells have OD&D equivalents.

[Stormcrow]

Apr 16, 2013 10:57:49 GMT -6 aesdana said:

I intend to simplify things for many reasons, some of which include my young children I hope to introduce to od&d ("what do you want to play ? A fighting or a magic using guy/girl ? A magic-user ? Ok : which kind of magic ? etc) or, the simple fact I can't, like many others, think of interesting heroes you could describe as clerics

Just describe clerics as halfway between fighting-men and magic-users: some magic, some fighting.

[Deleted]

Empire of the Petal Throne has an interesting take on the Cleric (called a "Priest"). The priest and magic-user share the same spell list but they both get bonus spells (or abilities) as they level up. So a magic-user can learn cure light wounds but that would take up one of his spells (this game limits the characters on the number of spells they can know, each of which can be used once per day) whereas a priest gets cure light wounds automatically. The magic-users get different abilities like astrologer or telekinesis.

[Deleted]

I fully support dividing the cleric into two classes, a martial and non-martial variant. Merging spell lists is a good idea, but it does drastically change the metaphysics of the game - e.g. separate arcane and divine magic; MUs receive spells through study, clerics are awarded them by the gods. I'm OK with that, though.

Possibly an MU who learns divine spells has to take on some restriction or burden - e.g. tithing - ?

[Stormcrow]

Magic is not "divine" and "arcane" (I hate this ridiculous use of the word arcane). Magic is magic, and different classes know different spells.

[aesdana]

Apr 16, 2013 12:40:10 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

You might want to take a look at the spell lists in AD&D 2E. They break spells down by specialization such as alteration, abjuration, divination, illusion, and so on. This could be a huge help in putting together specialist spell lists and I think many of the spells have OD&D equivalents.

That's a good advice as it gives good inspirations for such specializations and classes already existing spells in nice lists !

Little aside : I always thought those lists were a bit artificial and didn't push their logic to its limit. For me, It's as if they've told themselves : "Hey, we do have a big list of spells ! What about organizing them in schools or specializations like the illusionist one we already have ?" I would rather have it the other way : "Hey magical schools are cool ! Why not putting some of the existing spells into it, discarding those who do not fit and tying those schools to interesting historical or literary precedents ? " Because, when I think magic-user, I think enchanter, seer, necromancer, conjurer or illusionist but not evocator, abjurator or alterator. I think as well witch, shaman, kabbalist, griot, demonist, etc.

[aesdana]

Apr 16, 2013 14:33:49 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Just describe clerics as halfway between fighting-men and magic-users: some magic, some fighting.

Elves do the job quite well : no need for clerics !

Apr 17, 2013 7:54:28 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Magic is not "divine" and "arcane" (I hate this ridiculous use of the word arcane). Magic is magic, and different classes know different spells.

That's the underlying and primordial axiom of this discussion : magic is one, spells are many.

So no need to stick to this distinction between divine and arcane magic.

[aesdana]

Apr 16, 2013 20:10:52 GMT -6 @sirravd said:

I fully support dividing the cleric into two classes, a martial and non-martial variant. Merging spell lists is a good idea, but it does drastically change the metaphysics of the game - e.g. separate arcane and divine magic; MUs receive spells through study, clerics are awarded them by the gods. I'm OK with that, though.

Possibly an MU who learns divine spells has to take on some restriction or burden - e.g. tithing - ?

That's a good point and one very interesting indeed as it boils down to setting decisions.

Quite simply : just do it as you want.

For my part, I like it open or unresolved so as to have some leeway for different settings or inspirations. For instance, you can play it as in DCC rpg : spells would be formulas given by potent spirits/demons/gods. Or spells origin could be dusty tomes : clerical spells would then be obscure prayers to dead or forgotten gods/spirits bound to obey.
In a "classic game" (for my children), I would simply state that there's a beneficial magic (clerics' spells), a natural (druids' ones) and an utility/elemental one. Gods surely do exist and do magic but they remain far from men, except on rare occasions.

[aesdana]

Apr 16, 2013 19:54:16 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Empire of the Petal Throne has an interesting take on the Cleric (called a "Priest"). The priest and magic-user share the same spell list but they both get bonus spells (or abilities) as they level up. So a magic-user can learn cure light wounds but that would take up one of his spells (this game limits the characters on the number of spells they can know, each of which can be used once per day) whereas a priest gets cure light wounds automatically. The magic-users get different abilities like astrologer or telekinesis.

I definitely have to buy this EPT Swords and Glory book from Tita's House of Games !

[aesdana]

I've read and thought a little bit, especially about the magician class for Crypt & things which does the job for a S&S setting but doesn't suit a more open and generic d&d setting.

---

So, here's the Spell caster :
- spells per day, HD, THAC0, armor and weapons like the magic user,
- casts spells from the cleric, druid and magic user spell lists,
- uses magic items available to magic users, clerics or druids.

You may choose a specialization or a focus :

• protective/clerical magic :
  - restriction to clerical magic items,
  - gains turn undead,
  - clerical spells come easier : therefore, each spell slot can be filled with 2 clerical spells whereas a magic user or druid spell costs 1 spell slot.
  
  
• natural/druidic magic :
  - restriction to druidic magic items,
  - gains identify plant/animal/water, pass through overgrowth at 1st level and shape change at 5th level,
  - druidic spells come easier : therefore, each spell slot can be filled with 2 druidic spells whereas a magic user or cleric spell costs 1 spell slot.
  
  
• utilitarian/war magic :
  - restriction to magic user magic items,
  - "lesser" magics (druidic and clerical spells) come easier : therefore, each spell slot can be filled with 2 druidic or clerical spells whereas a magic user still costs 1 spell slot BUT at least one spell slot must be filled with a magic user spell for a given spell level.
  

---

With this version, your role comes either from your choices (role playing, spells, magic items etc) or from your focus.

Spell lists or focuses represent whatever you want in your setting :
- origin of magic : divine, natural/elfin or occult studies,
- traditions or broad fields of magical studies/applications : protective, natural or utilitarian,
- divine magic from 3 different gods or aspects of the same god : hearth, wilderness or war.

Further specializations are not needed and would come through play only.

[mordrene]

to me, it makes more sense to have one spell casting class. I also think th ecleric is what the paladin should be. I am getting ready to do some house rules for having 4 classes, Fighter, Paladin (cleric, sans spells) Mage and thief. I think it makes more sense that way.