A is for Alignment

I missed the April A-Z Blog Challenge this year, so I'm doing my own...in June. This year, I will be posting one post per day discussing my AD&D campaign, for the curious. Since 2020, this is the ONLY campaign I run. Enjoy!

A is for Alignment. A funny place to start when it comes to talking about one's campaign but, I think, a necessary precursor to understanding how my world runs.

As with most DMs, I have "modified" the AD&D game rules in a number of ways. Unlike most DMs, these modifications are few in number and generally quite small in the grand scheme of the game; most are designed (in part) to ease speed of play. 

Removing alignment, however, is no small thing.

Still, I've done it, and am quite satisfied with the result. Humans (and human-like elves, dwarves, halflings, etc.) are capable of doing good and evil, acting lawfully and chaotically and are not so simplistic to model as stock characters from a morality play. Actions have consequences; it is important for the Dungeon Master to keep this in mind because (when he/she does so) issues related to "bad behavior" tend to take care of themselves.

But the game...

Well, the D&D game created alignment originally to distinguish the two sides of the (war gaming) table. There were the forces of LAW (i.e. "good") and the forces of CHAOS (i.e. "evil") and then there were "neutrals" who might fight for either side, depending on their whim (this was long before the advent of "True Neutrals" who refused to fight for any side...). 

Over time, these assignations grew muddled in complexity, as LAW ceased to mean "good" but rather "order and organization" while CHAOS ceased to mean "evil" but rather "freedom and wildness." Having multiple factions certainly makes for more interesting gaming (and more asymmetrical war gaming) than just "Side A" versus "Side B," but it hardly models the complexity of life, where actions are determined by degrees of ambition and pride and fear and self-interest and love and joy and...well, all the things. All the stuff; "the usual" (or, just, "the ush") as they say.

But then, how does that work with the cosmology of D&D? How do paladins and assassins get along? Why do we kill orcs and goblins? How the heck are we supposed to know if clerics are being granted their spells?  And what about all those alignment-based spells and magic items?

Here's how I approach these things in my campaign:

With Regard To Monsters (and Character Classes): 

Think of "alignment" as a short-hand for the general attitude/perspective of a class/species from the point of view of a human; D&D is human-centric, after all.  Any creature with a "good" alignment is generally "pro-human" or (rather) "pro-human values;" any creature with an "evil" alignment is "anti-human."  SO, "good" dwarves and elves and halflings like and value humans and treat them in as friendly a manner as humans treat each other. Admittedly, humans have a long history of robbing, raping, and killing each other so this might translate to "not-so-friendly," but it's a good enough starting point and things being equal they're generally willing to work with humans so long as it suits their interest.

"Evil" creatures, on the other hand, have a history of conflict and antagonism with humans and their allies (i.e. creatures that get along with humans or that humans would view as "good"...like dwarves and elves). It doesn't mean they're inherently evil or bad or spawned of Satan (at least, with regard to non-planar creatures) just that...historically...they've been on opposite sides of the battlefield more often than not.

Paladins and rangers (traditionally "good" aligned classes) are characters that champion HUMANS and their allies. As fighters, they are warriors, killers, and destroyers of things that would harm or threaten humans. That is what they are trained to do; although they have different training from each other.

Assassins (traditionally "evil") place no particular value on human life...being trained as professional murderers, a human is only "valuable" insomuch as it affects the fee they charge to end it. Meanwhile, thieves' traditional "non-good" designation aptly describes their cavalier attitude towards other humans' property (being trained in the larcenous arts). 

"Lawful-ness," then, is simply an estimate of whether or not a particular species operates in an ordered and civilized fashion..."civilized" again being from the perspective of humanity. Do they have hierarchy? Bureaucracy? Laws? Most of the humanoid monsters found in the Monster Manual (and, thus, in my campaign world) fall into this category...they are as organized with regard to trade, agriculture, and warfare as any human society.

"Chaotic-ness" on the other hand, is not just the absence of law and order, but an abhorrence of it, and a a wanting to smash the social norms and niceties of (what humans would call) 'polite society.' Bugbears are something OUTSIDE the hierarchy of other goblinoids...a throwback species (like a neanderthal or sasquatch), insane individuals too large to kill that have been driven into exile, or perhaps some ogrish-hybrid...who knows? Ogres are just too big and un-refined to have ever developed anything like a "society;" they are at the top of the food chain and they enjoy being there. Gnolls are something like the beastman marauders found in the Warhammer world...they are as close to a demon-worshipping barbarian horde as anything you'll find in my world. And elves...well, let's just say most humans tend to stay the hell out of elven cities (there's only one), as they're something akin to Moorcock's Melniboneans; they'll get their own post in this series.

As far as classes go only the monk and paladin have a requirement for "Lawful-ness" and this simply indicates that they must follow a strict hierarchy and discipline with regard to their profession. Monks are beholden to their monastic order and must follow its dictates; paladins are the same with regard to their church. Here, the alignment restriction (again...not used in my game!) indicates character classes that are not altogether free from obligation.

And the Neutrals? Well, all the creatures and classes of my campaign are effectively "neutral" when it comes to their actions, self-determination, and self-interest. But with regard to the True Neutral druid, we simply see a sect that is neither concerned with promoting human interest, nor overtly antagonistic to it. For the neutral-leaning bard, the alignment merely describes the free spirit of these drifters.

By the way: any character class can adventure with any other character class in my game.

With Regard To Alignment-Based Magic:

There are only a handful of magic spells in the PHB, mostly clerical in nature, that require alignment to be addressed. Know alignment does not exist as a spell (un-needed). Detect evil detects the presence of unnatural or supernatural presences: the undead, creatures from other planes, and (as noted in the spell description) "evilly cursed magic items" (i.e. magically cursed items specifically designed to do harm). Similarly, dispel evil banishes enchanted and summoned creatures regardless of alignment. Protection from evil is now just circle of protection, a spell that wards out unnatural and supernatural creatures and provides the listed bonus against creatures trying to do harm to the warded character(s).

I should probably note that I long ago stopped using denotations like "protection from good" or "unholy word." To a devil-worshipping cleric, "unholiness" is "holy" and "evil" is "good." While these spells still exist, they do not merit having a reversible version (holy word is always "holy" to the person using it). 

As for magic items of an alignment nature, they generally fall into three categories: items designed to screw with a PC's alignment, items meant to restrict access (benefitting or cursing depending on alignment), and items meant to exert control over its user (like an intelligent sword). In the case of the former (a helm of opposite alignment, for example), they're simply out of the game...it was rare that I would stock such items anyway, even back when I used alignment, as all they ended up doing was giving a player an excuse to engage in unproductive shenanigans OR unfairly stripped the abilities of a PC (paladins, rangers) through no fault of their own.

For magic-swords and other such items (like the Gauntlet in module UK3), I determine what the item's motivations are, and have it exert control in order to obtain those motivations REGARDLESS of alignment. No damage is received from using such an item, unless it's made for a particular type of wielder (a dwarf or a paladin, for example) as is picked up by someone else.

As for magic items that bestow benefits based on alignment...eh, anyone can use it. You want your magic-user to read a libram of ineffable damnation? Have at it...all magic-users gain the benefit (and can likewise benefit from a libram of gainful conjuration, etc.). I want my wizards seeking out forbidden tomes of knowledge, good or evil; that's the stuff of the adventure fiction I grew up reading.

With Regard To Clerics:

Clerics in my campaign still pray for (and receive) magical spells from their deities. They have access to the same spell list, regardless of deity; this list is different from the other spell lists. My long-standing house rule is that they pray for their spells as needed, not in some morning ritual...I've explained this all before. 

Clerics have tenets of faith and worship that they are expected to practice. Do I bother detailing these? No.

Would it be possible for a cleric to lose their spell powers for failing to follow the dictates of their church/religion/deity? Maybe. I haven't (so far as I can recall) ever ruled as such in any D&D game I've ever run.

Are clerics expected to fight for "good" (or "evil") against their opposite number? Clerics are expected to champion and protect their own faith and that faith's worshippers against those who'd harm or threaten that faith or those worshippers. Sometimes that might mean fighting against a (previous) ally. Sometimes that might mean fighting with a (previous) enemy. Sometimes "protecting the faith" involves rooting out corruption within their own church (i.e. fighting/killing their own clergy or congregation members).

God (and gods) move in mysterious ways.

I don't use the DDG all that much these days. If I were to use it, it would be mostly as a "monster manual" for other planar entities. Yes, I have no issue with high level characters fighting (and possibly slaying) gods...good luck to 'em if they want to try it. I know from experience that it's not all that easy...in fact, I've never seen it done in an ACTUAL game of AD&D. Nope, not even Llolth (and I've run Q1). If a god were slain, I'd expect its worshippers to shift allegiance to whatever god would have them (and that suited their fancy), and would retain all their prior levels/spells/abilities.

Just about the only way I really see a cleric losing their spells would be through some crisis of faith: either a literal "crisis" (our deity has been slain!) or through some curse/geas or vow breaking crisis, of the kind that might require an atonement spell. In the latter case...well, that's the kind of thing that has to be worked out on a case-by-case basis generally through (*shudder*) role-playing. Which isn't BAD, folks, but just isn't something I can pencil down with a hard-and-fast answer. That the AD&D game provides for this potentiality of such a spell being needed speaks to the robustness of the system...you won't find atonement in 5E, just by the way.

[which maybe says something about the unforgivable blasphemy that is 5E]

ALL RIGHTY...that's enough of a foundation in the basic cosmology of my campaign. We'll get to the actual geography of the world (physical and political) in tomorrow's post.

Illusionary Post

I am at the point now where I think I have probably spent more time working through the illusionist class than Gary Gygax ever did.

[oh, hello! What's this? Well, it's NOT the thing(s) I've been working on the last couple weeks. Sometimes, when you hit a wall writing...which I have...you need to step sideways to get back on track. Another D&D post for the fun of it]

Once upon a time, I spent a whole LOT o' time writing about the illusionist...mm, here and here and here. Good stuff (there's also this bit about color spray and gnomes...for the interested)). Worth a read, I suppose. But that was all waaay back before I took up the AD&D sword again; I was still futzing around with OD&D in those days, rather than simply playing the game. Tinkering. The silly mental exercises we do rather than, you know, doing the real work (i.e. world building and running). 

Here's a choice quote from my most recently blogged thoughts on the illusionist (post-return to AD&D):

As reworked by Gygax for the AD&D system, the spell list for the class is...poor. ...the class, unfortunately, needs a lot of "clean-up."

But how can I say that, when I haven't actually seen a player run and develop an illusionist character over a long-term campaign? How do I know that the class...as printed in the PHB...wasn't reworked specifically due to extensive play-testing and is, in fact, the perfect representation of the class?

Don't really know HOW I'd run them now, because no one wants to play them in my campaign. I do have extensive spell list revisions stored somewhere on my laptop...I'd be tempted to break those out. But probably, I'd just start with the standard rules (if someone wanted to play an illusionist)....

In other words, I punted on the matter.  What I have found...over and over again...is that with regard to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, there is very little that needs to be changed to improve the game's overall effectiveness. It functions, and functions well, within the parameters of the rule system as designed.  We argue and critique and hypothesize and debate but when played with the intention of, you know, "playing D&D"...when played intentionally the game works just fine. Most of the adjustments I've made...or proposed...over the years either ended up falling away (i.e. I moved back to the Rules As Written), or...in the case of B/X and OD&D games...were simply moving the system towards 1E. And now I play 1E. That's half the battle right there.

So then, why am I poking at the illusionist?  Because the class IS still a bit of a mess. 'But JB! You just said...' Yeah, yeah, I know what I just said. Give me a minute.

The most recent CAG podcast focused squarely on the 1st edition illusionist class: a very good discussion, and I found myself in agreement with nearly all of it. Oh, some of my stronger quibbles have to do with the phantasmal forces spell, and the implication that nerfing it (for example, not allowing it to do real, actual damage) is akin to restricting the fighter to only doing subdual damage...but regardless of which side you land upon that particular debate, the major point (we do not want to include a class no one wants to play) is valid, and is one requiring some examination.

So: let's talk about it. Is the illusionist a class worth having in the game? Is is a class worth playing?

As a concept, I think the class is fine...more than fine, actually. It fills a very interesting niche, much the same way that the druid fills a niche. The cleric is the high priest archetype (well, at the higher levels, of course. To start, the cleric is quite a bit farther down the food chain of the church hierarchy). But whether your cleric is modeled on the medieval Christian church or the ancient temples priests of Rome, regardless this is the pomp and ritual and institutionalized religion with all its sacred trappings, bells, and whistles...er, candles. 

And the druid is not of that: they represent the more earthy, shamanic traditions, communing with Mother Earth, the animals, the base elements of nature. That is a great niche...with a great suite of special abilities!...that is somewhat like a cleric (hey, there's 'worship' going on!) but is very, very different. A nice change of pace.

The illusionist is to the magic-user what the druid is to the cleric...a very different type of spell-caster, one who has taken a different road when it comes to weaving magic. While the magic-user seeks to alter and change reality, bending it to his/her will, the illusionist says "to hell with reality! I can just bend the mind and the perception of what reality is."  Which is awesome. It's a different approach to using magic...but one that requires a certain type of player ingenuity to make function. It is a far more subtle type of character to play: yes, a player does have to think in terms of trickery to use their magic with effective results, because the illusionist doesn't have the same direct powers as the MU does with spells like burning hands or knock. 

Mostly, that is. As EOTB points out in the aforementioned podcast, one can play an illusionist as just a pocket magic-user, with a selection of simple, direct magics: spells like color spray, wall of fog, invisibility, blindness, etc. don't require any heavy mental lifting to use, no negotiation with the DM regarding an opponent's "disbelief" and possible saving throw. Unlike the various phantasm spells, these are simple, direct applications that...if a player chooses to stick to 'em...result in a character that appears (mostly) like any other magic-user, albeit one with a different bag of tricks.

To the main issue: it's not the concept that's the problem, it's the spells on the illusionist's list that fail to "punch their weight," especially as the illusionist climbs higher in level. Sure, it's nice to get phantasmal forces as a 1st level spell and maze as a 5th level, but other spells are simply lame in comparison to the magic's gained by an MU of similar x.p. total. And do I want every illusionist in the game to be pocketing the exact same selection of "most effective" spells? No, I do not.

SO, in order for the class to be viable for one's game...something VERY desirable to me, given the delightful way the class fills its particular niche...the illusionist must be viable over the long-term, i.e. not just for the first five or six levels of play. And that means correcting Gygax's corrections to the original (Pete Aronson) spell list.

[by the way: in preparation for this task, I did take the opportunity to review all the "new" illusionist spells presented in the Unearthed Arcana. In general, I hate them all with (perhaps) a single exception (phantom steed). To me, all these new spells are FILLER, most more-or-less duplicating other spell effects (both illusionist and otherwise) in a slightly more specific fashion. These could be good ideas for illusionists wanting to pursue magical research, but I certainly wouldn't make any of them "standard"]

Here, then, is how I'd curate the illusionist spells; adjustments have been made by comparing relative x.p. values at which a spell is gained compared to the spells granted to spell-users of the same x.p. total in other classes, with some caveats (illusions are, for example, easier to master). In many cases, defaulting back to the original Aronson spell lists were appropriate. I've also added one or two new spells of my own:

1st Level (14): audible glamer, change self, color spray, dancing lights, darkness, detect illusion, detect invisible, gaze reflection, hypnotism, light, mirror image, phantasmal image, ventriloquism, wall of fog

2nd Level (12): blindness, blur, deafness, detect magic, dispel illusion, fog, hypnotic pattern, improved phantasm, invisibility, magic mouth, misdirection, rope trick

3rd Level (12): color bomb*, continual darkness, continual light, dispel exhaustion, fear, hallucinatory terrain, illusionary script, invisibility 10' radius, non-detection, paralyzation, spectral force, suggestion

4th Level (10): confusion, dreams*, emotion, improved invisibility, massmorph, minor creation, phantasmal killer, phantom steed**, shadow door, shadow monsters

5th Level (10): chaos, demi-shadow monsters, major creation, phantoms*, programmed illusion, projected image, shadow jump***, shadow magic, summon shadows, veil

6th Level (8): conjure animals, demi-shadow magic, mass suggestion, maze, permanent illusion, prismatic spray, shades, true sight

7th Level (6): alter reality, astral spell, phantom prison****, prismatic wall, spectral life****, vision

*  Spell description can be found in Aronson's original manuscript

** As per Unearthed Arcana (I feel so dirty)

*** As transport via plants (druid spell) but with shadows.

**** Spells of my own design: the former is adapted from my (Holmes) spell mind warp, the latter is adapted from Aronson's create specters (the original version, not the version appearing in The Strategic Review)

In my campaign, illusionists begin with three spells, randomly determined, each of which may be cast once per day (so all illusionists know/cast a number of spells as listed in the PHB plus two first level spells). To determine starting spells, roll 1d12; however, an illusionist will only be taught audible glamer OR ventriloquism (not both) and will only be taught light OR darkness (not both) before starting their career. 

There are no reversible illusionist spells. Illusionists automatically read illusionist magic.

My Magic (Part 2)

Magic-users are, of course, a completely different story.

If you read over Ye Old blog, you'll find numerous examples of bitching and moaning about MUs not being "magical enough" or designed well enough or balanced enough or (even) viable for play as written. Hogwash...absolute hogwash, all of it. Despite all my complaints and proposed fixes, house rules, etc.the magic-user AS WRITTEN is a fine and viable and plenty playable.

I've both run AND played magic-users in MOST editions of D&D: OD&D, B/X, Holmes, RC/BECMI, 1E, and 3E. In the days of my youth, I never played magic-users, but I saw some pretty good ones (generally played by my friend Scott) get up to some pretty high levels. In my teenage years, I ran an NPC magic-user as a companion/henchman to a small (three player) campaign that would peter out sometime around G3 (Hall of the Fire Giant King)...that guy went from 1st to 12th level or so over the span of his career. When I first acquired the OD&D books (back in the late-80s/early-90s) I did some solo gaming to test them, running a magic-user named Barack the Half-Handed (based on a character from an old Lythande story). 

[interesting...to me at any rate...that I would recycle that name and character concept for two separate Ars Magica campaigns (one PC, one NPC) that I would play/run in my 20s]

In recent years, however, I've had the opportunity to play low-level MUs as a player in other DMs' campaigns. This is unusual, for a couple reasons. First off, unless we're playing a game like Ars Magica (where being a wizard is kind of "the thing"), my tendency is to gravitate towards fighter characters (or MAYBE a beefy cleric). I'm the type of dude that prefers to lead...and probably charge...confronting threats in direct, head-on fashion. Oh, I can be sneaky and cautious at times, but that's not my default setting...consequently I like a character that's a bit sturdier than your standard magic-user. Better survivability with my preferred play style.

Which leads me to the OTHER reason it's unusual for me to play magic-users: I don't trust other DMs. You can call me paranoid or elitist or whatever, but I simply prefer to be the guy in the driver seat when playing RPGs because, well, I trust my ability to be fair and scrupulously honest. With other DMs, you never know what you're going to get. Which is admittedly ridiculous stance to have (I've experienced MAYBE one or two "bad apple" GMs over 40 years and dozens of different gaming tables)...but I'm a ridiculous guy that has some "control issues." And playing a magic-user with no armor, 3-4 hit points, and a single spell makes me feel a little too vulnerable.

Fortunately, I've relaxed a bit the last decade or so, and been able to kick off my shoes (and armor) and put on the pointy hat. The first By The Book magic-user I played was a Holmesian one at a convention. The game was a blast, and I enjoyed myself immensely...there's a bit of a thrill living on the edge with only a couple hit points, and the game forces you to be both creative and a "team player." That's neat!

[mmm...I now recall that my FIRST player character MU was actually a wizard in 3E campaign that lasted all of one session...but that dude was one of those very few "bad" GMs I've had the misfortune of meeting...]

Most recently, I've been playing a magic-user in my son's AD&D (1E) campaign. The character ("Barnaby") has worked his way up to 5th or 6th level at this point...I can't recall because it's been several months since our last game. Diego is running a very By The Book campaign with a couple exceptions: he runs clerical magic the same as I do, and he doesn't charge training costs. But everything else (as much as a smart 12 year old can remember/manage) is BTB. 

And...I've found the class a bit boring. Most of my PC's experience came from plumbing the Caves of Chaos in B2 (modified for AD&D) and while THAT was actually a pretty fun series of adventures (it's very tactically interesting if you choose NOT to work the faction angle), the BTB magic-user made the whole thing...a little too easy?

It helped that I got some good spells from my random roll (find familiar is a godsend for any low level sorcerer-in-training). But the ability to stockpile spells in one's spell book (giving you a wide range to draw from) and the ability to memorize multiples of the same spell (sleep, for example) lends to tactical play that can feel very same-same.

Which is why that...for the last 3-4 years (even since BEFORE I was playing AD&D again), I stopped running magic-users BTB. I know, I know...shame on me.

Here is how I run magic-users at my table:

1. Read magic isn't a thing. Magic-users can read magic-user scrolls just like clerics can read clerical scrolls. Magic-users automatically speak/read the "magical language" as part of their class training.
2. No stockpiling spells. The number of spells you can cast is the number of spells you have in your spell book. You don't get to (nor have to) find and add new spells to your book. This is, by the way, the same as RAW B/X (BECMI/RC differs however).
3. No multiple spell memorization. Each spell may be used once per day. This is adapted from OD&D (Book 1), and while others may quibble over my interpretation of the wording in the first paragraph of page 19, in practice I find it works very well.
4. Each first level magic-user begins with three spells, rolled randomly from the tables in the DMG (p. 39). Yes, this means that MUs in my campaign can cast three spells at 1st level, instead of one. I really like the one offense,  one defense, and one miscellaneous spell paradigm, and I don't force the player to choose which of the three to memorize. Later on, as they progress in level, they can choose whether to specialize in offense or utility or whatever...at first level, they are armed with the spells their master gave them. 
5. Upon advancement, the magic-user chooses additional spells up to the amount that they're able to cast for the day. Chance to Know (based on INT) is checked as normal. 1st level spells known are read as the number +2 (because of the additional spells learned at 1st level, of course). Minimum/Maximum Known (based on INT) remains the same.

AND...that's pretty much it. The magic-user is otherwise as written, though some spells have been modified in my game. 

Please understand: the character class as designed (at least, in OD&D, Holmes, B/X, and 1E) works JUST FINE using the rules as written. I've run BTB magic-users over the years and have played the class (By The Book) in multiple systems/games and managed to both survive and thrive. You can run a MU using RAW in any of those pre-1989 works (probably 2E as well) and NOT be hamstrung despite the slight variations and idiosyncrasies in each edition...they all work.

Well then, JB (I hear the hard-liners asking), if the game WORKS why would you bother to change it? The mantra should be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," right?

Yeah. That's right. But I have reasons.

• Removal of read magic resolves a lot of problematic questions arising from that spell like: Why can other spell casters read scrolls without such magic? Why can thieves read scrolls without using a spell? How does the spell interact with the writings in a spell book? Etc. It also helps foil Gygax's attempt at DMv.PC antagonism (I ignore most of the EGG's rules with regard to "fading" scrolls, etc. pressures designed to PUSH players into hasty decisions in order to trigger curses). F that noise. I'm not trying to "trip up" players (they make plenty of mistakes all on their own), and I don't want every scroll tube found to become an exercise in following a 5-point, best practice plan avoiding risk. No. MU spell scrolls are simply specially prepared, one-shot magic items useable only by magic-users (and some higher level thieves and illusionists).
• Spells being limited to what can be cast (e.g. I can cast three 2nd level spells, and I only know three 2nd level spells) cuts down on dithering on what to choose and whether or not to end a delve early (because the PCs need to retreat to memorize different spells, etc.) and allows a group to simply get on with the game. The fighter on an expedition doesn't worry about his weapon load-out every morning: he straps it on one time and then chooses the right tool for the job as the need arises. Same for the MU and his/her spells. With a set battery of dweomers, the mage starts to understand and develop tactics (and, from there, creative tactics) based on experience and usage...which I like.
• Similarly, the prohibition on memorizing multiple spells of the same type creates more variety of tactics and prompts the PC to make interesting choices: do I use my magic missile spell now (since I don't have it memorized thrice?)? When is the best time to cast shield? Etc. For me, this makes the magician character more interesting and models much of the pulp fiction that inspired D&D in the first place (seldom does one see a sorcerer use the same spell twice in fiction). 
• The three random spells is BTB AD&D (minus the read magic spell that would be part of every 1st level magic-user's inventory), but it functions EXTREMELY well in tandem with the "spells known = spells cast" house rule. As a result of the combo of house rules, I have seen creative and effective use of those 'oft overlooked spells' that would otherwise be left off the daily memorization schedule. Spells like ventriloquism, jump, push, mending, message, and spider climb have all seen great use as part of the regular rotation, and some spells (feather fall and jump) have been real life savers. Spider climb is just a damn useful spell by the way, aiding my BTB wizard immensely in cleaning out the Caves of Chaos. 
• Allowing 1st level magic-users to use three magic spells per day from the get-go also seems to be the "sweet spot" of making the class seem more magical. I was doing something similar towards the end of my B/X gaming (giving MUs +1 spell for INT 15 and +2 spells for INT 17), but having three spells just feels...mm..."magical." I know not everyone will agree and, as I wrote, I've played MUs with a single spell and (in tandem with companion party members) survived just fine. But I enjoy seeing how my players will use their three spells in early adventures...it's always entertaining!

Finally, with regard to the automatic acquisition of spells...well, this needs a bit of elaboration.

Spell acquisition is an interesting subject. In B/X it's one of the few true "money sinks," since PCs over a certain level are left with no alternative than to conduct spell research to learn their new spells (although, without other associated upkeep costs, the time component isn't as harsh as it could be). But in AD&D, the BTB acquisition of spells is quite draconian: the "gain 1 spell per level" is so stingy that wizards (beginning at mid-levels) are left with little recourse than to beg, borrow, and steal spells, especially given the costs of conducting spell research along with all the additional expenses heaped upon the heads of advanced PCs.

The overall effect...which I have observed in multiple long-term campaigns...is something I refer to as "the Raistlin Effect." Any of you out there familiar with the Dragonlance novels? Read the first trilogy with an eye focused on the actions of the Raistlin character and you will get a glimpse of the typical 1E wizard's path. The guy will go to any lengths to find a scroll, or an old spell book, or a library of ancient tomes...lying, cheating, betraying his friends, changing his alignment, whatever it takes. In some ways, the quest for more magic is good adventure fodder: you need a scroll with stone to flesh or mass charm? Check out the abandoned Tower of So-and-So or the ancient Tomb of Whatshisname. 

But it's...mm...'not great' when the campaign starts to be influenced by one (or more) player's drive to acquire power. And yet, if that drive is stifled (by the DM or the other players at the table)...well, that can have negative repercussions, too. Resentments and recriminations...yeah, I've seen 'em. Both ways. Nobody wants one player character to become the focus of the campaign. 

And, sure, a good DM can prevent this by placing plenty of scrolls and spell books and whatnot in the party's path (or an "appropriate amount," whatever that means). But my house rule neatly sidesteps the entire issue and allows the PCs to get down to what it is they came here for: exploring the campaign world. No side-quests (to get the mage-types their spells) needed. Better, in my opinion, to have the party focused, together, on the task at hand, whatever that might be (plumbing a dungeon, defeating an antagonist, embarking on a money-making venture, looking for trouble...whatever). I prefer that the advantages that come with level advancement...better thief percentages, special war horses, more weapon proficiencies, etc....to simply come automatically. 

And for magic-users, that includes spell acquisition. 

Because, really, the magi's role is challenging enough, isn't it? No armor, few weapons, poor attack capability, low hit points. And their best spells, even when acquired (always have to make that INT check!), often have expensive spell component costs or severe penalties (like aging or possible insanity). The magic-using profession is hard, and rightly so (a fair trade-off considering the amazing marvels they can work). Best to let them simply get to it, rather than forcing them to jump through more hoops.

My Magic (Part 1)

Oh, wow. Finally, a chance to blog (I'm waiting at the car dealership...again). Yeah, it's a Friday when no one reads blog posts. At least there'll be something for folks to scan over the weekend. 

I thought I might write a bit how I run magic spells in my campaign. This is due in part to Noism's post the other day regarding "underutilized spells" in which commenter Theo Thaconatos wrote:

I seems there are plenty of old schoolers who (gasp) let Clerics cast spells on-demand (well, on-imploration) as a kind of miraculous ask.

I run my clerics that way myself...and have for years. However, I couldn't seem to find an example in my 50+ posts on "clerics" that did more than (briefly) mention this fact. Since it's one of the very few house rules I've used for decades, I thought that might be something to write about.

[also, please note that this is "part 1" in a series...my plan is to discuss ALL the various spell-user types found in my campaign]

Over the many years of writing this blog, I think most folks would find me a strong advocate for the Rules As Written camp of game play. Game designers design games in particular ways for particular reasons. It is not a great idea to change existing rules (especially not willy-nilly or without trying and testing them)...additional rules can always be ADDED (if/when necessary) to fill in the "blank spaces" not addressed by the game designer.  

Much as I've bitched and moaned over the years regarding specific design choices, this is generally my default stance when it comes to playing and running role-playing games. And even when I have added a house rule or five (and I have done so...many, many times) more often than not, I simply end up defaulting back to the rules as written during game play. In general it's just EASIER to do so...and well-designed games (like B/X or 1E) tend to play both smoothly and efficiently when run 'by the book.' Truly.

But, of course, I am also a gigantic hypocrite. Because I haven't run clerics RAW since ever.

As has been related before (here and elsewhere, many times): I cut my teeth with B/X circa 1982 before moving into AD&D sometime circa '84. The first cleric I ever encountered was Sister Rebecca in Moldvay's basic rules. The first PLAYER cleric I ever saw in game was a high (9th) level one I created for my buddy Matt to test out the Expert set rules (specifically regarding men-at-arms and wilderness travel). The first ACTUAL PC cleric I saw was in my hybrid B/X-Monster Manual days (i.e. before I discovered AD&D was a separate entity), when a guest player (Brian) showed up to play and brought his high level AD&D cleric to our table (complete with mace of disruption). Later, over several years of running straight AD&D campaigns, we'd see MANY clerics and cleric multi-classes. And, of course, since getting back into D&D (in the early 2000s) I've run a TON of clerics...in 3E, BECMI, B/X, OD&D, and (of course) 1E.  My son's new 1st level character is, in fact, a cleric.

And through it all, since the beginning, I have run clerics different from the rules as written. Moldvay is quite clear on the specifics:

Since clerical spells are divinely given, they do not have to be studied; the cleric need only rest and then pray for them. As a result, the cleric has the choice of any spells of the same level for each adventure. Once a spell is selected, however, it cannot be changed during the course of that adventure (or day).

[emphasis added by Yours Truly; please note this synchs up quite readily with the first sentence of the second paragraph in the SPELLS section: "Spells must be memorized before an adventure begins." Earlier on, an 'adventure' is defined as a single game session]

And why would it not be clear? Gygax is equally as specific in the PHB (page 40):

Spells of any sort must therefore be selected prior to setting out on an adventure, for memorization requires considerable time.

[this following the discussion on clerics need to pray (and magic-users need to study) in order to stock spells in their brains]

But, as said, I've never run clerics like this. I have always, always allowed clerics (PC or otherwise) to cast any unrestricted (by level) spell, without prior memorization, up to the limit of their maximum number of spells per day. 

Always with the POSSIBLE exception of C1: Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan...because I've used that module with the pre-gen (tournament) characters, and the cleric's spell selection (including slow poison) is specifically designed for the challenges of that module. However, I've also run C1 without the pre-gens, and (in those cases) my standard house rule...regarding cleric spells...applied as usual.

I have multiple reasons for running clerics this way:

1) Philosophically, it matches/models my perception of "divine" magic. Clerics spells are miracles send from heaven (or hell or Olympus or wherever). They are the granting of divine aid to the passioned plea and prayer of the god's agent. Clerics call on their deity when their need is greatest (i.e. at the moment the spell is wanted)...and if the cleric has been faithful, and the request is deemed to be just and necessary, the boon is granted. In the Bible (the text of my personal religion) and the various legends/stories of saints, prophets, and miracle workers THIS is how the divine power of God works. It is not stocked up and stored in the morning...it is called on when the champion is tested. And God will either answer his/her prayers...or not.

2) Aesthetically, it helps distinguish divine (clerical) magic from arcane (magic-user) magic. The clerics of my game world are (and always have been) something other than "wizards of another order." By stripping off this part of the Vancian paradigm (i.e. memorization and mental storage of spells), the magic of the class becomes fully distinct from that of the scientist/academic/occultist that is the sorcerous magic-user. Clerical magic is granted from "on high," subject to the whims of their patron; it does not operate under the same rules and laws of wizardry.

3) Practically, the freedom to choose spells "on-the-fly" prevents the cleric from being relegated to the role of designated medic.  This freedom, in practice allows player clerics to make meaningful choices in play: they know how many spells they can cast per day, and what their options are, and they must decide how they husband that resource to make the best use for their party. Timely use of one of the cleric's (many) utility spells can prevent party members from sustaining damage or damaging effects, thereby mitigating the need to stock ONLY healing spells.

4) For the DM (me) it saves me the trouble of playacting an omniscient being. If following the DMG as written, clerical spells above the 3rd level are petitioned of and granted by the character's deity (i.e. from the DM) either directly or via the deity's "minions." This allows the DM to vet the player's spell selection, possibly saying "no" (or "yes") depending on the the behavior of the cleric and/or the determined needs as seen by the deity (i.e. the DM). 

Some DMs see this as an advantage...a chance not only to curb 'inappropriate behavior' (whatever that might mean) or a means to grant hints and help to the otherwise clueless player (who doesn't know, for example that a dispel magic or remove curse spell is going to be exceptionally necessary in the scheduled adventure/session). However, I dislike this practice on a number of fronts. For one thing, I think the deity should be determining whether or not to grant the spell at the time the petition is made (i.e. at the time of need)...and while some BTB DMs will say "of course!" (in addition to examining the cleric's behavior at morning's prayers), this 'double jeopardy' is not to my liking. For a second thing, there are already SPELLS (augury, divination, commune) that a cleric may cast for divine guidance. For a third thing, the DM restriction on spells (for the good or bad) negates the whole act of player choice, thus curtailing player agency....something I dislike immensely. Allow the PCs to sink (or swim) based on their own choices of action...but choices made within play.

"Within play"...that's key when it comes to the magic available to clerics. Clerical spells are, for the most part, designed to mitigate penalties and problems that arise and that inflict lasting harm on the party. Curing damage, yes, of course. But also removing fear and paralysis and blindness, revealing traps and locating paths, neutralizing poison, disease, curses (like lycanthrope), energy drain and death. They have other powers, too...offensive ones even (command, hold person, flame strike, holy word, etc.) but the CHOICE to use these (very effective) spells must be weighed against the need for other spells that aid...the blessings and prayers and divinations...or the need to save a fallen comrade.

In our last session, our newly minted 1st level characters found themselves in dire straits right from the get go: the DCC adventure I repurposed ("Madhouse Meet") has the party awaken in chains in a locked prison cell, with all their armor and weapons missing. Fortunately, escaping their manacles proved easy enough, as two PCs were able to pass a bend bars roll to pull their chains from the wall, while a third (the elven assassin) was able to pick the lock on his own shackles. When it came time to ambush the jailor...a huge brute some 7' in height and built like a bugbear...the fighter grappled him from behind while the assassin used a pick pockets roll to swipe the club from the guard's belt. The cleric, however, rather than engage in the unarmed melee chose to cast cause light wounds, figuring his deity would aid him in smiting his captor.

And, of course, he was right. 

Now, generally, one wouldn't see much use for such a spell...it's more the purview of the evil-cleric-masquerading-as-helpful-healer trope (see B2 for ready example). Most players wouldn't think to memorize it at the outset of an adventure, figuring the need to HEAL party members would be O So Much greater. Bur in this case, it was the PERFECT spell to cast...the perfect "miracle" to ask of a loving God that wanted to protect Its child from the depredations of evil men. 

ANYWAY. The four reasons listed above are all the justifications I give for why I handle clerical spells the way I do. However, none of them are the main reason I've continued to run the game in this way (since 1982...'82!). No, the MAIN reason I continue to run clerics this way is simply because: it works. It functions well. It speeds play. It doesn't "break" the game, neither destroying "balance" between character types, nor making the game "too easy." 

It's worked in my games for 40 years. The whole "player agency" and chance to use non-cure spells are really secondary considerations to that. And I've seen no reason to change it, even though it means I've never TRULY played D&D "by the book" as written.

Next post will be about magic-users.

Push

From the AD&D Players Handbook (page 67):

Push (Conjuration/Summoning)

Level: 1

Range: 1" + 1/4"/level

Duration: Instantaneous

Area of Effect: Special

Components: V, S, M

Casting Time: 1 segment

Saving Throw: Neg.

Explanation/Description: Upon pronouncing the syllables of this spell, the magic-user causes an invisible force to strike against whatever object he or she is pointing at. The force of the push is not great, being 1 foot pound per level of the magic-user casting the spell, but it can move small objects up to 1' in a direction away from the caster, topple an object under the proper conditions, or cause a creature to lose its balance when it is attacking, for if the creature fails its saving throw, it will not be able to attack that round. Of course, the mass of the creature attacking cannot exceed the force of the push by more than a factor of 50, i.e. a 1st level magic-user cannot effectively push a creature weighing more than 50 pounds. A push spell used against an object held by a creature will cause it to subtract the force of the spell in foot pounds (1, 2, 3, etc.) from its chance to hit or add to opponent's saving throws as applicable if the character fails to make its saving throw against magic when the spell is cast. The material component of this spell is a small pinch of powdered brass which must be blown from the palm prior to pointing at the object of the spell.

So much wrong (as I've written before).

Gygax is sometimes praised and sometimes derided for his prose. "Evocative" and "convoluted" are both words that come to mind when I consider his writing. But his spell work (i.e. his compilation of spells in the AD&D books) is some of the worst. I mean...hoo boy howdy. In actual play, I generally do my best to NOT read (or make use of) the textual descriptions.

Back when I was a kid playing AD&D, we didn't see all that many spell-casters. In fact, we probably saw more psionic use than spell-casting. Certainly, psionics seemed easy enough to use. But we only had one kid who routinely played magic-users (or, on one occasion, an illusionist), and the kid who had cleric duty spent most of his spells on healing (natch) which are about as "no brainer" as AD&D spell-casting gets. Most of our characters were fighters, thieves, bards (who used their fighting and thief abilities, not their druidic powers), or some subclass of these: rangers, acrobats, assassins, fighter/thieves, etc.

To be honest, I think MOST of the spell-casters encountered in our old campaigns were opponents...and as such their spells were confined to the needs of the scenario (i.e. mostly attack-oriented spells). As such a lot of the dross in the PHB (spells like erase and push) saw zero use. We didn't realize just how messed up some of these reworked spells were (polymorph other, for example) because we made assumptions that the descriptions would, more-or-less, match what we already knew from the B/X books. All we REALLY cared about were those notes at the top: range, components, casting time, and saving throw. Those were the important factors in running the AD&D game, not whether or not Gygax is calculating his newtons of force  thing correctly (spoiler: he's not).

One of these days, I'll get around to curating the entire list of PHB spells for my home campaign (much as other folks have done), but at the moment I have more pressing campaign needs (just finished redoing the age tables, and am considering how to do height/weight based on species and ability scores...the current randomness on page 100 of the DMG yields "unsatisfactory" results). The push spell is, however, on my mind because it's one of the possible starter spells on the offensive list and I like the idea of a first level spell that shoves someone with telekinetic force. It's a logical "first step" on the road to more subtler manipulations. 

Reviewing the other 1st level spells, I see that Tenser's floating disk allows a 1st level magic-user to carry 100# of weight for forty minutes, whereas unseen servant allows manipulation of only small amounts (10 or 20 pounds) but with more direction (opening and closing, stepping and fetching, etc.) for an hour and ten. That's very useful: wondering who's going to carry the lantern and allow hands-free adventuring? Get an unseen servant!

Ignoring all the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, what exactly is the push spell trying to accomplish. What is the intention of the thing? THAT, is where I want to direct my focus:

• The spell is quick to cast (1 segment), instantaneous of effect, and short range.
• The telekinetic shove is enough to move the target a minimal distance (1') unbalancing it (causing it to lose its attacks for the round) or take a penalty to attack rolls (??) or saves (??) though ONLY upon failing a saving throw
• The spell affects larger creatures/objects depending on caster level.

Compared to other 1st level attack spells (magic missile, sleep, charm person...even light!) this is pretty weak sauce. Burning hands and shocking grasp at least scale up damage based on level...an 11th level wizard can't even exert as much force as an unseen servant (11 foot pounds of force?!)! Probably not enough to knock a goblin off a cliff (let alone an ogre) unless he's already balanced on one foot.

What we really want is something that slams the target (or pushes a large object) for a split second. Let's see, let's see. How about this (changes in bold):

Push (Evocation)

Level: 1

Range: 1" + 1"/level

Duration: Instantaneous

Area of Effect: Special

Components: V, S

Casting Time: 1 segment

Saving Throw: Special

Explanation/Description: Upon pronouncing the syllables of this spell, the magic-user causes an invisible force to strike against whatever object he or she is pointing at, pushing it 10' directly away from the caster. Creatures must save versus magic or be knocked sprawling, taking 1 to 6 points of damage and losing their action for the round; a successful save allows the creature to stay on its feet, but it still loses its action for the round. The push will not affect creatures whose hit dice exceed the caster's level of experience; inanimate objects may not exceed 50 pounds per level of the magic-user.

There...was that so hard?

Later, gators. Happy Friday!

: )

Sorcery I Like

Well, what do you know: a quiet moment around the old home front, for a change.

I'll be honest: I've (perhaps) had the opportunity to blog recently, just not the spirit. Just lots of things over-occupying my brain/attention. It gave me some peace to simply withdraw from the whole blog-o-sphere for a few days, rather than tread water with throwaway posts and comments. Not that this isn't (perhaps) a throwaway post, but there's enough quiet right now that I can sit and type-type-typity-type.

Mmm. With cup of hot coffee at hand.

Yesterday (or maybe the day before) I had the chance to read Clark Ashton Smith's second Xiccarph story, The Flower-Women (to give credit where credit's due, I only learned about Xiccarph after Maliszewski wrote about it a week or so ago). I like Smith's stuff, though I've read precious little of it (perhaps a dozen of his short stories). His work is reminiscent of other writers, though I recognize he was probably the influence on them, rather than the reverse. But his stuff is (usually) punchy and short, perhaps only slowed down by an expansive vocabulary that requires me to look up two-three words with every reading. 

[quick: who can tell me the definition of odalisque off the top of your head?]

I also like this bit about Smith's writing, aptly summed up by James in his (previously mentioned) post:

Smith is almost unique in the history of pulp fantasy for sympathizing with his evil sorcerers, or at least presenting their thoughts and perspectives sympathetically. It's what sets him apart from both Lovecraft, whose antagonists' motives are largely inscrutable, and Howard, whose dark magicians are never portrayed as anything but villains to be cut down.

I think it's fair to say that, for much of my life, I was one of those who tended to "root for the bad guy" both in story and film. Not always, but often enough. Many times over the years I found myself wishing the villain would triumph, the hero would be cut down (or disgraced), the evil plot would unfold according to its nefarious plan. However, this was certainly more the case when I was a kid...having (in later life) viewed films and such where evil did triumph, I confess that the result is generally unsatisfying.

[perhaps my initial rooting for bad was fueled by too much sympathy for Wile E. Coyote and Sylvester the Cat. My wife, to this day, HATES Tweety Bird, and I can't say it's difficult to understand why]

*ahem*

Anyway, black-hearted sorcerers have long been "my cup o tea;" I think it's fair to say that's part of my fandom of Moorcock's Elric stories, despite the general whininess of their protagonist (for me, his constant bitching-moaning is balanced out by his dark sense of humor and occasional bursts of action). But I like necromancers and black magicians of all sorts; when it comes to sorcerous characters, I become a BIG champion of the flawed, antihero type...a cardboard stereotype that I usually loathe in other genres (action films and supers comics, to name two).

I guess I just like my magic a little transgressive? I mean, sorcery transgresses the laws of reality, so shouldn't a sorcerer transgress cultural/societal norms (the laws of man)?

Eh. Not trying to get too deep here. The heart wants what the heart wants. The funny thing is this: with regard to Dungeons & Dragons, I have long said that my personal play style lines up far better with the fighter type than any other archetype. Even when playing another class (bards, clerics...even thieves) I tend to run my character like a fighter. Bold. Brazen. Hacky-slashy. My old DM famously precluded me from playing anything but a fighter in the last campaign she ran, because I 'always acted like a fighter anyway.' 

I've played a lot of too-loud "war priests" over the years.

Magic-user was the last class I was interested in playing...so much so that, with regard to D&D, I'd never run one as a PC until a Con game in 2019.

[okay, okay...I did play ONE wizard back in a SINGLE session of 3E/D20 years ago, but I gave him feats like "martial weapon proficiency" so that I could use swords, etc. Natch, I was doing Gandalf...and the DM quit the game in disgust when he saw I hadn't taken an "optimal build" for the character. One of the events that led to my disillusionment with that particular edition...]

HOWEVER, while I've generally stayed away from the magic-user class over the years, upon reflection (after reading The Flower-Women) I realized I actually had a hankering to play just such a character...a proper D&D (or, rather, AD&D) -style sorcerer. An old school magic-user. 

That character I played back in the 2019 convention? Probably the best time / most fun I've had as a player in a loooong time. And just to re-tell an old saw (for folks who don't want to read the old post):

• We were using Holmes Basic rules, MINUS the wonky combat (no double attack daggers!).
• PCs were rolled randomly at the table (3d6) in order; I took magic-user only because I didn't have the stats for anything else.
• My one spell was protection from evil and it was expended in the first room of the dungeon.
• I spent the majority of the three hour time slot with 1 hit point (due to being wounded) and no spells.
• I was only slain by another party member at the end of the session for (reasons).

And it was still a great time. Despite my character's fragility and lack of "usefulness" (sleep spells, charm spells, combat ability, etc.) I was able to contribute and...many times...take the lead on our eight-man band of misfit adventurers. I used the character's multiple languages and negotiating ability, I used poles and oil and torches, I preceded others into trap doors and tight spaces (okay...probably a little foolhardiness there, but not much to lose in a con game), and I was able to help direct attacks...and throw the occasional dagger...such that we didn't lose a single party member over the course of the session. And that's with 1st level characters and zero healing magic.

I was the only magic-user in the party.

The challenge of playing such a character is/was fairly exhilarating. Trying to find ways to be useful (without getting killed) was far more challenging than other (D&D) games I'd played: games where I had lots of hit points and/or good armor and a feeling of invincibility (at least for the first hit or so). I can only imagine the fun that could be had with the increased effectiveness (more spells) and survivability of playing such a character in the Advanced version of the game...it's not difficult to visualize the manifestation of an "imperious sorcerer" the likes of Maal Dweb. Gradually, of course.

The main difficulty, as always, is finding the right Dungeon Master. *sigh*

I've messed around over the years with a lot of different design tweaks for the D&D magic-user. Most of these have ended up being nothing but junk. What follows are my current "house rules" for the magic-user class in my home game (if not otherwise stated, rules are as per 1E PHB/DMG):

• Magic-users begin the game with three 1st level spells, randomly determined (per the DMG). 
• There is no read magic spell; magic-users can read magic-user spell scrolls automatically.
• All spells known may be cast once per day; a particular spell may not be cast more than once per day (no multiple memorizations of a single spell).
• New spells are added after training upon reaching a new level of experience; new spells are presumed in the cost for training. Preferred spells are chosen by player and then diced for based on Intelligence (per PHB). Spells from spell scrolls and spell books may not be added to the magic-user's repertoire of spells...a magic-user knows what he/she knows.
• Spell books are part talisman, part grimoire, part journal/scientific notes. Study of the spell book is needed to regain spells. Spell books can be prohibitively expensive to replace; losing (stealing) one's spell book is akin to losing (stealing) one's power. Magic-users will endeavor to recover lost (stolen) spell books (and will punish thieves with great vengeance, if possible).

We've been using these rules for a while now (a couple years) and they work for us; i.e. there haven't been any complaints. I'm sure long-time AD&D players will recoil at the thought of NOT having the option of adding "extra" spells to their spell book; in practice, it's been a non-issue (and it's a lot more convenient to simply HAVE the spells available then to need to search them out). The bonus spells at 1st level provide additional effectiveness to the new character, and the randomness and single memorization clause ensures creative use of even the most "worthless" spell (all spells are precious commodities to be treasured by the first level magic-user). 

We have yet to see a thief reach 10th level (or any high level illusionists/rangers) so it's hard to say how their abilities to "read (magic-user) magic" will interact with these rules. As it's a bridge we've yet to cross, I'm content to leave the issue alone and continue with what works...for now.

As an aside: spell-casting dragons in my world know spells as a magic-user equal to their hit dice (a red with 10 HD, for example, would know spells as a 10th level magic-user). This makes dragons considerably more magical...at least the ones that can use magic (I've toyed with the idea of making ALL dragons speaking and magic-using, but I like the idea of there being more "vermin-esque" dragons who are ignorant...and mundane...threats to civilized folk). For me, in addition to dragons being more sorcerous, this helps justify the dragons' hoards, as magic-users pay them in coin and treasure to be trained in higher level spells (what "magic schools" there are being few and, often, strictly regulated).

All right, the coffee pot is empty and the brew in my mug is considerably cooler than when it was first poured (and the house is not nearly as quiet...the wife is wanting me to make lunch), so I'll sign off for now. Hope y'all are having a good January.

: )

Magic Physics

Push is a wretched spell. And not simply because it's totally "weak sauce" as an offensive choice for the starting, first level magic-user (compared to, say, sleep or the dual-purpose light spell). No, it is wretched because of the way it's written, in game terms, especially when compared to other spells of similar effect.

[oh, hi! Remember me? Yes, still alive here at in plague-ridden Seattle. Currently a couple dudes of Eastern European persuasion are working on fixing my dryer while the family sleeps away upstairs]

Yesterday, I spent far too long on researching joules and newtons and physics calculations to figure out the correspondent scale between the push spell and the 5th level magic-user spell telekinesis. Just so I don't have to go through all that again, I'm going to write it up here for edification of interested parties. Because the phrase

"Heavy objects travelling [sic] at high speed can be deadly weapons!"
 - PHB, page 82

isn't especially helpful in and of itself. How heavy? What speed? How many hit points of damage? And how does it compare to push, which simply exerts one foot-pound of energy, per level of the caster?

Let's start with telekinesis: the spell moves 25 pounds of weight, per level of the magic-user. As would be expected from a fifth level spell, control is much more precise than for the push spell, and while the caster must concentrate to control the object being moved, the duration only lasts for two rounds plus one additional round per level. Speed starts at 2" (20 feet) per round, and then doubles with each successive round until a maximum of 1024" (10240 feet) in the tenth round. As magic-users first gain the ability to cast a fifth level spell (like telekinesis) at 9th level, I can see that at minimum the caster will be able to accelerate 225 pounds to the maximum speed by the tenth minute of concentration, and maintain control at that speed for one additional minute (each round being one minute in length).

Joules are the measure of kinetic energy and is a unit found by multiplying half an object's mass by its velocity squared in terms of meters per second (m/s). Assuming gravity in our D&D setting is the same as real world Earth, 225 pounds is equivalent to 102.058kg. Converting D&D "inches" (tens of feet) per round to miles per hour...and thence to m/s...we can calculate the telekinetic velocity over time as follows:

1st round: 0.1016 m/s
2nd round: 0.2032 m/s
3rd round: 0.4064 m/s
4th round: 0.8128 m/s
5th round: 1.6256 m/s
6th round: 3.2512 m/s
7th round: 6.5024 m/s
8th round: 13.0048 m/s
9th round: 26.0096 m/s
10th+ round: 52.0192 m/s

[for my American readers, that's a bit more than 116 miles per hour at maximum velocity]

Here's a good web site for calculating kinetic energy (in joules). Suffice is to say that a 9th level magic-user using telekinesis uses about half a joule in the first minute and quickly ramps up, generating a bit more than 8 joules after three rounds, 33 joules after four, and nearly 135 by the round five. At maximum velocity, that 225 pounds is using over 138 thousand joules of kinetic energy.

Meanwhile, the same 9th level magic-user using push generates only nine foot-pounds of kinetic energy (one foot-pound per level): a little more than 12 joules of kinetic energy.

Or does it? Let's take a closer look.

"Of course, the mass of [the target] cannot exceed the force of the push by more than a factor of 50, i.e. a 1st level magic-user cannot effectively push a creature weighing more than 50 pounds."
 - PHB, page 68

Okay, just because it drives me crazy, I'm going to go ahead and convert Gygax's pounds to kilograms (because you measure mass in kg, not pounds). If we're going to say that a 1st level magic-user can move 22.6796kg a single foot by means of the push spell, and that this is a single foot-pound of kinetic energy, then working backwards we can discover that the "instantaneous" duration found in spells like push can be measured in actual time as .8814 seconds.

[the PHB states "instantaneous" means a spell "lasts only a brief moment." Strange fact: did you know that a moment was once an actual unit of time, roughly calculated to be 90 seconds? The things you discover...]

Now we look at the 9th level magic-user using push to exert nine foot-pounds of kinetic energy (12.2024 joules) with the spell. Knowing the time, distance, and KE we can determine the mass that can be moved a single foot in .8814 seconds as 204.092kg. Converting that to the maximum amount of weight that can be pushed we see it's (roughly) 449.95 pounds. Pretty close to 50 pounds per level (which is what the text implies).

But what if my 9th level sorcerer wanted to push 175 pounds instead of 450...say, the weight of an average human male (DMG page 102)? How about 60 pounds, average weight of a male halfling? Well we can see the velocity created by the kinetic energy will change in these cases: specifically to 0.55448 m/s (for the human) and 0.946955 m/s (for the halfling). Knowing this, we can calculate the human will be pushed with enough force to travel more than two feet, while the halfling will be pushed three and a half. Judging by how far I can knock my 60 pound child in play, I exert more foot-pounds of force than this.

Now, if the sorcerer launched a dart (.5 pounds; equivalent of .2268 kg) from a flat surface (say, the palm of her hand) it would travel about 39 feet...nearly the same distance as the weapon's long range. Would a magically impelled dart lose velocity over distance like a thrown dart? Yeah, probably (since the initial impetus of force is at the place the dart is initially resting). But, still, that's kind of a neat trick.

Not as neat as magic missile, of course, which shoots five unerring darts at 9th level. Probably not even as effective as simply throwing three darts per round (with no chance of being "interrupted"). Yeah, I guess it's not really neat at all.

Push is just a wretched spell. It's the equivalent of a cantrip. I want my first level spells (my first level offensive spells certainly!) to be effective attacks. As written, it should be a defensive spell seeing as how a target ends up with a penalty to its attack roll. If it fails its save. If.

Personally, I'd prefer something that really shoves something...smashes targets against walls or flings them over cliffs. Right now, this spell is just a nudge. And that's not good enough.

I'll talk about the detritus that is gust of wind another day.

Phantasmal Image

One of the reasons I started a Patreon for this blog was to have money to subscribe to other folks' Patreon projects...and my devious plan has worked out quite well (thank you to all my supporters!). One of the subscriptions I'm funding at the moment is Alexis Smolensk's "The Higher Path" blog, and I've found his thoughts well worth the (small) price of admission. Yesterday, he wrote up several of his own thoughts on illusionist spells, riffing a bit on my own recent posts. Since I know not all of my readers subscribe to Alexis's stuff, I want to excerpt from his post, as it's pertinent to today's posting:

Two fundamental problems surrounding the existence of illusion in early D&D (which has more or less continued to poison the design) would be the dual fuzzy mechanics of "create your own illusion" and "disbelief." I can recall, all the way back to high school, the habit of players to immediately rush to, "I create a huge fire-breathing dragon with my 1st level illusionist spell, phantasmal force; do they disbelieve?"  

In other people's worlds, this was treated first by a DM's roll, to see if they disbelieve; then, a roll to see if the disbelief was successful. Statistically, this gives two chances for the huge dragon to be successful. If half the victims believe, and then half the disbelievers fail, then the dragon kills 3/4 of the onlookers. I must tell you, the way the rules are written in the DMG and Players' Handbook, this interpretation is "reasonable." Why wouldn't the 1st level illusionist create a fire breathing dragon? Why would you create anything else?  

In my world, disbelief was automatic. I would argue that even if we lived in a world with real fire breathing dragons, the sudden appearance of one, including one that was REAL, would be utter disbelief. We as human beings are built that way...  

And for this, I was shouted at and called vicious names for being unreasonable. To my mind, to make the spell work ~ to make any of the illusions work ~ they had to lack any possibility of being unlikely or impossible. Like, say, the illusion of me throwing a bag of gold coins towards the enemy, to draw them out to where they could be shot through with arrows by the party's fighters. Or creating an apparent ledge for the enemy to back onto, or a rope bridge crossing a river ... which could be fallen through, killing the victim.  

But when I asked my players to invent believable illusions, I discovered as a DM that players are not very creative in this way. They can only see dragons....

I can empathize with his point of view...I've had similar experiences myself. Smolensk's solution has been to remove phantasmal force from his game and replace it with more specific, practical, and easily adjudicated spells like phantasmal feature and phantasmal figure...this I find quite reasonable, though I might quibble over the details.

One of the problems with the original phantasmal force is that it tries to do too many things with a single spell. Fans of fantasy fiction, as I'd guess the vast majority of D&D players are, have experienced the concept of illusions in a myriad of different ways, and have formulated an idea of what an illusionist is based on those experiences. But in fiction (regardless of type) illusions are used like any other tool of the fiction creator: to further plot, to explore character, and/or (in the case of a visual medium like comics and film) to "astound and amaze."

Dungeons & Dragons isn't fiction...it's a game, something meant to be experienced. And illusions, like any other spell or aspect of character ability, must have practical applications. However, because our touchstone for understanding is solely based on fiction, it is a challenge for most of us to employ illusions. Most of us, I believe, are used to using methods other than deception to achieve our ends.

[that is to say, other aspects of D&D have analogies to real world experience. We have used "protective gear" in real life...whether it be a hard hat, seatbelt, or sports equipment...and understand how armor can be used to save our lives. Some of us have had actual fights, but all of us have used tools in some application of force to accomplish our objectives, be it pounding a nail or cutting a steak. We understand that flying...in the real world...can be accomplished only by those who are fortunate to have the means (money and/or training) to do so, but we can all observe birds taking wing to fly from one tree branch to a telephone wire, and can vividly imagine ourselves doing the same with a magic carpet or broom. And most of us have experienced some sort of invisibility...if only the kind that comes from being anonymous in a crowd of strangers at a movie theater or event...and can visualize how one might cross a room unnoticed, so long as we don't boldly interact with the individuals present]

Phantasmal force exists to allow the model a particular type of magic found in fiction...an ICONIC form of magic and, perhaps, the most basic form. In some fictions, ALL magic is illusional: it creates nothing real, creates no lasting change, affects nothing but tricking the minds and senses of its observers. This, of course, is not the case with the Dungeons & Dragons game, where most magic is very, very real to the characters: fireballs and healings and transformations (from polymorph to petrification). And yet we include illusions in the game because they ARE iconic to the fantasy genre, and D&D is nothing if not a kitchen sink approach to fantasy, welcoming every bit of myth, legend, pulp novel, and celluloid. We see the creation of illusions in film and literature for specific purposes and think it should be included in the game (it's fantasy after all) and we create a catchall spell that will create "vivid illusions of nearly anything the user envisions."

[that's Gygax's quote, BTW, from OD&D, volume 1]

Hologram

Why shouldn't the caster create the biggest, baddest monster she can think of? Why shouldn't she create an illusion of fire raining from the heavens, or of the earth cracking open beneath her opponent's feet, or of the lead orc tripping a trap that drops a thousand tons of stone on him and his compatriots? Why shouldn't an illusionist push the boundaries of whatever is the most practical application of the spell? This isn't fiction...it's a game. Players are trying to use their tools in an expedient manner.

And rather than take a step back and rethink things, the designers allow the spell to stand as written (as a catchall for anything displayed in fiction) and instead attempt to rein it in with limitations: the illusion must fit within an area. The illusion cannot be struck in combat. The illusion must be believed. Etc. Or even more complex, we start implementing distinctions like "figments" versus "phantasms," re-defining how an illusion operates on targets INSTEAD OF simply re-defining the limits of what can be created.

In my opinion, Phantasmal force is too broad of a spell and, thus, too prone to abuse and (as a result) argument and distraction from the game.

Look at audible glamer...as an auditory illusion it produces a single type of sound, whose maximum volume is determined by the caster's level of experience. Unlike phantasmal force, it does not require concentration...but then the noises are indistinct (you can create the sound of shouting or talking, but no actual words, just hubbub). For me, this gives some good parameters for a rewrite of the spell: I'd call it phantasmal image.

Phantasmal image produces a static, visual illusion. The volume of illusion produced is determined by caster level, topping out (like audible glamer) around "dragon size." Because it is a specific visual image conceived by the caster, the illusion remains in existence only so long as the caster concentrates. Deliberately touching the image immediately causes the spell to vanish; the image may be used to mask an existing, real feature.

Examples of the phantasmal image could include: a chest of gold, a corpse, a bridge over a chasm, an arrow stuck in a (real) tree attached to a note, a wall blocking an open corridor, or a crack or pit in the floor. It could mask an existing bridge (making it appear dilapidated, broken, or missing), it can make a door simply seem to be continuous wall, or can make a chest of treasure appear to be empty (note that unlike the 2nd level invisibility spell, such "deleting" of features only effects static targets, and are dispelled by touch or when a caster ceases concentration).  Phantasmal image cannot be used to create dynamic (i.e. moving) images: no attacking mobs, no flying dragons, no rain of arrows, no crackling bonfires, etc.

It is my opinion that this defining of the limits of the spell actually provides MORE possible uses for such magic. And because of its limitations (the need to be static, dispelling by touch, etc.) there is no need to muck around with saving throws or issues of "disbelief:" the spell creates a phantom image that disappears if someone interacts with it. Player characters that disbelieve a pool of green slime are free to put their foot in it and test their theory...more cautious individuals might simply look for another way around the obstacle.

All right, more to come. Have a happy Valentine's Day, people. Don't say I don't love you all!
: )

Color Spray

"Illusionist Week" continues. Hell, it might turn into "Illusionist Month." Sorry about that...I'll try to get the latest Zenopus update posted sometime this weekend...the kids aren't dead yet!

[mmm...maybe should have wrote *SPOILER*]

Just starting up from yesterday's cricket-worthy post, I decided that if I was going to rewrite the illusionist spell list I need to have some ideas of how I want to organize and structure it. There are, after all, some basic patterns that are readily apparent (spells based on color and light, spells that conjure "shadow stuff" from some demi-plane, spells that screw with a target's mind, etc.) and categorizing spells by type is something that will help with the re-organization of the list in a sensible manner. Sensible to me anyway.

SO...making a "deep dive" means doing some research and (in this case) started with reading the AD&D illusionist spell list. First up, audible glamer...not bad, though the whole "cast in conjunction with phantasmal force" is problematic (spell-casters don't cast spells "in conjunction"...unless Gygax meant "in conjunction with another illusionist" which, wow, TWO illusionists in the same party? That's got to be more rare than a pair of rangers...). I like the rough volume guidelines, though I'd probably cap it at "dragon level" (i.e. 24 men)...by my reckoning that would be 6th level, and any such illusionist would have access to the spell fear (what's more scary than a roaring dragon?). I don't want a spell to get into the range where eardrums start bleeding or cellular tissue begins to liquify.

Let's see...after that we have change self, a simple visual illusion and fine as written. Then we have the iconic color spray, okay, and...and...

WTF.

Sweet Christmas, what the hell is this mess?

I'm not even going to bother quoting it here, because it's nonsensical. And, no, I'm definitely not the first person to notice it. The fact that I'm only noticing it NOW gives you an idea of how often I've run players with illusionist characters (some number less than two). I myself have run illusionists on multiple occasions but, given the choice, I've always taken phantasmal force as my first spell (dude...illusionist!) probably followed by hypnotism or wall of fog, maybe even change self. Some players might prefer a straightforward attack spell, but...well, that's not how I roll when I'm wearing the illusionist hat.

Which is all a long way of poorly justifying how I'm reading a book I've owned since 5th grade and never noticed that color spray spends a bunch of time defining what it does to creatures of higher level/HD than the caster while simultaneously limiting the effect to the level of the caster. Jeez Louise.

Checking other editions, I see that 2E "fixed" the spell by deleting the level cap. Which results in a power word equivalent spell that effects multiple creatures regardless of hit point value for a 1st level spell slot (creatures do get a save if they are over 6th level). I can see why it became popular. Oh, 2E...there are reasons I don't play you.

Once again, I see I need to go back to the source material: Peter Aronson. Aronson added this spell to the back end of the 1st level illusionist list for the 1976 Dragon #1 article that I mentioned in the earlier post. It's messily written...perhaps the reason why Gygax got "confused" in his editing...but let me take a shot at parsing it out (this is not a direct quote...it's my paraphrase):

Color spray effects 1D6 levels (HD) of opponents at a range of 24". The caster receives a bonus to the die roll of +1 for every five levels after 2nd (so +1 at 7th, +2 at 12th, etc.); however, the final result may not exceed six. If multiple targets are within range, randomly determine the order in which they are affected, assigning levels of effect (from the total effect rolled) until all levels have been expended. Partial assignment of spell effect is possible, and will impact whether or not the target receives a saving throw, as follows:

Level of effect equals creature's HD: no save
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by one: normal save
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by two: save at +2
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by three: save at +4
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by four: save at +6
Level of effect exceeds HD/level by five: save at +8

Color spray does not affect targets whose hit dice or level exceed six. Affected characters are rendered "unconscious through confusion." There is no other effect of the spell. 

Example: a 10th level illusionist casts the spell at a group of 7 orcs and 1 troll. She rolls 1D6 to see the effect and adds +1 because of her high level. She rolls a "6" which is the maximum result she can achieve (despite her level, the result does not increase to seven). As there are eight possible targets that may be affected the DM rolls to see the particular targets and order in which they are affected: the result indicates orc #1, orc #3, orc #5, and then the troll (since three levels of spell effect were expended on the first three orcs, the last three levels are sucked up by the 6 hit die troll). The first three orcs are knocked unconscious (no save); the troll receives a save versus spells with a +4 bonus to resist being rendered senseless. If five orcs had been struck prior to the troll, the troll's save would have been at +8 (the maximum possible bonus). If the troll had been struck first, it would have received no saving throw; however, none of the orcs would have been affected. If the orcs had been traveling with a balrog instead of a troll, only orcs would have been affected by the spell as the balrog's HD exceeds six.

In reviewing the original version of the color spray spell, it appears to me that Aronson was offering up an "illusionist flavor" version of the classic magic-user spell sleep. It shares several characteristics with the spell including level (1st), range (24"), effect (knocking creatures unconscious), and the ability to impact multiple creatures without giving a saving throw. Also like sleep, color spray's effectiveness is limited by the targets' hit dice/level: sleep only affects multiple creatures at HD 3 or fewer (and only a single HD 4 target), while color spray affects creatures up to HD 6 at the cost of impacting far fewer "lesser" beings.

That is how I interpret the intention of the spell. Would you trade the ability to knock out more than six goblins or orcs for the chance to knock out a single minotaur or troll (or the possibility of TWO ogres?)? To me, that's a fair choice to offer to a player...though an Aronson illusionist of at least 9th level could have her cake and eat it, too (thanks to the option of choosing a 1st level magic-user spell...in this case, sleep...with a 4th level spell selection).

Still, as I wrote previously, I don't mind a little overlap in spell effect between two different types of caster, so long as it differs a bit in style and ties in with the class's overall "theme." A "sheet of bright conflicting colors" that renders a target unconscious "through confusion" is neat enough, though this gets nerfed with the 2E admonition that "blind or unseeing creatures are not affected by this spell."

[I lay the blame for this particular wonkiness (which is sure to lead to endless dispute about whether or not a creature with no eyeballs...like a skeleton...can "see") at Gygax's interpretation of the spray as some sort of laser light show that has a blinding affect, rather than a confusion attack with a visual component]

*ahem* As I was saying...a little overlap, with modification/variation, is fine and dandy, but the designer never intended the spell to be something that could be used to take down a mindflayer or greater demon. Should it be able to blind or stun a large creature (like a roc or a tyrannosaurus)? Maybe? But when you can accomplish the same feat with the spell light at a greater duration and with additional utility, do you really need it?

If you want to go strictly By The Book...well, you can't, because the spell as written is nonsensical. Or, rather, you can read it literally, in which case the blinding and stunning abilities never take effect (because it never affects creatures of greater HD than the caster's level). And yet, with a literal BTB reading color spray provides a method for high level illusionists in AD&D to knock out exceptionally powerful creatures with a single first level spell. It almost becomes a "must have" spell for the attack oriented illusionist. Sure, creatures get a save versus spells...but that's still a 45% chance to take down a frost giant. And consider the crafting of a wand of color spray! As a first level spell, that's probably a very cheap outlay for an 11th level illusionist to manufacture in exchange for a huge amount of firepower.

[**EDIT** Ha! Just realized that under the 2nd edition rules, that same 11th level illusionist...er, "specialist wizard"...would be able to knock down 1D6 frost giants with each casting of color spray, with a 50% chance of success (due to the -1 save penalty assigned for specialization), AND she could memorize the spell five times a day! Just walk around the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl...perhaps with an improved invisibility spell...knocking out 10+ hit die creatures left and right, recharging in her rope trick retreat when necessary. Talk about game breaking...]

Sorry folks but...much as it hurts...I think I'm going to have to modify this spell back to some semblance of what the original designer (Aronson) presented in Dragon magazine. My B/X mind would probably want to simplify it to something like:

Target 1D6 HD of creatures within range. Illusionist chooses creatures affected. No saving throw allowed unless a creature's level/HD exceeds the remaining number of HD affected by the spell (maximum of one creature may be assigned a "partial" number of HD). Affected creatures are knocked unconscious for 2D4 rounds. Range 6"+1" per level.

Something like that. But tarted up with language about clashing colors and whatnot.

All right, that's enough to chew on for a Thursday morning. Ha! Bet you didn't think I was going to pull a 1500 word post on color spray out of my hat, did you?
; )

Picture cropped or you'd see the mind flayer she's
targeting. Must be an 8th level illusionist.