I'm writing a post about cleric strangeness in B/X. The reasons is that I'm writing a collection of alternate magic systems for B/X (blood magic, spell points, metamagic, etc.). I've been a bit obsessed lately, and discussed it in TBP too. There are three main "strange" things, mechanically speaking*.
- The spell progression is very weird in comparison to the neatly organized MU. For example, level 6 gives the spells levels 3 AND 4, while a MU will get a 4th level spell only on 7th... It's "fixed" in AD&D and BECMI.
I do think no spells on level one makes sense, for balance and thematic reasons.
- The XP tables feel a bit too benevolent; with the clerics turn undead, use of armor, weapons, no need for spell learning, etc., makes the class feel a bit OP.
- The spells are all over. CSW in a 4th level spell that cures only 2d6+2 HP, which feels ridiculous when compared to fireball, for example, while raise dead (/finger of death) is a 5th level spell that feels more powerful than some MU spells - even 6th level ones.
I'd appreciate hearing anyone's experiences and opinions on those aspects.
* Delta wrote a post about why he dislikes clerics, and I wrote a post in response, FWIW; but these are different subjects. OTOH, TBH, this "strangeness" almost convinces me of abandoning the cleric altogether, as he suggests.
https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/p/primary-house-rules.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/08/d-osr-and-anticlericarism.html
The blip where clerics gain 3 spell levels in 2 classes is an odd one (for reference: C5: 2/2, C6: 2/2/1/1, C7: 2/2/2/1/1), but it's also inherited from OD&D. And if you look at the spell lists in OD&D, the 3rd and 4th level spells are almost entirely passive, the only exception being sticks to snakes (animal growth and striking are new additions in B/X). So the net effect of gaining two new spell levels in a single class level isn't a power boost, it just means 6th level clerics gain the ability to remedy most maladies (curses, diseases, AND poisons) at one time. Being able to cast 5th level spells is the real jump in power.
Which relates to the power level of spells. BTW, if you want an example of spells that appear remarkably underpowered, look at create food. You can either raise the dead or slaying the living by pointing at them -- or create a day's worth of rations for 12 people. Yay! In general, healing is weak in old school D&D, and that includes AD&D as well. It's more about removing status effects, like poison or disease. And when combined with the cleric's weird progression, it's a mistake to compare the SPELL levels of cleric and magic-user spells. It's really about comparing the spells that can be cast by a cleric and a magic-user of the same class level, or even better at the same XP total. A cleric can cast 5th level spells at 7th level, or 50,000 XP. By contrast, a 7th level magic-user can cast 4th level spells, while a magic-user with 50,000 XP can cast only 3rd level spells. So finger of death, raise dead, quest, and commune are comparable to fireball, fly, haste, lightning bolt, charm monster, confusion, massmorph, polymorph others, polymorph self, wall of fire, and wall of ice. Which doesn't seem overpowered to me. The magic-user has far more offensive options, and the cleric is better in certain narrow areas.
The XP table for clerics is generous, even more so after name level (why do clerics advance more quickly than thieves?), but even so clerics are second rate at fighting and casting in combat (and that's being generous). Even with their rapid progression, they don't eclipse the fighter or the magic-user, and really only shine in the healbot support role, or by making fights against undead relatively easy, so they're not overpowered or spotlight stealers.
I'd say depending on the healing rules (some editions you only heal 1 hp per day) the 2d6+2 healing spell would be a godsend.
Quote from: Pat on January 23, 2022, 11:50:29 AM
The blip where clerics gain 3 spell levels in 2 classes is an odd one (for reference: C5: 2/2, C6: 2/2/1/1, C7: 2/2/2/1/1), but it's also inherited from OD&D. And if you look at the spell lists in OD&D, the 3rd and 4th level spells are almost entirely passive, the only exception being sticks to snakes (animal growth and striking are new additions in B/X). So the net effect of gaining two new spell levels in a single class level isn't a power boost, it just means 6th level clerics gain the ability to remedy most maladies (curses, diseases, AND poisons) at one time. Being able to cast 5th level spells is the real jump in power.
Which relates to the power level of spells. BTW, if you want an example of spells that appear remarkably underpowered, look at create food. You can either raise the dead or slaying the living by pointing at them -- or create a day's worth of rations for 12 people. Yay! In general, healing is weak in old school D&D, and that includes AD&D as well. It's more about removing status effects, like poison or disease. And when combined with the cleric's weird progression, it's a mistake to compare the SPELL levels of cleric and magic-user spells. It's really about comparing the spells that can be cast by a cleric and a magic-user of the same class level, or even better at the same XP total. A cleric can cast 5th level spells at 7th level, or 50,000 XP. By contrast, a 7th level magic-user can cast 4th level spells, while a magic-user with 50,000 XP can cast only 3rd level spells. So finger of death, raise dead, quest, and commune are comparable to fireball, fly, haste, lightning bolt, charm monster, confusion, massmorph, polymorph others, polymorph self, wall of fire, and wall of ice. Which doesn't seem overpowered to me. The magic-user has far more offensive options, and the cleric is better in certain narrow areas.
The XP table for clerics is generous, even more so after name level (why do clerics advance more quickly than thieves?), but even so clerics are second rate at fighting and casting in combat (and that's being generous). Even with their rapid progression, they don't eclipse the fighter or the magic-user, and really only shine in the healbot support role, or by making fights against undead relatively easy, so they're not overpowered or spotlight stealers.
All great points. So, I see that the progression kinda works, but it is wonky; why give two spell levels at once intead of just making 3d-level spells a bit stronger?
Similarly, why have MU and cleric spells levels mean different things? Not to mention spells within the same level with huge disparities in power, as you've mentioned. Maybe this is justified because the cleric can pick basically any spell, not being bound by grimoires etc.
Quote from: ArtemisWyrm on January 23, 2022, 01:38:33 PM
I'd say depending on the healing rules (some editions you only heal 1 hp per day) the 2d6+2 healing spell would be a godsend.
Well, sure - but it is still ridiculous compared to 1d6+1 from a 1st level spell.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 23, 2022, 02:24:42 PM
All great points. So, I see that the progression kinda works, but it is wonky; why give two spell levels at once intead of just making 3d-level spells a bit stronger?
Yeah, it definitely has a weird way of getting there, but it's important to focus on the end results. There's a tendency among homebrewers (and even pros like Mentzer) to want to smooth over weird bumps without fully considering how all the bumps work together.
The two levels of spells at once has several effects that can't be easily mimicked by just shifting all the 4th level spells to 3rd level. One is partitioning -- a 6th level cleric has 2/2/1/1, which means the cleric can't memorize two cure diseases or two neutralize poisons. Instead, the cleric has to choose one from each level, which makes it more likely that a cleric will be able to both cure disease and neutralize point. It also impacts the number of spells available. At 8th level, a cleric has a combined 4 3rd+4th level spells, while a magic-user has only 2 3rd level spells. What that means is mid-level clerics tend to have a lot, and a wide variety, of the various status removal spells.
It's definitely odd, but it does kind of work.
Very. At a glance it looks broken.
But when you look at it more closely the pieces of the puzzle fall into place.
Clerical turn undead is absolutely situational. You could go a whole campaign and never face a single undead. Or you could be hip deep in em.
Clerics are veratile too. Just not in the same way magic users are. Clerics make actually pretty good back-up fighters as their to-hit table is second to fighters, and they can wear any armour. In fact if the party lacks fighters or dwarves it is often the cleric that takes to the frontline. With the elf and halfling being runners up.
The spell progression is indeed odd - it is unchanged through OD&D=>Holmes=>B/X. The changes made in AD&D which apparently "fix" things actually break stuff. You get a 1st level spell as a cleric and it can now be Create Water - which wipes a whole genre of adventure off the menu (e.g. the start of B4 makes no sense in AD&D).
For XP, with the doubling of XP per level, there's a fixed order round the group as to who goes up a level and that repeats (I've attached a chart which is hopefully self-explanatory that shows this). The first time round however two classes skip the level jump. For the Elf this means they're always one level behind the Fighters, which makes sense as they're dual-classed. Magic Users get stuffed however - they're the oddity. Clerics are a bit odd as they briefly have more average hitpoints than fighters - but their early level gain may be related to the fact that they have to wait for second level to get a spell.
For spells - locate object seems overpowered as a third level spell (as it removes an interesting obstacle), and create food is underpowered as a fourth level spell (can anyone eremember someone ever casting this?), and cure serious wounds just appears to be a bad mechanic (it should do something meaningful like cure broken bones or blindness - or heal hit points scaling with the cleric's level such as the offensive MU spells do).
Quote from: Pat on January 23, 2022, 11:50:29 AMWhich relates to the power level of spells. BTW, if you want an example of spells that appear remarkably underpowered, look at create food. You can either raise the dead or slaying the living by pointing at them -- or create a day's worth of rations for 12 people. Yay!
Create food isn't necessarily under powered - it depends on the type of adventure you're running. If you're running an Oregon Trail style adventure, which I have done several times though D&D isn't well suited for it, it's basically immunity to starving to death. I actually prefer to keep it out of the game as it obviates "journey through Mirkwood" types of situations.
Quote from: Mishihari on January 26, 2022, 08:03:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on January 23, 2022, 11:50:29 AMWhich relates to the power level of spells. BTW, if you want an example of spells that appear remarkably underpowered, look at create food. You can either raise the dead or slaying the living by pointing at them -- or create a day's worth of rations for 12 people. Yay!
Create food isn't necessarily under powered - it depends on the type of adventure you're running. If you're running an Oregon Trail style adventure, which I have done several times though D&D isn't well suited for it, it's basically immunity to starving to death. I actually prefer to keep it out of the game as it obviates "journey through Mirkwood" types of situations.
You can always come up with fringe cases where a spell can be useful, but create food (for 12 people and mounts, at the level it's first available) is the same level as commune and raise dead.
If you really want a game where high level characters have to count every meal on a long journey, then you'd also have to eliminate teleport, spells that allow flight for prolonged periods, magic items that replicate the same, bags of holding or portable holes, various summon spells, and so on.
Keep in mind that the deities a cleric follows can also withhold spells. So say you want an Oregon Trail type survival. Then the deity might be withholding those spells as a test, punishment, or whatever. Or even they sent the clerics in to that area to remove some artifact that is preventing use of those spells.
Quote from: Omega on January 26, 2022, 02:34:56 PM
Keep in mind that the deities a cleric follows can also withhold spells. So say you want an Oregon Trail type survival. Then the deity might be withholding those spells as a test, punishment, or whatever. Or even they sent the clerics in to that area to remove some artifact that is preventing use of those spells.
Or the deity doesn't provide those spells and doesn't explain why. "I'm the god and you are not." Controlling access to spells is entirely within the DMs purview, especially in old school gaming, for clerics and mages alike.
I can't think of a better way to discourage players from ever playing a cleric than strategically withholding spells.
Quote from: Pat on January 26, 2022, 10:57:10 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on January 26, 2022, 08:03:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on January 23, 2022, 11:50:29 AMWhich relates to the power level of spells. BTW, if you want an example of spells that appear remarkably underpowered, look at create food. You can either raise the dead or slaying the living by pointing at them -- or create a day's worth of rations for 12 people. Yay!
Create food isn't necessarily under powered - it depends on the type of adventure you're running. If you're running an Oregon Trail style adventure, which I have done several times though D&D isn't well suited for it, it's basically immunity to starving to death. I actually prefer to keep it out of the game as it obviates "journey through Mirkwood" types of situations.
You can always come up with fringe cases where a spell can be useful, but create food (for 12 people and mounts, at the level it's first available) is the same level as commune and raise dead.
If you really want a game where high level characters have to count every meal on a long journey, then you'd also have to eliminate teleport, spells that allow flight for prolonged periods, magic items that replicate the same, bags of holding or portable holes, various summon spells, and so on.
If you're playing adventures or games revolving around wilderness survival, then it's not an edge case, it's a central part of the game. And your points about all of the things that need to be changed in D&D to support that type of play are right on. I haven't included any of those in the game I'm currently writing because I want travel to be an actual adventure, not something skipped over between combat encounters,
Quote from: Mishihari on January 26, 2022, 07:23:42 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 26, 2022, 10:57:10 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on January 26, 2022, 08:03:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on January 23, 2022, 11:50:29 AMWhich relates to the power level of spells. BTW, if you want an example of spells that appear remarkably underpowered, look at create food. You can either raise the dead or slaying the living by pointing at them -- or create a day's worth of rations for 12 people. Yay!
Create food isn't necessarily under powered - it depends on the type of adventure you're running. If you're running an Oregon Trail style adventure, which I have done several times though D&D isn't well suited for it, it's basically immunity to starving to death. I actually prefer to keep it out of the game as it obviates "journey through Mirkwood" types of situations.
You can always come up with fringe cases where a spell can be useful, but create food (for 12 people and mounts, at the level it's first available) is the same level as commune and raise dead.
If you really want a game where high level characters have to count every meal on a long journey, then you'd also have to eliminate teleport, spells that allow flight for prolonged periods, magic items that replicate the same, bags of holding or portable holes, various summon spells, and so on.
If you're playing adventures or games revolving around wilderness survival, then it's not an edge case, it's a central part of the game. And your points about all of the things that need to be changed in D&D to support that type of play are right on. I haven't included any of those in the game I'm currently writing because I want travel to be an actual adventure, not something skipped over between combat encounters,
That's fine, but it's also a pretty major deviation from baseline D&D.
It's a completely different discussion, but what's needed to support different styles of play could be an interesting topic. Though I've found it's challenging to get off the ground, because people tend to have very strong preferences about the way the game should play, and are often resistant to examining the implications of their preferences.
Quote from: Pat on January 26, 2022, 07:19:47 PM
I can't think of a better way to discourage players from ever playing a cleric than strategically withholding spells.
Why? Theres always going to be situations where you cant cast one, two, or all your spells for whatever reason. Anti-magic zones go way back and at least one older module had players investigating why certain spells had stopped working. And this applies to magic users too. Moreso because a MU can only get more spells, past their personal research each level, from scrolls and other sources. And BX didnt even allow for that.
So the cleric cant use certain spells for an adventure? Oh boo-hoo-hoo. Cry me a river.
Quote from: Omega on January 28, 2022, 03:07:21 AM
Quote from: Pat on January 26, 2022, 07:19:47 PM
I can't think of a better way to discourage players from ever playing a cleric than strategically withholding spells.
Why? Theres always going to be situations where you cant cast one, two, or all your spells for whatever reason. Anti-magic zones go way back and at least one older module had players investigating why certain spells had stopped working. And this applies to magic users too. Moreso because a MU can only get more spells, past their personal research each level, from scrolls and other sources. And BX didnt even allow for that.
So the cleric cant use certain spells for an adventure? Oh boo-hoo-hoo. Cry me a river.
You can play crybaby all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that routinely withholding powers from a class will make players avoid it like rats fleeing a sinking ship.
QuoteSo the cleric cant use certain spells for an adventure? Oh boo-hoo-hoo. Cry me a river.
See I don't play some fantasi quasi-superheroes to be constantly depowered by GM's fiat.
I'm not gonna avoid playing cleric. I'm gonna avoid OSR GM's as fire.
So fighters can never everrrrrrrr lose their swords. MUs cant everrrrrrr be tied up or denied their spellbooks. No surface a thief cant climb... etc ad crymeanoceanium.
There's a big difference between getting captured and having your spellbooks taken away, and the DM telling you one morning that you're not allowed to use your spells.
The equivalent of missing one sword in fight is missspell. Possibly tragic. I'm all for dangerous uncertain magic.
Damn I'm even not againt "enchantment spells in hamlet Ridiculus stopped working, Magic Guild send their most famous enchanter Kanye West to investigate. Go figure." but when it's given as a method to depower PC's because their powers are wonky or unwieldy for GM's that's bad.
Quote from: Wrath of God on February 02, 2022, 04:38:04 AM
Damn I'm even not againt "enchantment spells in hamlet Ridiculus stopped working, Magic Guild send their most famous enchanter Kanye West to investigate. Go figure." but when it's given as a method to depower PC's because their powers are wonky or unwieldy for GM's that's bad.
In The Keep on the Borderlands, which was supposed to teach newbie DMs how to write adventures, Gary gave all the undead Amulets of Protection from Turning (and that amounts to 68 magical amulets) - apparently because he thought the numbers required for turning were too low. Incidentally this is corroborating evidence that the numbers for turning are one of the few bits taken wholesale directly from Dave Arneson!
Quote from: Pat on January 26, 2022, 07:19:47 PM
I can't think of a better way to discourage players from ever playing a cleric than strategically withholding spells.
I think it's a matter of expectations. If the DM unexpectedly says "sorry, you can't have that spell today" when it's always worked before, you're going to have an unhappy player. But if the DM tells the players at chargen that sometimes the spells asked for might not be granted due to character behavior / conflict amongst the gods / phase of the moon / deity on vacation / whatever, then it's not necessarily a bad technique.
Quote from: Mishihari on February 02, 2022, 05:37:32 AM
I think it's a matter of expectations. If the DM unexpectedly says "sorry, you can't have that spell today" when it's always worked before, you're going to have an unhappy player. But if the DM tells the players at chargen that sometimes the spells asked for might not be granted due to character behavior / conflict amongst the gods / phase of the moon / deity on vacation / whatever, then it's not necessarily a bad technique.
Exactly. No player is entitled to play whatever they want, in the rules or not, in the GM's campaign. Players can reasonably expect some information on any rules differences when they join the campaign. Players can rightfully be annoyed with any bait and switch from the GM.
I've actually started campaigns with variations on these statements about rules: "There will be no rules changes whatsoever during the campaign, which is defined as when we finish whatever becomes the major story arc, expected to be around about 9th level characters." And "I want to explicitly try these rules changes, which might not work or might not be exactly correct when we start, and might require additional related changes. You can expect those to change often until we settle on something that works for the campaign."
Quote from: Mishihari on February 02, 2022, 05:37:32 AM
Quote from: Pat on January 26, 2022, 07:19:47 PM
I can't think of a better way to discourage players from ever playing a cleric than strategically withholding spells.
I think it's a matter of expectations. If the DM unexpectedly says "sorry, you can't have that spell today" when it's always worked before, you're going to have an unhappy player. But if the DM tells the players at chargen that sometimes the spells asked for might not be granted due to character behavior / conflict amongst the gods / phase of the moon / deity on vacation / whatever, then it's not necessarily a bad technique.
I don't think it's a matter of expectations, I think it's a matter of arbitrariness. One of the biggest concepts in the OSR is the idea that the world should have a life of its down, and not simply exist in response to the PCs. The DM is responsible for creating the world, yes. But once part of the world is created, it doesn't change just to suit the latest needs of the plot. In a situation like that, players quickly learn that they can choose their own path, instead of following a pre-defined one. And while terrible consequences may befall the PCs, it feels fair because the threats and dangers would have been there, regardless of the players' choices.
That's strongly contrasted with the type of DM who likes linear adventures that the players are expected to follow like rats in a maze, and who tweaks things on the fly to make them "challenging", or to prevent certain outcomes, like missing a plot hook, or a TPK. This disenpowers the players, because they know, no matter what happens, the story will continue. And all their efforts to prepare and make the best use of their resources don't matter, because the monsters will just get tougher. While some players do like the more structured environment, many others chafe in the velvet ropes. It makes the game feel arbitrary and unfair, and any victories feel hollow.
Natural consequences that flow from the world and the situation, like losing spellbooks because you were foolish enough (and lucky enough) to be captured, don't create this sense of unfairness. But the DM picking and choosing each morning which spells work and which don't because of the "phases of the moon" or some other hard-to-pin down excuse, are the equivalent of setting off a fire alarm to the type of player who prefers an independent world that has an existence beyond the plot.
Now I can conceive of a world where gods play favorites, or have principles and won't bend, yet still avoids setting off that fire alarm. But threading that needle would be challenging, because you'd have to clearly distinguish between the DM's whim and the whim of the gods. That would require having a clear and consistent set of guidelines under which gods select or reject certain spells. Which is tough to do from a setting standpoint, because religion in D&D has never that well defined. This selection could even be random and arbitrary, but it would have to be a consistent and independent type of random and arbitrary, not the DM's whim. Something like a random table, rolled on each morning. Being clear and consistent about these rules would be vital, because once the DM creates the impression it's being used to punish or reward the players -- even if behind the scenes, the DM is employing rigorous and objective criteria and not just picking and choosing -- the sense of trust needed to support that kind of verisimilitude is lost. And once that trust is lost, it takes almost forever to rebuild.
Not that difficult at all to manage, given a certain level of trust between GM and players. Absent that trust, I'm out of the game anyway, because of a variety of problems that will arise.
That's no different than any other setup, though. There's certain things that you just can't do in a, say, pickup one-shot game in a store as opposed to a long-running campaign with the same players.
I agree that if it's obvious that a DM is denying a spell because he has a preferred solution, it's a problem. I also agree that it's useful to have the players understand why such things come up - verisimilitude and all that. I've tried this to a limited extent myself - I had a good goddess who was merciless to evil and if her clerics cast a heal spell on an evil creature it simply failed. But it doesn't seem all that hard to create a system for whatever result you want, though I've never had occasion to try it myself.
Okay, and since I can't get this out of my head, I'll share it. There's a Biblical precedent. It essentially went "Oops, I guess your flamestrike didn't work. Maybe your god's on vacation. Cry harder!" Not many things in the Bible make me laugh, but that one does every time.
Quote from: Pat on February 02, 2022, 02:07:26 AM
There's a big difference between getting captured and having your spellbooks taken away, and the DM telling you one morning that you're not allowed to use your spells.
Quote from: Wrath of God on February 02, 2022, 04:38:04 AM
The equivalent of missing one sword in fight is missspell. Possibly tragic. I'm all for dangerous uncertain magic.
Damn I'm even not againt "enchantment spells in hamlet Ridiculus stopped working, Magic Guild send their most famous enchanter Kanye West to investigate. Go figure." but when it's given as a method to depower PC's because their powers are wonky or unwieldy for GM's that's bad.
1: There is? How?
Oh. Thats right. There is no difference.
2: And again. In what way is this bad.
Oh. Thats right. It isnt. Because there is no difference.
The rust monster ate your armour and shield. Welcome back to AC 9 = gollie gee willakers thanks! Thats fine!
The area doesnt allow casting certain spells because of a curse = "YOU MONSTER! I DEMAND MY RIGHTS! FUCK THIS IM OUT OF HERE!"
Storygamers gotta shackle that horrible DM from opresededeing you.
"Your god is god; you are not." - 1st rule of playing a cleric.
Greetings!
Take everything away. All of these crybaby players. Fuck them. It's good to be stripped down to nothing. Then, you can grab a dagger, or a club, or a hammer, and just jump in! Biting your enemies, crushing them in simple, bloody combat.
Improvise! Learn to overcome and adapt! All these crybaby players that need all these special powers and spells. Whaa! Whaa!
You have to get simple, brutal, and ruthless.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 05:45:40 PM
Greetings!
Take everything away. All of these crybaby players. Fuck them. It's good to be stripped down to nothing. Then, you can grab a dagger, or a club, or a hammer, and just jump in! Biting your enemies, crushing them in simple, bloody combat.
Improvise! Learn to overcome and adapt! All these crybaby players that need all these special powers and spells. Whaa! Whaa!
You have to get simple, brutal, and ruthless.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
New class:
The Sharkpit Survivor
HD: d4
Attacks: As fighter (why not, no bonus until 4th level)
Saves: As thief
XP to advance to 2nd level: 20,000
Spells: 1 (ever... make it a good one!)
Weapons: Any (stick or rock)
Armor: Loincloth
Special abilities: 1d2 bite
Quote from: Pat on February 02, 2022, 05:52:49 PM
Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 05:45:40 PM
Greetings!
Take everything away. All of these crybaby players. Fuck them. It's good to be stripped down to nothing. Then, you can grab a dagger, or a club, or a hammer, and just jump in! Biting your enemies, crushing them in simple, bloody combat.
Improvise! Learn to overcome and adapt! All these crybaby players that need all these special powers and spells. Whaa! Whaa!
You have to get simple, brutal, and ruthless.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
New class:
The Sharkpit Survivor
HD: d4
Attacks: As fighter (why not, no bonus until 4th level)
Saves: As thief
XP to advance to 2nd level: 20,000
Spells: 1 (ever... make it a good one!)
Weapons: Any (stick or rock)
Armor: Loincloth
Special abilities: 1d2 bite
Greetings!
*Laughing* Nice, Pat! I love it!
A short story. Way back when, one of my first characters in D&D. I was a Paladin. My character had been captured, enslaved, and imprisoned by a tribe of evil Yetis, serving an evil sorceress. I had ben stripped of everything--armour, magic items, weapons, everything.
Somehow, I managed to escape from my prison cell. I stole a stone food bowl. I strangled a Yeti guard. I proceeded to engage in brutal hand-to-hand combat with patrolling Yeti guards. I ripped their furry throats out by biting them. I crushed their skulls in with the stone bowl. I eventually got a dagger, and started stabbing them. Then a fur cloak, and a club. I burned them with smoking torches. I poured hot oil down their throats. I stabbed one with a hot poker from the fireplace in a torture chamber. I went crazy. I did not look for an escape route. I kept an eye out to find my armour and gear--but the mission had changed.
I became a haunting figure down inside this crazy prison, stalking the shadowy hallways, leaping from the darkness to bite and slaughter them. Gradually, I freed other prisoners, and built up a guerilla force. Eventually, I found my stuff, and slaughtered all of the evil Yetis, and escaped from the mountain-side prison. Later on, a confrontation with the evil sorceress, when I was geared up.
But for a good number of game sessions, it was just my character, and a few others, with nothing except determination, brutality, ruthlessness, and the simplest of weapons.
It was a blast, and lots of fun!
It also taught me that roleplaying was important, as well as resource management, and good tactics. And determination. Never give up, and don't be afraid to say fuck it and jump in and roll the dice! Attack! Attack! Attack! I made the Yetis fear me. *Laughing* It was a hilarious adventure set too.
No magic, no uber items, none of that. You know?
The DM loved the imagery, too. A bearded, shaggy human, wrapped in gutted Yeti furs, a broad leather belt on, old furry boots, a dagger in one hand,a stone bowl in the other. Gritted teeth, growling, howling in the dark passageways! Covered in blood and gore. I eventually made a necklace of collected Yeti teeth, and wore it around my character's neck. I would roast the Yeti's I killed, and eat them. Yeti's howling in the darkness, as we kept them alive, so their companions could hear their screams from down below. Psychological warfare, baby! It was all an awesome experience.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
SHARK, that reminds a lot of the second best editorial in the history of
Dragon magazine.
Quote from: Moore, Roger E. "Legend". Dragon 144 (April 1989): 3,94.
Legend
The mountain pass was called the Demon Tongue, which implied there might be a demon and treasure there, so the party headed for it right away. The characters were hungry for combat and cash -- lots of each. I was the DM. We were gaming on the pool table in the medical company rec room in West Germany, a decade ago last fall.
Not many of the details of that adventure are left with me now, but I remember what happened when the adventurers got to the Demon Tongue. The paladin was the point man, mounted up and armored like a tank (he had volunteered for -- no, demanded the position). Some distance behind, the wizard was checking the landscape with his amulet of ESP, hunting for enemy thoughts. Everyone else was gathered near the wizard, weapons ready. They were on a narrow road in the pass itself, with a slope up to the left and a sheer drop to the right, when the wizard got a reading.
I rolled the dice and checked the books. The party had found the demon, but the amulet of ESP had malfunctioned. I scribbled a note and passed it to the wizardís player. He read it and gave me an incredulous look.
"Hey, guys, said the wizard, reigning in his horse. That demon is here, but that demon is the Demogorgon. We are doomed."
Everyone stared at the wizard's player, then at me. Everyone had read the Monster Manual. The entire party came to a halt. Then the characters began to guide their horses back the way they had come, looking around with nervous grins.
All but the paladin, that is. He stopped where he was, stood up in his stirrups, raised his sword, and shouted, "COME OUT AND FIGHT, YOU MISERABLE @#$+ß&%*!!!" at the top of his lungs. Seconds later, a giant ball of darkness appeared on the road ahead. Before anyone could react, one of the characters was telekinesized off his horse and hurled into the canyon beside the road. He took 20 dice of damage and became a memory. Every one of his companions bolted -- except for the paladin, who roared, "SHOW YOURSELF, DEMON!!!" (The rest of the players screamed that they were riding away all the harder.)
The darkness fell away and there was the demon, not Demogorgon but it hardly mattered as it was one of those brutal 11-HD Type IVs. It grinned through its boar's tusks and traced a symbol of fear in the air as the paladin spurred his horse and charged the monster. The paladin made his saving throw and cut through the demon with his sword -- easy enough to do as the demon was a projected image. The demon just laughed.
Enraged, the paladin began cursing the demon in language that most of us assumed paladins would scarcely admit to knowing, much less using, but the most telling insult was "coward." I figured that any demon worth his evilness would take offense at being called a coward by a mere mortal, so the projected image vanished -- and the real demon appeared on the road, roaring out its own challenge. It began tracing another symbol in the air as the paladin charged again.
The paladin made his saving throw and struck at the demon -- and his sword bounced off the demonís hide, as the sword wasn't powerful enough to affect the monster. The paladin's player realized his character had only one weapon left that might do the trick. Wheeling his horse around and coming back for another charge, the paladin drew his dagger +2, then leaped off
his horse and tackled the demon.
Had this been any other player, I would have pointed out the usual problems involved in leaping off a charging horse in plate mail to tackle a 10'-tall demon with a dagger, but the paladinís player had that look on his face that said he was really into it. He wanted that demon badly. He got it. Screaming and roaring, the paladin and the demon tore into each other, dagger against claws and teeth. The paladin slammed home every attack, but so did the demon. Worse yet, the demon began to levitate itself and the paladin over the road. Dice rolled, blood flew, hit points plummeted, and the other players began shouting, "Get 'im! Get that thing!"
The demon died at an altitude of about 100'. Its levitation spell shut off. The paladin, still attacking, clung to the demonís body all the way down. When the rest of the party finally mustered the courage to ride back, they found the paladin -- in the single digits of hit points, but alive.
"Got 'im," said the paladin, brushing himself off.
A legend came to life that evening, though we had not meant to create one. We had courage, heroism, danger, and excitement, all there in the rec room of an Army barracks far from home. Ten years later, the thrill and the glory of that paladin's triumph still live with me. It doesn't matter that the paladin wasn't even my character.
I like a lot of things about roleplaying games -- the friends, the laughter, the bad puns, the munchies -- but creating a legend is the best part of all. It sure beats playing bridge.
Quote from: JoeNuttall on February 02, 2022, 05:19:11 AM
Quote from: Wrath of God on February 02, 2022, 04:38:04 AM
Damn I'm even not againt "enchantment spells in hamlet Ridiculus stopped working, Magic Guild send their most famous enchanter Kanye West to investigate. Go figure." but when it's given as a method to depower PC's because their powers are wonky or unwieldy for GM's that's bad.
In The Keep on the Borderlands, which was supposed to teach newbie DMs how to write adventures, Gary gave all the undead Amulets of Protection from Turning (and that amounts to 68 magical amulets) - apparently because he thought the numbers required for turning were too low. Incidentally this is corroborating evidence that the numbers for turning are one of the few bits taken wholesale directly from Dave Arneson!
I didn't know that, thanks! Interesting stuff!
Yes. Was going to mention the amulets in Keep on the Borderlands.
Figured there was enough weeping and gnashing of teeth at the inhumanity of the oppressor DM for these snowflakes to endure. Schedule thre another trip to the fainting couch!
Clerics turn undead too easily? Hmm, Gygax might have been right about that one... I've been thinking the same thing lately.
Just about to put a party through the Keep on the Borderlands, and after reading this thread i'm scrapping the amulets of
protection against turning altogether, rather than have to explain the existence of the silly things.
Just going to increase the amount of undead to keep the challenge level the same and let the cleric have his fun turning a few,
at the end of the day, i'm the DM and if i want 'em to fight some skeletons then that's exactly what's gonna happen.
Quote from: Sanson on February 08, 2022, 03:59:56 AM
Clerics turn undead too easily? Hmm, Gygax might have been right about that one... I've been thinking the same thing lately.
Just about to put a party through the Keep on the Borderlands, and after reading this thread i'm scrapping the amulets of
protection against turning altogether, rather than have to explain the existence of the silly things.
Just going to increase the amount of undead to keep the challenge level the same and let the cleric have his fun turning a few,
at the end of the day, i'm the DM and if i want 'em to fight some skeletons then that's exactly what's gonna happen.
Yes - I ditched the amulets too when I ran it for the same reason. Increase the number of undead, or put in some of a higher level if you think it needs it!