musing about spell using and professions

[Geleg]

I was reading a blog post yesterday (Delta's D&D hotspot, http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/p/primary ... rules.html) and read the author's ideas about doing away with clerics with some interest. I wonder if anyone has toyed with something like this?

Here are some as-yet inchoate ideas on the matter

1. I've never liked the idea of divine versus arcane magic, even/especially if one calls divine magic 'miracles'. In some sort of logical sense I prefer a model in which all Vancian-type spell casting utilizes the same technique and harnesses the same source of magical power, whether the caster is knitting wounds or tossing fireballs. In typical D&D and C&C, both clerical and wizardly spells are memorized in the same way and, barring minor discrepancies at the level of individual spells, work in basically the same way. The big difference, of course, is that clerics have access to all spells on a list from the get-go, whereas wizards have to acquire spells on an individual basis and add them to their spell book.

2. Couldn't one conceive of spell-casters who function like typical C&C/D&D clerics, but who aren't necessarily 'religious'? That is, couldn't one have a white mage whose ethos impelled him/her to cure more than destroy, without it being the preserve of formal religion? In other words, why do clerics have the monopoly on curing [let's set aside 4th printing illusionists for now]?

3. It would seem to me that playing a priest would be more fun if it were conceived of more as an element of role-playing or fluff. THat is, why not have a rogue who is priest of Loki? or a Fighter who is a priest of Odin? Similarly, that evil high priest may be a powerful summoner of demons or firemage, and not a 'cleric'. In other words, separating priests as role-playing types from their class designation as healers/undead turners/protectors might be more sensible and might possibly open some interesting doors.

4. I respect Delta's point about the D&D/C&C cleric being essentially a Templar or Van Helsing clone (i.e., a character heavily impregnated with Christian mythological premises); this is certainly the case with core cleric abilities such as 'healing' and turning undead. This doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother him (I've always just taken it as a D&D trope), but I can see the point in trying to conceive of another way of imagining priests of polytheistic universes.

So what am I proposing? I dunno, really, but here are some ideas:

1. Drop cleric as class
2. Merge cleric spell list with wizard list into one giant list (dropping any that don't fit my conceptions)
3. Develop a setting-specific model of the acquisition of magical knowledge, which might use setting fluff to distinguish various types of spell-casters. Maybe the College of Macrina has a reputation as the ones who excel at evocation, and only those casters trained in its traditions have access to certain spells. And The Order of the White Ankh specializes in benevolent, gandalf-type do-gooders who know healing magic, divination and some offense. Consider also making the formulae of different schools opaque to those not of the school, at least not without long and careful study/decipherment. I admit that here I am very influenced by the Tekumel model of spell casting, where some spells are generic, others are limited to particular temples [although in my model I'd make them 'schools' not temples], and others still are kept secret by circles within circles of each temple. [there may also be some residual Rolemaster in my thinking here]
4. Make Turn Undead a spell, and have it available only to certain of the magical traditions.
5. Allow anyone interested in role-playing a priest to do so, regardless of class (or, perhaps, limited by setting-specific factors)
6. Allow PCs to (relatively) easily purchase healing potions (or find healing fruits), or else make some sort of cure spell a generic one.

It would seem to me that aside from reworking the spell lists and dreaming up a nice range of schools of magical training, with appropriate spell lists, this wouldn't be too hard to do.

So ... any comments? Anyone done anything like this? I realize that for many the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" may well apply here. I certainly understand that feeling. But I find it hard to get characters interested in playing clerics, and maybe some sort of system like this could do away with that problem.

[Treebore]

Lahkmar.

[Geleg]

I assume you mean the White magic/Black magic of TSR's Lankhmar.

Having just read the old Lankhmar again, perhaps I've been subconsciously influenced by it. I will admit that what I'm proposing is certainly more appropriate for swords and sorcery. But I wonder if it would work in a generic D&D/C&C world?

[Treebore]

I'm sure it would.

[zarathustra]

A pretty interesting idea. I like the idea of some "common" spells and others hidden away or prized as secret knowledge.

Being able to identify a casting lineage by their spells (like a martial artist recognises a certain move in those old hong kong kung fu movies) as belonging to certain traditions or even individuals is an idea I like alot.

I agree it seems to fit in a more swords & sorcery campaign but it is a great way to tweak C&C into exactly that for those (like me) who like that kind of thing.

It is a big idea though, I'm gonna have to digest it for a while.

[Geleg]

Yeah, Zarathustra, I was intrigued as well, and for the same reasons.

I may try to fire up a model of this in the next few weeks and see how it plays out. I worry a bit about messing with the 'core-four' archetypes (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue). I guess one would need to be aware of all of the functions that the cleric provides, and to allow for those functions to be available in the revised model. One function, and the one I've focused on above, is healing. That seems the easiest to allow for (whether by allowing healing spells for certain wizard, or making healing potions easily purchasable). Another function is turning undead: again, not impossible to reassign to another class. Another function is 'heavily armored, decent fighter, who also casts spells' - how much of this function is necessary to party success? I wonder ...

Am I drifting towards a scenario in which the core is three - fighter, rogue and wizard - with an expectation that a well-rounded party should have several fighters and a several wizards of different casting lineage? (hmm... maybe that's actually a drift towards OD&D).

Anyway, it seems an interesting abstraction to consider ...

[zarathustra]

I think the "heavily armoured, decent fighter & spellcaster" just has to go.

Or can he not be adequately facsimilied by warrior/wizard or wizard/warrior class and a halfs?

The addition of a spell like the "Armour" spell from 2e D&D, or a more illusiony/necromancery one like this from my campaign (idea pinched from other spells and I belive specifically a post by Omote on these forums, so I don't claim this as my own or anything, this is just a write up I did to fill a niche IMC) make a fighting wizard somewhat feasible.

Level 2- Whipping Boy
CT: 1 R: touch D: 24 hours or until dispelled SV: yes (h) SR: yes (h) Comp: V, S, M

When this spell is cast, the recipients' shadow fades from black to a pale facsimile of the targets actual colouring.
Any damage suffered by the recipient is then felt first by the new shadowy whipping boy. The spell absorbs eight points of damage before being dispelled. The targets shadow melts back toward black as damage is sustained.
The spell can be ended by the caster (not necessarily the recipient) at any time.
The material component of this spell are tear-drops scattered into the recipients shadow.

But honestly in a sword & sorcery setting the party make up should be skewed heavily toward warrior types, thieves and assassins, with the oddity spellcaster thrown in (maybe two in large parties or for a change). Then again that is just my feel on it, others may feel differently.

I wouldn't be worried about removing the cleric to achieve a specific aim in the campaign. It certainly fits the flavour element of that setting and would make a truly unique feel for that campaign, as opposed to a thin veneeer or S&Sorcery you could end up with otherwise.

I'd do it for a specific campaign, I think my players would have a blast. But you can always go back to a "normal" campaign later.

I have a few spell lists I was tinkering with for 'specialist' type spellcasters in C&C just for fun. I decided not to add them into my game so far because I am wary of houserule "splat" in my current game. But it occurs to me they might be helpful as a start on fleshing out a few sorcerous "orders" for this idea.

They use a mix of divine & arcane magic as theme appropriate so that fits. I think I had a
"sea/ship mage";
a summoner (adept at summoning/dealing with outsiders and also protection magics);
a primitive (humanoid?) "witch-doctor";
and a Seer (like a diviner but a way cooler name).

I only did spell lists up to 4th/5th level but I'll see if I can rustle them up. Maybe we can get a good list of casting styles together to take care of some of the "hard work" of fleshing the orders out.

[Mark Hall]

I've suggested such in the past, and sat down to do it with 1e, but never got around to finishing it. The Cleric class would be nice as sort of a demi-fighter/mage class... one that combined spellcasting and weaponry, but with far lower spellcasting levels than it currently has.

[Geleg]

thanks for the responses, guys. I'm in a hurry and can't reply in detail, but you've got some excellent insights.

I totally agree that S&S campaigns ought to feature rogues/thieves more than wizards, and that this sort of thing could be easily done for them.

The challenge is to make it work for a more traditional fantasy campaign. As I said upstream, I think it can be done. Pace Zarathustra, the trick is to make up a bunch of spell-lists, possibly with some alternate class abilities, for a range of setting/fluff-defined spellcasters. In a way it's just a matter of proliferating (or, picking and choosing, and then modifying) some of the existing alternate classes out there in internet-land. In some ways it would be pretty easy to do. I might also introduce some of the alternate fighter types as ways of making fighters more interesting. The only down-side would be verging too far down the road of 'house-rule splat', as Z puts it.

@Mark: I agree that the cleric concept (holy warrior) is a nice one, but one that should be limited to a setting-specific deity, with heavily modified spell lists.

Rolemaster had a whole passel of such specialty casters, each with its own spell list. Part of me loved that aspect of the system, but another part found it overwhelming ... Part of the beauty of C&C, after all, is the simplicity of the core concept.

[serleran]

I've been considering adopting a console approach to magic, as in it is something everyone can do, but in a different fashion. For example, a monk might have magic, but they're not spells... they're more like special attacks. I think it would be fun to try once.

[Mark Hall]

I've been considering adopting a console approach to magic, as in it is something everyone can do, but in a different fashion. For example, a monk might have magic, but they're not spells... they're more like special attacks. I think it would be fun to try once.

In many ways, that's the premise of Earthdawn and it's spiritual successor, 4e.

[serleran]

You're right. It's been a while since I played Earthdawn but it does have a very console approach to it... can't say about 4e, much, as I have not really thrown it into a ring to wrestle.

Anyway... umm, on topic. I like removing religion from the game. Few players are, in my experience, interested in delving into it anyway.