Priest spell question

[chicagowarrior]

Hello. My group is getting back into AD&D after a LONG absence. We want to know which of the following is accurate in terms of how priest spells work. (We're playing 2e if that matters, and assume in this example that the priest can cast 4 spells per day.)

1) The priest prays for his spells for the upcoming day, and is granted 4 different spells to choose from during that day. As the situation dictates, he can cast any one of those 4 spells. A spell, once cast, is NOT wiped from the priest's memory -- he can cast any of these 4 spells multiple times, except he's limited to casting 4 total spells that day. In other words, the priest doesn't have to "memorize" the same spell more than once, he can still cast it more than once if necessary.

2) The priest prays to fill 4 spell "slots", and once cast the spell is forgotten and must be prayed for again the next day. If the priest anticipates casting the same spell more than once, he has to memorize it more than once and fill more than 1 of his 4 slots to do so.

Which is correct?

Thanks!

[Scott]

2 is correct in 1E & 2E.

[geneweigel]

From PLAYERS HANDBOOK by Gary Gygax for ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS (1978) pg 40:

Spells of any sort must therefore be selected prior to setting out on an
adventure, for memorization requires considerable time. (Your Dungeon
Master will inform you fully as to what state of refreshment the mind of a
spell caster must be in, as well as the time required to memorize a given
spell.) As a rule of thumb, allow 15 minutes of game time for
memorization of one spell level, i.e. a 1st level spell or half of a 2nd level
spell. Such activity requires a mind rested by a good sleep and nourished
by the body.
Once cast, a spell is totally forgotten. Gone. The mystical symbols
impressed upon the brain carry power, and speaking the spell discharges
this power, draining all memory of the spell used. This does not preclude
multiple memorization of the same spell, but it does preclude multiple use
of a single spell memorized but once. When a spell caster shoots his or her
spell-bolt, so to speak, it is gone.

2E same thing just a lot more talking and talking here is cutting through a couple of pages of stretched out, penny-a-word crap,from page 85 of PLAYERS HANDBOOK for "SECOND EDITION AD&D" (1989) by David "Zeb Cook, Steve Winter, Jon Pickens, MikeBreault, Jean Black, Curtis Smith, and James Ward.

Casting Spells
Both wizards and
priests use the same rules for casting spells.
To cast a spell, the character must first have
the spell memorized. If it is not memorized,
the spell cannot be cast. The caster must be
able to speak (not under the effects of a
silence spell or gagged) and have both arms
free. (Note that the optional spell component
rule [following section] can modify
these conditions.) If the spell is targeted on a
person, place, or thing, the caster must be
able to see the target. It isnot enough to cast
a fireball 150 feet ahead into the darkness;
the caster must be able to see the point of
explosion and the intervening distance.
Likewise, a magic missile (which always hits
its target) cannot be fired into a group of
bandits with the instruction to strike the
leader; the caster must be able to identify
and see the leader.
Once the casting has begun, the character
must stand still. Casting cannot be accomplished
while riding a roughly moving beast
or a vehicle, unless special efforts are made
to stabilize and protect the caster. Thus a
spell cannot be cast from the back of a galloping
horse under any conditions, nor can
a wizard or priest cast a spell on the deck of
a ship during a storm. However, if the caster
were below decks, protected from the wind
and surging waves, he could cast a spell.
While it is not normally possible to cast a
spell from a moving chariot, a character
who was steadied and supported by others
could do so. Your DM will have to make a
ruling in these types of extraordinary conditions.
During the round in which the spell is
cast, the caster cannot move to dodge
attacks. Therefore, no AC benefit from
Dexterity is gained by spellcasters while
casting spells. Furthermore, if the spelkaster
is struck by a weapon or fails to make a
saving throw before the spell is cast, the
caster's concentration is disrupted. The spell
is lost in a fizzle of useless energy and is
wiped clean from the memory of the caster
until it can be rememorized. Spellcasters are
well advised not to stand at the front of any
battle, at least if they want to be able to cast
any spells

Its the same story except the 2E version is less concise and filled with bulk wordage (which is 4 pages prior to this snippet) which is typical of everything post-Gary Gygax. So its understandable because I went through this 2E confused rule crap with at least 1000 players in the 1990's.

[Falconer]

Yeah, that’s one of the main reasons I switched from 2e to 1e (this was now some 12 years ago). I was tired of not being able to find the rules. It’s as if they hid the actual mechanics deliberately, because, you know, you don’t want to spoil the DM’s story.

[geneweigel]

It was easy to go from the 77, 81 and 83 Basic to 1977-1978 Advanced because all rules were made with the notion that they were fundamentally optional tiebreakers.

The 1989 2E type play (easily recognized in its implementation of weapon speeds and casting time) was the gamebreaker because so many things are not tiebreaker mentality like it originally was and it was inherent always.

Thats why you have all these 2E players trying to walk uphill and giving up on the original top-selling AD&D because they think its modular with "2E think". I had this guy at a job talking D&D, ten years ago who was started on 2E, and couldn't get his head around using a six sided for initiative and surprise. I kept telling him to stop thinking about and just do it.

[GRWelsh]

I like the house rule that lets you swap out any cleric spell for a healing spell of the equivalent level, for what it is worth. What is that, from 3rd edition? I think it helps to make up for clerics not having as good a spell selection as m-u's.

Your option 1 in the OP sounds similar to the "sorcerer" class from 3e... It sounds like an interesting house rule to experiment with. Give a character ability to choose a "pool" of spells he knows prior to the adventure, and let him choose which to cast until the number of his spell slots are used up... I like it, and I don't think it is unbalancing to the game.

But as others have pointed out, 2 is correct for 1e and 2e AD&D. Think locked and loaded.

[geneweigel]

Gary did a classic send up of his distaste for spell point systems in the parody class called the Ultimists from POLYHEDRON # 23 (MAR 1985) article "ULTIMISTS: The Nadir of New Classes":

Spell Points: Memorizing spells is
tedious, and the selection requires reason-
ing and intelligence applied to the game.
They are, obviously, not part of the
ultimist class. Instead a simple spell point
system is substituted. For each level
attained, the ultimist gains 100 spell
points. Each point is synonymous with a
spell level. Therefore, a 1st level ultimist
can cast 100 1st level spells per day, or 50
2nd level spells, etc. Spell points "regen-
erate" daily, providing the character rests
for at least one hour. Spell points are used
for clerical, magic-user, or illusionist
spells (at twice normal level cost). They
can also be used at the rate of 1 for 1 to
recharge the sword of life stealing, pro-
vided that is the only activity the ultimist
engages in for that day. Casting spells
above the level normal for the ultimist has
risk, however. There is a chance of spell
failure based on the easy formula which
follows:
Level of Spell - Level of Ultimist =
% Chance of Spell Failure

3rd edition had it in the sorceror class but the first big placement in the D&D brand was in 2E in those option books that I picked up for players to grab from and later regretted. It was in PLAYER'S OPTIONS: SPELL & MAGIC (1996) with this:

The Spell Point System
Normally, wizards, priests, and other spellcasters are limited to a strict spell progression table which
lists how many spells of each level they may retain in memory at one time. For example, every 7th-level
mage shares the same spell capacity of four 1st-, three 2nd-, two 3rd-, and one 4th level spell, although
specialist wizards (or priests with exceptional Wisdom scores) gain a slight advantage in this area
because of their bonus spells. When a spell is cast, it vanishes from the caster's memory, and he
cannot make use of it again until he has a chance to rest and study his spell books once again.
Spell points work a little differently. Characters no longer receive a standard spell progression table.
Instead, they are assigned a number of spell points based on their character class and level. When the
character studies his spell books or prays for spells, he uses these spell points to purchase the spells
he wishes to memorize, with some reasonable restrictions. Naturally, higher-level spells are more
expensive than lower-level spells, but high-level characters have more spell points available. Under the
spell point system, a 7th-level mage may decide to memorize five 1st-level spells instead of the four he
is normally allowed, at the cost of giving up his higher-level spells for that day Or, he could choose to
memorize four 4th-level spells, giving up all his lower-level spells, or strike any balance between the
two extremes that he likes.

[GRWelsh]

Isn't 1e psionics basically a spell point system?

[geneweigel]

I know, I know but it was a hard thing to come by (I've only had a handful of players who qualified) look at who is considered psionic officially:

OD&D

15 or higher INT, WIS or CHA

10% chance


AD&D
16 or higher INT, WIS, or CHA

No INT, WIS or CHA above 16 0% chance
17 INT 3% chance
18 INT 6% chance
17 WIS 2% chance
18 WIS 4% chance
18 CHA 2% chance
17 INT & 17 WIS 5% chance
18 INT & 17 WIS 7% chance
17 INT & 18 WIS 6% chance
18 INT & 18 WIS 9% chance
17 INT & 17 CHA 4% chance
18 INT & 17 CHA 6% chance
17 INT & 18 CHA 4% chance
18 INT & 18 CHA 7% chance
17 INT, 17 WIS & 17 CHA 5% chance
18 INT, 17 WIS & 17 CHA 8% chance
17 INT, 18 WIS & 17 CHA 7% chance
17 INT, 17 WIS & 18 CHA 6% chance
17 INT, 18 WIS & 18 CHA 7% chance
18 INT, 18 WIS & 17 CHA 9% chance
18 INT, 17 WIS & 18 CHA 8% chance
18 INT, 18 WIS & 18 CHA 10% chance



Then the system is almost non-intrusive without fireworks like the cleric, magic-user, druid or illusionist's spellpower with the attacks mostly contained to psionics (except for the primordial mind flayer attack duplicate psionic blast) or non-combat.

[GRWelsh]

I don't think the ultimist is ludicrous because it has a spell point system, though... It's just ludicrous because it is overpowered.

A first level character that can cast eleven 9th level spells with only an 8% chance of spell failure with each casting? That's ridiculous whether the player can choose the spells "on the fly" or not!

I don't think it is comparable to, for example, a cleric that can swap out a light spell for a cure light wounds in the middle of an adventure.

Sure, a spell point system DOES make characters more powerful, because it increases their options, but I think a case could be made for it not being too unbalancing, especially if it has some limits...

A spell like Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer simulates a spell point system to a minor extent, by enabling one to recover a spell of one's choice after it has already been cast...

Honestly, I think the main problem with a spell point system is that it would be confusing to players.

Player 1: "How does this work again?"
Player 2: "How many spell points do I get?"
Player 3: "Can I trade in three fireballs for a wish?"
DM (rolling eyes): "Never mind. We're going back the Vancian system."

[geneweigel]

In a non-Gygaxian game a spell point system might even be necessary if you think about it.

The treasure generation tables for random treasure on random encounters is not even considered by those who haven't weened off Zeb Cook's 2E "repairs". The chance of getting anything to support spellcasting is diminished to "keep it real" (READ: "keep it foofy", etc., etc., etc. So in THAT case the book that I cited and quoted from above (PLAYERS OPTIONS) was a necessary supplement if one followed the chain of "official AD&D" down the road until its end with 3E's MAGIC THE GATHERING "powered card collecting" style turn which sort of repaired the 2E power gap. All my friend's have 1E spellcasters with reams of magic items from random treasure and it doesn't unbalance anything in reality. The misconception at TSR of "overpowered is problem" is a remnant from god-slaying, reality-bending Monopoly-cheats-turned-D&D-Players and really? Who the fuck plays with people like that anymore? 14 year olds?

Magic items zap out spells and they get broken. If for 2E era "story time" reasons you deny the charts in favor of well... NOTHING then pehaps a spell point system might be the thing to use. However in D&D under Gary having an icing on the cake "in action spell readiness" with spell points it negates the "break it; its gone" failsafes.