Let's finish these spells.
Protection from Evil, 10' radius: This spell is the same as that for Magic-Users.
This spell is listed on page 25. I wrote about it here. And yes, I could have tacked this on to the end of the last post, but I was so worn out I didn't have the strength.
Turn Sticks to Snakes: Anytime there are sticks nearby a Cleric can turn them into snakes, with a 50% chance that they will be poisonous. From 2-16 snakes can be conjured (roll two eightsided dice). He can command these conjured snakes to perform as he orders. Duration: 6 turns. Range 12”.
Interesting, isn't it, that you can create the same number of snakes, on average as you can hit points with the cure serious wounds spell. Point in fact, we don't know how many hit points or hit dice these snakes have, or what damage they do if they attack. Nor is "snake" any kind of monster in the White Box set, so Monsters & Treasure is of no help. It matters, because if the DM is generous here, it makes a very different spell than if the DM is stingy. If every snake has 1 hit point (which would make sense considering the also 4th level spell cure serious), then we're really not talking about much. But 2-16 snakes, half poisonous, with 1 hit die each, that's an average of 31.5 hit points created that the enemy needs to kill... with a very good chance of killing a fair number that don't make save. So which is it? Two hit dice per snake? Four? No rule says one way or the other.
Speak with Plants: This spell allows the Cleric to speak with all forms of plant life, understanding what they say in reply. Plants so spoken to will obey commands of the Cleric, such as part to allow a passage and so on. This spell does not give the Cleric the power to command trees as Treants do. Duration: 6 turns. Range: 3".
This isn't so much "speak with" as "command," while the spell seems to imply that it's limited to sentient plants like treants. Unfortunately, a glance at pages 3 and 4 of Monsters & Treasure indicates that according to this set, treants are the ONLY sentient plants. So why is that the cleric can command treants, the only plant monster in the system, and not trees? Why, because trees are everywhere, which would make the spell ridiculously powerful. No, this spell give the power to command just one monster. Using your 4th level spell slot wisely, I must say.
For the record, "molds" are not plants, in case someone points out that "yellow mold" is a monster in the game.
So far as speaking is concerned, this is a problem if we don't define how we speak to a creature that doesn't move, doesn't have organs with which to speak, actually manifests. I have a tree in my front yard. It has never gone anywhere since it was a child, so I'm not really clear what it could tell me, even if it were sentient. Would it relay a discussion it overheard, that just happened to take place next to it, that also just happened to be relevant to the campaign our party is currently on? My, that's certainly convenient.
But then, trees and other plants could talk to each other. And thus, the conversation that occurred a mile from here could have been relayed to the plant I'm in front of. But, since there would be so many conversations also potentially relayed, how would this plant know which one mattered? And how would we know it wasn't describing a conversation that happened 50 years ago? Are plants aware of time as we are? Do they have words for objects they've never seen, or cannot themselves make use of? Is it a language at all, or does the spell convey a kind of osmosis?
I don't care which one it is, any logical answer would do. But since it's a game rule, the actual logic ought to be included in the rule, at least in some degree. But that would require text lines that are desperately needed to depict an incomprehensibly bad drawing of an elf on page 32. And eight blank lines not used at all on page 34.
Create Water: By means of this spell, the Cleric can create a supply of drinkable water sufficient for a party of a dozen men and horses for one day. The quantity doubles for every level above the 8th the Cleric has attained.
Sigh. Yes, unlike the purify food and drink, we get a measure... but the Engrish is so bad we don't know what it means. Is it a dozen men AND horses, so that in fact since a horse drinks between 5 and 10 times as much as a human, a dozen horses will drink as much as 90 humans would. Are we saying that the spell therefore produces enough to support 102 humans a day, if no horses are involved? Or are we saying its a dozen men OR horses (though that clearly isn't the conjuction used), so that the spell automatically adjusts for a horse. Does it then automatically also adjust for a donkey, a sheep, a dog, a mouse...? If we obey the AND, then it's one dozen men AND one dozen horses, but not two dozen men, uh huh.
I assume, also, we're counting elves and dwarves as "men," even though we took time to state that these were different races. I assume the spell adjusts automatically for these creatures also. If we want to say the spell doesn't adjust for mice and sheep, then why would it adjust for dwarves and elves? The rules clearly say "men."
Oh, and what the hell, let's talk about "drinkable" water. I'm sure the writers thought they were saying "drinking water," which is colloquial for water that can be safely drunk... but given that the game takes place in a medieval setting (the rules at the start of this book are VERY clear about that), what we call "drinking water" they did not call that, because water wasn't drunk because that was a great way to get disease. Water was fermented into various drinks to make it "drinkable," so to a medieval mind, "drinkable water" meant "small beer," which allowed for some alcohol present in the mix.
And still, "drinkable" and "drinking" do not mean the same think. "Drinking water" is assumed to be fresh, clean and healthy. "Drinkable" means that it's physically capable of being drunk. But yes, I'm splitting hairs. It's just there's so much opportunity here.
Finally, since we don't have an actual number for how much physical water the spell produces, let's just start with how much a man AND a horse drink, together. Average for a typical man is about 3 litres per day, though some of this is as food. A horse drinks about 35 litres. 38 liters x 12 is 456 litres. The "doubling for every level above the 8th" would equal 466,944 litres by 18th level. This is equal to about 9.34 residential swimming pools, or a pond that's two meters deep and 233 square meters in size, or a little more than 15 meters wide. This is still sort of fine, but by 26th level, which a cleric can conceivably be, we're talking about 120,000,000 litres, which is a 12 hectare lake, one meter deep.
Cast every day. Just as a thought experiment.
5th Level:
Dispel Evil: Similar to a Dispel Magic spell, this allows a Cleric to dispel any evil sending or spell within a 3" radius. It functions immediately. Duration: 1 turn.
The word "sending" is not in any way defined in the White Box set, though the word also occurred under the spell remove curse. My etymology dictionary does not give a meaning for the word, nor does google's dictionary. As such, I don't know what that means.
As a 5th level spell, this means that it "dispels magic" as the mage's 3rd level spell, when it happens to be "evil," a word we've already discussed as not defined in the White Box set. It's clear that the spell does not affect creatures themselves. One has to be within 30 ft./yds. of the cast spell, which is pretty close. For some reason the spell functions immediately but has a duration for 1 turn. I don't know what that means.
I'm not especially impressed.
Raise Dead: The Cleric simply points his finger, utters the incantation, and the dead person is raised. This spell works with men, elves, and dwarves only. For each level the Cleric has progressed beyond the 8th, the time limit for resurrection extends another four days. Thus, an 8th-level Cleric can raise a body dead up to four days, a 9th-level Cleric can raise a body dead up to eight days, and so on. Naturally, if the character’s Constitution was weak, the spell will not bring him back to life. In any event raised characters must spend two game weeks’ time recuperating from the ordeal.
Endlessly, this is again a hodgepodge of terms not defined. This is the only incident in the three books where constitution is described as potentially "weak," so I have no idea where to draw the line. A "3"? Which would mean a "4" wasn't? But then if a "4" is, wouldn't "5" be close? Sigh. A number please. Constitutions have numbers. Couldn't you have just given a number?
Gets to the point where I want to swear with every sentence.
What is "the incantation." How long does it require? Can the cleric be interrupted with an arrow while rattling it off? If not, why express it this way, except to impose "colour" that adds exactly nothing to the rule. If the cleric does jazz hands, does the spell not work? If I cut off the cleric's index fingers...
So halflings are shit out of luck, huh? Bummer.
I get this flash of a sketch where the cleric is standing in front of two bodies side by side, ready to raise Gregory, but mid incantation he sneezes, moves his finger and accidently raises Hector, the half-wit that everyone was glad was dead. Hilarity ensues. Cleric: "No, no, I was trying to bring back Gregory, I swear!" Fighter: "Admit it... you've always hated Greg!"
Why does the explanation call the spell "resurrection" in the description?
When I raise a body "up to eight days," does that mean death occurs after that time? Because in English, that's what those words mean. And "another four days" after what? Zero, presumably, because the character has to be 9th to get the spell. But then, why don't we just say, "On getting the spell, a body can be raised up to four days after death. Thereafter, it's too late." There's this whole convoluted description, with an example to make it clearer, whereas it's much simpler to say, "For each level above 9th, the initial four-day limit increases by 4 more days." There, that's clear. We don't need the example. Even if we do, we can say, "8 days at 9th level, 12 days at 10th, 16 days at 11th, and so on."
The White Box used 49 words. I used 34 without the example, 50 with, and mine's a lot clearer. I also used smaller words and did not need to repeat the name of the spell incorrectly.
Yeah, I know. I've already applied my gold star. My point is that the writing here is just egregious, which is what makes this process of beating up the rules so exhausting and discouraging. Even if I wanted to like this text, there's no way to do so. It's just awful. We're not talking about occasional errors, but spell descriptions that have three, four, even more incongruities, which requires a level of incompetence that surpasses imagination. It's just trainwreck after trainwreck.
The spell Raise Dead isn't a bad spell. It's a perfectly good spell. But it's a disaster on the page. Which it makes it open to rules lawyering, which is why rules lawyers got a hand up on so many DMs. The rule on the page didn't help thwart those attacks, which was it's first and most important job.
Commune: A spell which puts the Cleric in touch with the powers "above" and asks for help in the form of answers to three questions. Communing is allowed but once each week maximum (referee’s option as to making less frequent). Veracity and knowledge should be near total. Once per year a special communing should be allowed wherein the Cleric can ask double the number of questions.
Why, for example, after numerous examples that immediately get into what the spell does, this wastes three words right off, "a spell which"? Why not "This puts the cleric in touch..."? Consistency, people!
Why is above in quotes. Colloquially, "above" means heaven; this spell is not referring in any manner to heaven, so why this specific word? If they want help from beyond, then why don't they just bloody well say "beyond," which is the correct word in this context and would not need quotes! DAMN!
Veracity means "truth" or the "character of being true." What the hell is this word doing in this sentence? Why is the spell automatically restricted when other spells are not, and why is the DM encouraged to restrain it more? I'm the cleric that earned this spell, why am I not allowed to use it? Can I use it ever two days if I promise just to ask one question?
These three questions I'm getting answered: what answers can I expect? Whatever the hell the DM feels like saying? Is there a model I can count on? Am I actually going to get help? Does veracity tell me the DM isn't going to lie? Then why the hell not just say so?
It's possible I may be broken at this point. As near as I can tell for certain, the caster, when the DM allows it, is allowed to ask "something" up to three questions, to which the DM must answer truly and with knowledge. But here's where it falls apart... because we all know from endless Monkey's Paw copycat-fictions that "answering a question legitimately" is a movable feast, where the person with the knowledge has the power to fuck with me at will. An open ended question like, "What should my character do first?" can be answered perfectly accurately and legitimately, "Breathe. What's your second question?"
The issue is that the necessary contract the spell implies is not stated as clearly as a contract demands, so it invites abuse and subversion, which gawd help us any number of DMs will take licence with. As such, I despise spells written like this, for this reason, because I'm wasting my time giving the DM a bunch of funsies at my expense.
In a well-designed system, a spell like Commune would operate under a clear framework that defines not only what the Cleric can ask, but also how the answers should be structured and how much freedom the DM has to twist or obscure the truth. Without these clear parameters, the spell becomes an unpredictable gamble which makes this a spell I wouldn't bother to use.
Quest: This is similar to the Geas, except that the character sent upon a Quest by the Cleric is not killed by failure to carry out the service. However, the Cleric may curse him with whatever he desires for failure, and the referee should decide if such a curse will take effect if the character ignores the Quest, basing the effectiveness of the curse on the phrasing of it and the alignment and actions of the character so cursed.
We've covered the problems with this spell under geas, here. To sum up, this is not a spell that is of very much use to a player party, because again they'd have to wait around to learn if the quested individuals succeeded; the "curse" option means almost nothing if an NPC is the one being cursed. That's of little value to the party that must have the thing the quest was intended to achieve.
It is, however, funsies again for the giggling DM to think of a really good curse to dump on a hapless player... and since the DM has nothing actually invested in the quest being fulfilled, except that the party be kept busy, the DM loses or gains nothing if the quest is or is not fulfilled. So like geas, this is just a dick punch to the party by the DM, nothing more.
With geas and quest, we also have this added bullshit modifier: who is responsible for creating a quest/geas the players can or can't succeed at? I'll answer with this vintage Canadian moment.
Insect Plague: By means of this spell, the Cleric calls to him a vast cloud of insects and sends them where he will, within the spell range. They will obscure vision and drive creatures with less than three hit dice off in rout. The dimensions of the Insect Plague are 36 square inches. Duration: 1 game day. Range: 48". (Note: This spell is effective only above ground.)
And that's a wargamer's combat rule. Effectively, 1 day = until the contest is over.
As a spell goes, its not that powerful. Spells like don't specify if the locus of the spell is where the caster was standing when the spell was put in place, or if they move with the caster when the caster moves for the duration of the spell. Fly, for example, affects the caster and so remains in effect if the caster moves. An area spell like confusion or massmorph seems to imply that the spell, once cast, affects a stable area. But here, the things that are created are not static, but in motion... and since this discontinuity is never detailed or discussed in the rules, I'd certainly argue as a player that the 48" range focuses on ME, not a place on the ground, just like a fly spell or a protection from normal missiles focuses on me. Which should mean, I can cast the spell and then drive out things ahead of me as I progress. For one game day, where upon I can cast it again (the spell, once per day, or once per game day), so that I'm never without my convenient cloud. Just call me "Beebs," for short.
Create Food: A spell with which the Cleric creates sustenance sufficient for a party of a dozen for one game day. The quantity doubles for every level above the 8th the Cleric has attained.
"This lets the cleric..."
The doubling effect of this spell allows a 26th caster to feed the entire population of 15th century Great Britain, including Scotland and Ireland, to the tune of 3,145,728 people. A 29th level caster can feed all of Europe. Since the food, presumably, must be created within line of sight of the caster, I'm sure that the dinner party in Slavonia is going to be late if the food is created in Luxembourg.
Apart from that, the spell is fine.
Need a fortification in short order? No problem, I'm a short order cook. I'll put so much food between us and the enemy, they'll never climb it. In fact, they'll eat their fill and go away.
Finally, the last spell is this:
Note: There are Anti-Clerics (listed below) who have similar powers to Clerics. Those Clerical spells underlined on the table for Cleric Spells have a reverse effect, all others functioning as noted. The chief exception is the Raise Dead spell which becomes:
The Finger of Death: Instead of raising the dead, this spell creates a "death ray" which will kill any creature unless a saving throw is made (where applicable). Range: 12". (A Cleric-type may use this spell in a life-or-death situation, but misuse will immediately turn him into an Anti-Cleric.)
Anti-Clerics: Evil Acolyte, Evil Adept, Shaman, Evil Priest, Evil Curate, Evil Bishop, Evil Lama, Evil High Priest.
I apologise. The genius use of language in the third paragraph above as made me speechless. I think we can just let that be.
It has always struck me a little funny that when considering the nature of real world clerical representatives of all the major religious organisations that have come and gone — feel free to make your arguments about Buddhism and Confucianism, or Taoism, and whether or not those aren't just philosophies and not religions at all — that there needs to be a categorisation between religious leaders who are nice and fuzzy and those that are ready to murder frenzily. The churches themselves made no such distinctions. Excommunication occurs because you betray the church, not because you're a bad person. Try to recall that those burned witches and torture victims were murdered by people who were considered "good" in the eyes of their church, their doctrine and, according to them, their god.
Yet, out of the air, for 20th century reasons surely, there seemed a need to draw a line between "good" clerics and "bad" clerics, with the former being the sort who absolutely would never use anything as evil as *gasp!* The Finger of Death (bum-bum-ba...!) These same clerics, of course, being run by players who have no compunctions about killing anything between themselves and a full chest. Wait, that could be misconstrued. I meant treasure. But not with a finger! A mace, sure... a club, an explosive detonating spell, poison gas, transformation into a snail, the actual death spell... no problem. I mean, after all, those are mage spells, right? I'm not an anti-cleric if I stand beside Mark Orcsplitter and his trusty lightning bolt spell, right? Just so long as I, personally, don't do that sort of thing. Guilt by association? Doesn't exist. Oh sure, I might cast Quest and send Hector the Lackwit to get the local red dragon's middle name, then curse him with running sores if he fails, but I'm not an anti-cleric! Forfend! I might turn sticks into poison snakes but an anti-cleric? Me? Ridiculous. I'm a cleric after all, a servant of the divine, a beacon of light and mercy! How could I ever be accused of doing anything wrong?
In D&D terms, I'm still the "good guy" even if the others I hang out with aren't, even if we kill whomever gets in our way with abandon, just so long as I don't use the most explicitly evil spells. The line must be drawn somewhere. After all, I don't want to be accused of something that, in fact, has no quantifiable negative effects in-game. Except that I can then put "E" at the end of my name. I tell people it stands for "esquire."
In fact, the section of the White Box set quoted above is the only mention in the three books of an anti-cleric at all. The appellation has no meaning. Though it does seem to apply that if I'm an anti-cleric, I can't cast raise dead, or any of the reverses of the evil version of the spells. Which, frankly, I also have to question. Evil people can't raise other evil people? Have none of these creators ever read Conan?
I have no idea why "finger of death" needs to be clarified as a "death ray," except due to 1950s, 60s and 70s science fiction. I don't understand the qualifier, "where applicable" next to saving throw. Yes, I guess, some creatures don't get one. Why would I waste my 5th level spell slot on a snail? The lols? And when is a cleric in a combat technically not in a "life-or-death" situation? Which again, opens the door, if a "good" cleric can occasionally use the reverse of a spell and not lose the straightforward normal use, why shouldn't the anti-cleric also be allowed the same latitude?
I am now done with spells. I am so ready to move on. Admit it: you thought I'd quit before doing them all.
No comments:
Post a Comment