You got kung fu chocolate in my sword & sorcery peanut butter!

 Yeah, age (and nationality) test in the post title. Plenty of my readers are old enough (and American enough) to get the reference, but maybe not all. 

So I continue to tool around with my TSR compilation rules. After chatting with JB in the previous post's comments, I took a look at the 1E Monk class, and Gary's description, which basically said it's a non-spellcasting cleric with thief skills. And in typical AD&D fashion, it's way more complicated than it needs to be. 5 attacks every 4 rounds? Seriously? Fighters getting 2 every 3 rounds with weapon specialization (or being 7th level without it) is ridiculous enough. And of course there is the mixed bag of special abilities. 

I hadn't read through that version of the Monk in a long time. I played one in my cousin's campaign back in our high school days, and when I ran an OA game after college, one of my players was a Monk. But it had been a while. And my ideas about Monks were really colored by what they are in 3E/Pathfinder and 5E. In those editions, they're basically variant Fighters with some skills that let them be a little like a thief. Of course, the Rogue in WotC editions is also really just a variant Fighter with more out of combat utility, so there's that. 

Anyway, to get to the point, today I decided to return the Monk to the Cleric/Thief slot in my symmetrical class construction system. Instead of the really odd archetype of the Half-Orc who can pick your pocket after he heals you, and unlock a trap after turning some undead (I mean, I love this, it's so random that half-orcs can do this in AD&D), the Monk is maybe the better fit, and more organic (by that I mean what the players will expect a version of D&D to have). 

I even wrote up a very simplified version of the class that I'm pretty happy with. Acrobat is already one of the Thief subclasses I've written up, so it uses the Thief-Acrobat skill tables (each Thief subclass gets slightly different skills and slightly different % numbers). I'd also already given the Acrobat unarmed fighting ability and AC bonuses despite not wearing armor (my previous version of TSR had combined the UA Thief-Acrobat and the 3E/5E Monk concepts), so it was a more natural fit than a standard Thief. None of my Cleric subclasses really fit, though, so following 1E and the RC (and later editions to an extent), I made a Monk class that is a lot simpler. It doesn't cast Vancian spells, and most of its magical/mystical abilities are self only (I did give them "lay on hands" healing instead of self healing, but that may change). 

They are the only non-Fighter class to get multiple attacks, but that can only be done with unarmed fighting, not with weapons. And they only get 2 per round, while high level Fighters get 3. Hopefully they will do alright in a fight, but not overpower the Fighter. 

Oh, and my Darkstalker concept (Van Helsing/Belmont family style vampire/monster hunter) will become a Cleric subclass, the way it probably should have from the beginning.

TSR-East Classes: Sohei

Sohei have been a staple class of OA play since the 1E days. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that someone had made a sohei class and published it in The Dragon or one of the other early gaming magazines. They were historical armed Buddhist monks who formed armies and took on the samurai to protect their wealth base of agricultural holdings around their temple complexes. They used populist rhetoric that they were "protecting the commoners" but the reality, from the history books I've read, was a case of "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." As the song says.

But there is Benkei. Benkei is the prototypical sohei. And he's a really cool figure. Much like Miyamoto Musashi is the prototypical wandering duelist ronin of history or Hattori Hanzo the prototypical "man of Iga" (ninja) of history. Plus, the sohei had equivalents in China and elsewhere. The Shaolin monks are cut from the same archetypal cloth. Both groups are religious sects that practice martial arts.

And in D&D terms, that's a Cleric. But I already based the Mudang on the Cleric. But then D&D has the Druid, which is also like the Cleric but not quite (and later editions from 2E onward provide a vast array of variations on the Cleric as Cleric!). So I think there's room for two.

I did try to vary the spell lists as much as I could. The problem is that the lower level spells seem fairly integral to both classes. So early on, they will seem pretty similar. Mudang do get 10 spells per level while Sohei only get 8. The Sohei spells are primarily focused on attack/defense boosting rather than the healing/general utility of the Mudang spell list.

Mudang have only blunt weapons and light armor but can Turn Undead (and other things). Sohei get all weapons, medium armor, and unarmed fighting damage in case you want to play a more Shaolin style character, and they get a d8 hit die while the Mudang gets the normal Cleric d6. Sohei, being more warriors, have a minimum Strength requirement compared to the minimum Wisdom requirement of the Mudang.

Here is the class:

Sohei (Warrior-Monk) AKA Zhànsēng, Jeonseung

Requirement: Str 9

Prime Requisite: Wis [13 +5%, 16 +10%]

Hit Die: d8 to 9^th level, +2/level after

Arms: all weapons, medium armor and shields

Special Abilities: spells, unarmed damage

Sohei Advancement
Level	XP	BAB	Abilities	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	0	+1	Unarmed d6	1	–	–	–	–	–
2	1750	+1		2	–	–	–	–	–
3	3500	+1		2	1	–	–	–	–
4	7000	+1		2	2	–	–	–	–
5	15,000	+3	Unarmed d8	2	2	1	–	–	–
6	30,000	+3		3	2	2	–	–	–
7	60,000	+3		3	3	2	1	–	–
8	120,000	+3		3	3	3	2	–	–
9	240,000	+5		4	4	3	2	1	–
10	360,000	+5	Unarmed d10	4	4	3	3	2	–
11	480,000	+5		4	4	4	3	2	1
12	600,000	+5		5	5	4	3	2	2
13	720,000	+7		5	5	5	3	3	2
14	840,000	+7		6	5	5	3	3	3
15	960,000	+7	Unarmed d12	6	5	5	4	3	3

Spells: A sohei can cast a number of spells of the levels shown on the Sohei Advancement chart each day. The sohei must prepare their spells in advance, but may select from any spells of appropriate level from the sohei spell list.

Unarmed Damage: A sohei fighting with their unarmed strikes or with improvised weapons deals 1d6 damage with the attack. 

	Sohei
Save Level:	1-4	5-8	9-12	13-15
Death Ray/Poison	11	9	7	5
Magic Wand	12	10	8	6
Paralysis/Turn to Stone	14	12	10	8
Dragon Breath	16	14	12	10
Rod/Staff/Spell	15	13	11	9

Sohei Spells

Level 1

1. Cure Light Wounds*

2. Detect Evil

3. Detect Magic

4. Elemental Weapon

5. Hold Portal

6. Protection from Evil

7. Remove Fear*

8. Resist Cold

Level 2

1. Bless*

2. Find Traps

3. Hold Person*

4. Protection from Weapons

5. Resist Fire

6. Silence 15' Radius

7. Snake Charm

8. Wood Form

Level 3

1. Continual Light*

2. Elemental Ward

3. Flame Whip

4. Locate Object

5. Remove Curse*

6. Striking

7. Water Form

8. Wind Dragon

Level 4

1. Cure Serious Wounds*

2. Dispel Magic

3. Fire Form

4. Neutralize Poison*

5. Pro. from Evil 10' radius

6. Protection from Lightning

7. Spirit Step

8. Sticks to Snakes

Level 5

1. Conjure Monster

2. Cure Critical Wounds*

3. Dispel Evil

4. Earth Form

5. Raise Dead*

6. Regeneration

7. Truesight

8. Wall of Ghosts

Level 6

1. Anti-Magic Shell

2. Animate Objects

3. Banish

4. Burning Blood

5. Find the Path

6. Metal Form

7. Speak with Monsters*

8. Transformation

TSR-East classes: Mudang

The second class is the Shaman. 1E OA called them Shukenja, but 3E OA wanted to call the Rokugan sorcerer class Shugenja (the proper spelling) so they got renamed as Shaman. Dragon Fist also called them Shamans. So might as well go with that name. But in Korean. Because I can.

The trick with this class is that I wanted to use both a shaman-type Cleric and a warrior-monk (sohei) type Cleric in the game. So I have two versions of the Cleric. It wasn't so hard to rearrange the class basics, but the spell lists are still a work in progress. I want to try and differentiate them a bit more.

Well, that shouldn't be so hard, right? I've got regular D&D Cleric spells, Druid spells, and Magic-User spells. I've got Flying Swordsmen Shaman spells and Chanbara Onmyoji/Soryo/Yamabushi spells to work with! Don't forget original OA's Shukenja (and possibly Wu Jen) spells.

But honestly, a lot of the "original" spells in my two games are just renamed versions of regular spells. Or slight tweaks of original game spells.

For the Mudang, I tried to keep all the "nature" or spiritual spells of the Cleric, and added in more spells to fill the gaps. Sohei, as you'll see later, are more battle-focused in their spells. And since they are less of a combat class, I gave them 10 spells per level so they get more to choose from. At the higher levels, it was pretty easy to differentiate them from Sohei spells. It's just at level 1, there are so many basic spells that seem to fit for both styles.

Mudang (Shaman) AKA Shugenja, Wū

Requirement: Wis 9

Prime Requisite: Cha [13 +5%, 16 +10%]

Hit Die: d6 to 9^th level, +1/level after

Arms: blunt weapons, light armor and shields

Special Abilities: spells, turn unholy

Mudang Advancement
Level	XP	BAB	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	0	+1	1	–	–	–	–	–
2	1500	+1	2	–	–	–	–	–
3	3000	+1	2	1	–	–	–	–
4	6000	+1	2	2	–	–	–	–
5	12,000	+3	2	2	1	–	–	–
6	25,000	+3	3	2	2	–	–	–
7	50,000	+3	3	3	2	1	–	–
8	100,000	+3	3	3	3	2	–	–
9	200,000	+5	4	4	3	2	1	–
10	300,000	+5	4	4	3	3	2	–
11	400,000	+5	4	4	4	3	2	1
12	500,000	+5	5	5	4	3	2	2
13	600,000	+7	5	5	5	3	3	2
14	700,000	+7	6	5	5	3	3	3
15	800,000	+7	6	5	5	4	3	3

Spells: A mudang can cast a number of spells of the levels shown on the Mudang Advancement chart each day. The mudang must prepare their spells in advance, but may select from any spells of appropriate level from the mudang spell list.

Turn Unholy: The mudang may attempt to force undead, evil spirits, or demons to flee. If the target has fewer than ½ the mudang’s level in hit dice, 2d6 HD worth are automatically destroyed. If they have fewer hit dice but more than ½, 2d6 HD worth automatically flee. If they have hit dice equal to or greater than the mudang, the mudang must roll 2d6 to see if they are affected. If the creatures have HD equal to the mudang’s level, roll 7 or better. If the targets have up to double the mudang’s level in HD, roll 9 or better. If the targets have more than double the mudang’s level in HD, roll 11 or better. If successful, 2d6 HD of targets will flee. The mudang may use this ability as often as desired in an encounter until it fails, then it may not be used again in that encounter.

	Mudang
Save Level:	1-4	5-8	9-12	13-15
Death Ray/Poison	11	9	7	5
Magic Wand	12	10	8	6
Paralysis/Turn to Stone	14	12	10	8
Dragon Breath	16	14	12	10
Rod/Staff/Spell	15	13	11	9

Spells

 

First

1 Cure Light Wounds*

2 Detect Evil

3 Detect Magic

4 Light*

5 Protection from Bludgeons

6 Protection from Evil

7 Purify Food and Water

8 Remove Fear*

9 Resist Cold

10 Sanctuary

Second

1 Bless*

2 Channel Spirit

3 Cloud Feet

4 Fresh Air

5 Hold Person*

6 Resist Fire

7 Silence 15' Radius

8 Speak with Animal

9 Spirit’s Vengeance

10 Voice of the Dragon

Third

1 Call Lightning

2 Cure Blindness

3 Cure Disease*

4 Exorcism

5 Growth of Animal

6 Invisibility to Spirits

7 Locate Object

8 Omen

9 Remove Curse*

10 Speak with the Dead

Fourth

1 Control Winds

2 Create Water

3 Cure Serious Wounds*

4 Detect Shapechanger

5 Dispel Magic

6 Earth Grave

7 Neutralize Poison*

8 Pro. from Evil 10' radius

9 Shield of Spirits

10 Speak with Plants

Fifth

1 Cloud Trapeze

2 Create Food

3 Cure Critical Wounds*

4 Dispel Evil

5 Hold Monster*

6 Insect Plague

7 Quest*

8 Raise Dead*

9 Spirit Storm

10 Weather Control

Sixth

1 Aerial Servant

2 Animate Objects

3 Commune with Spirits

4 Create Normal Animals

5 Cureall

6 Earthquake

7 Invulnerability

8 Lower Water

9 Speak with Monsters*

10 Word of Recall

Mentzer Basic Cover to Cover: Cleric

We've already been introduced to Aleena the Cleric in the tutorial, but here we get the actual class description (for the first three levels, anyway).

Right off the bat, we can see the effects of the 80's "Satanic Panic."  2nd Paragraph explicitly tells us that while Clerics serve great causes and their beliefs, the game DOES NOT deal with these things.  PC religion is just assumed, like eating, sleeping, and farting.  No need to bring it up in the game.  Later, the spell-casting description is also explicit in mentioning that players don't need to speak any mumbo-jumbo, just tell the DM that you're casting a spell.

Now, my dad is and always has been strongly religious, but he never had a problem with me playing D&D.  I guess the concern was bigger for the Protestants than the Catholics.  If these notes had not been here, if I'd had an earlier Basic Set or the AD&D PHB, which are explicit about Clerics serving made up gods, he might not have had the same reaction.

The first page (of four) also gives us our first glimpse of the standard setup for explaining the character classes.  The advancement table, level titles, Prime Requisite, hit dice, allowed weapons and armor, and special abilities.  Saving Throw tables are also right there, and I always later found it annoying that in AD&D you needed to look in the DMG to find them.  I much prefer having them there for players to just roll it and announce if they made it or not.  I've rarely had problems with players cheating with that.

Oh, and if I haven't mentioned it before (or at least recently), yes, I'm a fan of level titles.  They just add that bit of flavor that makes them fun, even if they make no real logical sense.

 The following pages gives us Cleric special abilities and the first level spells.  Turn Undead is explained in detail.  One oddity I noted is that it says that when undead are Turned, they will return shortly, but it doesn't say how long it actually lasts.  Maybe it's in the DM's book.

We also get our first explanation of how spells work in D&D games.  The assumption is that "adventures" only last one day (see, they had the "15-minute work day" back then, too!), so the number of spells shown - once you reach 2nd level or higher - is the number of spells per adventure.  There is a note that sometimes adventures take more than one day, and can be changed out at will each morning after rest.

There's also an interesting note about reversible spells.  Because the reverse descriptions are detailed in the Expert book, it says that Clerics can't use reversed spells until at least 4th level.  Now, I don't have many players casting Cause Light Wounds ever, but sometimes Cause Fear does get used.  I may think about actually using this rule in my home games.  It would be interesting to try, anyway.

Some people in the OSR have experimented with alternate interpretations of rules.  Several bloggers I know have tried the "limit spell-casters to only one of any prepared spell."  However, here in Mentzer Basic, we get an explicit mention that casters can double up on the same spell, in the part where it describes how spells are forgotten when cast.  If you memorize the same spell twice, cast it once and one copy disappears but the other remains.  Despite it being "cannon" for me, I would like to try that variant.  Maybe allow duplicates at Name Level.  That way, the Clerics and Magic Users would get some "powers" as they level.  4th level lets you reverse spells.  9th lets you memorize duplicates.  Could be a fun way to run a game!

Notes on Cleric 1st level Spells:
Cure Light Wounds - heal 1d6+1 hit points or remove paralysis, take your pick.
Detect Evil - detects intent to harm the Cleric, not Chaotic alignment, nor evil intentions toward others besides the Cleric.
Detect Magic - as worded, seems like it detects invisibility, but the invisibility spell description may trump this.  I'll check it later.
Light - using it to cast on creatures' eyes to blind them is part of the description.
Protection from Evil - AC/save bonus, plus enchanted creatures can't touch the Cleric, but doesn't prevent ranged attacks or spells.  Lycanthropes are listed as not enchanted creatures, but I have usually considered them to be so.  Charmed or magically summoned creatures (like a vampire's swarm of bats) are considered enchanted.  also, something I've been doing wrong (and allowed Dean and Alexei to have an easy time in the last Chanbara playtest).  If the Cleric attacks ANYTHING while the spell is in effect, enchanted creatures can now touch the Cleric.  Still, one of the best spells to have when dealing with level draining undead!
Purify Food and Water - can be used to clear muddy/murky pools of water, an application that could be useful during adventures besides just keeping the rations from spoiling.
Remove Fear - I usually forget that when a frightened creature gets a new saving throw against the effect, there's a bonus equal to the Cleric's level (max. +6) to the roll.  Not that it comes up often...
Resist Cold - not sure why Resist Fire is caster-only, but I've always liked the fact that this spell affects the whole party (as long as they stay near the Cleric).

Thoughts on Spells Inspired by my Son

My son actually asked to play Dungeons & Dragons with me today.  He's still 4 months shy of his 6th birthday, so of course I had to do a fair amount of simplifying for him, but I ran him through the CYOA dungeon from the Mentzer Basic Players Manual (killing two birds with one stone, as that helps me prepare for the Cover to Cover post).

At first, he wanted to play a "wizard" so we rolled him up a Magic-User.  I briefly explained spells, and gave him Read Magic plus let him choose three more (one more standard, plus one for each point of Int bonus he had).  He chose Hold Portal, Light/Darkness and Ventriloquism.

Rather than explain the intricacies of Vancian spellcasting to him, I figured I'd just let him cast each spell once during the adventure, and let him return to town and rest up if he wanted to refresh them.  Turns out he died before he had a chance to cast a single spell, although he did take out a rust monster with the help of my wife's old Halfling PC from our gaming attempts from before our son was born (her Halfling is level 4 with a displacer cloak, +1 short sword, and a few other nice things).  Anyway, goblins then made short work of our wizard, who had a 6 Constitution so only 2 hit points. 

My son rolled up a Fighter and, with the help of Blossom the Halfling for combats (my wife was reading a book at the time, taking breaks to roll some dice when necessary), went on to trounce the dungeon, getting all the loot, dividing it with Blossom, then getting it all doubled by the magic mouth. 

Back to the idea that hit me.  Since I was going to let him use each of the 4 spells in his spellbook once each, I got to thinking.  What if, instead of preparing spells, a Magic-User, Elf or Cleric (Clerics will need spellbooks or prayer books or something in this version to make it work rather than access to all their spells) can cast each spell in their spellbook a number of times per day equal to their Vancian spell limits?

So a 1st level M-U can cast each spell in his/her book once per day (as above).  At 3rd level, with two 1st level and one 2nd level spells per day, each 1st level spell in the book could be cast twice, while each 2nd level spell could only be cast once.

Of course, 3E style limits of up to 4 per level per day might be a good idea, and my Level 15 cap instead of the BECMI level 36 cap would be necessary to prevent abuse.

What are the benefits?  Well, first of all a lot of the utility spells that rarely see play would see play.  Spell-casters move away from the tactical nuke/heal-bot mentality they engender.  Yes, as they gain lots of levels they can do that, but they would still have lots of utility magic to go around as well.  Gets rid of the "I cast one spell and am then useless" complaints of low level play.  Makes caster characters' main motivation to seek out magical books, libraries, or other casters in order to expand their repertoire. 

Drawbacks?  All those arguments about casters replacing Thieves become more tenable.  If you can cast Knock or Locate Traps several times a day without having to give up other (attack/heal) spells, might as well magic your way through such things than rely on a Thief's percentage chances.  Maybe in an OD&D/S&W game without the Thief this variant would work better. 

This is not an idea I'd want to use all the time, but for certain campaigns (or maybe as a replacement of the caster roll mechanic I'm using in Chanbara?) it could be fun.

Another look at the Cleric

LS over at Papers and Pencils has been doing a series on Pathfinder's Advanced Players Guide classes and the latest is on the Oracle class, which is basically a PF Sorcerer with Cleric spells instead of Wizard spells.  And some of his comments, especially a link to his thoughts on the actual Cleric class, inspired me to revise my own ideas about the Classic D&D Cleric (and why I find it superior for my style of play).

So what's my beef?  Of course it's to do with healing.  Should Clerics be the party band-aid?  Is that the reason the class exists?  I disagree, but modern game design seems to believe that is the case. 

LS mentions that the PF Oracle class automatically gets Cure X spells (or Inflict X spells if they choose) at levels they can cast, in addition to the Sorcerer-style "spells known" each level.  So no need to debate about whether to take a handy utility spell or a cure spell, you've already got the cure for free.  And in the PF Cleric, instead of Turn Undead they get a blanket "heal everyone in 30' of xd6 damage" a large number of times per day (minimum three, but with a Cha bonus or the right feat selection, that increases) in addition to spells and the hold-over from 3E, spontaneous casting of cure X spells.

In our old PF game from a couple years ago, I was playing a Paladin, but we always had at least one other Cleric in the group, sometimes two.  Any time I thought to use Lay on Hands on another PC, the Clerics would stop me and just use their Channel Energy ability instead.  I was left using Lay on Hands in the rather selfish and un-paladinly manner of keeping myself in a fight (since I was able to self-cure as a minor action in addition to moving and attacking) rather than aiding the needy (but with two actual Clerics, I guess the party injured weren't really needy after all...).  They get a lot of healing ability is what I'm saying.

Now in Classic D&D, assuming OD&D/BX/BECMI, Clerics are actually fairly limited in the amount of (hit point) healing they can do in a day, until you get up into the Companion/Master levels of BECMI.  Even then, they still get lots of non-curative spells as well.  Let's take a look at some numbers, shall we?

OD&D Men and Magic lists a 10th level Patriarch (the highest in that book) as getting spells per day: 3/3/3/3/3
They have Cure Light Wounds as a 1st level spell and Cure Serious Wounds as a 4th level spell.  At most, they could take six out of fifteen spells to heal hit points in a day, curing 9d6+9 hit points per day.  Cure Disease and Neutralize Poison are at 3rd level, Raise Dead is at 5th level.  Yes, they are healing/restorative magics, but not usually needed as often as Cure Wounds spells. 

BX Clerics at 10th level get one more 1st level spell: 4/4/3/3/2, so could heal 10d6+10 hit points, at at the maximum 14th level can cast: 6/5/5/5/4.  That's a fair bit of healing, actually, if all spell slots are devoted to it, 16d6+16 points.  Spells are as OD&D.

BECMI Clerics at 10th level: 4/4/3/2/1 actually have a decrease in healing if you stick to the Basic and Expert books - Companion adds Cure Critical Wounds (3d6+3) at 5th level.  With Companion, that's 11d6+11, only two dice more than the OD&D Cleric at the same level.  Without Companion, it's 8d6+8, one less!  At 14th level, the BECMI Cleric has spells: 5/5/5/3/3/2 - yes, 6th level spells, which includes Cureall which heals nearly all of a character's hit points.  If all hit point healing spells are memorized, that's 20d6+20 before the two Cureall spells are factored in.  They still end up with ten spells of 2nd and 3rd level that don't cure hit points, and with Cureall available, you likely don't need all of those Cure Light Wounds spells anymore.  I'm not even going to bother with 36th level BECMI Clerics. 

Also note, none of the above Clerics start out play at 1st level with the ability to heal a single hit point!  No spells at level 1! 

Do I need to remind everyone that in 3E, they upped Clerics to 9th level spells and lowered the bottom to include 0 level spells, and there are hit point curing spells in all of them?  And Clerics can instantly change any prepared spell into a Cure Wounds spell of the same level at any time. 

Let's take a look at a 10th level 3.5 Cleric - assuming they don't have Healing as a Domain, so those spells can be used for something else.  They cast 6*/4/4/3/3/2 spells per day plus Domain spells.  *0-level spells.  Ignoring the 0-level and Domain spells, it's actually the same as in BX - oh, except for bonus spells for High Wisdom.  The Cleric will have bonus spells from Wisdom, but let's ignore them for now since it's variable. 

Cure spells now use a d8 instead of a d6, and add a variable amount depending on the Cleric's level.  33d8+126 just with the 0 through 4th level spells, and at 5th level they get Mass Cure Light Wounds, which will heal 1d8+10 to up to ten creatures, for a potential 43d8+326 points of damage in a day.  And remember, with bonus spells for Wisdom and the Healing Domain (which grants more spells and gives a bonus to the amount each healing spell cures), there could be more!  Of course, that's assuming all spells get used to cure hit point damage. 

I'm not going to figure out the 14th level 3E Cleric.  Nor the Pathfinder Cleric, since in addition to all the spells (they wisely axed the 0-level Cure Minor Wounds, though, since in PF 0-level spells are at-will), as I mentioned above, they get the Mass Cure spell series at least three times a day from level one! 

Some people over in the d20 versions of D&D really really expect way too much combat to happen in D&D.  And for the Cleric to be there to patch everyone up in time for the next combat. 

Now, of course, some will argue that the abundance of healing available to the 3E/PF Cleric means that they actually do get to prepare and cast other spells instead of only healing spells.  And that's true that most adventuring parties are not likely to need 500 points of healing in a day. 

But the thing they miss is this: in Classic D&D, Clerics get to cast other spells too!  And they don't get the party members bugging them to give up their utility spells in order to heal another wound.  If they don't max out their healing, they get to cast those other non-healing spells because they can't just switch it out for a Cure X spell. 

2E style Kits for Classic D&D made easy

This idea actually came to me in a dream, and I further fleshed out the dream idea in a semi-awake state last night, and somehow managed to actually remember it this morning.  I'd been reading a few blog posts about sub-classes and kits (or maybe it was on G+), so those obviously inspired this whole thing.

Take Classic D&D (OD&D, Holmes, BX, BECMI, RC) or any of the clones based on these (BFRPG, LL, S&W, maybe some other near-clones as well).  Most of these have seven classes: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling.  Most of you should know this by now, but you never know.

A simpler way to add some of the AD&D/3E/4E style classes to the game (and I play in a group with mixed preferences, so this is an issue for me) than creating a bunch of actual classes would be to rethink a few of the past choices of the game designers and use a version of the 2E AD&D kit to add a few things and take away a few others to customize the basic seven classes.

In my dream, I was tinkering with the Cleric class, so I'll use that as my example here.  Someone wants to play a Paladin (or Avenger, Sohei, or other "church knight" type).  Traditionally, this has been done by grafting some clerical abilities onto the Fighter.  But why not just give the base Cleric class access to all weapons, at the expense of, for example, a slower Turn Undead progression and/or a truncated spell list?  Clerics fight near as well as Fighters, and with the smaller hit die the new Church Knight variant Cleric isn't as likely to overshadow the Fighter, the way a Paladin traditionally does by giving it everything the Fighter has PLUS Cleric stuff. 

Druid can be done with a simple reworking of the spell list and changing Turn Undead into Turn (or Calm) Animals.  They don't really need animal shape-shifting and secret languages and all that, do they?  And the hippie no metal armor, but metal weapons are hunky dory thing?  Drop it or keep it as you like.  It's flavorful, like the Clerics only using blunt weapons thing, but IMO unnecessary if the spell list has the right feel.  And if the Druid spell list is being built differently from the standard Cleric list, why not just make a special wild shape spell similar to the Polymorph Self spell but limited to natural animals (and maybe plants?).  Other AD&D/3E style Druid powers could likewise just be spells on the list.

Other ideas would include a Bard that is just the Elf Class without the racial abilities but with a bardic lore ability (more or less what I originally did with for the Bard, before reworking it to be more of a Cleric/Thief hybrid).  Or, as others have suggested before, Tolkien style Eldar could be made by using the Elf class as-is, except giving them Cleric spells instead of Magic-User spells.  Take the Fighter, up the hit die and restrict the armor and you have a loin-cloth Barbarian type. 

OK, so not amazingly groundbreaking ideas here, they've been around before.  The thing that was different in my dream was that I was working up a retro-clone where these were hard-coded into it, like the Profiles in Flying Swordsmen.  Or maybe it was a stand-alone supplement that could be used with any of the systems listed at the beginning of this post.  It was a dream, dreams are weird like that.

Fixing an artificial problem

Thanks to Tenkar of Tenkar's Tavern for this well thought out reply to Mike Mearls' latest ruminations on Clerics and Turn Undead.

Anyone else remember back in the days of 3E when there was talk all the time of CoDzilla?  For those who wisely avoided d20 forums back in the 'oughts', the term stands for "Cleric or Druid-zilla" meaning that those two classes were supposedly superior to all the others.

Jozan Cleric, Superstar

I'm not gonna hash out the old arguments for/against CoDzilla.*

However, there's this idea that the Cleric is too powerful.  It comes from the fact that when 3E was being designed, there was this conventional wisdom that "no one wants to play the Cleric."  So they made the Cleric a much more attractive option.  Domain spells and powers, full spells from level 0 to 9 (instead of 1 to 5 or 1 to 7 as in old school games), and a spell list that was just as offensive as the Wizard if you wanted, plus spontaneous healing so you could actually load up on those attack/buff/utility spells and still heal when you needed to.  But it was pretty much the buff spells that sealed the CoDzilla deal.  With all that, some people might have even forgotten that Clerics could Turn undead!

So d20 made the Cleric too powerful.  Now, it looks like Mearls is forgetting that in old school D&D, the Cleric was NOT the powerhouse class.  Sure, they're nice.  But even the most powerful version of the class, in AD&D, pales in comparison to the d20 version.  So instead of just rolling back the clock on the Cleric a bit, Mearls seems to be hoping to develop some even more convoluted scheme to try to de-power the class.

Old school Turn Undead works well.  In Classic D&D, you roll 2d6 and have to beat a target number (7, 9, or 11).  On a 2d6 roll, you're more than 50% likely to roll that 7 or higher.  But you've got reduced odds to roll that 9, and that 11 or better is pretty rare.  Even with the 7, there's a good chance you'll fail.  The apparent problem comes from when the Cleric gains a level.  Suddenly, they've got an auto success against Skeletons.  By 5th level, they can automatically turn Wights.  But when a Cleric succeeds on their Turn roll, they roll 2d6 again to see how many HIT DICE run away.**  Roll that statistically most likely 7 on the number turned roll, and only 3 Wights are fleeing, meaning any encounter with more will leave at least one to possibly score that energy drain attack before the Cleric retries the next round.  Eventually, the Cleric can not only automatically succeed, but actually destroy the lesser undead.  You still roll that 2d6 to see how many hit dice are affected, though (very high level Clerics get to roll 3d6 HD worth destroyed).  But as Tenkar rightly points out, it's against low level undead that likely aren't much of a challenge anymore anyway.

Aleena couldn't even cast spells at Level 1.  Let her Turn some undead before Bargle kills her, OK?

The Cleric high enough to destroy a Spectre or Vampire (and in BECMI they get that up there in the Companion or Master levels) has enough spells that they will likely have a Protection from Evil spell anyway, preventing the undead from harming them.  Maybe even Pro. Evil 10' Radius, protecting the whole party.  And again, even if the Cleric destroys automatically, for those powerful undead it's likely not going to be more than one per round. 

The idea that a Cleric equals an automatic victory in any undead encounter is false, as is the idea that old school Turn Undead was overpowered.  It was a necessary power, and let me tell you, when PCs encounter level draining undead, if the Cleric has to roll to Turn, there's suspense in that roll.  Even with auto success/destruction, there's a lot riding on the number of HD turned.  Rolls like that add to the game experience.  I don't think many old school Fighters, Thieves and Magic-Users complained that they didn't get a chance to go toe-to-misty bottom with the Wraiths.  They were hoping that the Cleric would Turn them so that they wouldn't risk losing a level.


*for those who care, I found that most arguments tended to be that in an arena fight, where a Cleric/Druid had cast all of their buff spells on themselves, they could outfight a Fighter (plus Druids get animal companions).  Of course, if that Cleric or Druid blew all their spells on one combat, Fighter number 2 is going to whup up on them badly.  But it's all smoke and mirrors, because Clerics and Fighters weren't designed as classes to battle each other, they were designed to fight together against the monsters.

**In Holmes D&D, though, I think it is number of undead, rather than HD as in BX/BECMI.

Another way to look at Clerics

Note I.—Hedge-Priests.

It is curious to observe, that in every state of society, some sort of ghostly consolation is provided for the members of the community, though assembled for purposes diametrically opposite to religion. A gang of beggars have their Patrico, and the banditti of the Apennines have among them persons acting as monks and priests, by whom they are confessed, and who perform mass before them. Unquestionably, such reverend persons, in such a society, must accommodate their manners and their morals to the community in which they live; and if they can occasionally obtain a degree of reverence for their supposed spiritual gifts, are, on most occasions, loaded with unmerciful ridicule, as possessing a character inconsistent with all around them.
Hence the fighting parson in the old play of Sir John Oldcastle, and the famous friar of Robin Hood's band. Nor were such characters ideal. There exists a monition of the Bishop of Durham against irregular churchmen of this class, who associated themselves with Border robbers, and desecrated the holiest offices of the priestly function, by celebrating them for the benefit of thieves, robbers, and murderers, amongst ruins and in caverns of the earth, without regard to canonical form, and with torn and dirty attire, and maimed rites, altogether improper for the occasion.

From Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe