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.