I ignored the druid spells that got pulled in during 2e, not because I don't approve of them functioning as generic priest spells, but to keep things clearer; druid had always been a separate archetype and so I keep those spells separate. There are probably errors.
The main thing I notice is the accretion over time of more spells. That makes sense. Wizard spells are more dramatic in that regard, going from 8 1st level spells to 45 by 2e.
Great table- very interesting...
ReplyDeleteThanks!
ReplyDeleteTelecanter, you are nothing if not a tenacious taxonomist!
ReplyDeleteI was waiting to hear back from a friend before commenting here, re: 4e 1st level cleric spells, never having played it myself. I might have guessed that it was a little more complicated, but there are apparently 14 "powers" (available during combat spells) and 8 rituals, totaling 22 spells. Compare that to 3e and make what you will of it I guess.
Perhaps the code bloat has been checked a bit after all.
Haha, if it alliterates I have to do it!
ReplyDeleteI don't have any 4e books. I imagine I'll get them when 5e comes out and you can get them in the bargain bin. But the system as far as spells go is very different; most classes have the ability to "mark" opponents which seems very spell like to me (the marked opponent gets a penalty if they attack anyone but you) and yet all combat spells require a roll to hit (even area of affect spells) which seems very bow like to me.
Eighty percent of the time we're playing 4e I feel like an inept bowman. But I'm probably doing it wrong.
As a fan of mages I've always loved more spells, yet even I see a lot of spells added over time as superfluous-- could be handled with cantrips or general rulings.
I think the number of spells that would balance interesting variety with providing game mechanics crucial to old school gameplay would be somewhere between the number in oe and 1e.