When Did Cleric Spell Selection Change?

[Scribble]

So looking through my 1e stuff I see something I'd forgotten...

In the "old days" clerics would pray to receive a new spell, but it wasn't a guarantee that they would actually get it. Their god (the Dm) would decide whether or not to give it to them... I guess this fucntioned in a similar fashion to Wizards only getting spells the DM put into the game.

Did this change in 2e? It's been so long I can't really remember... But I don't recall having Cleric spell selection limited.*


*Obviously the Dm could say no to any spell, but I don't remember anything hard coded into the cleric class.

 

[Mercule]

Huh. I never realized that wasn't still in there. I thought you were going to ask about when they started getting spells at 1st level, rather than later.

 

[Remathilis]

Closest I could find on this...

Unlike the wizard, the priest needs no spell book and does not roll to see if he learns spells. Priest spells are obtained in an entirely different manner. To obtain his spells, a priest must be faithful to the cause of his deity. If the priest feels confident in this (and most do), he can pray for his spells. Through prayer, the priest humbly and politely requests those spells he wishes to memorize. Under normal circumstances, these spells are then granted.

 

[Henry]

It was taken out in 3E, ostensibly as part of a plan to remove all those little "DM fiats" that were spread through the rules. I'm guessing it was felt they weren't needed because of the overriding "step 0" clause, but somewhere the implicit "rules as written" approach taken by a large portion of gamers started to override it, so "step 0" tended to fall into the foreground a lot.

 

[RFisher]

the priest humbly and politely requests

Unless they’re a priest of a god(dess) of pride and crassitude.

“Give me my Cause Light Wounds now, you [bleep]-[bleep] excuse for a [bleep] higher power! I got your [bleep] ‘atonement’ right here.”

 

[Scribble]

It was taken out in 3E, ostensibly as part of a plan to remove all those little "DM fiats" that were spread through the rules. I'm guessing it was felt they weren't needed because of the overriding "step 0" clause, but somewhere the implicit "rules as written" approach taken by a large portion of gamers started to override it, so "step 0" tended to fall into the foreground a lot.

I think stuff like this is really interesting to look at in relation to where the game has gone, and how it's effected the way the game plays...

People like to mention the cleric and the wizard being too powerfull in 3e, and it seems this (and a reworking of some spells) seems to be a big factor...

It's also interesting to me that such a huge factor of balancing the class was based on DM interpretation... It's like saying the QB doesn't have to worry about fumbling, unless the ref says he does...

I also wonder if a lot of the design was based on Gygax building things for his own game, and therefore his own players mindset, and not always just how it would be used in general...

 

[gizmo33]

In the "old days" clerics would pray to receive a new spell, but it wasn't a guarantee that they would actually get it. Their god (the Dm) would decide whether or not to give it to them...

The stuff written in the 1E DMG is not necessarily representative of how people played the game. I think the rules were much less uniform then, and reading about a rule doesn't always mean that's what people were using. For one thing, IMO you can't underestimate the effect that the Basic DnD game had on what rules people used in ADnD (and what rules people understood). Also IME alot of people used some variants from Dragon Magazines and houserules for things. There's also some indication (ex. Fiend Folio) that some folks were playing ADnD with Original DnD terminology and rules in some cases.

IME people played clerics spell acquisition the same as in later editions - DMs aren't that much different - no DM wants to tell a player "no" unless there's some egregious behavior involved, and there's not much reason to. In our games your cleric picked his spells without any real intervention by the DM. The only real intervention was for alignment infractions, and that affected all spells, not just the particular selection.

Of course individual experiences vary, I'm sure people played 1E all kinds of ways, but saying something like "in the old days, people did such and such" and basing that on what was written in the 1E DMG (and a sprawling tome that is) is risky.

 

[wingsandsword]

The only times I ever saw spells denied was if they were blatantly out of accord with the wishes of the deity or the priest was seriously in violation of alignment requirements of his priesthood or any code of conduct of his priesthood.

A priest of a god of healing and light memorizing lots of darkness spells and slay living spells might get them refused, or a priest of knowledge that sat idly by while a library was burned to the ground might find that his spell access was denied until he atoned. I only saw it come up two or three times back when I was playing AD&D.

It was something, at least in my experience, done in only extreme cases, not "because the DM doesn't want you to have that spell today", and it definitely wasn't a balancing factor used for any class.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Unless they’re a priest of a god(dess) of pride and crassitude.

“Give me my Cause Light Wounds now, you [bleep]-[bleep] excuse for a [bleep] higher power! I got your [bleep] ‘atonement’ right here.”

That is a singularly awesome post!

I'm considering creating a Priest of Chuck Norris, but this may be next on my list!

 

[Scribble]

That is a singularly awesome post!

I'm considering creating a Priest of Chuck Norris, but this may be next on my list!

Chuck Norris doesn't grant spells... He grants FISTS!