Remind me; back in 1st/2nd edition...

[Mouseferatu]

I've been thinking about something from the old days, and I've realized that I can't seem to remember something...

Back when, certain spells that are separate in 3E were simply the reversed versions of other spells. For instance, cause light wounds (called inflict light wounds now) was simply cure light wounds reversed.

My question is, did the caster have to choose which version of the spell he wanted when he was memorizing, or could he decide when casting? I've gone through both the 1st and 2nd edition PHBs, and maybe I'm just missing it, but I can't find the answer one way or the other, and I seem to remember seeing it done both ways.

Anyone remember what the official rule was? Even better, can you cite a source? Thanks.

 

[starwolf]

I've been thinking about something from the old days, and I've realized that I can't seem to remember something...

Back when, certain spells that are separate in 3E were simply the reversed versions of other spells. For instance, cause light wounds (called inflict light wounds now) was simply cure light wounds reversed.

My question is, did the caster have to choose which version of the spell he wanted when he was memorizing, or could he decide when casting? I've gone through both the 1st and 2nd edition PHBs, and maybe I'm just missing it, but I can't find the answer one way or the other, and I seem to remember seeing it done both ways.

Anyone remember what the official rule was? Even better, can you cite a source? Thanks.

Page 43 1st ed PH under Notes regarding cleric spells 2nd paragraph
....In any event , the cleric must decide whicn application of a reversible spell will be used prior to learning it.....

Page 86 2nd ed PH 2nd column last paragraph
....Priests with reversible spells must memorize the desired version.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Page 43 1st ed PH under Notes regarding cleric spells 2nd paragraph
....In any event , the cleric must decide whicn application of a reversible spell will be used prior to learning it.....

Page 86 2nd ed PH 2nd column last paragraph
....Priests with reversible spells must memorize the desired version.

Ah. Makes sense to think the same would be true of wizards too, then.

Thanks. I appreciate the assist.

 

[starwolf]

Ah. Makes sense to think the same would be true of wizards too, then.

Thanks. I appreciate the assist.

Oh, you wanted to know about wizard spells. In that case

page 64 1st ed PH under Notes Regarding Magic-User Spells 4th paragraph.
In general, reversible and multiple application spells require the magic user to determine which form he or she is memorizing prior to the adventure. Consult your referee in this regard.

page 86 2nd ed PH 3rd column 2nd paragraph
Reversible wizard spells operte similarly. When the spell is learned both forms are recorded in the wizard's spell books. However, the wizard must decide which version of the spell he desires to cast when memorizing the spell....

 

[Tratyn Runewind]

Hello,

Ah, the days of reversible spells. I remember some brag talk before the 3e PHB came out comparing numbers of spells in the 1e, 2e, and 3e versions, but I don't seem to remember WotC admitting that many of the "new" spells were the reversed versions of old ones that now had to be learned seperately. And now they have Emotion and Symbol busted up into seperate spells, too...

Anyway, this was one of the little differences between BD&D and AD&D back in the days when they were seperate games. The AD&D situation was as other posters have described it above, but in BD&D, Clerics could choose at casting time whether to cast reversed or normal versions of their spells. Magic-Users (and Elves) still had to choose which version they were taking at memorization time.

Hope this helps!

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, you had to memorize the proper version, but a few spells let you choose which version you were casting when you cast- not the reversibles, but things like fire shield (though I don't think fs was actually one, but I'm not positive).

Edit: Tratyn, maybe I'm wrong, but back in the Basic days, didn't the evil (pardon me, Chaotic ) clerics only get the evil versions of the spells and vice-versa? I don't recall ever seeing a BD&D Chaotic cleric cast a cure light wounds...

 

[Staffan]

Edit: Tratyn, maybe I'm wrong, but back in the Basic days, didn't the evil (pardon me, Chaotic ) clerics only get the evil versions of the spells and vice-versa? I don't recall ever seeing a BD&D Chaotic cleric cast a cure light wounds...

Not exactly. It said something like Lawfuls only rarely reversing the spells, and Chaotics only rarely not reversing them, but it wasn't a hard and fast rule. There may have been something about religious consequences though.

 

[the Jester]

Not exactly. It said something like Lawfuls only rarely reversing the spells, and Chaotics only rarely not reversing them, but it wasn't a hard and fast rule. There may have been something about religious consequences though.

Ahh, thanks! It's been, what, about 20 years?

 

[Minsc]

Oh man, you guys are bringin back some fond memories.

I know the system is a whole lot better now, but the most D&D fun I ever had was with that red book, playing a Lawful Halfling.

 

[ciaran00]

I might be wrong, but this really does screw the Sorceror doesn't it? With the max spells known and all? I mean, breaking Symbol up like that...

ciaran