D&D spells can be divided into three camps. There are the Favourites, which everybody recognises to be not just useful but potentially game-changing in the sense that once a magic-user has access to them, they act as force multipliers or otherwise radically shift what the party is capable of (Fireball, Sleep, Web, Charm Person). Then there are the Utilities, which are helpful in solving commonly encountered problems or provide a bit of a boost in combat but which don't in themselves have the capactiy to alter the trajectory of an adventure or dungeon delve (Protection from Evil, Detect Magic, ESP, Mirror Image, Hold Person, Light). And then there are the Overlooked, which comprises that grab bag of spells which often sound charming and intriguing on paper, but which in practice - in my experience - are rarely if ever deployed (Feather Fall, Message, Deeppockets, Taunt, Wizard Mark, Fool's Gold, Magic Mouth).
The existence of Overlooked spells suggests a large gap between the game as it exists in the imagination of the designers and what it looks like in reality. D&D's design, in other words, contains a lot of redundancy. It creates the impression of being much bigger than what it tends to be in practice.
Let's examine one of the spells I just labelled Overlooked - Magic Mouth. Here is the substantive description (taken from the 2nd edition AD&D PHB):
When this spell is cast, the wizard imbues the chosen object with an enchanted mouth that suddenly appears and speaks its message when a specified event occurs. The message, which must be of 25 words or less, can be in any language known by the spellcaster, and can be delivered over a period of one turn. The mouth cannot speak magical spells or use command words. It does, however, move to the words articulated -- if it is placed upon a statue, the mouth of the statue would actually move and appear to speak. Of course, the magic mouth can be placed upon a tree, rock, door, or any other object, excluding intelligent members of the animal or vegetable kingdoms.
The spell functions when specific conditions are fulfilled, according to the command of the spellcaster. Some examples are to speak "to the first creature that touches you," or "to the first creature that passes within 30 feet." Commands can be as general or as detailed as desired, although only visual and audible triggers can be used, such as the following: "Speak only when a venerable female human carrying a sack of groat clusters sits crosslegged within 1 foot." Such visual triggers can react to a character using the disguise ability....
This is a nice idea. Reading it, one instantly conjures in one's mind's eye a hundred different scenarios in which this kind of thing might be useful in a high fantasy novel or even in a notional D&D campaign in which for some reason the PCs want to trick an opponent or pass on a secret message. And I think it's fair to say that the concept is also intrinsically evocative and 'magical' in the prosaic sense. I love the idea of playing in a D&D campaign in which tricksiness, artfulness, conspiracy and bluff are the main focus and a spell like this would come into its own.
I love the idea of it and so I think did the people who made up the spell. But the trouble is that in 'actually existing D&D' the incentives for the players point much more towards memorising and deploying spells for directly instrumental purposes - hurting opponents, protecting themelves, navigating/finding things, overcoming obstacles, and so on. While in theory Magic Mouth will have its uses and also possesses plenty of charm, in reality it will be, well, overlooked.*
The ambitions of D&D have, then, always been much broader than what its rules tend to facilitate. Its goal has, over time, been to encompass all of the possibilities in fantasy fiction within its purview, despite its core rules fundamentally being geared towards a much narrower style of play. I don't blame it for this - and in fact I think this maximalist approach has its virtues (I much prefer D&D's rambling 'incoherence' to the much tighter and less loveable modern games). But it is notable just how much is hinted at within the pages of its rulebooks that almost never finds its way to actual gaming tables. There are many paths which are suggested at but not taken - paths which lead to very different campaigning possibilities, where Magic Mouth would be an important piece of a magic-user's armoury, and an altogether more fantastical and thoughtful style might develop.
Always saw Magic Mouth as one of those NPC spells, you know for sorcerers or wizards to sprinkle wonder, horror, and perhaps hints to the player characters as they explore places. I feel Magic Mouth is for referees and it's more of "Hey, remember the Magic Mouth, you can do that to if you want." to players.
ReplyDeleteFor some unfathomable reason, I feel as if I've had Feather Fall come up a lot, perhaps because I play games where certain classes use them as spell-like abilities.
I don't know what edition you're reading, but I recall in the retro-clones I use, magic users don't get all of the spells available to their level. They have to go out and find the spells and perform read magic on them.
Thus giving them incentive to explore the world to look for libraries and other magicians or things which know magic. It is one of the extra elements to push your players forward than just XP for gold.
This element of having to discover spells could give a potential referee a chance to use these 'overlooked' spells, just make them the spells that the players find.
Good post and good comment. I believe that some of these overlooked spells are not expected to be used by most adventurers - at least some were created with NPCs in mind. Although the DM could use fiat to say a room has an effect, such as a phantasmal mouth that speaks to the PCs, I prefer it if there is an in-game rationale for the existence of these weird features, and spells fit the bill. Whether this be an illusion covering a trap (Programmed Illusion), an escape route for a villain (Phase Door is overlooked by players but a lich should have several prepared in its lair) or a demon bound to serve (Cacodemon) , many of these spells suit NPC mages and give an explanation of why these situations happen that is at least consistent within the game world.
DeleteYes, fair comment.
DeleteI agree with this post about unused stuff, unused potential. I suggest that we amend your statement, "The ambitions of D&D have, then, always been much broader than what its rules tend to facilitate," to "The ambitions of D&D have, then, always been much broader than what its DMs and players actually want to do." The rules are there, but people don't use them and DMs don't provide enough opportunities for their use. Plus M-Us in D&D can't do much magic, like it or not.
ReplyDeleteIs there an inadvertent argument in what you said for a so-called rules-light version of D&D?
It seems that the D&D M-U never shook its origin as a fantasy artillery unit in Chainmail, to the detriment of the non-warfare fantasy.
Well, I think it is actually more down to the way the game is structured. When an MU prepares spells, he or she has a strong incentive to go with default options that are very likely to come in handy (e.g. Fireball), rather than specialist options that are only really going to be useful in a specific context (e.g. Magic Mouth). The only reason somebody memorises Magic Mouth is because they *know* they are going to need it, and cases like that will simply be very rare.
DeleteD&D 5E addresses this, somewhat half-heartedly, by designating some spells (including magic mouth) as rituals: you don't have to memorise them, just have them in your spellbook and have a bit of extra time to cast them.
DeleteBut this tradition of implying a milieu broader than what actually turns out to be depicted in play is going strong: Pathfinder 2E has feats (i.e. selectable abilities that you have to invest in, forgoing something else, so even more of an opportunity cost than wizard spells) that let you identify that food or drink has been poisoned by taste, or estimate the number of coins in pile or vials on a shelf to the most significant digit. Which seems like the kind of thing that might be a key point in a fantasy story, but would very rarely come up in play unless it was specifically structured towards the goal of it coming up.
One of the advantages of the new school games' emphasis on spell slots over Vancian memorization is that a character doesn't have to choose between Utility and Favourite spells at preparation time, so it becomes a lot more plausible to prep some Utility or Overlooked spells. Even if you're a lot more likely to cast Fireball than Tongues or Invisibility than Magic Mouth, you have more options in your toolbox and more opportunities for shenanigans.
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, add a rule that once a spell is cast, it cannot be cast again that day. Instead of spamming out multiple magic missiles and fireballs, the back catalogue comes into play, and even b-list damage spells regain utility.
DeleteThats a cool idea
DeleteThe solution to underutilization of spells is in the game, not the spell system. Characters will not memorize Floating Disk if encumbrance rules are not enforced, Hold Portal if there are no monsters that are beyond the character's capability to defeat in a straight up fight, various options like ESP/Charm person if there is no reason to get information from prisoners (like say, concealed treasure) etc.
DeleteThe idea that there are strategic trade-offs is a great component of DnD. Removing it is not going to suddenly bring back underutilized spells, it will simply give them the pick of popular staple foods.
I agree with Prince - I'm really not a fan of making chances to the spell system to resolve this problem, and definitely not the 'new school' spell-slot approach. Personal taste, I know, but I hate it like I hate the 'roll to see if I can afford this' mechanic that you also see a lot in new school games. Those things are the tool of satan - management of resources is part of the fun of the game and an important limiting factor on what PCs can do.
DeleteIt's the Vancian thing that skews things toward fireball, isn't it, although of course the spellbook as Sideboard is a mini-game in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteI seems there are plenty of old schoolers who (gasp) let Clerics cast spells on-demand (well, on-imploration) as a kind of miraculous ask.
What about a hybrid system where you can memorize (x) number of spells but can only cast (x-y) times a day. Or if the whole frisky Syllables of Urgent Power model is your thing, the same hybrid system but also casting wipes the spell away until you study it again like normal. No carrying around 2 fireballs, unless they happen to be DIFFERENT fireballs from different spellbooks (say Udujamar the Unstoppable's bat poop standard one and the Big Blotto Quidarin's pint of Hot Damn one) but you can hold onto Windwall until the skull locusts arrive.
I'm one of those DMs who allows clerics to choose spells on-the-fly, and have operated that way since I started playing (back in '82). I have lots of reasons to run that way, but mainly it just works (and continues to work).
DeleteMU spells are a bit different. My preferred edition these days is 1E, but I've taken some B/X (i.e. Moldvay) sensibilities into the way I currently handle magic-user spells: PCs don't add spells from scrolls, etc. to their spell book (the spells they know are the spells they can cast) and each spell may be cast 1/day. However, there is no "read magic" spell (reading MU scrolls is simply a class ability) and each MU starts with three (randomly determined) 1st level spells. I've been running that way for about 3 years, and it works well.
THAT being said, I *have* (in the past) run 1E campaigns By The Book, and the adventures I write/run for contests and cons are done with the typical "magic missile x2" paradigm. I currently PLAY in a strict BTB 1E campaign run by my son and my main PC is a magic-user of 6th level. While the daily selection of which spells to slot IS a fine little mini-game...if a bit distracting...in my experience, the limits of needing to find/research spells contributes more to the restraint of spell choice than any "perceived utility" of the available choices.
In my campaigns a 1st level MU starts with Read Magic and three other randomly determined 1st level spells in his spellbook. Very similar.
DeleteMagic mouth is my favorite A/D&D spell. :)
ReplyDeleteMagic Mouth always seemed like something DM's would put all over the place in dungeons and so someone decided it must also appear as an available spell even though players were unlikely to get much use out of it.
ReplyDeleteYes - somebody else made a similar comment earlier and I think that is a valid defence.
DeleteWe did have a guest player in one of our university-era games who described a way to combo magic mouth and fire trap into holy hand grenades. A DM could certainly question whether there is anything real about the mouth to open and trigger the trap, but the idea has panache and reinforces the Japanese saying, "The mouth is the source of all calamity."
DeleteHmm.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to sound argumentative but, while there certainly ARE spells that are (often) "overlooked," I feel your conclusion (that the 'ambition' of the game far exceed the practical execution of the rules) is a poor one and grossly underestimates the scope of play that the advanced game offers.
First, though, a couple preemptory notes.
Of the seven specific "overlooked" spells you cite, it should be pointed out that three of them (deeppockets, taunt, wizard mark) were only added to the game with the Unearthed Arcana book, a tome that (it's been documented) was rushed to production to give the company a cash boost, and whose play-testing was (probably) lacking. If any (or many) of the spells in its pages lack practical value...well, okay, sure. Color me unsurprised; that's part of why I don't use the UA in my game.
That the 2E PHB included ALL the spells from 1E (minus any "problematic" ones that went into the same dustbin as half-orcs and assassins) is likewise unsurprising. 2E was a reorganization of the 1E rules, far less concerned with pruning and vetting, and far more interested in rebranding (and reselling) a "working" system. That's part of the reason I don't play 2E.
End precursory notes.
The 1st edition PHB includes many low (1st) level magic-user spells of dubious value: mending, for example, or push. Few players (if any) would prefer message or erase to magic missile or shield.
However, under the 1E rules, PC magic-users don't receive a choice as to their starting spells. Starting 1st level spells are determined randomly per the tables given in the DMG. And so it is that a PC may have no choice BUT to have such spells in their repertoire.
[to be cont.]
[cont.]
ReplyDeleteLikewise, 1E magic-users must dice (based on their INT score) to see if they're even able to learn a particular spell. Fail your check to learn sleep or charm and your PC is out of luck FOREVER with regard to those spells, unless and until their character increases their intelligence. Characters may have no choice but to learn 'sub-optimal' spells.
However, despite the lack of immediate usefulness, in *my* experience I've found PCs will LOOK FOR and (invariably!) FIND ways to use these otherwise unwanted spells. Scoff if you will. These days my only players are children (my own and their friends) and they are quite creative when it comes to finding value in what's on their character sheet. Ventriloquism is highly prized, and mending can turn wrecked scavengings into gold-worthy treasure. Just last week, I had a first-time player (age 9) playing an MU, carefully hoarding her spider-climb spell for its most opportune use (while still contributing to the party's actions)...if adult players lack the imagination to do the same, that's not a failure of the game.
With few (if any!) exceptions, all the 2nd+ level spells have good practical value, but only if the DM running the game is running a true campaign, and all the world building it entails. Fool's Gold? An amazingly useful spell for the party that finds itself short on cash and in need of resupply! The minimum duration is 3 hours (for a 3rd level caster)...plenty of time to buy horses and ride out of town before the shopkeeper discovers the ruse. But even in a hostile encounter situation, the ability to conjure large amounts of fake gold is useful for bribing of intelligent adversaries.
[magic mouth, too, has practical uses in the dungeon, especially as a warning to alert or awaken resting parties. It's not just fantastical whimsy!]
D&D groups who view magic-users only as "artillery" or "controllers" or some such (and treat them that way) are, in my opinion, missing a major point (if not THE point) of play.The game...the ADVANCED game, the version codified by Gygax, the game that "basic" versions were supposed to LEAD to...is one of exceptionally broad scope and, yes, ambition. It is a game about living in and exploring a fantasy world and experiencing the same. Folks who choose to narrow the focus of the game down to simple exploration of adventure sites ("dungeons") are doing themselves a grave disservice.
But sadly, that's all to be expected. The caretakers of the D&D game aren't interested in teaching people the best way to play. And that's been the case for YEARS, since before WotC bought the thing.
Cheers.
I knew somebody would pop up to say something like this.
DeleteYes, we can all aspire to something much more, and you put the case nicely. But that was kind of the point of my post! That the version of D&D in the books is way more ambitious than what actually tends to happen in practice.
Yep. I’m that guy.
Delete; )
While I get your point, I feel like your slant wrt the system’s implied ambition was that it was misplaced, even by the designers themselves. I think we should be careful not to confuse the way Gygax played in later years (especially for convention games) with how he may have run his games in the early days (as when he was writing/collating the 1E material). For example, Gygax famously said (post-ouster from TSR) that he disliked psionics and never used them. He then has an entire psionic system in his Legendary Journeys game and claimed to have “fixed” such that it worked better than AD&D’s version. I believe MOST of what was found in the original 1E books came from direct play experience…and as such I believe that the ambition implied is at an acceptable/appropriate level.
It’s just us, poor fools, that fail to measure up.
I've seen Magic Mouth used in a Hyperborea game I've ran, by a necromancer. Probably the more limited list of spells for the necromancer influenced the player to chose it. In this instance it was used to clear a room by summoning its occupants to a neighbouring room.
ReplyDeleteBasically, as JB alludes to above, the disconnect lies in how the game was played by the original designers and how it became played in the broader hobby. So much was lost in play, that D&D as played by the hobby, even the early hobby, ended up being vastly different in character than what Gary and Dave and the inner crew played that they are essentially different games.
ReplyDeleteThus in later editions as they developed, including the LBB expansions, even as Gary was adding material from his own campaign, there was a disconnect. And with 2E and beyond it became a vast canyon, such that many spells seemingly became so much craft. We can also see this difference in the spells presented by Ed Greenwood from his own campaign, which developed very differently and distinctly from the mainstream styles.
And do the overlooked spells category arose due to this disconnect between D&D as originally plabroader. The narrow
and as later developed in the broad.
Anonymous, you're right that there was variation in play styles, selective use of rules, and house rule variations early in the hobby. I'd add that it was even earlier than that: by their own testimony, neither Gary nor Dave (especially Dave) played the rules just as they published them. The nonexistence of "straight" D&D games was a topic of discussion in the old days. The idea that rules should be uniform across the hobby was a secondary development, pushed by Gygax with his development of AD&D. He was reacting to the many other game systems that competed with D&D, centralizing the income from D&D products to himself, and trying to create a competitive league of players, elevating the status of TSR-monitored tournaments. There was a National D&D Player Rating System in 1980, part of the plan with the rollout of AD&D.
DeleteMore generally, I'd add that the nonexistence of D&D games run with RAW doesn't undermine the notes of the commenters here. It's true that if you don't track encumbrance in any way, Tenser's Floating Disc doesn't seem useful. But I wonder if anybody can show me a (A)D&D game without any house rules, in which everything in the books is used. That goes for the Monster Manual, too. For example, how many AD&D players used psionics RAW, making the Thought Eater an interesting threat? As noisms remarks, many are the paths not taken. That may have more to do with genres of fantasy than the contents of the books ("rules"), which offer a lot more than most players and DMs ever actually wanted to use. Thought Eaters are no more mandatory than Tenser's Floating Disc.
Yes - when you read the accounts of how Gygax actually ran games, it's definitely not RAW D&D.
DeleteI think the disconnect between how people actually play D&D and what is (apparently) envisaged in the books is probably inevitable, but I do one day intend to try to run a campaign of AD&D going entirely by the text.
@ Noisms:
DeleteI cannot give a strong enough recommendation that you do just that. It’s really eye opening and too many people prefer to junk various bits and bobs BEFORE trying them.
The so called "spell sideboard" with additional costs and time requirements to switch is a great option. It allows players to choose spells designed for special situations. ACKs uses this as a core mechanic.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I never noticed the ability of magic mouth to make an intelligent being say 25 words when triggered. That alone is a game changer in possible uses.
The sentence reads, "excluding intelligent members of the animal or vegetable kingdoms." (emphasis mine) Allowing it to be cast on such persons might be an interesting house rule for some campaigns, though.
DeleteThe existence of spells that players will likely never take also implies the game world is bigger than the PCs. Magic is a broad thing, which wizards have been studying and working on for centuries. Spells might exist for any number of conceivable situations; magic is not simply a toolbox for murderhobos.
ReplyDeleteYes, I accept this.
DeleteTo build on the other great comments, there is also a huge amount of worldbuilding built into the names, selection, and function of the spells in the PHB. They're not only signposting how you're intended to play the game and inspiring you to new goals, but also telling you who and what came before the PCs.
ReplyDelete