Death, Taxes, and Indentured Servitude in AD&D Cities

Something amusing I found while poring over the AD&D city/town encounters:

Magic-users in AD&D cities and towns are punished by being indentured into a year of servitude with the city guard. This can be for any unpayable debt owed to the city - monetary (loans, the cost of resurrection, taxes) or otherwise (such as a "debt to society" incurred after committing a crime).

This suggests several things about AD&D towns and cities: their governments offer loans (presumably if it was instead a wealthy individual or non-municipal organization providing the loan, the punishment for failing to pay it back would be different) and resurrection (suggesting some sort of state-sponsored clerical organization rather than/in addition to individual clerics at non-affiliated temples providing such services), have their own sets of laws, and require residents to pay taxes (both of the latter two points are relatively obvious, but I'm including them for thoroughness's sake).

Gygax has surprisingly little to say about loans in the DMG, but based on the general tone of advice offered in the rest of the text, one must imagine the interest rates would be quite high, so adventurers should borrow at their own risk.

Resurrection, of course, is expensive:

A cleric must be at least 9th-level to cast raise dead, so the bare minimum cost is 5,500 gp. Player characters will need to seek out higher-level clerics to restore life to dwarves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings, and humans - not elves! - who have been dead for longer than a day, so circumstances will often necessitate even greater expense.

Gygax also has surprisingly little to say about laws and crime, but one can imagine that these will vary from place to place and that theft, assault, murder, and the like (all common activities for adventurers) are generally frowned upon.

This is all in contrast to taxes (and duties, and excises, and tariffs, and tithes, and tolls...), about which Gygax has MUCH to say. Seriously, this is almost an entire page:

You probably don't want to read all of that, and I don't blame you. Here is a summary:

• The DM should uses taxes to take excess money away from the player characters.
• Towns and cities charge a 1% duty (2% to foreigners) on all normal goods brought in for sale - food, cloth and hides, livestock, raw materials, and manufactured goods. This probably applies to the common merchant more so than to the player characters, but is worth keeping in mind for when the players decide to collect all of the orcs' weapons and armor to sell.
• Towns and cities charge the usual duty plus a 5% tariff on luxury and precious goods brought in for sale - wine, spirits, furs, copper, gold, jewelry, and the like. This will definitely apply to the player characters in the latter cases, as well as in the former cases if you're in the habit of giving out actually interesting treasure . Give your players cases of fine wine as treasure!
• Once duties are paid, documents are provided which make the legal sale of such goods possible. Upstanding merchants presumably will not trade in smuggled goods, but black markets will. Unless players have connections and want to risk dealing with unsavory types, they must pay duties!
• Towns and cities charge an entry fee of 1 copper per head or wheel to citizens and 5 copper per to foreigners unless they have passports (which incentivizes having political connections).
• Towns and cities charge residents an annual tax per head of 1 copper to peasants, 1 silver to freeman (adventurers), and 1 gold to nobles (which I guess would include any character with an officially sanctioned stronghold or similar holding).
• When taxes are paid, characters are provided with proof of payment, which they must keep on hand in case they are stopped. If they are stopped and don't have proof of payment, they must pay again. If they're foreigners, they're more likely to be stopped. Tax collectors are, of course, on the random encounter table:

• Foreigners must pay a 10% sales tax.
• Tolls are charged on roads to and from the settlement (including on the route to "the dungeon" - suggesting that roads to dungeons are maintained by the local government, which is really interesting). Gygax does not elaborate as to what a typical toll might be.
• Citizens must pay a 5% tax on their property, if any, annually.
• Characters can become citizens after residing in the settlement for one month and paying a 10 gold piece fee - "plus many bribes"!
• Merchants don't usually accept foreign coin because they will be subject to a fine if caught with it. Thus foreign coin must be changed into the local currency at a 90% exchange rate. This probably applies to most currency hauled out of dungeons, and perhaps even currency obtained in a different settlement. If a character is caught with 100 silver or more in foreign currency, they are fined 50% of its total value unless they can prove they've just entered the settlement and are on their way to the money changers - good luck with that!
• A surtax of 10% is levied against sales or exchanges of gems and similar goods.

Let's say a party of ten 2nd-level characters just got back from an expedition to the 2nd-level of the dungeon. They explored 20 rooms, including three with both a monster and treasure and one with just treasure. In total, they collected 6,600 copper, 1,050 gold, and 220 platinum. They probably paid some sort of toll on the road back from the dungeon - there's no guidance on this, and it probably wasn't a significant amount, so let's just ignore it. 

The characters don't have any goods for sale so they needn't pay duties. There are ten of them, and they have a cart to haul their stuff. They are too low-level to have connections yet, so they don't have passports. They pay a 60 copper entry fee (10 heads + 2 wheels, x 5 copper because they're non-citizens). They're given some documentation in case they're stopped, then directed to the money changers since all of their coins are of an ancient mint.

The money changer exchanges their currency and collects 10% (at this point, 654 copper, 105 gold, and 22 platinum). They might opt to retain up to 99 silver in the foreign currency, but let's say they don't. They are left with 5,886 copper, 945 gold, and 198 platinum. Since they will have to pay a 10% sales tax on anything they buy, their effective spending money is actually 5,298 copper, 851 gold, and 179 platinum (or, altogether, roughly 940 gold versus the 1,160 they entered with).

The example party paid 220 gold in taxes, duties, and fees. It's not a crazy huge amount, but it is significant, and becomes more significant the larger the party's haul.

So why am I spending so much time doing accounting for adventurers? Well, because taxes are annoying. In America, we need them to pay for stuff like roads and schools of course, but the majority goes towards one trillion dollar experimental airplanes that don't work and other ill-advised military spending, and we don't even get free healthcare. Your players will probably appreciate that their characters can travel quickly overland on well-maintained roads, but they probably won't spare a single thought for how those roads are maintained. Taxes in D&D are "realistic", but they also probably feel pretty meaningless and arbitrary. I guarantee your players will hate paying them.

Which means your players will probably try to find a way around paying them. They may seek to obtain passports or citizenship to avoid paying fees to enter the settlement and sales tax on all their goods, sure...or they might seek to smuggle themselves and their goods inside the settlement, deal on the black market, avoid the money changers, and bribe officials. All of which are great ways to be arrested and indentured into servitude.

It's not just magic-users, either:

Clerics can also be indentured into service with the city watch. What's the different between the watch and the guard? I don't know. Doesn't matter.

And frankly, I don't see why other characters wouldn't be pressed into similar service. I'm not concerned with magic-users and clerics specifically, but more so with the fact that it's general policy in AD&D cities to force criminals and debt/tax-dodgers into service like this.

A year is also a long time in most D&D campaigns. If the whole party ends up indentured in this way, you might simply fast forward a year or even decide to play it out as a very specific type of campaign (I probably wouldn't because it doesn't seem very interesting, but you may be more creative than I). If just one character is indentured, the rest of the party might decide to use the opportunity to pursue some lengthy downtime activities while their companion serves their term, or that character might just be effectively retired from the campaign (temporarily or otherwise). Or maybe they ambush the guards and bust their fellow out, and now they're all on the lamb!

Anyway, I guess the point is that AD&D city and town watches are full of indentured debtors, criminals, and tax-dodging character-types - a warning to players who think they can outwit the municipal government!

Although only tangentially related, I would be remiss not point out that at any moment the characters might also be forced into service in the local navy or militia through no fault of their own:

AD&D cities are kind of a terrible place to be!

Impressment is, of course, a massive anachronism. It's almost as if the implied D&D setting is not medieval!

Dead Gods Waiting to be Reborn: Ruined Shrines and the Syncretist Cleric in AD&D

The AD&D wilderness inhabitation tables have infected my mind. They have wormed their way in, forcing me to make sandboxes I may never use. Now that they've burrowed deep beneath the surface, living (rent free!) in my brain, so too have I begun to dig beneath the surface. I'm increasingly interested in analyzing and rationalizing the implications of these tables, picking apart the little oddities that likely exist only because Gary Gygax simply wasn't thinking that much about it.

But I am thinking a lot about it. And what if Gygax was, too? What if every idiosyncrasy in Appendix B actually has some implicit logic to it that the Dungeon Master is meant to intuit? Surely this was the intention of Gygax, who famously never over-explained anything in lengthy prose in any of his writings.

(At this point, this might as well be an AD&D Appendix B blog. If this sort of thing is not interesting to you, I promise to write about other stuff eventually.)

All this is to say that I've been thinking about ruins. Specifically, ruined shrines. Allow me to share, once again, that table which has been the source of so much of my consternation as of late:

2-in-100 (or 1-in-50) hexes contain a ruin (not including deserted castles, which I interpret as ruins). That's a ruin every 50 miles if you're using the suggested scale of 1-mile hexes (as I've explained before, I use a 6-mile hex because I like things to be more spread out - it makes getting around more challenging by slowing the pace of travel between locations, makes the movement rate math a little easier, and gives the locations more room to breathe). Of those 1-in-50 ruins, 25% are shrines - that's one ruined shrine per 200 hexes.

What's stranger still is that while there are ruined villages and cities as well as non-ruined villages and cities, there are no non-ruined shrines (nor are there non-ruined tombs or ruined dwellings, thorps, hamlets, or towns, but those are topics for another time). So, what happened? Why is every shrine a ruin?

The short answer is that every shrine is not a ruin - there are probably intact shrines in many settlements and within clerics' strongholds - but that every shrine found in the wilderness is ruined. For whatever reason, every religious group that sets out to establish a place of worship beyond the realm of "civilization" or outside the protection of castle walls is doomed to destruction. An AD&D sandbox is littered with monuments to dead gods.

Who is building these shrines? Clerics, probably. From the PHB:

This section goes on to clarify that clerics can begin constructing a proper religious stronghold at 9th-level, which must be dedicated to the cleric's deity (or deities! put a pin in that for later), at which point they can clear the surrounding territory and begin collecting revenue from trade, taxation, and tithes:

Therefore, the purpose of the "place of worship" (which includes a shrine) is for slightly lower-level clerics to begin attracting followers and men-at-arms in preparation for eventually building a stronghold.

That's not the only reason to construct a shrine. From the DMG:

Here, we see that a shrine is necessary for a cleric to research and create new spells. This doesn't quite square with my understanding of clerics. Is it within a cleric's power to create new spells? Is it not the deity who should be "creating" spells and bestowing them upon their faithful vessels? I'll come back to this.

There is one more mention of shrines in the DMG outside of the Appendices, in the section on turning undead, which may not be particularly relevant to this post but is worth mentioning as it pertains to the inherent power of the shrine - and why a(n Evil) cleric might want to construct one:

(Note that the excerpt from the PHB describes a place of worship not less than 2,000 square feet in floor space, which includes a shrine, whereas this excerpt from the PHB describes a shrine as being an area roughly 10" by 10", which is 100' by 100' in a dungeon and 300' by 300' outdoors.)

In summary, shrines are sources of power for clerics which are located within somewhat lesser versions of the strongholds they will eventually build. A shrine allows the cleric to research and "create" new spells, and bolsters the undead minions of Evil clerics against other clerics' attempts to turn them. A shrine is presumably built out into a place of worship to then attract followers, then eventually developed into a stronghold to control the surrounding lands and collect revenue. 

I think it is likely that the ruined "shrines" of AD&D's wilderness were in fact originally constructed as that middle classification - places of worship which once attracted followers and which house the shrine necessary for the research and "creation" of spells. Ruined castles are already accounted for in the inhabitation table and castle sub-tables, so we can rule that out as a possibility. I also imagine that "ruins" are intended to represent proper dungeons, which are otherwise unaccounted for in the inhabitation table. I do not feel that the 10" by 10" shrine described above fits that particular gameplay need, so I am ruling out that possibility as well.

Presupposing that the ruined "shrines" on the inhabitation table were in actuality once these places of worship lends them additional significance. The place of worship, after all, contains not just a shrine but also perhaps an altar and a chapel.

From the DMG's section on the manufacture of scrolls:

And the section on fabrication of other magic items:

Both the creation of scrolls and magic items is limited by the level of the character to varying degrees which I won't get into here. The point is that an 8th-level cleric would be capable of creating scrolls and magic items of some level of power, and that this is another reason why these ruined "shrines"/places of worship might exist.

5th-level clerics can also create holy water, which requires the use of a specially created basin:

We might presume that such a basin would also be housed in a place of worship, and thus, most likely would be present in our ruined "shrines".

Now that I've justified the existence of these ruins in the setting, let's talk implications.

Much like the deserted castles generated by the inhabitation table (both those totally deserted and those now home to monsters), these ruins present an opportunity for player character clerics. They are dungeons, yes, filled with monsters, tricks, traps, puzzles, and treasure like any other, but they aren't just another dungeon to be crawled and plundered.

If they can be secured against their dangers, these ruins can also be claimed and restored, likely for a fraction of the price of constructing them from scratch. They contain shrines, altars, basins, and maybe other features which are now dormant but which have the potential to be greatly useful to the cleric PC.

Only, these places of worship are (probably) not dedicated to the cleric's deity. You could have a monotheistic setting, sure, and even if you don't, likely some fraction of these ruins will be associated with the cleric's deity, but many more will not. The original inhabitants and their deity may have been Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil, and that will inform the ruin's features and its utility to the cleric. A ruin once dedicated to the cleric's deity may need to be reclaimed. That of a rival deity may need to be consecrated (with some effort, as any undead present will be resistant to turning) or defiled (being Evil is fun too).

More interesting are those in the middle. The cleric could reclaim an allied deity's place of worship on behalf of the still-active church (a nice faction for your sandbox) and build bridges between faiths. The ruin could also be unfathomably ancient - that of a dead god waiting to be reawakened through piety. 

My last post described a cleric with a prayer book akin to the spellbook of a magic-user, a syncretist who incorporates the beliefs and rituals of adjacent faiths into their own practice, allowing them to engage in a precarious balancing act in which they are granted powers by multiple deities at once - but must simultaneously serve and please all of their patrons in order to continue to use and accumulate their divine magic.

The ruined places of worship in AD&D provide the cleric with another avenue by which to obtain such magic. I return once again to the power of shrines, and that bit about a shrine being needed to "create" new cleric spells. Within this framework, the shrine is necessary not to create but to discover new spells. The shrine is imbued with the deity's dormant power, and the library (assuming this is required of clerics and not just magic-users) are the dusty religious tomes, crumbling scrolls, and cracked tablets found within the ruin. 

The cleric can acquire new spells by forging relationships with living religions, learning their practices, and serving their cause, but they can also do so by restoring these sites of ancient worship, bringing dead gods back into the world. I think that's pretty neat!

Was this Gygax's intention? Probably not. He probably wasn't thinking that much about it. But, just because he wasn't, doesn't mean I can't! The AD&D DMG is loaded with detail. In the details there are plenty of answers for curious or confused DMs, but there are also questions. The tables in the appendices imply a setting, but not a clearly defined one. There is a lot of fun to be had in interpreting the vagaries into something more cohesive!

Clerics Need Spellbooks Too

This post is part of the papal conclave Blog Bandwagon/Blogclave. As the world turns its gaze towards the Vatican, the blogosphere turns its attention to the cleric. Subscribe to Prismatic Weekly for a roundup of all this post's siblings once the conclave has chosen a new pope!

Here's an interesting tidbit from original Dungeons & Dragons' Book I: Men and Magic:

It's accepted as a fundamental D&D-ism that magic-users/wizards have spellbooks, yet for some reason the need for clerics to keep spellbooks did not become ingrained in future editions in the same way. 

As early as AD&D 1st edition, clerics "have their spells bestowed upon them by their respective deities". Gygax elaborates that cleric spells are granted either by the cleric's "education, training, and experience" (1st and 2nd level spells), followed by intermediaries of their chosen deity (3rd through 5th level spells), then by the deity itself (6th and 7th level spells). 

Although clerics cast their spells the same way as magic-users and require the same amount of time to memorize them, the way in which they acquire new spells and what they must do to memorize them is very different. While magic-users must scribe their spells in a book and study the book to memorize them, clerics simply gain access to all spells of the next level when they gain a level, and memorizing them requires only time spent in prayer - no book necessary.

This is unfortunate. I quite like the idea of the adventurer cleric with a book of prayers bestowed upon them by their church. Such a book would contain the initiate spells typically learned during the cleric's background education. In keeping with AD&D, let's say that these are the 1st and 2nd level spells. This is convenient in that it maps neatly onto D&D 5e's "Tier 1", which covers character levels 1st through 4th and spell levels 1st and 2nd.

To acquire additional spells from their deity, the prayer book-wielding cleric must not only continue to serve the deity's cause, make contact with various divine intermediaries and, eventually, the god itself, but they must also write the prayers associated with these spells into their prayer book.

(As an aside, this same principle can also be applied to the paladin, who in many versions of D&D casts spells the same as the cleric. The druid - and by association the ranger, who is to the druid as the paladin is to the cleric - could also keep a more "nature-y" book of sorts. After all, the druid is often treated as something like a subclass of cleric. 

On the other hand, druids were not in OD&D, and so I can easily argue that the excerpt at the beginning of this post does not apply to them. Druids have also acquired their own unique identity over the years, so my inclination is for them to have an entirely different method of learning and/or preparing spells.)

Of course, I don't like how every cleric of every deity is able to cast more or less the exact same spells, so the prayer book of a cleric who worships but one deity would be somewhat limited, and the prayer books of any two clerics of differing faiths would be quite different from one another. 

However, much like the enterprising magic-user or wizard must delve into abandoned wizards' towers and lost libraries for new magic, this would incentivize the cleric to go forth and acquire additional prayers from other gods. After all, there is not usually one "true" god in a D&D setting - there are multiple, some in alignment with one another and others at odds. So long as the Lawful Good cleric remains in their principle deity's good graces and does not seek out the prayers of rival Chaotic and Evil deities, there isn't much reason why the prayers of multiple gods can't coexist in the same book.

This encourages the cleric to adventure in a slightly different way. No longer is the cleric the crusader or templar, spreading their deity's gospel, proselytizing to those who will listen and smiting those who won't. Instead, the cleric becomes a syncretist or polytheist, accumulating the diverse magics of a wide array of faiths and lesser and greater divine beings. 

The cleric must rely on their social acumen. Much like the magic-user must on occasion convince a learned wizard to tutor them in some new spell, the cleric must ingratiate themselves with people of different faiths so that they may become an initiate and incorporate their prayers into the cleric's personal belief system.

Unlike magic-users, whose spell repertoire is limited by their Intelligence and what magic they can find (and perhaps by their specialization), the cleric is limited by their piety - new spells are learned from a given deity by continuing to serve that deity's cause. It may be a simple matter of studying the proper rituals (their words, signs, and sacred components) to learn 1st- and 2nd-level spells, but more powerful magic requires direct intervention by the deity and its intermediaries, which is only earned by the accrual of favor (that is, the cleric's level of piety with each deity would need to be tracked - like experience points, for example - to determine when they can begin to cast the higher-level spells bestowed by the deity - even if the cleric "knows" the rituals and has them written in their prayer book).

If the cleric fails to continue to satisfy the deity, those same spells can be taken away. Many masters means many obligations - the more deities the cleric courts, the more patrons they acquire and must satisfy, or else lose their powers. Each new deity that is petitioned makes the balancing act more precarious (this is also why you should let warlocks, in more recent editions of D&D, petition as many patrons as they can - but that is a topic for another time).

I'm sure there are some who will feel that this somehow "nerfs" the cleric. The cleric is meant to get automatic access to all their spells, and now I'm suggesting instead that they jump through a bunch of hoops to get them? I'm long past the point of caring about those sorts of things. 

On the other hand, this would give the cleric a great deal of flexibility on par with that of the wizard, if the player is enterprising enough to take advantage of the opportunity. It makes the cleric more dynamic, grounded in the fiction of the game world, and allows individual clerics to distinguish themselves from one another. That's worth it in my eyes.

Thoughts and prayers?

Spell Lists Suck: Fiction-Focused Magic in D&D

I typically propose very minor alterations to D&D: how to fix summoning, how to fix shapechanging, how to fix weapon damage. I'm not really interested in redesigning the core system - just relatively simple fixes to pain points I've experienced in play. This time, I'm proposing something a little more drastic.

Spell lists suck. The way that spellcasters pick and choose the spells they learn and prepare is dumb.

Now that I've stated my thesis, I will walk it back slightly by saying spell lists are okay. Every spellcasting class has its own spell list that the player chooses from when deciding what spells their character learns or prepares each day. The unique spell lists for each spellcaster do a nice job differentiating the classes. Spellcasters either use "magic magic", "holy magic", or "nature magic", and two classes that use the same type are further differentiated by the specific spells available to them - warlocks have "creepy" spells compared to wizards, and paladins have more "battle magic" compared to clerics.

The existence of spell lists also allows for them to be subverted. Bards can, at certain levels, learn spells from any class's list. Clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks get access to a handful of thematic bonus spells to pad out their lists. For some reason, druids, rangers, and sorcerers don't always get these bonus spells, warlocks don't automatically learn them but instead can choose to learn them, despite every other class getting them for free, and some classes draw their thematic spells from other class's spell lists while others get free access to spells they could have had anyway...but this is a tangent.

I say spell lists suck because every class gets their spells the same way: by picking the "good" ones off a big list. There are minor differences in that clerics, druids, and paladins get all of their spells at each level at once and prepare a limited number each day, while bards, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks learn a limited number and always have them prepared. But the process by which clerics, druids, and paladins - or bards, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks - actually choose their spells is exactly the same from one class to the other.

The flavor text for the classes suggests that each is either channeling a different type of magic or else channeling the same type of magic in a different way (wizards memorize and recite arcane formula, sorcerers draw on their innate power, and warlocks use magic gifted to them by otherworldly patrons), but this isn't reflected at all in how the caster acquires the actual spells they can cast.

The cleric might acquire a couple spells which are thematic to their god, but they are otherwise preparing the same spells as any other cleric. The sorcerer doesn't unlock some new power specific to their unique origin - they just learn the next most optimal generic sorcerer spell. The warlock does not commune and negotiate with their patron for enhanced powers - they just get another warlock spell, most of which are available to all warlocks.

No class is acquiring spells in a way that's at all related to the fiction, and because everyone is just picking spells off their own little menu, the classes are distinct from one another, but multiple characters within a single class are often not.

The exception is the wizard, who we're told learns magic by reading spellbooks and scrolls, which is actually how they learn magic in the game...sometimes. Because the designers feel they can't trust the DM to include spellbooks and scrolls in their game, wizards also just arbitrarily learn spells each time they level up. Like everyone else.

If I were to redesign the spellcasting system in a drastic way, I would design fiction-focused rules for how each spellcasting class acquires their spells. What would that look like?

Wizards

It is a myth that wizards can only master "arcane" magic. All magic is arcane - even if the druids and the gods would like the world to believe otherwise.

In truth, wizards can learn any magic that is written down. The magic of the gods is written in prayer books and inscribed on altars and in reliquaries. The magic of nature is etched into ancient standing stones and trees. None of these are beyond the wizard's comprehension.

The process of learning a spell remains unchanged from the base rules - the wizard must spend a certain amount of time and money (representing the purchasing of magically primed rare inks and parchment), then succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check, the DC equaling 10 + the spell's level, in order to write the magic in their spellbook.

As in the base rules, the wizard begins their career with a spellbook containing six 1st-level spells. These spells are usually taught to them by their master, but could also be acquired and learned by chance. The DM chooses which spells they are. To encourage the wizard to adventure and discover new magic, their master should probably be dead or estranged. The adventurer wizard can always find a new master through politicking or networking.

I feel very strongly that the DM should choose the new wizard's starting spells, but I'm sure there are many who find this unconscionable. The DM and player could also negotiate what the the six spells are. Or, to simplify things, perhaps all novice wizards learn the same six spells: comprehend languages, detect magic, mage armor, magic missile, shield, and sleep. A bit dull, but classic, and not at all useless.

Other subclasses which cast wizard spells (such as the arcane trickster and eldritch knight) also have spellbooks, and learn spells in the exact same manner as the wizard. Since this is a choice which is made later in the character's career, it's best for the player to declare their intention to take this option sooner rather than later, so that the DM can plan to include a spellbook which the character can acquire. Otherwise, a character who pursues this path does not have any spells until they can acquire a suitable spellbook (another wizard in the party can help them create one, or perhaps basic primers are sold in metropolitan markets).

One of the small things that bothers me about arcane tricksters and eldritch knights is that they learn the same magic as wizards but in an entirely different way. If wizards learn from books and can learn as many spells as they can find, other classes that cast wizard spells should do the same!

Clerics

Clerics do not learn spells - they are granted spells through faith and prayer. The deity and its intermediaries provide access to the magic. This is represented by a generic cleric spell list which is then supplemented with a selection of always-ready subclass-specific spells. This is fine, but it still results in largely similar clerics with just a few unique signature spells. Why is 90% of each god's repertoire the same spell list as every other god?

In AD&D, cleric spells like bless, cure wounds, and remove curse were reversible, and the reverse versions were the purview of evil clerics only. 2e sorted cleric spells into spheres of influence and introduced specialty priests (the druid being used as an example) which had their own unique powers as well as access to specific spheres. These two elements gave distinction to good and evil clerics as well as clerics of specific deities.

Each of 5e's Divine Domains should have a unique spell list, accessible only by worshiping a god who rules over that domain. This domains akin to 2e's spheres of influence. I wouldn't only split all of the current cleric spells into these domains, but would instead go through all of the spells in the game to determine which domains (if any) each might fit into.

There would also be a general domain for the most essential cleric spells like bless. These I would divide into good and evil domains. Want to cast cure wounds? Worship a good deity. Want to cast inflict wounds? Worship an evil deity.

This is probably a great time to mention that these are broad ideas. I'm taking big hypothetical swings here. A lot of these ideas might be kind of impractical, but things that I want to toy around with on a very small scale eventually (like, if a player in my game wanted to be a Life cleric, I might create a custom Life Domain spell list for them instead of creating spell lists for every domain).

From there, clerics could remain much the same, simply choosing their domain depending on their deity, except they would have access to a specific spell list based on that choice. A single god could grant access to multiple domains at once, or a cleric may have to choose which aspect of the god they worship - i.e., the destructive firepower of the god-phoenix, or the healing power symbolized by its rebirth?

It's worth nothing that D&D is typically a polytheistic setting. I don't see why a single cleric couldn't simultaneously petition multiple deities, so long as they aren't opposed to one another. A piety system such as that in Mythic Odysseys of Theros could be used to determine what level of magic from each deity the cleric has access to, depending on their in-game actions, allowing a cleric to essentially "multiclass" with a variety of gods to gain access to a breadth of magic which rivals the wizard.

Druid

Druid spellcasting in most editions of D&D works exactly the same as for clerics, albeit with different spells. If we're making a spell list for each cleric domain, one could simply give them access to the Nature Domain spell list and call it a day, but that would be a disservice. 

My understanding of druids is not that they are just clerics for gods of nature, but instead that they are channelers of D&D's ubiquitous "background magic" associated with "nature spirits". The druid is not praying to the nature god to cast earth magic, but channeling the powers of the local earth spirits.

Because druids channel the magic of the natural spirits in their environment to cast spells, just as clerics need a unique spell list for each Divine Domain, druids need a unique spell list for each natural environment - grassland, forest, hills, desert, swamp, water, mountain, underdark, etc. Like clerics, they would also have a more general list to include things which aren't environment-specific like animal spells, healing, and the like.

Can druids cast spells in unnatural environments like settlements and dungeons? Those places still have natural elements, so I don't see why not. A mining town is still in the hills, a mummy's tomb is still in the desert, and a merfolk stronghold is still underwater, after all.

In some cases, environmental elements need to be woven into the components of the druid's individual spells. That is, casting entangle requires the presence of plant life, and call lightning requires the druid to be outdoors during a storm, which could preclude the use of those spells in certain environments.

Should druids still be required to prepare spells? If they are channeling the natural spirits of their current environment, that sounds like spontaneous casting. Spellcasters who prepare their spells do so at the beginning of the day. In the morning the druid could be in the forest, but by afternoon they might be in the swamp. Should they be able to carry forest magic into the swamp with them?

Maybe they should. There is something interesting about a high-level druid who flies quickly to the desert, communes with it, and then flies quickly to the dark wood to use the desert's withering spells against the corrupted plant monsters there. It has Pokémon vibes (complimentary). Much to think about.

Paladin and Ranger

I'll skip to these two as they are straightforward. My solution for the two of them is simple: paladin spellcasting works the same as for clerics, and ranger spellcasting works the same as for druids.

In older editions, paladins and rangers were akin to variants of the fighter with higher ability score requirements and some special thematic powers. They weren't even spellcasters until much later in their career (in 2e, 9th-level for paladins and 8th-level for rangers), and their spellcasting abilities were quite weak at that time.

I won't advocate for returning to that style of doing things. The "half-caster" spell progression of 5e works just fine (at most, I'd consider making them a "one-third-caster" like the eldritch knight or arcane trickster). 

The point is that paladins are warriors who cast cleric spells, and rangers are warriors who cast druid spells. They don't need their own spell list or unique mechanics. They will benefit from the versatility that comes from the broader cleric and druid lists.

The elephant in the room is that this requires paladins to go back to worshipping gods. I like that in 5e, paladins draw their power from the magic of the oath they swear. It's very thematic, and it implies a setting where oaths carry cosmic weight. However, I have no idea how to make it fiction-focused with regards to what spells they can cast or how their magic works.

So, paladins have to worship gods again, which is fine by me. Like clerics, their spell list is determined by their deity's domain of influence. They should still have an oath with principles they must adhere to, but the oath is sworn between them and their deity, and the deity provides the magic so long as the paladin continues to abide. The chosen deity informs which oaths are available.

Bard

In 5e, the bard learns a set number of spells and casts them spontaneously. Their spell list is mostly arcane magic, but is also a weird grab bag of divine and nature magic. Their Magical Secrets feature allows them to pilfer spells from other class's spell lists. There's some flavor text about how the bard utilizes the "Words of Creation", which are learned from "hard study" and "natural talent", but of course this isn't actually reflected in how they learn their spells.

My bard is instead inspired by the bards of editions past.

The AD&D 1e bard is famously weird. It is essentially the first "prestige class" - part fighter, part thief, and part druid.

In 2e, the bard is largely similar, except the druid spells are replaced with wizard spells. Bards in 2e keep a spellbook.

To split the difference, the fiction-focused bard uses both the wizard's and druid's rules for spellcasting simultaneously. They have a spellbook and can learn any spell that's written down, and they can also channel the magic of nature spirits and cast druid spells spontaneously. It's up to the player to choose which slots to spend on which spells.

This preserves the main element which makes bards' spellcasting unique - the hodgepodge of spells they get from different types of casters. It also fully embraces two very different interpretations of the bard of which I'm equally fond.

Sorcerer and Warlock

I'm lumping these together because the post is getting long, I don't have a lot to say about them, and the systems I have in mind for them are very similar.

In 5e, both sorcerers and warlocks learn spells as they level up and can cast them spontaneously. Some sorcerer subclasses get bonus spells that they learn automatically. Every warlock subclass gets an expanded spell list, but they don't learn the spells automatically. They have to pick them as the spells they learn when they gain levels.

Fiction-focused sorcerers have a unique spell list determined by their Sorcerous Origin, and fiction-focused warlocks have a unique spell list determined by their Otherworldly Patron. Not every sorcerer regardless of their magical origin can cast control winds. Not every warlock patron has the power to grant their petitioners finger of death. 

This makes sorcerers and warlocks the most tightly-focused casters in the game, which they should be. It doesn't make sense to me that anyone with a magical soul/anyone who makes a pact with an otherworldly entity can cast from almost exactly the same list of spells.

Conclusion

So, that is a pretty crazy system I'm proposing. The 5e PHB has eight spell lists (one for each spellcasting class). If I were to follow my own advice and make all of the specific spell lists I'm proposing - only counting classes and subclasses in the PHB - I would end up with 20 unique spell lists (seven for the cleric domains, eight for each type of natural environment, two for the sorcerer subclasses, and three for the warlock subclasses - the bard, paladin, ranger, and wizard don't need their own lists).

It is incredibly obvious why the 5e design team did not do this. The unique spell list for each class plus signature spells for things like Divine Domain, Druid Circle, Sacred Oath, and the like is an elegant solution. 

But, I just can't shake the feeling that spellcasters who use different types of magic should feel different beyond just the flavor of their spells and what kind of armor they can wear. Clerics, druids, and paladins, bards, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks should not be learning and using magic exactly the same way as one another.

Mostly, I want the spells that casters can access to make sense in the fiction. If the wizard is supposed to learn spells by finding them in dungeons while adventuring, they should not be stumbling upon 9th-level spells in the spellbook their master gifted them as an apprentice. Not all gods should grant access to the same magic. A druid who draws magic from the environment should not be casting the same spells in the desert as in the forest. A sorcerer or warlock with a very specific magical power source shouldn't have the same spell selection as every other sorcerer or warlock.

Well, it's easy enough for me to argue in favor of doing all this extra work without putting my money where my mouth is, so I totally understand if this sounds like a bonkers idea to anyone else. It sounds pretty bonkers to me. But in a kinda cool way.

On Hands (and how to use them)

Okay, weird post title. Bear with me.

This post was inspired by Warren D.'s post "WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT BASIC DUNGONEERING: And what is not" on the I Cast Light! blog. What got me thinking about hands specifically is Warren's thoughts on light and weapons (highlights mine):

Light: Due to torch cost and number per slot, it is easy to carry a lot of torches.

Not interesting: Carrying enough light to last 12-24 turns- easily done

Interesting: When torches extinguish-- like in the middle of a fight or when the goblins you are negotiating with get mad; how many hands in the party are occupied by torches

... 

Weapons: I've yet to find a really good way to do weapons simply outside of 1d6 damage for all types. I don't mind BX's variable weapon damage. And I do like some old rulesets sorta "first strike" if your weapon is larger than an opponents other wise smaller, lighter weapons strike first in subsequent arounds.

So here is what I have got so far: Using a weapon two-handed is a +1 to damage, using an off-hand weapon is +1 to-hit, and a shield is of course +1 AC. I do like that fighters with bows can shoot twice if they did not move and the "cleave" ability.

Not interesting: Weapon factors that are so extensive they require a separate rules discussion, trigger player obsession, and/or orient the whole of gameplay to combat

Interesting: What PCs chose to do with their hands: more armor, more weapons, or more light

What I'm interested in is how player characters choose to use their hands. It's a simple thing, but it's important - a hand can do any of the following things:

• Cast a spell with material or somatic components
• Hold a torch or lantern (providing light with which to see)
• Increase weapon damage (per my rules for variable weapon damage, using two hands increases a weapon's damage die size by one) 
• Increase a weapon's reach (most weapons with the reach property require two hands to use)
• Increase a weapon's range (ranged weapons which require two hands, such as bows, usually have a longer range than those which require one hand, such as thrown weapons)
• Interact with objects (open doors, throw levers, withdraw items from a bag or pouch)
• Make an extra attack (if dual wielding or a monk)
• Provide extra protection (a hand used to hold a shield provides +2 to the character's armor class)
• Use items (drink a potion, read a scroll, activate a wand, etc.)

It's something many DMs might not even think about, and I suspect that most modern DMs view it as one of those things - like encumbrance - which is too onerous to keep track of, and simply don't, beyond "Is the character dual-wielding, two-handing, or using a shield?" I have certainly forgotten about it a good number of times. In fact, when thinking about this, I realized that in a recent AD&D 2e session, I forgot about something very important - light.

Who is Carrying the Light?

The player characters were exploring a network of subterranean tunnels made by a brood of ankhegs. When the party first entered the tunnels, I said, "It's dark, so you'll probably want a light source. Who is carrying the light?" Then, when the party had its climactic battle with the ankheg brood, I never once considered the issue of light. Characters were firing bows, dual wielding, two-handing, and wielding shields. Who was carrying the light? Could the characters even see? I don't know.

When not in combat, the question of who is carrying the light isn't incredibly important. One might as well assume that all of the characters are carrying light unless they state otherwise. Characters might place a torch in a sconce when exploring a room or put it on the ground while they check a chest for traps. True, monsters hidden far away in the dark might target the torchbearer specifically, but in that case, the DM can simply check with the players who exactly is carrying the light before springing the ambush, after which the specifics become more crucial.

Once combat begins, it becomes very important who is carrying the light, because that character can't use their light-carrying hand to cast spells, wield a weapon with both hands, interact with other objects, duel wield (aside from using the torch as a weapon), wield a shield, or use items. That character is making a choice to benefit the rest of the party (by providing light) at the expense of their own tactical versatility. It's part of what makes light-providing spells, weapons, torchbearers, and the like valuable - they can provide light without occupying a hand.

Furthermore, the light source typically moves with the torchbearer, unless the torchbearer drops their torch on the ground in order to free up their other hand. Monsters may attempt to attack the torchbearer and snuff out the light. So, keeping track of who is carrying the light in these scenarios is very important. 

Stow, Drop, and Draw

In D&D 5e, a character can interact with one object for free on their turn, as part of their attack or move action (PHB, page 190). This includes drawing a weapon as part of the action they use to make an attack, opening a door as they move through it, picking up a dropped item, stowing an item, or withdrawing a stowed item. Redditors will happily say that according to the rules, a spellcaster wielding a sword and shield can drop their sword (no action required), freeing up a hand to cast a spell, then immediately pick up the sword again (using their free object interaction).

I hate this. It's stupid. Changing what hand is doing what is a tactical choice. It should have benefits and drawbacks like any other.

Baldur's Gate 3 is the current hotness as far as video games based on 5e go, but another 5e-based game, Solasta: The Crown of the Magister, is much better at little rules minutia like this. In Solasta, each character has weapon sets - a primary weapon set, a secondary weapon set, and a light source set. A character can switch between sets once on their turn.

So if a character is wielding a sword and shield, but wants to make a ranged attack, they switch to their longbow. After attacking with their longbow, they cannot then switch back to their sword and shield to benefit from the improved armor class. If light is an issue, the character can switch to holding their sword and torch, but cannot then switch back to their sword and shield.

This is more or less how I do it in my games, although locking characters into using predefined "weapon sets" is not exactly lifelike. Instead, I implement a stow/drop/draw action, which allows a character to switch what they're holding in each hand once per turn. They can drop their torch and draw another weapon, stow their sword and draw their wand, stow two items to free up both hands, or any combination of those things, so long as the item being held or not is interacted with just once, and the hand switches between only two items per turn. That means no dropping an item to do something with the hand and then picking the item right back up again.

To Two-Hand or Not to Two-Hand

A character who chooses to wield a two-handed weapon is making a deliberate choice. They are doing more damage if they hit, but they are sacrificing increased armor class (from a shield) and number of chances to hit (a dual-wielding character is making an extra attack each round). 

Only, are they actually doing more damage than a dual-wielding character? Using my own rules for variant weapon damage, a character wielding a heavy martial weapon with two hands does d12 damage. A character wielding a light martial weapon in each hand does d6 damage with each. If they hit with both, they do an average of 7 damage, versus the two-hander's average 6.5. Not a huge difference, but it's there.

On top of that, normally, the player does not add their character's Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll from their off-hand weapon, but the two-weapon fighting style allows them to do so, which can make the disparity greater. The dual-wielder also has an extra chance to score a critical hit.

But aha, two-handed weapons only require two hands when making an attack (PHB, page 146)! The second hand is free for the rest of the character's turn, allowing them to manipulate objects, draw items, and the like. If they can cast spells, they might also use their now-free hand for that (more on that later). If the dual-wielder wants to free up a hand, they have to use their stow/drop/draw action on that turn to do so, then use their stow/drop/draw action again on their next turn to switch back. Not a huge difference, but it's there.

Shields

Shields might be an exception to the stow/drop/draw action rule. In 5e, shields require a full action to don or doff (PHB, page 146). This feels overly punitive to me. I would rule that a character could switch their shield out for another item as if that hand was holding anything else. Maybe this isn't realistic (assuming the shield is strapped to the arm), but the gamey, mechanical tradeoff decision from round to round is what I'm interested in here, not realism.

This requires another change - in 5e, a character can benefit from a shield even if they're not proficient with shields. Here's the tradeoff: "If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells" (PHB, page 144). 

That above rule doesn't matter (aside from making saving throws) if the character has already taken their action that turn, meaning a character without shield proficiency could take their action as normal, then whip out a shield to benefit from the extra AC. I don't want that.

So if we remove the action required to don or doff a shield, we have to go a bit further and say "You do not benefit from the bonus to Armor Class when wielding a shield with which you are not proficient." Easy.

The Buckler Shield

One thing I miss from AD&D is different types of shields. 2e has buckler shields, small shields, medium shields, and body shields. I've simplified this a bit in 5e, introducing light (buckler) shields, medium (standard) shields, and heavy (body) shields. 

A character no longer needs proficiency in shields to use one - they just need proficiency in the corresponding armor type. This means that classes which don't normally get to use shields (most bards, rogues, and warlocks) can now use some certain shields, which doesn't bother me.

Standard shields work the same as the typical 5e shield. Body shields are similar, but against ranged attacks from the front and flanks, the character is treated as having three-quarters cover (+5 to AC, instead of the +2 typical of shields).

The buckler is the important shield when it comes to the discussion of hands, because it's light and fastens to the forearm, allowing the hand of the shield arm to be used to do things like fire a bow or crossbow, cast a spell, hold a torch, open a door, or the like. So the character wielding a buckler never needs to worry about stowing, dropping, or drawing their shield.

The tradeoff is that the buckler shield only grants the +2 bonus to Armor Class against one attack per round, and only if the character uses their reaction. It comes in handy (haha), but only if the character's reaction isn't already spoken for, and it's still not as good as having a proper shield.

The Components of a Spellcaster

Finally, I want to talk about spellcasting components. There are three kinds of spell components in D&D 5e: verbal, somatic, and material (PHB, page 203). Every spell in D&D requires at least one of these components, but more often, some combination of two or all three components in order to cast. 

Verbal components are "mystic words" which are spoken aloud as the spell is cast. It's not enough to simply say the words - the combination of sounds requires "specific pitch and resonance" to "set the threads of magic in motion". It's why, in my opinion, a character cannot "quietly" or "stealthily" cast a spell. Uttering the verbal components is loud and showy - it's evident to everyone present that a spell is being cast, disgraced 5e designers be damned.

Somatic components "might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures". Material components are "particular objects" but can be substituted by a component pouch or spellcasting focus so long as the components has no cost and isn't consumed by the spell.

Here's where we get to hands: To cast a spell with somatic components, "the caster must have free use of at least one hand". To cast a spell with material components, "a spellcaster must have a hand free to access [the] material components". However, the hand used to access the material components "can be the same hand that [the caster] uses to perform somatic components".

It used to be that a caster's whole body had to be free to cast a spell. A spellcaster casting a spell with somatic components couldn't just wiggle their fingers. Their whole body had to move. They had to do a dumb little dance. A spellcaster could not move on the same turn they cast a spell. If they were on a ship in the middle of a storm, the rest of the party would have to brace them to hold them still so that they could cast without being thrown around the ship. This, along with proper Vancian spellcasting and simultaneous actions in combat - allowing spellcasters to be interrupted while casting - was a huge element of reigning in the power of spellcasters. 

5e has a much different conception of spellcasters. They're basically hyper-mobile artillery. They can run, ride, and fly around casting spells, and all the while, they only need one hand free. They can be restrained by a titanic boa constrictor and can still cast spells with somatic and material components, so long as they can wiggle their fingers.

I personally rule that a spellcaster can't cast spells with somatic components if they're, for example, grappled or restrained, and in that case, they also can't cast spells with a material component unless those materials are already in hand.

I'm inclined to take it a step farther. What if spellcasters needed one free hand for somatic components, and another for material components? Casting a spell which requires both is a full-body action, meaning the character has to stow or drop whatever other items are occupying their hands before they cast.

Unfortunately, the characters who would suffer most from this aren't the dedicated casters, who probably aren't holding much other than a spellcasting focus anyway - the true victims are those that straddle the line between fighting and spellcasting: artificers, clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers. These characters are spellcasters as well as characters that want to wield weapons and, often, shields.

Most of these classes have features which would mitigate the impact of this effect, allowing them to substitute some other item for a spellcasting focus. Artificers can use infused items as spellcasting foci, meaning that an artificer could infuse their weapon or shield, using it for their material components. Clerics and paladins can etch their holy symbol into a shield or, even better, simply wear it visibly on their person. Druids and - as of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything - rangers can use a druidic focus, which can be a staff, which is also a weapon (although maybe not the preferred one). 

In baseline 5e, this allows each of these character types to wield a useful item while still casting spells which require both somatic and material components (oddly, if the spell only requires a somatic component, they still need a free hand). If we change the rule to require one free hand for each of these components, then they at least need one less hand free.

These classes can also benefit from taking the War Caster feat, which eliminates the need for a free hand to use somatic components, so long as the character is wielding weapons or a shield in one or both hands (my reading of it is that the character couldn't cast a spell requiring somatic components while holding a torch in one hand and holding a potion in the other, for example).

Certain subclasses suffer more greatly - those classes which normally don't cast spells, but have subclasses which do, such as the eldritch knight fighter or the arcane trickster rogue, or those classes which normally don't wield weapons, but have subclasses which do, such as the swords and valor bards and the hexblade warlock. Since 5e is designed in such a way that casting spells with somatic components, material components, or both requires just one hand, this isn't normally a problem. If we require them to use both hands, they become much more limited. If I were to implement the house rule I'm proposing, I would likely give these subclasses some extra feature that allows them to use a weapon or shield as a focus.

Overall, I've not totally sold myself on making this change. It's not like changing a single spell or the way a class feature works, which is relatively easy - it's changing the base rules about how spellcasting as a whole works, which potentially has tons of knock-on effects. 

I'm not particularly interested in going through the whole spell list and analyzing the edge cases of which spells become more or less effective with different classes and subclasses depending on what they can and can't use as a spellcasting focus. It's the kind of thing that would require playtesting. Maybe next time I run a 5e game, I'll try it. Or maybe by then I'll have decided I don't really care.

The important take away is that I'm trying to pay more attention to what my players' characters are doing with their hands. Doing so generates interesting round-by-round decision points (holding a light source, choosing weapons, using a shield, and casting spells are all meaningful tradeoffs). This, and a healthy dose of common sense, reigns in more powerful character concepts, such as spellcasters (a wizard can't cast elaborate spells while being throttled by a tentacled beast). That at the very least is worth considering.

Character Progression and Tiers of Play in AD&D 2e

Greetings from Mexico! I'm not in Mexico at the time of writing this, but will be when this post is published. I am communicating from the past, anticipating the future.

Anticipating the future is some part of the reason for this post. My AD&D 2e game is going smoothly - though we will miss playing this coming week, and my play report for this past week will have to wait until I return from Mexico - did I mention I'm going to Mexico? 

As a way of looking towards the future, I thought it would be fun to look at the different character classes in 2e and how their abilities progress as they gain levels. 

Level progression in 2e is much different than in modern D&D. Every class in D&D 5e, for example, gains a little something on a level up - a class or subclass feature, spells and/or spell slots, ability score improvements and feats, and the like. Nonetheless, there continues to be much consternation in the 5e community over "dead levels". What do you mean my 15th-level monk only never again has to eat or drink, or worry about magical aging? Boooring!

By comparison, I think most modern players would find 2e's level advancement "boring" - some classes gain access to new spell levels or other magical and pseudo-magical abilities at certain levels, but for the most part a character's numbers are just going up or down occasionally. 

I love how different every class feels in AD&D, compared to the standardization approach used in modern D&D. The classes don't feel "equal", and they're not supposed to - the thief advances through levels faster than every other class because it's less powerful than every other class, just as the paladin and ranger advance slower than the fighter because they're more powerful than the fighter. Designing classes this way isn't for everyone, but the asymmetry is more interesting to me.

Another reason I wanted to look at this is because I really like 5e's approach to "tiers of play" - levels 1-4 are Tier 1, levels 5-10 are Tier 2, levels 11-16 are Tier 3, and levels 17+ are Tier 4. The level of the player characters determines what sorts of people approach them and what sorts of problems they should be solving. This is a really useful framework for the DM to have in mind when running a game in which it feels like the PCs' reputation and the stakes of their escapades are increasing along with the PCs' level.

The levels associated with each tier are not arbitrary - at 5th-level, spellcasters can cast 3rd-level spells (fireball, lightning bolt, revivify!), and non-spellcasters increase their damage output via extra attacks. At 11th-level, 6th-level spells come into play (chain lightning, mass suggestion, sunbeam!), most non-spellcasters get another damage uptick, barbarians can rage against death, and rogues become reliable good at all the things they're already really good at. At 17th-level, spellcasters gain 9th-level spells (power word kill, timestop, wish!), and most other classes get another damage boost.

When I started to revisit 2e in preparation to run my current campaign, I noticed that the Monstrous Manual, in the human section, under adventurers (page 196) similarly breaks adventurers into four groups based on their level! "Low level" adventurers are levels 1-3, "medium level" adventurers are levels 4-7, "high level" adventurers are levels 7-12, and "very high level" adventurers are levels 9-20. Are these the hidden "tiers of play" baked into 2e? Does the game fundamentally change at levels 4, 7, and 9?

Let's find out.

Fighter (PHB, pages 36-38)

Fighters are of the warrior group, which also includes paladins and rangers. A warrior's THAC0 improves by one at every level (page 121), their saving throws improve at every odd-numbered level (maxing out at 17th-level, page 134), and they gain a weapon proficiency and nonweapon proficiency at each level divisible by three (page 71).

Warriors also gain additional melee attacks depending on their level, beginning at 7th-level:

Warrior Level    Melee Attacks/Round
1-6                       1/round
7-12                     3/2 rounds
13+                      2/round

Fighters who specialize in a weapon (page 73) gain additional attacks at these levels (3/2 rounds at levels 1-6, 2/round at levels 7-12, and 5/2 rounds at levels 13+). They are the only class that can specialize in this way - not even paladins and rangers can do it.

At 9th-level, fighters attract loyal men-at-arms and an elite bodyguard, if the fighter has built a stronghold, which they can do at any time, so long as they have the money and land to do so.

Beyond 9th-level, warriors stop gaining additional hit dice and bonus hit points from Constitution - instead, they gain 3 hit points per level thereafter.

Paladin (pages 38-40)

Paladins are in the warrior group, so they have the same hit die, THAC0, attacks per round, saving throw, and proficiency progression as fighters. 

On top of the usual progression from being warriors, paladins get additional benefits at certain levels.

Paladins can heal two additional hit points using their lay on hands ability each time they gain a level. 

Paladins with a holy sword (which I take to mean a holy avenger or similarly potent, paladin-specific magic weapon) can dispel hostile magic in a 10-foot radius equal to their experience level, so if the paladin has a holy sword, their ability to dispel magic improves with each level, up to 9th-level (unless the "level" of the spell in this case is determined by the level of the caster - the PHB is not clear on this point). 

Paladins can turn undead as if they were a priest two levels lower starting at 3rd-level, so their turning ability improves each level after this.

A paladin can go on a quest to acquire a "war horse" (a faithful steed that needn't actually be a horse) anytime from 4th-level onward.

A paladin can also cure diseases once per week for every five levels of experience, meaning they gain an additional use at levels 6, 11, and 16.

Finally, a paladin can cast priest spells once they reach 9th-level. They use their own spell progression, distinct from that of other priests, such as clerics and druids. They gain 2nd-level slots at 11th-level, 3rd-level slots at 13th-level, and 4th-level slots at 15th-level. They max out at a spellcasting level of 9 at 17th-level.

Paladins do not automatically attract followers as a fighter does.

Ranger (pages 40-42)

Rangers, again, are members of the warrior group, so they have a progression similar to fighters and paladins.

Rangers have a thief-like ability to move silently and hide in shadows (depending on the armor they wear, and with a worse chance to do so in non-wilderness environments). Unlike the thief, they don't earn and spend points to improve these abilities. Instead, the abilities improve by a fixed amount at each level. Hide in shadows improves by 5% at levels 2-4, 6% at levels 5-8, 7% at levels 9-12, 8% at levels 13 and 14, and maxes out at 99% at 15th-level (a 6% improvement). Move silently improves by 6% at levels 2-4, 7% at levels 5-6, 8% at level 7, 7% again at level 8, 8% again at levels 9-12, and maxes out at 99% at level 13 (a 5% improvement).

Rangers are automatically proficient in tracking (page 86) - even if the optional proficiency rules are not used! At every level divisible by three (levels 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18), the ranger gains a +1 to their tracking ability checks.

Rangers can manipulate the reaction rolls of wild and hostile animals in either direction (i.e., the ranger can choose to make the animal more friendly or more hostile). The animal must make a saving throw versus rods (for some reason!), and receives a -1 penalty to the saving throw for every three levels of the ranger. So, the ranger's ability to influence animals improves at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19.

Rangers can cast priest spells from the animal and plant spheres (so druid spells, sort of) beginning at 8th-level. Like paladins, they use their own spell progression, gaining 2nd-level spell slots at 10th-level, and 3rd-level spell slots at 12th-level. I don't know why they get to cast spells before paladins but, unlike paladins, don't get 4th-level spells. Like paladins, they max out at a spellcasting level of 9, but do so at 16th-level instead of 17th.

Finally, at 10th-level, rangers attract followers. Unlike fighters, they don't need a stronghold to do so. Also unlike fighters, the followers they attract are buck wild - animals, adventurers, fey creatures, lycanthropes, treants, and more! Table 19 in the PHB is seriously worth a look.

Wizard (pages 42-47)

The wizard group consists of generalist mages and specialists. The two classes don't have any progression-specific distinctions (specialists are just mages with a more narrow focus - they are better at casting, learning, researching, and resisting spells from their chosen school of magic, and don't have access to spells from their "schools of opposition", all of which makes them feel thematically distinct and unique in comparison to their modern D&D counterparts). For this post, I'll simply refer to both mages and specialists as wizards.

Wizards gain a nonweapon proficiency at each level divisible by three, their THAC0 improves by one at every third level gained (4th, 7th, 10th, etc.), their saving throws improve at every fifth level gained (6th, 11th, 16th, etc.), and they gain a weapon proficiency at each level divisible by six.

The wizard's main form of progression is the acquisition of higher-level spells. They can cast 2nd-level spells at 3rd-level, 3rd-level spells at 5th-level, 4th-level spells at 7th-level, 5th-level spells at 9th-level, 6th-level spells at 12th-level, 7th-level spells at 14th-level, 8th-level spells at 16th-level, and 9th-level spells at 18th-level. In short, they gain access to a new level of spells every other time they gain a level, except at 11th-level - maybe because 6th-level spells are considered significantly more powerful than 5th-level spells?

At 9th-level, wizards can create spell scrolls and brew magic potions - spell scrolls require special quills and inks, as well as the wizard's knowledge of the spell being scribed, and potions require expensive laboratories (DMG, pages 118-120).

Unlike warriors, wizards continue to gain hit dice and bonus hit points from Constitution up to and including 10th-level. After 10th-level, wizards gain 1 hit point per level.

At 11th-level, wizards can create magic items besides scrolls and potions (DMG, pages 120-122). Like making scrolls and potions, this requires expensive materials and knowledge of specific spells - enchant an item (a 6th-level spell, meaning the wizard must be at least 12th-level), permanency (an 8th-level spell, meaning the wizard must be 16th-level), and any spells which are relevant to the item being created (lightning bolt if the wizard is creating a wand of lightning, for example). 

It stands out as strange that a wizard can allegedly create magic items at 11th-level, but can't know the enchant an item spell necessary to actually do so until 12th-level.

Cleric (PHB, pages 47-51)

Clerics are in the priest group, which also includes druids. Priests gain a nonweapon proficiency at every level divisible by three, their THAC0 improves by two at every third level gained (4th, 7th, 10th, etc.), and their saving throws improve at those levels as well. They gain a weapon proficiency at every level divisible by four.

Like wizards, the priest's main form of progression is by gaining access to higher level spells. Also like wizards, they can cast 2nd-level spells at 3rd-level, 3rd-level spells at 5th-level, 7th-level spells at 4th-level, and 5th-level spells at 9th-level. Unlike wizards, they can cast 6th-level spells at 11th-level. Like wizards once again, they can cast 7th-level spells (their most powerful spells) at 14th-level. 

They end up with many more spells than wizards overall - 49 total slots versus the wizard's 37, and they gain additional spell slots for having a high Wisdom score, which is not true for wizards with regards to Intelligence.

Clerics have the ability to turn undead, which improves at every level, allowing the cleric to turn stronger undead over time, and to automatically turn or destroy weaker undead.

Like the wizard, clerics can create spell scrolls, potions, and magic items. Unlike the wizard, they can make spell scrolls beginning at 7th-level (DMG, page 117). Like the wizard, they must wait until 9th-level to make potions, and until 11th-level to make other magical items. Unlike the wizard, they need only a sacred altar to create these items (no expensive laboratory or specific spells, pages 120-121), so they can start creating these items immediately once they reach the requisite level.

At 8th-level, the cleric attracts loyal followers, like the fighter. Also like the fighter, the cleric does not attract followers until they have built a stronghold, which they can do at any time, if they have the means to do so.

At 9th-level, the cleric can receive approval from their church to build a sanctioned stronghold, which costs half as much as building a stronghold without the church's approval.

Like warriors, priests stop gaining hit dice and bonus hit points from Constitution after 9th-level. From 10th-level onward, they gain 2 hit points per level.

Druid (PHB, pages 51-53)

Druids are in the priest group, so they use the same hit die, proficiency, saving throw, and THAC0 progression as clerics.

3rd-level is loaded for druids. At that time, they can identify plants, animals, and pure water with perfect accuracy, can pass through overgrown areas without leaving a trail and at their normal movement rate, and begin learning the languages of woodland creatures ("centaurs, dryads, elves, fauns, gnomes, dragons, giants, lizard men, manticores, nixies, pixies, sprites, and treants"). The druid learns one of these languages at 3rd-level, and another every time they gain a level thereafter.

7th-level is also loaded. The druid becomes immune to charm spells cast by woodland creatures and gains the ability to shapechange into a reptile, bird, or mammal up to three times per day.

At 12th-level, the druid's advancement becomes very weird. To actually reach 12th-level, the druid must defeat one of nine 12th-level druids in the region in magical or hand-to-hand combat in order to gain the official title of "druid". The druid then receives three druid initiates as followers. The level of these followers is determined by the druid's XP total in comparison to the other eight druids in the region - the least experienced of the nine receives 1st-level initiates, the next most experienced receives 2nd-level initiates, and so on, up to the most experienced druid, who receives 9th-level initiates.

To reach 13th-level the druid must defeat one of three archdruids in the region, and receives three initiates of 10th-level for doing so. To reach 14th-level, the druid must defeat the sole Great Druid in the region, and receives three initiates of 11th-level for doing so.

To reach 15th-level, the druid must be chosen as the successor to the sole Grand Druid in the entire world (the position cannot be won through combat). Their spell progression completely changes at this point - the Grand Druid has six spells of each level and can cast six additional spell levels per day (one 6th-level spell, or two 3rd-level spells, or three 2nd-level spells, etc.). The Grand Druid is served by nine druids, three of them 13th-level archdruids, and the remaining six typically levels 7 to 11.

The Grand Druid reaches 16th-level after only 500,000 XP are gained (compared to 1.5 million to go from 14th- to 15th-level). The Grand Druid loses all but 1 XP and begins advancing anew - this symbolizes the Grand Druid stepping down. They are now a hierophant druid, and require just 500,000 XP each to reach levels 17-20.

At 16th-level, the hierophant druid becomes immune to natural poisons, no longer suffers ability score penalties due to aging, and can alter their appearance at will.

At 17th-level, the hierophant druid gains the ability to hibernate, and can travel to the Elemental Plane of Earth and back to the Prime Material Plane at will, and gains the means to survive in the Plane of Earth.

At levels 18-20, the hierophant gains the ability to travel to and from and survive on the Elemental Planes of Fire, Water, and Air, respectively.

Thief (pages 54-58)

Thieves are part of the rogue group, which also includes bards. Rogues gain a THAC0 improvement of one at every odd-numbered level, a weapon and nonweapon proficiency at every level divisible by four, and saving throw improvements at every fourth level gained (5th, 9th, 13th, etc.).

At every level after 1st-level, thieves gain 30 percentage points to distribute among their thieving skills, with the caveat that no skill can exceed 95% (meaning that rangers at the highest levels are actually slightly better at hiding in shadows and moving silently in natural surroundings, since their skills cap at 99%).

A thief's chance of being noticed when picking someone's pocket can also be affected by the thief's level, relative to the target's, so to some extent the thief's chance not to get caught picking pockets improves with every level:

If the DM wishes, he can rule that a thief of higher level than his victim is less likely to be caught pilfering. The chance that the victim notices the attempt can be modified by subtracting the victim's level from the thief's level, and then adding this number to the percentage chance the thief is detected. For example, Ragnar, a 15th-level thief, tries to pick the pocket of Horace, a 9th-level fighter. Normally, Ragnar would be detected if his pick pockets roll was 73 or more (100-[3×9]=73). Using this optional system, since Ragnar is six levels higher than Horace, this number is increased by six to 79 (73+6=79). This option only applies if the thief is higher level than his victim.

At 4th-level, the thief can begin spending thieving skill points on the read languages skill, which gives the thief a chance to read any nonmagical writing.

The thief's damage multiplier when backstabbing improves by one at every fourth level gained, up to x5 at 13th-level.

At 10th-level, the thief can cast wizard and priest spells from scrolls, with a 25% chance of failure.

Also at 10th-level, the thief attracts followers in the form of other single- and multiclassed thieves. Like the ranger, and unlike the fighter and cleric, they do not need a stronghold to do so.

Like wizards, rogues continue gaining hit dice and bonus hit points from Constitution through 10th-level. After 10th-level, they gain 2 hit points per level.

Bard (pages 58-61)

The bard is part of the rogue group, so bards use the same hit die, proficiency, saving throw, and THAC0 progression as thieves.

The bard has a selection of abilities similar to those of the thief, but they are limited to climb walls, detect noise, pick pockets, and read languages. The bard can distribute 15 percentage points among these skills whenever they gain a level.

The bard can perform to inspire allies, improving their attack rolls, saving throws, or morale. The range of this ability improves by 10 feet per level gained, and the duration improves by one round per level gained.

The bard can attempt to identify magic items with a base chance of success of 5% at 1st-level. The chance of success improves by an additional 5% for each level gained.

The bard can cast wizard spells up to 6th-level. They gain 1st-level spell slots at 2nd-level, 2nd-level slots at 4th-level, 3rd-level slots at 7th-level, 4th-level slots at 10th-level, 5th-level slots at 13th-level, and 6th-level slots at 16th-level.

Like the ranger with animals, bards can use performance to influence the reactions of NPCs by one category in a direction of the bard's choosing. NPCs must save vs paralyzation (not rods, as with the ranger) to resist the effect. NPCs receive a -1 to their saving throw for every three levels of the bard, so the bard's ability to influence NPCs improves by one at every third level gained (4th, 7th, 10th, etc.).

Like the fighter and cleric, the bard attracts followers at 9th-level, but only if the bard has a stronghold.

At 10th-level, the bard can attempt to use magic items of written nature, such as scrolls and books, with a 15% chance of failure.

AD&D 2e's Tiers of Play

So, is there anything to this idea that AD&D 2e has secret "tiers of play" starting at or around 4th-, 7th-, and 9th-level? Let's summarize. I'm going to ignore hit dice, proficiency, saving throw, and THAC0 advancements, since they happen fairly often, and focus instead on the "flashy" abilities which seem most significant.

• 3rd-level: Paladins can turn undead, and druids can identify plants, animals, and pure water, pass through overgrown areas, and speak the languages of woodland creatures.
• 4th-level: Paladins can acquire a "war horse", and thieves can read languages.
• 7th-level: Warriors gain an extra attack (3/2 rounds or 2/round for specialists), clerics can create priest scrolls, and druids become immune to charm spells cast by woodland creatures and can shapechange.
• 8th-level: Rangers can cast priest spells, and clerics can attract followers.
• 9th-level: Fighters can attract followers, paladins can cast priest spells, wizards can create wizard scrolls and potions, clerics can create potions and can receive approval to build a sanctioned stronghold, and bards can attract followers.
• 10th-level: Rangers can attract followers, thieves can attempt to cast spells from wizard and priest scrolls and attract followers, and bards can attempt to use magic items of a written nature.
• 11th-level: Wizards and clerics can create more powerful magic items.
• 12th-level: Druids begin advancing through the druid hierarchy and gain initiate followers.
• 13th-level: Warriors gain an extra attack (2/round or 5/2 rounds for specialists).

Looking at the list above, it seems clear to me that (excluding extra attacks for warriors and a smattering of special abilities gained by paladins, druids, and thieves) there's really only two "tiers", distinguished by - and this should be pretty obvious to anyone familiar with old-school D&D - whether the characters have strongholds and followers, or can create magic items. This begins as early at 7th-level for clerics and as late as 10th-level for rangers and thieves, making 8th- or 9th-level a decent sweet spot.

I suspected as much when I set out to write this post, but thought it'd be fun to go through the process anyway. Sometimes you have a hunch and go digging in the text for evidence supporting that hunch, and the evidence isn't there. This is normal and good, and the process is often still illuminating.

Although the only substantial and somewhat-universal break in power seems to be around 8th- or 9th-level, I still really like the idea of breaking up the earlier levels into levels 1-3 and 4-9, at least, and will probably continue to keep those distinctions in mind when running my 2e game. For example, larger settlements are more likely to have higher-level adventurers as NPCs, and adventure locations further away from settlements are more likely to be designed with higher-level player characters in mind.

As I continue to run my AD&D game, it might become apparent that there are significant leaps in player character power and abilities at certain levels, which aren't immediately identifiable just by looking at character progression on paper. I'll keep all this in mind and update this post if I discover anything significant.