Scimitars against the Dark and the magic in dream Al-Qadim campaign

I still have this dream Al-Qadim campaign I'd like to run, and reading through Spells & Magic lately, I've been thinking of any rules alterations I'd want to do. The key thing that sticks in my brain is those nifty alternate magic systems. Channelers, Witches & Warlocks, Alienists, Defilers & Preservers, Ritual Prayer, Conditional Magic... That could be game-changing stuff.

But I can't find any info on it online. Did anyone use these in play? Was one of the systems horribly broken or easy to abuse? Do they mix well in the same game?

The obvious first thing to do is assign different magic systems to different classes. Start with the priests:

Hierarchy Priests (Pragmatists, Ethoists, Moralists) - Ritual prayer. These folks follow the rules and gain their religion's power through rites and rituals. It may take longer to cast a spell if they do the right thing, but they can save some power by taking time to do it right and/or make a spell more potent with the right sacrifices or time.

Free Priests (Mystics and Kahins) - Conditional Magic. These free priests gain their power through investments and dedication. When they act in their deity's interest, their spells are quite potent. If they act against their deity's will, their spells are reduced.

Hakimas - Technically free priests, but neither of the previous magic systems seem appropriate. I'm leaning towards channelling, but it doesn't quite seem like they should be weakened by the cosmic insights they are granted. There's not a real established Hakima code to build conditional magic out of though, nor is there some Hakima rite to base ritual prayer off of. So I'm a little stumped.

Moving on to the wizards, its also nebulous here. I'm not sure if its unfair to have two types of priests use a different system than wizards, but there's baggage on a few of the ends.

First off, channelling seems reasonably appropriate, even if it were to be shared with the Hakima. I want to keep the Brotherhood of True Flame in the setting, others are so minor it's hardly important.

Second, either warlockry or alienism seems like it could be grand for the setting, but they don't fit with the Brotherhood of True Flame. They'd be great for a Scimitars Against The Dark type game though, and alienism fits the sungazer wizard kit in that Scimitars.. article in Dragon Magazine. But in a world where magic is gleaned from demons or the dark between the stars (or monsters that existed before time was?), where is the role for the Brotherhood? The sword-and-sorcery that I've read generally eschews wizards' guilds because wizards are power-hungry madmen, so maybe alienism isn't the worst. Warlockry kinda steps on the Sha'ir's feet though. Also, alienism really would force a Scimitars Against the Dark type game where I'm not 100% sure that's what I'd be into.

Speaking of the Sha'ir, even if Alienism is adopted for most wizards, alienism certainly doesn't fir the Sha'ir. Then again, the sha'ir also has a unique magic mechanism, so maybe an alteration there isn't needed after all. Though channelling would be fitting, it would just hinder the Sha'ir more: they're already pretty limited in terms of spells they get to cast, and channelling wouldn't really limit the Sha'ir much because they'd be resting a bit while their gen fetches a new spell anyway.

Then there's the Rawun. Bards are spellcasters in AD&D, so what's their magic system. And there's paladins and rangers too, but I suspect paladins could be ritual and rangers could be conditional no problem. But bards get a good number of spells. Should every rawun go bad from learning cosmic secrets? Probably not. So I'm tempted to give them channelling like the Hakima, but that seems crappy too.

Best case thus far, I'm just doing stuff for priests other than the Hakima. Maybe its not worth it after all. Or maybe channelling can be just used for the mages (not sha'ir), bard, paladin, ranger, and hakima. Alienism might really shake up the setting a bit (what if you eliminate non-free priests as spellcasting options?), but it might do too much.

The other major problem here is these variants are only applicable to an OSR or 2nd Edition game. This would majorly impact the balance of things in 5e. One reason, I suppose, why I like how older editions are still more customizeable.

Morale and the Old School Magic-User

Since I've been reading up on some old school AD&D lately (and perhaps reading the first edition DMG for the first time?!?) I've noticed that the morale system (which I like) interacts oddly with magic use.

Basically, magic use has a couple ways to force morale checks, sometimes at a penalty. Using 2nd edition morale, the goblins fighting the party will have a -2 penalty to their morale if the PCs have an obvious magic user and the goblins do not. Furthermore, if "an ally is slain by magic" that forces a morale check. Given that morale rolls are done by adding 2d10, that -2 penalty adds up. Furthermore, each time an ally is slain by magic that could force a morale check.

That gives a bit of a different perspective on the low-level mage: that magic missile spell not only will automatically hit the kobold, but has a reasonable chance to scare the group off it it kills it. If it doesn't kill the kobold, the magic user can still attempt to force morale checks again by offering a chance to surrender. If you can kill the leader with magic, so much the better.

This might seem like min-maxing the morale rules, and maybe it is. But its a very different take from later editions, where wizards suddenly have a small pool of cantrips it not outright at-will spells they can constantly blast. And now 5e where every single class can select an option to get spells of some sort, even if only in a very limited way.

[Edit: I should note that the D&D Rules Cyclopedia isn't quite as generous as AD&D 2nd, but the magic effects on morale are there. First edition is such a mess I'm either not seeing magic effecting morale, or its not there. Hard to tell with that DMG.]

5th Edition Wizards: I might learn to stop worrying and love the wizard

So the new 5th edition wizard has been stuck in my craw for a while. Basically since forever. But I finally sat down with the wizard and really took a look: it might not be as bad or nonsensical as I thought. I feel like the 5th Edition wizard has lost his position as king of magic a bit. But maybe its not quite as bad as I thought.

First, in terms of number of spells they can prepare: they seem to get Int Modifier + level. This is on par with Clerics or Druids who get Wis Modifier + level + domain / circle of the land spells. That's 10 more spells prepared for the cleric or druid than the wizard. Wizards don't even get one bonus spell of their specialty or anything. However. In older editions of D&D, clerics did get bonus spells for wisdom while wizards got squat. So this isn't necessarily something unique. Plus wizards do get a ritual casting bonus: they can cast spells in their books as rituals, others can only cast spells they have prepared. So the wizard does potentially have up to 17 rituals in addition to what they have prepared. Not a huge bonus, but its something. And easy to over look.

Second, wizards don't get those nifty bonus spells for their specialty. So an Enchanter can prep 100% necromancy spells. But looking at the School of magic features, most of them actually do refer specifically to the specialty school. Not all of them mind you, so Enchanters get some stupid spell-like power, and evokers get a bad/useless potent cantrip feature that seems to affect all their attack cantrips, and necromancers all gain power from killing their enemies (though they get a little more for using Necromancy spells). But. Many of these powers are thematic (if not useful/awesome) and do key off casting spells of their specialty. So there is some incentive for a wizard to prep a few important spells of their school.

Now, there's still some issues. I think a lot of spells (and other powers) are assertive in their writing, and this might limit people's choices. For example, Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy, and Druidcraft all have a little set of bullet points which spell out pretty well all the things the spells can do. Maybe that helps with organized play and many DMs might let more creative things happen, but by the book those spells are pretty lame/limited. Ray of Frost focuses on the damage it does and slowing enemies, but I really hope that if a dungeon has a wet floor ray of frost could freeze it. I also really hope that the DMG has guidelines for adjudicating cantrips.

What I'm saying is maybe the sky isn't falling. Though it isn't as easy to adapt old settings or do some more radical homebrew as second edition and earlier.

5th Edition Wizards

I've played the playtest rules as a wizard a few times now, and while the rules are generally quite close to 2nd edition or 3rd edition, I still find the magic system a little disappointing. To a smaller extent I have the same problem with Pathfinder/3.5, but wizards are no longer defined by their spells.

I mean this in two ways. Both their ability to cast spells as the undisputed masters of magic, and the number and variety of spells.

First, it  seems like everyone and their mother also gets spells. Now, this was somewhat true in 2nd edition or earlier since Paladins and Rangers did get a couple spells at higher levels, but they were so few as to be completely unmemorable for me. We'll know for sure when the PhB comes out, but it looks like Rangers, Paladins, Bards, Druids, Clerics, not to mention Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks, but also the Eldritch Knight fighter and Arcane trickster thief get spells. Meaning its mostly Barbarians, Monks, and some fighters and thieves who don't get spell access. That's a lot of magic!

Second, the playtest wizards have very few spells they can cast. 1 + wizard level. In the basic rules this is increased to Intelligence modifier + level, which I think is going to be a nice little boost, but Clerics also get Wisdom modifier + level. Wizards do get ritual caster, but the number of spells castable as rituals seems quite low (mostly low-level divinations in the Basic rules) and their casting time makes them a little prohibitive. But they are, at least, options.A wizard basically has room to take a few combat spells that they'll continually cast (including the boring blast cantrip, a damaging area of effect, and a single-target damage spell) and then its whatever utilities they can manage that might also have combat uses. It seems like a master of magic should be casting more variety. I suppose as a sorcerer I'd just feel more limited? Or maybe there'd be a 2-4-1 deal on spells of your specialty, so enchanters actually had an incentive to prep enchantment spells? 1+level would be great if you got to prep Intelligence modifier bonus spells of your specialty. I suppose this is partly my beef with some of the more modern design theories: I'd rather Wizard class features support their spellcasting rather than be fixed thematic powers related to their specialty. Because now every illusionist casts invisibility as their reactionary spell instead of being able to do blur or whatnot, and Necromancers will probably get some "steal your soul" deathknell type feature rather that whatever thematic spell specialty which uses the rules which are already pretty much in play.

Finally, the spells themselves seem much more focused and combat focused like the powers of fourth edition. I suppose some would count that as a feature, but I felt it as sheet blinders. Just like in 4e where you focused on the small set of powers you had, in the playtest rules I felt constrained by what my small number of spells allowed me to do. Invisibility, for example, can only be cast on a creature. The new Levitate can at least be cast on unwilling targets. Maybe its nostalgia, but AD&D spells seemed to all have variations or possible combat uses. Light, for example, could be cast in the dungeon as usual, might negate magical darkness, or cast on someone's eyes to blind them. Sure, its not the best use of a first level spell but its an option for a combat use of a non-combat spell. Now light is just a cantrip that means you don't need a lantern. They're good about letting most combat spells level up, but few utility spells have text explaining what happens with a spell when cast at a higher level, which is a huge loss. Small "spell chains" like Hold Portal and Wizard/Arcane Lock could have been linked with one just being the higher level version of the other. Similarly the various illusion spells could all be one spell, gaining additional senses or volume with higher level slots. Overall, it seems a little silly that Prestidigitation can't affect enemies in any appreciable way, yet ray of frost can do quite a bit of damage and slow the enemy (but can it create an icy patch on the floor so your enemies might slip and fall? or keep your beer cold?).

It all culminates with a loss of what I see as one of the great funs of wizards: a crazy list of kookie spells (particularly when you have to seek out strange and new spell effects). We don't need a Bigby's Gentle Wipe (or Vigorous Wipe) spell and dungeon necessities like Banish Excrement (taught in three versions, the Baatezu version which transports it to the Abyss, the Tanar'ri version which transports it to the Nine Hells, or the Athar version which transports it to a randomly selected deity's domain). Moreover, you don't have room to memorize Mordenkainen's Fluffy Pillow (or soft bedroll, or even full-on bed). I guess you can still use prestidigitation and thaumaturgy that way, but even those have a bullet point list of options, not a list of inspiration.

I'm not sure 13th Age or Pathfinder got it right with their cantrip rules and spell lists either though. And, frankly, AD&D was a bit of a mess. I guess my ideal wizard game still might not be out there.

Revisiting D&D Schools of Magic

As I've been thinking that a D&D style game is hindered by overly generic classes (the exception being a game with only a small number of classes: maybe 3-5), and doing away with the generic Wizard or Magic-User might open up a few more doors. Replacing the generic class with the specialty versions prevents one class from stealing the thunder of its subclasses, and allows multiple of those types of characters to coexist a little better in play, I think. The natural D&D thing to replace the standard Wizard with is thematic specialist Wizards. But a few seem a bit off.

One issue, in Second and Third edition, the schools are somewhat poorly defined. Transmutation is a heinously powerful school, and Abjuration is horribly ignored. There's no contesting that an Abjurer has a terrible selection of generally useless spells (they don't even get all the defensive ones!) and Transmutation has a strange abundance where things like Burning Hands could just as well be evocation. Conjuration, too, in 3rd edition gets a strange set of ranged touch attack spells which could easily fit into evocation. This didn't matter so much in first edition where schools were largely story-based (until Dragonlance Adventures came along and divvied them up between the different orders of High Sorcery).

Another issue is reversible spells: spells that summon things are clearly conjuration/summoning, but spells to dismiss them are abjuration. Two sides of the same coin should be maybe combined into one school, no? I suppose this is just another instance of schools being poorly defined.

Yet another issue is schools are only slightly relevant. Pathfinder almost neuters the idea of an opposition school for specialists by just forcing the wizard to learn the spell as one level higher. The Illusionist can still cast Animate Dead, it just is harder. So the specialty goes from a meaningful choice to a thematic choice. Any wizard can basically cast any spell. First edition Illusionists simply cast a slightly different set of spells that normal Magic-Users had, and while not exactly weaker, they were overshadowed by the generalist Magic-User.

So what would the fix look like for a game with a healthy set of classes but without a generic ones? I think you could still use a generic Wizard (who's intelligence and prolonged study grants magical mastery) but require a specialty: no generalists allowed. Second, give a smaller set of coherent specialists. For example, a Binder or Conjurer would focus on various protection-from-X spells, wards, summon monster spells, and a few others like maybe Charm Person and Hold Person. A thematic and coherent set. An Enchanter or Beguiler might focus on charms, illusions, and people-based transmutations (think Bulls Strength or Polymorph Other).  A Necromancer would have their traditional suite of spells (death spells, animating and controlling and destroying undead, fear and some curses). An Elementalist could take the role of the war wizard and evoker throwing around fireballs and lightning bolts. An artificer or alchemist would enchant items, change and create physical items, and other genuine transmutation spells.

This set-up just did away with the abjurer (mostly by giving his spells to the conjurer) and the illusionist (by folding him into the Enchanter). I'd also throw tighten up some of the definitions and probably allow some subschools to be shared (people-based transmutations could belong to an Enchanter or an Alchemist, Fear or Curses could be had by an Enchanter or Necromancer, etc.). By properly subsetting schools into more thematic lists, a given wizard could slowly grow in mastery of his own specialty and possibly sacrificing a little depth for the breadth of choosing spells from outside his specialty list. I think it'll work as long as each class has 3-4 clearly thematic subschools.

So what would this look like? Assume you chose Enchanter:

Jakandor: A Forgotten Setting

I have to admit that I really have a raging nerd boner for an old little setting called Jakandor. Well, half of it at least. This was a second edition setting (weren't they all?) that focuses on the class of two cultures: the magical Charonti and the stupidly named generic Vikings/Indians called the Knorr. It wouldn't be so bad if that weren't a soup product.

Anyway, the Knorr stuff is just ok. Warrior culture, animal totems. Meh. The magical Charonti is where its at.

Wizards in D&D Next

I made the mistake of trying to read up on D&D next wizards, only to find a 40 page rant on the WotC forums. There were a few kernels of goodness in it, mostly hidden by overheated arguments reflecting different playstyles.

I understand that some people are disappointed by "Vancian" magic system still, despite the fact that it is anything but now. Spells are not fire-and-forget, though they are still a daily resource. Wizards have fewer spell slots and fewer spells prepared. They also gain a few cantrips, which are at-will spells, some of which are at-will attack spells. Utility spells are listed as rituals, which can be cast without consuming spell slots (i.e. mana), allowing the wizard to memorize a small number of blasting spells and more utility spells. Arcane Recovery is also a mechanic where a wizard can recover a low-level spell slot during an adventure when the party rests.

One huge difference from earlier editions is the class balance. Things are not precisely (and boringly) balanced like 4e. And the wizard suffers few possibilities of losing spells being incredibly weak as in AD&D 2nd Edition. The designers also are keeping the 4e's goal of having only options, and few limitations. Thus there are no barred schools for the specialty wizards. Overall I think this works fairly well, though the wizard is currently lacking some of the oomph that the druid has. I'm not quite sure a bit more variety in spell selection outranks the Druid's Wild Shape, better hit points, and better weapons.

They might be able to add in a few tidbits to make Wizards more comparable to Druids. Perhaps a free Magical feat, or training in a lore skill. Or, since druids might be overpowered, taking them down a little in terms of spell slots.

I really like one aspect of the new spell design, which is spell flexibility. The Create Water spell is a great example, because it gives a few different options on how the spell might be cast or used, such as putting out fires or for drinking water. I wish they would expand that to the combat cantrips a bit, allowing Ray of Frost to target a foe's legs to reduce his speed, the ground to have a chance to knock him prone, or the face which might cause disadvantage on attack rolls or skill checks requiring one sense (eyes, ears, nose, mouth?).  If we could get Exterminate as a necromancy cantrip with applications for delousing, killing tiny creatures (no damage, just outright kill if less than half level + 1d4 hp?), and damaging swarms (1d12?) that would also rock. If each cantrip has a few different options, that means a wizard will have some nice "always on" options, but they'll be broader than just zapping people.

Another aspect of flexibility is the option to use higher level slots to power spells with a bonus to the effect. I think it would be cleaner to only have one kind of magic point and let spells get boosted directly by character level, but this works well too. We only need one Cure Wounds or Monster Summoning spell and staples like Magic Missile or Burning Hands can continue to be viable through the whole career. This is going to need more development to make sure that some spells aren't strictly better than others, but I suspect that the ability to power Magic Missile with any spell slot might be useful over just one use of Meteor Swarm.

One little regret is the philosophy of "no penalties" means that every wizard still has access to every wizard spell. I like the idea that Illusionists master illusions to such a degree that they can't master every other type of spell. On the other hand, I really hate just having one set of "master illusionist" powers that no one else could possibly access (a la 3.5 Psionic disciplines), so maybe this is something I could slightly live with. Though, for many of the specialists, being able to cast your specialty school spells as rituals for the low-low price of losing 3 other schools of magic might be worth it, or eventually learning a first, second, or third level spell as a cantrip maybe.

The design of this wizard class is something I could definitely live with. They need a few more spells on their list, and to work out the math kinks, but it seems fairly solid.

D&D Next Playtest: Overview

I've begun playing and running with the current Next playtest rules. I'm moderately impressed.

First, I'm able to fairly seamlessly convert a first edition module that I've wanted to run for a while to the new rules. There's only one or two key monsters that aren't converted and stats for some human villains.

Second, it's refreshing to be running an adventure again, rather than a series of encounters. I really did enjoy 4e and had fun with it, but I never quite got the string-of-encounters thing quite down. I wanted it to be like the connected battles in Final Fantasy Tactics, but it just didn't turn out like that. I think it could, though. And I still like many of the 4e rules, but its nice to be free from the power cards.

Third, I'm digging some aspects of the new spell design. Playing a cleric, I like how some of the utility spells are either designated as rituals, so they clog your spells prepared, rather than compete for spell slots. Other utility spells are given more applications, like Create Water. I hope that type of flexibility extends to some of the combat cantrips, like Ray of Frost.

Overall, it makes the game feel a bit more like playing Second edition. Which is what I was mostly raised on, so I like the big picture thus far. There's some things I'm less fond of (half-elves, mechanically, aren't outcasts; druids still seem overpowered, with wizard-like spell casting and wild-shape; forest gnome illusion powers overlap with the illusionist class powers; many of the cleric deities are a bit forced into one archetype) but this edition will also be much more house-ruleable.

There are a few things which would make life a lot easier for playtesting too, that I hope they consider using in the next packet. For example: Lists of cleric, druid, paladin, and ranger spells by level would help, so I could just print out all the first and second level spells for my character.

I also wish they would explain some of the design intent a bit. I finally realized why the ritual caster was repeated in the Scholastic wizard tradition: its worded slightly different from the regular ritual caster feature, so that the generalist tradition can cast any ritual in their book! Given their plain-English style in other places, it is jarring that there's not a "Unlike most wizards..." and emphasis on spellbook. Ditto with the Rogue's sneak attack stuff. The rules seem pretty clear that rogues have a way to gain advantage, and can take disadvantage for additional damage, but you have to read between the lines to realize it.

So all of this, and Abjurers. They should add abjurers back into the game.

Necromancy and Necromancers in Heoric D&D

Necromancy has always been a popular subject in RPGs and fantasy fiction. Usually, necromancers and undead are the villains. So when I look at the Necromancer theme/specialty in the new playtest, I'm a bit unsettled.

First, its great that they include it. 4e went far too long without a good mechanical way to support this archetype. Reflavoring can only take one so far, though the Shaman did relatively well as a necromancer type. It doesn't even take much searching to find a small host of third party OGL necromancy products, so the necromancer is probably popular/iconic enough to warrant some treatment in the basic D&D rules.

3.5/OGL products:

• Hollowfaust: City of Necromancers (Sword and Sorcery Studios)
• Necromancy: Beyond the Grave (Mongoose)
• Encyclopaedia Arcane Necromancy (Mongoose)
• Secret College of Necromancy (Green Ronin)
• The Dread Codex (Adamant)
• The Dread Codex 2: The Necromancer's Tome (Adamant)
• Necromancer's Legacy: Gar'Udok's Necromantic Artes (EN)

So why does this new necromancer theme grind my gears? Simply put, its not a necromancer.

Does each class need a unique mechanic to "play" differently?

This is a topic I'm still a little undecided on. But the direction of 4e and the discussions of the new edition of D&D lead me to suspect that the design team wants each new class to "play" differently, which might mean a new core mechanic for each class.

The problem is, this hasn't really been true for D&D. From the basic D&D days, Dwarves and Halflings were variant fighters, while Elves were fighter/mages. Unique, maybe, but they certainly didn't have a unique set of mechanics. Clerics and magic-users both cast spells, though from different lists.

By the time we move to third edition, we begin to see a proliferation of classes. Sure, second edition AD&D had kits galore, but few new classes. Specific campaigns like Dark Sun and later Ravenloft saw new and variant classes (Gladiator, Templar, Avenger, Gypsy) to replace banned/unused ones (often Paladins), and but few new classes like the barbarian, shaman, and ninja were really presented outside the core books in the generic materials.

Third edition saw a real proliferation of classes, yet they were by-and-large variants of one another. Archivists were scholarly divine casters that functioned like wizards, favored souls, spirit shamans, and such were divine casters that functioned more like sorcerers. The Samurai, Hexblade, and Swashbuckler were basically fighter variants, while the ninja, scout, and spellthief were rogues, more or less. There were some innovative classes, like the warlock and marshal, but even these got later variants (Dragonfire Adept and Dragon Shaman). There were some late innovative classes too, like the martial adepts from Tome of Battle, new magic-users from Tome of Magic, and the whole Incarnum stuff I never got into. But even these presented classes as variations on the theme mechanics.

In fourth edition, we start to see some more notions that classes need distinct mechanics, not just powers. While all the defender classes used marks early on, they accessed them in different ways and felt "different", and later essentials defenders used defending auras which were a variant on the mark. Striker classes mostly got distinct damage mechanisms (Extra dice of damage for warlocks, rogues, and rangers though with different conditional restrictions, etc). Even leaders had the same healing word mechanic with subtle tweaks. Controllers never really had their own unified mechanics, which might be one reason why people consider the invoker to just be a divine wizard.

Which is better though? Should fighters have some unique mechanic that only they can access, such as stances or maneuver dice? Is it enough for wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers to have differential access to arcane magic (along with Bards and certain other classes?), or do they need their own set of spells and powers? Is a paladin really just a dude with limited access to cleric and fighter powers, or is he defined by his auras, challenges, smites, or ability to lay on hands?

Spellcasters, Spellslots, and Quadratic Wizards

Archmages don't bother with puny magic missiles.

One of the thing that irks me about D&D Next is the bizarre spell slot system. Not that it exists, because it seemed to function just fine in earlier editions of D&D. No, what grinds my gears is the idea of applying the Heightened Spell feat (in some way) to every caster class.

See, in the beforetimes, a wizard could memorize a number of magic missile spells, a number of fireballs, and so forth. Even with Spells and Magic, a wizard had a sort of finite spell memory.

The idea of Heightened Spell is using spell slots of higher level to cast more potent lower level spells. But what's missing is the theory for why a wizard can memorize Magic Missile as a third level spell for greater effect.

Wizards and Versatility in D&D

Last week's Legends and Lore column details some design goals of the new wizard class in D&D Next, and the D&D Next chat mentions at-will magic. I like some of what I see, but I'm a little concerned about other things. These items made me rethink a few things about wizards though which are worth noting.

What slightly disturbs me about the new wizard class design goals is the at-will cantrip types of powers and the lack of oodles of spells. Now, I've surely considered reducing the number/power of wizard spells before, but I think that takes away from some of the fun of playing a wizard: Sorcerers or warlocks should be able to blast their enemies all day long. Wizards, however, should probably be relying on more of their utility spells. Because that's what wizards have: oodles of various spells.