OSR Old school wizards, how do you play level 1?

[Voadam]

Non-prof penalties are RAW, and listed in the PH. For a MU it's -5 to hit. We always assumed it applied to any weapon the character picked up regardless of class etc., using the logic that says any idiot can pick up any weapon and try to use it but won't know what they're doing.

They are absolutely RAW. And they definitely apply to weapons a character is permitted but have not gained proficiency in.

Whether it allows a character to use a weapon not permitted is not specifically defined other than weapons permitted being a separate thing. Similarly for a thief or magic-user putting on plate mail it is not defined what happens, it is just stated as a prohibition.

Coming from B/X where there is no non-proficiency penalty, just a stated prohibition on certain classes using certain armor and weapons, I came into 1e AD&D and thought the nonproficiency penalty chart meant a 1st level magic-user could gain proficiency in one of the three permitted weapons, and have a -5 penalty on the other two, but they were still not permitted to use polearms.

1e PH 25:

"Furthermore, they [magic-users] can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use, for martial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive."
There is nothing physically stopping a magic-user from putting on armor, but it still says they cannot wear armor.

 

[CleverNickName]

This is an explicit call for adjusting damage rolls. It also seems a new development starting with BECMI.

I think it's simpler than that: the roll itself just wasn't as important.

In BECMI, dice rolls on the DM side of the screen were intended to be just numerical ranges--not probabilities. The DM rolled 3d6 when they needed a random number between 3 and 18, not when they needed a bell curve with an average result of 10.5 and a 2% probability of minimum/maximum. So it was perfectly reasonable for the DM to pick the number that worked best or, if they preferred, randomly determine one from the range however they liked.

• Most of the numerical ranges in the monster stat block were stated just as ranges ("No. Appearing: 3-21") instead of a specified dice roll and bonus. So it was left up to the DM to find a way to determine that number (in this case, you could roll 2d10+1, or you could roll 1d20+2 and ignore the result of 23, or you could just pick a number.)
• And all over the Dungeon Master's Rulebook, you'd find the phrase "roll or choose" for everything from monster damage and random encounters, to treasure table results and wand charges.

Nowadays, the distribution curve is the all-important driver behind "game balance" and "bounded accuracy" and whatever. But back in the 1980s? The likelihood of getting the minimum, maximum, or average result on any given roll just wasn't that important...and it was okay because the game was built to support that.

 

[Riley]

A single classed MU could not use a crossbow in 1e. Were you using a house rule that just put non-proficiency penalties on weapons not useable by the class?

View attachment 293888

It’s been 40 years. Were non-proficiency penalties in the DMG, or maybe later in UA? If not, it was possibly a house rule. Or maybe even something I tried in early 2e.

I sometimes recycled character concepts in different campaigns, and now it’s hard to keep all those memories totally distinct from each other.

 

[Voadam]

In BECMI, dice rolls on the DM side of the screen were intended to be just numerical ranges--not probabilities. You rolled 3d6 when you needed a random number between 3 and 18, not when you needed a bell curve with an average result of 10.5 and a 2% probability of minimum/maximum. So it was perfectly reasonable for the DM to pick the number that worked best, or randomly determine one from the range.

I can't speak to BECMI design as I am not that familiar with it, but that seems really weird. Rolling 3d6 and adding them will give you a bell curve and designers of D&D had known this and been using different dice system for different purposes consciously for years including bell curve multiple dice addition systems.

Moldvay Basic has plenty of 2d6 charts (morale, monster reactions, retainer reactions, etc.) and I assume they knew the extremes were 1 in 36 chances and the mathematical effects of a +1 charisma adjustment on a 2d6 roll.

In Moldvay basic it seems it is the reverse of the Mentzer system. The DM can choose what a monster does for reactions and morale and for a number of explicit issues, but if the DM wants to leave it up to chance and mechanics there are charts for the DM to roll against if they like. Attack rolls and damage rolls are not on the list of things for a DM to choose to ad hoc first though.

 

[Voadam]

It’s been 40 years. Were non-proficiency penalties in the DMG, or maybe later in UA? If not, it was possibly a house rule. Or maybe even something I tried in early 2e.

I sometimes recycled character concepts in different campaigns, and now it’s hard to keep all those memories totally distinct from each other.

Non proficiency penalties were in the 1e PH, in a different section from weapons permitted.

3e was the first I recall having core wizards able to use crossbows and they became ubiquitous among low level wizards and in WotC adventuring wizard and sorcerer art.

 

[Riley]

Non-prof penalties are RAW, and listed in the PH. For a MU it's -5 to hit. We always assumed it applied to any weapon the character picked up regardless of class etc., using the logic that says any idiot can pick up any weapon and try to use it but won't know what they're doing.

Yes, that. I used the crossbow (for a while), but I certainly didn’t use it well.

IIRC, I rarely hit, but when I did the damage was pretty good.

IIARC, the heavy crossbow had pretty good “weapon vs. armor” adjustments?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The four players, two with decades of experience and the other two not exactly rookies, who lost a total of 22 characters when I ran KotB - yeah, they'd like a word.

The best part: those players and I were laughing our damn fool heads off the entire time!

It is definitely A KEY PART of early D&D editions to just ACCEPT that characters will die - even when the DM takes multiple steps to reduce deadliness, and even when it's experienced players who always make good decisions. Characters WILL die. Change that to absolutely prevent any PC death if you insist - but that WASN'T how it was intended/expected to work, and overwhelmingly (IME) wasn't something that players were even complaining about at the time. It's not until LATER editions surfaced that players really started to come at the game with that... sense of entitlement. At the time it was just part of playing the game until PC's advanced out of the first few levels - and EVEN THEN nobody was so foolish as to expect that they were now guaranteed any particular measure of survival.

 

[rgard]

Draw your 11.99999 inch dagger and attack.

 

[M.T. Black]

This has been very useful and has highlighted a bunch of different play-styles. Having said that, the most common answers seem to be darts, daggers, and oil.

I'm interested in the idea that level 1 characters tended to avoid fights. I started with B/X in '83 as youngster, and we played Keep on the Borderland as murder hobos. But we had big parties. The first time I played it, there were only two PCs but we had 10 men-at-arms with us. The next time I was DM and we still only had two players, but each one controlled six (!) PCs.

The magic-user (Zyx) lurked in the back at lower levels, cast his magic missile and then did very little. As the group leveled up, characters dropped out one by one. By the time we reached 10th level, the players had just 1 character each, Zyx the Wizard and Rixx the Fighter. Fun times! But the low level adventures were very combat focused for us (we were 11 and 12). I suspect those who started a little older played with a bit more imagination.

 

[Lanefan]

They are absolutely RAW. And they definitely apply to weapons a character is permitted but have not gained proficiency in.

Whether it allows a character to use a weapon not permitted is not specifically defined other than weapons permitted being a separate thing. Similarly for a thief or magic-user putting on plate mail it is not defined what happens, it is just stated as a prohibition.

Nothing stops the Thief or MU character from physically donning a siut of plate, but if either hope to use any of their class abilities while in in they're flat out'a luck.

Coming from B/X where there is no non-proficiency penalty, just a stated prohibition on certain classes using certain armor and weapons, I came into 1e AD&D and thought the nonproficiency penalty chart meant a 1st level magic-user could gain proficiency in one of the three permitted weapons, and have a -5 penalty on the other two, but they were still not permitted to use polearms.

I didn't come from B/X and thus didn't have that built-in assumption. I've always had it that anyone can pick up any weapon and try to use it, at cost of a non-prof penalty (which counts toward fumble chances!) and, in the case of Clerics, possible divine annoyance if they use a weapon of a type frowned upon by their deity or pantheon.

1e PH 25:

"Furthermore, they [magic-users] can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use, for martial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive."
There is nothing physically stopping a magic-user from putting on armor, but it still says they cannot wear armor.

Which to me is just poor wording, in that what I think is meant is simply that a mage's class abilities do not and cannot function if-when said mage is in armour. Same as an armoured Thief - he can wear all the armour he likes as long as he's not planning on doing any climbing or pickpocketing or hiding etc. before he takes it off.