D&D 1E Should 5e adopt 1e style arcane magic?

[FireLance]

Anyhow, I think 1e style magic should be there as an option, for those who want it. Some aspects would be fairly easy to implement as options: for example, spells could have an extended casting option, so that it is up to the player to decide whether he wants to go for a less powerful effect that can be cast in one round, or extend the casting time and risk spell disruption for a more powerful effect (the equivalent of [casting time] rounds of "normal" spells and a premium for the risk).

 

[Wormwood]

You only get 3 strikes in baseball, but no one is clamoring to increase that.

*points to sorcerers, reserve feats, warlocks, player-crafted wands/scrolls and just about every other FRPG on the market*

Yep. Nobody ever wanted more than a couple spells per day.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Hell, every baseball player (hitters anyway) wants more than 3 strikes, too. That doesn't mean it's a good decision to give it to them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Hell, every baseball player (hitters anyway) wants more than 3 strikes, too. That doesn't mean it's a good decision to give it to them.

Well put. Be careful what you wish for...

*points to sorcerers, reserve feats, warlocks, player-crafted wands/scrolls and just about every other FRPG on the market*

FWIW, I'm not a big fan of the Vancian ideal and I don't think spells per day is a good balancing feature. I'd rather see magic balanced by being limited in scope for any one individual, not always working, and incurring serious costs. That would be more along the lines of most non-D&D fantasy fiction and rpgs. But D&D is D&D, and that won't happen.

In any case, the desire for freer magic use is hardly a justification for the power system.

 

[SteveC]

You only get 3 strikes in baseball, but no one is clamoring to increase that.

That's because baseball is a fundamentally different experience than playing an RPG. If you were to tell me that my character only gets to do the things I want him to do in the game only three times in a session, I wouldn't be playing that game. Now I know there are a lot more RPGs out there that solve this issue (including the current version of D&D!) but a new player? No idea. Having fun in the area of your schtick three time in a game session? Probably not something people will come back for week after week in this era.

Yeah, I know, kids these days and all...

 

[WheresMyD20]

Although I'm not a Harry Potter fan (queue Craig Ferguson quote "I know!", I have to ask: how many people think of that series as defining a wizard, as compared to Jack Vance. I wonder how many people have even heard of Jack Vance these days.

Although I would never want D&D to be Harry Potter the RPG, I do question why we would want to move fundamentally away from that style of magic.

Harry Potter was written for little kids. Please keep that as far away from D&D as possible!

 

[Charleois]

No way. I am willing to play in someone's AD&D game. But I do not want that in the Fifth Edition.

 

[Ichneumon]

DDN may be reminiscent of older editions, but there's no reason to turn playing a wizard into a punishment rather than an enjoyable gaming experience.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

DDN may be reminiscent of older editions, but there's no reason to turn playing a wizard into a punishment rather than an enjoyable gaming experience.

Which is exactly why we should return to the 1e style.

 

[Hassassin]

My opinion is other:

Wizards should have 3e based vancian magic with the most broken spells removed and others scaled back, with some 1-2e type drawbacks added in to balance with other classes. Main drawback: full round casting for most spells.

Warlocks should have At Will magic close to the 4e style, with rare more powerful effects. Functionally a bit closer to a ranged martial character than a Wizard.

Sorcerers somewhere in between: Wizards' spell list, but more narrow (maybe also restricted to a couple of schools?), spontaneous and more often, but still with the drawbacks.