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

[Fanaelialae]

My PH is half a continent away so I can't easily check, but I thought if you failed your % roll to learn a spell you could try again once you had gained a level.

I'm fairly certain that that was a 2e invention.

At the very least, I wasn't able to find anything to that effect in my 1e books. Someone mentioned that if you find a way to increase your Int you can try to learn a spell again, but I'm uncertain whether that is an official rule or not either. Admittedly, I don't much care for the organization of the 1e books.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Originally posted by 1e AD&D:

"Change in intelligence: If intelligence goes down or up for any reason, and such change is relatively permanent, the magic user must check again as explained above for known spells by level group."

 

[Nebulous]

That's pretty much the only mechanic I'd like to see in 5E in some form. But not as a class balance mechanic, but as a tactical option. It adds to the game if Wizards need some time to cast a big oomph, like summoning a powerful demon, and other party members need to protect them during the period. That is, 5E also needs defender mechanic if it adds casting time. And low-level spells like magic missile or shocking grasp should not use it.

I agree, bigger, more powerful spells should take longer to cast.

 

[NewJeffCT]

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

So was The Hobbit.

 

[airwalkrr]

1e is still my favorite version of D&D because of the kind of tactical play it required. Resource management was key. It seems like resource management has been going the way of the dodo as the game has progressed through editions and that has always bothered me. The wizard was the penultimate resource manager. Sure, you could only cast one spell at 1st level, but a well-placed sleep spell could save the entire party! Even a single magic missile could be a game changer because it always hit.

Phenomenal Cosmic Power!

Itty Bitty Living Space

 

[WheresMyD20]

So was The Hobbit.

Yes, technically, The Hobbit was published as a children's book, but the world of Middle-Earth wasn't created for children. If you look at the elements of Middle-Earth that were incorporated into D&D, they really aren't kid-oriented.

Besides, per Gygax, Middle-Earth wasn't one of the primary influences on D&D. Aside from some of the races and monsters (many of which, like elves & dwarves originally come from Scandinavian mythology), there really isn't a huge Tolkien influence on original D&D. Certainly not nearly as much as Howard, Leiber, and Vance.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Yes, technically, The Hobbit was published as a children's book, but the world of Middle-Earth wasn't created for children. If you look at the elements of Middle-Earth that were incorporated into D&D, they really aren't kid-oriented.

Besides, per Gygax, Middle-Earth wasn't one of the primary influences on D&D. Aside from some of the races and monsters (many of which, like elves & dwarves originally come from Scandinavian mythology), there really isn't a huge Tolkien influence on original D&D. Certainly not nearly as much as Howard, Leiber, and Vance.

Just because Gygax said that at the time doesn't make it true. The entire core of D&D is based on Tolkien - the mixed race adventuring party. But, that's for another thread.

And, one of the criticisms of Tolkien is that his characters are rather simplistic - the bad guys are 100% bad and the good guys are almost all 100% purely good.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'd be happy with genuinely Vancian wizards (something 4e has got closest to) - solidly competent adventurers with a tiny handful of really useful spells (normally 1/story). But I'm not happy with wizards who lose fights to housecats at low levels and dominate at high levels. Or with weird XP tables.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Just because Gygax said that at the time doesn't make it true. The entire core of D&D is based on Tolkien - the mixed race adventuring party. But, that's for another thread.

And, one of the criticisms of Tolkien is that his characters are rather simplistic - the bad guys are 100% bad and the good guys are almost all 100% purely good.

I don't see any reason to doubt Gygax's statement that Tolkien wasn't one of the primary influences on D&D.

"The entire core of D&D is based on Tolkien" ? Examining OD&D shows otherwise:

- The magic is from Vance, with a nod to De Camp & Pratt.

- The Law/Chaos alignment system is from Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock.

- The illustrations in OD&D, although crude, tend to be more Sword & Sorcery oriented than High Fantasy oriented.

- The forward to OD&D uses John Carter, Conan, and Fafhrd & The Gray Mouser as examples.

- Elves and Dwarves both feature prominently in the work of Poul Anderson. In Three Hearts and Three Lions, one of the main character's adventuring companions is a dwarf. In The Broken Sword, the main character is a changeling and is raised in the land of the elves.

- Elves are central to the book The King of Elfland's Daughter by Lord Dunsany, which is another of Gygax's OD&D influences.

- Michael Moorcock's Elric is essentially an elf, although his race calls themselves "Melniboneans". The OD&D fighting-man/magic-user elf is much closer to Elric than Legolas.

This isn't to say that Tolkien had zero influence on D&D, but the idea that the "entire core is based on Tolkien" is quite clearly factually incorrect.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I don't see any reason to doubt Gygax's statement that Tolkien wasn't one of the primary influences on D&D.

"The entire core of D&D is based on Tolkien" ? Examining OD&D shows otherwise:

The game is built around a mixed-race adventuring party - humans, hobbits, elves and dwarves - joining together to go on adventures and defeat the forces of evil. That is the staple of Tolkien and it has been the core of D&D in each incarnation/edition, despite all of the other changes that have gone on between editions (alignments have changed, as have the magic systems, but creating the mixed-race adventuring party has been the beginning of every player's handbook...)

While Anderson, Moorcock and others surely had influences, their writings came after Tolkien and were influenced by him.