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

[YRUSirius]

I think the 3e Sorcerer and Wizard should just be combined. Have "Spells Memorized" similar to Spells Known and let the Wizard memorize a specific set of spells for the day, he can then just cast from those spells he has memorized a number of times based on his spells per day.

I'd like to see daily spells eliminated completely. Keep encounter spells though, which replenish after a short rest and coin their game term something like rest spells. Balance them appropriately. Spells still have to be prepared after a short rest.

And I'd like to see 20 spell levels. Every wizard gets something like 1 rest spell per spell level + some kind of at-will spells, some utility magic tricks (detect magic, mage hand etc.) and rituals. That's what I'd like to see in D&DNext.

-YRUSirius

 

[Stormonu]

-At low levels, the wizard progressed very slowly due to high xp requirements. Until 2,501 xp, the wizard was stuck with the worst AC, 1-4 hp, and a single spell per day. As such, it took quite a while for a wizard to come in to his own.

For me, this has gone the way of the dodo, there's now better ways to balance without having to use varying XP requirements.

-Wizard saving throws, most notably against death magic, sucked.

Starting out that's at least true of 1E. It wouldn't bother me

-Their "Thac0" was only 13 at level 20. (Their ability to hit sucked.)

I'd like to see this return. Whacking things is the fighter's schtick.

-Any damage would automatically result in a wasted spell. Since actions were declared before initiative was rolled, and initiative was rolled every round, you never knew how many attacks you might take before finishing your spell.

Maybe not automatic spell loss, but I'd agree with very, very difficult not to be disrupted or have to restart.

-Wizards had a measly average of 34.5 hp at level 20. Note that this means he could be killed by an average 20d6 fireball, regardless of whether he makes the saving throw or not. He can kill himself quite easily.

Yep, I like the "protect the wizard" of 1E.

-They had quite severe limits on the number of spells they could learn (from 6 to 18 spells, barring a 19 Int), and had only a percentage chance that they could ever learn a given spell (from 35% to 85%, barring a 19 Int). Since stats were rolled in those days, it wasn't unusual to see a 16 Int Wizard (can only learn 11 spells per spell level, and only has a 65% chance to learn that given spell, and can never cast 9th level spells). If you failed your check to learn the spell, you could never learn that spell (barring not meeting you minimum number of spells limit). Envision yourself as a fire mage but rolled a 89 for fireball? Sucks to be you; you'll never be able to cast fireball.

I'd like to keep the max spells learned per level, but drop the % chance to learn. Let the player fill the slots with those spells he wants, but only so many.

-They couldn't wear armor at all.

And still shouldn't as a pure wizard

-They couldn't circumvent vocal, somatic, or material component requirements by any means (no Still Spell, etc.).

I like the idea of metamagic, but I didn't like how it was implemented. I liked the UA variant of on-the-fly X metamagics per day.

-Many spells had significant drawbacks. Some had expensive material components (5,000 gp to cast shapechange), while other spells had serious drawbacks, such as polymorph other requiring a system shock roll just to survive it and another roll for the mind to remain intact (useful against enemies, but potentially disasterous if cast upon a party member).

I wish there were even MORE drawbacks to spells; skill checks to cast the spell in the first place (with failure by 10 having some sort of backfire/wild magic mechanics). I'd like to see getting off a 9th level spell being something risky and difficult to do, but that's never been D&D's way before.

-Magic resistance was a percentage, unlike 3e. It did scale, however, + or - 5% for each level the caster was below or above 11th level. And let's not forget that you were completely boned in an anti-magic field.

I'd rather keep it like 3E, but more variable per CR - some creatures being nearly unbeatable by spells for their CR.

-Magic item tables favored other classes. Wizards were less likely to find magical gear suited for them than a fighter was.

This would probably be a good idea; wizards have their spells and it'd probably be better for the game if they weren't doubly decked out in magic items.

 

[GM Dave]

I've got to put myself down for 'other'.

1> We've got at least 5 (4 recognized editions plus several versions of Basic plus Saga) if not more versions of DnD mechanics to draw upon for learning. Certainly if there are problems and limitations in 1e style magic then I would hope the designers would in some way improve things.

I mean, I like the nostalgia of some of the older video games but I expect a new game to be better than pong if they want me to pay $40 to purchase it.

2> There are plenty of good ideas outside of the 'DnD' box. If I wanted 1e with a polish then I could choose from a dozen clones that are offered for free or with a minimal price.

When I look to a product from WotC or Paizo then I expect to purchase creativity and solid design. These are people that are getting paid professionally to produce a product and I expect them to have taken the time to study the market and competition to figure out what works and what can be improved upon.

3> Personally, I reject that people should sacrifice having fun for some future date that may not come (given the recent polls on how long people game).

PF finder is an improvement on 1e spell systems with the first few levels being better but they are still a tough grind for a wizard or sorcerer. I needed to provide some supplementary equipment for the sorcerer of my present group because she was running around with two spells (neither of them an offense spell ~ chose comprehend languages and detect secret doors = I do what I can to work in situations where they can be useful but it isn't always easy).

 

[Incenjucar]

The thing with the older systems is that they can be expressed using any of the systems that followed them. You can mod in just about anything to any of the rule sets, and the main limit is the amount of effort you want to put into it. Balance might be an issue, but for most editions balance wasn't there to begin with, so I can't imagine most who desire a conversion will be that concerned.

And really, if WotC ever truly embraces technology, they can just have a bunch of filters set up in the character builder to allow this.

The issue, then, is what is the most effective baseline which can be most easily modified.

 

[Mattachine]

I am just glad that 5e seems to be taking a middle ground:

*Vancian system for better spells
*At-wills/powers system for simple attacks

As soon as reserve feats made it into the 3.5 campaign I played in, they were almost universally taken by casters.

 

[P1NBACK]

I'd say you're painting with a mighty broad brush here, and one that's certainly not universally accurate.

And in other news, the sky is blue and water is wet...

If you look at the adventure modules of the era, there was the expectation of frequent combat, and combat at any significant level was not over in a flash.

Beyond that, I'd say that quick combat does not mean that being ineffective for most of the experience is something to be sought after.

Sure, if your whole game is about combat, like 4E. I'm saying because B/X and AD&D wasn't about combat, it was about exploration, not having something flashy to do in every round of combat wasn't a big deal. There were other aspects of the game where you did shine.

And, this is how classes were "balanced" in old school D&D: each had something to do in a certain aspect of the adventure. Not because everyone had the same DPR or whatever...

And as for your observation about 4E combat, I'll just say that 1.5 hour combats are not the norm for an experienced group.

I played 4E for two years straight. We were pretty experienced, intelligent and even made accommodations to speed things up (power cards, time limits, extra damage, etc.) and combat STILL took forever. Nearly every single combat. There are dozens of threads on ENWorld about this very topic. The designers specifically made combat last longer so that the cool neat powers and combos could develop.

To try and blow this aspect of 4E off is just disingenuous.

I played a variant of old school D&D recently (it was Labyrinth Lord) with a mix of young and old players and I can definitely say that low level wizards were not popular. The young players said "that's it?" for what a wizard could do, and the older players reminisced about our spellpoint systems...

That sort of rule is definitely not the way to go in the next edition...

First, I never said that's the way it should go. Secondly, do I care what some kid, who probably sucks at the game anyways, thinks about it? If they couldn't think of anything to do, that's an issue with their imagination, not the rules. The Fighter or Thief have about the same stuff "to do" as a Magic-User, and you aren't here complaining about them. The Thief is arguably even worse off: d4 HD, poor weapon and armor selection, skills are very hard to get success on, etc.

But, guess what, people didn't play the Thief because it had a list of "something to do" on their character sheet every round. They played it because it was a challenging class that required you to use your imagination to survive and finally get powerful with. The same is true for Magic-Users.

Now, whether that's the direction for 5E? I don't know. I never said it should be. Maybe that's not for the Now Generation. Maybe they don't want to use their wits to survive in the game. Maybe they want a toolbar on their sheet with "hit stuff - make magical effect" buttons and cut scenes that skip from cool, balanced, exciting combat to combat.

And, that's fine. That can be fun.

But, for a lot of people, that's not D&D. For some people, D&D isn't about set-piece encounters, balanced combat, or flash-bang-whiz powers each round for everyone.

In sum, you certainly might not appreciate B/x or AD&D if you come at it expecting 4E-style gratification and playstyle. But, if you come at it with different expectations and goals, then you might just find some merit in the 1 spell a day 1st-level Magic-User (and what that means in the grand scheme).

 

[Fanaelialae]

Where is the "Yes, I like the 1e magic-user and magic system, and see no drawback to them at all" option?

Three negative options, one "yes but optional", and two yes's pointing out some drawbacks nonetheless... This poll's options are skewed, IMO.

If you read my opening post you'll see from the context that I was using the term drawbacks as synonymous with limitations, rather than synonymous with bad. I even listed the limitations I was referring to in detail.

Adding the option of "Yes, I like the 1e magic-user and magic system, and see no drawback to them at all" would be equivalent to saying "Yes, I like the 1e magic-user and magic system, and there were no limitations to magic under that system". Why would I list an option that is objectively untrue?

I admit, it would have been better had I used limitations instead of drawbacks, but the simple reality is that it didn't occur to me when I wrote the poll. I realize that this is the internet, but there's really no need to interpret things in the worst possible light.

 

[SteveC]

]
I played 4E for two years straight. We were pretty experienced, intelligent and even made accommodations to speed things up (power cards, time limits, extra damage, etc.) and combat STILL took forever. Nearly every single combat. There are dozens of threads on ENWorld about this very topic. The designers specifically made combat last longer so that the cool neat powers and combos could develop.

To try and blow this aspect of 4E off is just disingenuous.

Other people have had different experiences than you have, including my group and many, many others. It's not disingenuous, it's just a different experience than you had.

First, I never said that's the way it should go. Secondly, do I care what some kid, who probably sucks at the game anyways, thinks about it? If they couldn't think of anything to do, that's an issue with their imagination, not the rules. The Fighter or Thief have about the same stuff "to do" as a Magic-User, and you aren't here complaining about them. The Thief is arguably even worse off: d4 HD, poor weapon and armor selection, skills are very hard to get success on, etc.

...and here's the heart of where I come to understand that we really don't have anything to talk about: that "kid" is a mid 20's player with a Master's Degree ("kid" is a relative term when you're in your 40's like I am). This kid also is an exceptional roleplayer, and part of a group that manages to run 4E combats in less than an hour.

But this kind of attitude indicates that we don't have anything to say to each other, and thankfully ENWorld has a system for that.

In sum, you certainly might not appreciate B/x or AD&D if you come at it expecting 4E-style gratification and playstyle. But, if you come at it with different expectations and goals, then you might just find some merit in the 1 spell a day 1st-level Magic-User (and what that means in the grand scheme).

I have played the system from near the beginning (the White Box) and I can tell you these issues are nothing new. That's why so many alternatives to D&D came about. At this point in my life, I'd say four hours of my life requires more than 15 minutes of fun. So I'm like the kid in that respect.

 

[Hussar]

And in other news, the sky is blue and water is wet...



Sure, if your whole game is about combat, like 4E. I'm saying because B/X and AD&D wasn't about combat, it was about exploration, not having something flashy to do in every round of combat wasn't a big deal. There were other aspects of the game where you did shine.

Really? THIS is where you want to go? "All about combat, like 4e"? Come on. If you're going to start edition warring, at least stop lobbing softballs like this one.

And, this is how classes were "balanced" in old school D&D: each had something to do in a certain aspect of the adventure. Not because everyone had the same DPR or whatever...

Translation: Classes in old school D&D were badly balanced, if balanced at all.

I played 4E for two years straight. We were pretty experienced, intelligent and even made accommodations to speed things up (power cards, time limits, extra damage, etc.) and combat STILL took forever. Nearly every single combat. There are dozens of threads on ENWorld about this very topic. The designers specifically made combat last longer so that the cool neat powers and combos could develop.

To try and blow this aspect of 4E off is just disingenuous.

So, now we're going to play mind reading games with the designers because you weren't very adept at learning the rules. If your combats were averaging over an hour after two years of play, that's on you, not the system.

First, I never said that's the way it should go. Secondly, do I care what some kid, who probably sucks at the game anyways, thinks about it? If they couldn't think of anything to do, that's an issue with their imagination, not the rules. The Fighter or Thief have about the same stuff "to do" as a Magic-User, and you aren't here complaining about them. The Thief is arguably even worse off: d4 HD, poor weapon and armor selection, skills are very hard to get success on, etc.

But, guess what, people didn't play the Thief because it had a list of "something to do" on their character sheet every round. They played it because it was a challenging class that required you to use your imagination to survive and finally get powerful with. The same is true for Magic-Users.

Translation - the classes suck, but, because we play D&D as a character building exercise, it's okay that they suck. It's like eating your vegetables.

Now, whether that's the direction for 5E? I don't know. I never said it should be. Maybe that's not for the Now Generation. Maybe they don't want to use their wits to survive in the game. Maybe they want a toolbar on their sheet with "hit stuff - make magical effect" buttons and cut scenes that skip from cool, balanced, exciting combat to combat.

And, that's fine. That can be fun.

But, for a lot of people, that's not D&D. For some people, D&D isn't about set-piece encounters, balanced combat, or flash-bang-whiz powers each round for everyone.

Translation: Anyone who doesn't play the way I play is just having badwrongfun. My way of playing is the one true way and anyone who says differently is just an child.

In sum, you certainly might not appreciate B/x or AD&D if you come at it expecting 4E-style gratification and playstyle. But, if you come at it with different expectations and goals, then you might just find some merit in the 1 spell a day 1st-level Magic-User (and what that means in the grand scheme).

Umm, how would I possibly come to B/X or AD&D with a 4e playstyle when I started playing in 1980? But, yes, if I wanted to go back to doing my one thing a day and then going off and playing Xbox Live, then I could certainly go back to a 1st level Magic User in AD&D.

Then again, maybe there's a REASON that this got ejected even in 2e D&D with specialist wizards. Can't quite put my finger on the reason. It happened so long ago...

 

[P1NBACK]

Other people have had different experiences than you have, including my group and many, many others. It's not disingenuous, it's just a different experience than you had.

I think it's totally disenginuous to pull some kind of "no true scotsman" card. Your argument is "once you are experienced" combat is less than an hour! Woohoo! But, not just "experienced". You have to be truly experienced, because my experienced group apparently doesn't count. And, let me put that my "group" was more than 20+ unique players over the course of numerous campaigns. And, nevermind all of the threads here, just on ENWorld trying to tackle this subject.

So, for everyone except the "truly experienced" combat took forever. Got it.

...and here's the heart of where I come to understand that we really don't have anything to talk about: that "kid" is a mid 20's player with a Master's Degree ("kid" is a relative term when you're in your 40's like I am). This kid also is an exceptional roleplayer, and part of a group that manages to run 4E combats in less than an hour.

And, I bet that kid would love playing in our B/X game.

But this kind of attitude indicates that we don't have anything to say to each other, and thankfully ENWorld has a system for that.

Sweet.

I have played the system from near the beginning (the White Box) and I can tell you these issues are nothing new. That's why so many alternatives to D&D came about. At this point in my life, I'd say four hours of my life requires more than 15 minutes of fun. So I'm like the kid in that respect.

I think alternatives to D&D came about because D&D is a game about exploring dungeons, and people wanted a game about other things. But, let's not . A lot of those games were D&D wannabes that could never quite grab us like D&D did.