D&D 5E 5e fireballs

[JRRNeiklot]

Additionally, mages had a lot of weaknesses in 1e. If you want spells like a 1e fireball, you should be willing to accept the 1e drawbacks that balanced them. These include:

-Wizards had the highest xp requirements of any class.

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

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

-Any damage would automatically waste the 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.

-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.

-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.

-They couldn't wear armor at all.

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

-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).

-Spell resistance was a flat percentage, unlike 3e. Many high level creatures were practically impervious to magical attack. And let's not forget that you were completely boned in an anti-magic field.

Yes to all of this. I'd love to see ALL of the above or something similar in 5e. I have a fighter/mage with an 11 int in a 1e game. He failed to learn both fireball and lightning bolt. But if his int ever changes, he can try again to learn every spell he failed to learn.

 

[Hussar]

-Wizards had the highest xp requirements of any class.

Funny how when people aren't criticizing an edition, factual stuff like this gets a pass. :/

I would point out that this isn't actually correct. Wizards xp flattens a LOT after about 6th level. To the point, by about 9th or 10th, they actually need almost the least xp/level (second to thieves). And, at no point does a wizard need more than a paladin for xp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Cook loves Wizards. See 3.5. See the classes he joke to be overpowered in 5e (Wizards, Locks, Assassins).

er... Monte left before 3.5 was produced, so he didnt have a hand in it.

And he jokes about wizards, warlocks and assassins should be overpowered in 5e because those were the three favourite classes the panellists chose. You know, a joke!

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

Funny how when people aren't criticizing an edition, factual stuff like this gets a pass. :/

I would point out that this isn't actually correct. Wizards xp flattens a LOT after about 6th level. To the point, by about 9th or 10th, they actually need almost the least xp/level (second to thieves). And, at no point does a wizard need more than a paladin for xp.

I was about to point this out too - people tend to look at the higher cost for 2nd level, and the higher cost after name level and gloss over the middle - but the irrational xp advancement charts from the early editions make it easier for them to advance just as they start to really hit their stride!

pretty weird really, eh?

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, it was always kinda strange. The MU sort of struggled, struggled, struggled, then ZOOOM! 5th to about 9th or 10th (which is where they really hit stride) and they're jacking up levels like it's Nascar.

Also gets a bit wonky because I think most groups tended to end campaigns around name level as well. So it really became visible.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

So 12 dmg per round or 4 ... pretty safe to say WITHOUT speculation, HP have been scaled back.

I think so. And thank heavens.

Also if 5d6 is calculated as dealing 20 dmg ... the fighters round by round damage is probably being worked out as something close to 2d6+4. Wizards 4 dmg? 1d8?

The fighter may have a style feat or power attack built into it, and maybe the wizard is two 1d4 magic missiles?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

You know, a joke!

But this is speculation! It's serious business! Jokes are to be stripped of context in the parsing of meaning. 'Cause that's how we roll.

 

[Phaezen]

Yeah, it was always kinda strange. The MU sort of struggled, struggled, struggled, then ZOOOM! 5th to about 9th or 10th (which is where they really hit stride) and they're jacking up levels like it's Nascar.

Also gets a bit wonky because I think most groups tended to end campaigns around name level as well. So it really became visible.

MU is nowhere near as wonky as the druid in 2nd ed though - lowext xp total needed for level 12 but then over the next 3 levels everyone but the mage and paladin/ranger hit level 20.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Funny how when people aren't criticizing an edition, factual stuff like this gets a pass. :/

I would point out that this isn't actually correct. Wizards xp flattens a LOT after about 6th level. To the point, by about 9th or 10th, they actually need almost the least xp/level (second to thieves). And, at no point does a wizard need more than a paladin for xp.

Fair enough; that should have been "Wizards had very high xp requirements for the first several levels." It is nonetheless relevant, however, as wizards take longer than any of the other classes to come into their own. Until he amassed 2,501 xp, the wizard could cast 1 spell per day and had only 1-4 hp (and no armor). They were incredibly delicate early on.

I was aware that the other classes (except thief) eventually overtake wizards in xp requirements, though I overlooked the fact that 1e paladins actually have higher xp requirements throughout (not the case in 2e).

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes to all of this. I'd love to see ALL of the above or something similar in 5e. I have a fighter/mage with an 11 int in a 1e game. He failed to learn both fireball and lightning bolt. But if his int ever changes, he can try again to learn every spell he failed to learn.

Hmmm... I wonder how many players share your outlook? (That's not rhetorical btw, I think I'll set up a poll.)

This is tricky. I'm having a hard time imagining a solution that would satisfy both your preference and other play styles.

Most people I knew house-ruled their way around at least some of those restrictions, because they didn't like them, which obviously tended to create balance issues. As such, my experience is with those who like powerful wizards, but don't want to deal with all of the balancing restrictions. Clearly, that doesn't apply to you.

Going back to this style without giving players a means to opt-out (other than simply not playing a wizard) would probably alienate a lot of people, which is rather antithetical for the "unifying edition". Of course, abandoning it entirely sounds like it will alienate anyone who shares your views.