D&D General Nerfing Wizards the Old Fashioned Way: Magic User in 1e

[Sepulchrave II]

Sometimes a rebuttal to D&D having "Vancian" casting is offered in that Vance's wizards could only memorize a few spells - "four of the greater, or six of the lesser" if memory serves.

An 18th level MU who memorizes, say, time stop, trap the soul, maze and duo-dimension will spend 8 hours in preparation; 1E actually fits the Vancian model pretty perfectly. Magic Users need wands, staves and miscellaneous magic items to stay viable in 1E.

 

[CleverNickName]

Magic Users need wands, staves and miscellaneous magic items to stay viable in 1E.

This is still pretty much true for 5E warlocks and sorcerers. (Wizards and bards, not so much.)

 

[Lanefan]

Why would you put rings or cloaks on the fighters? They don't stack with magic armor. Maybe the thief. Bracers AC 2 for the fighter? Why? Platemail was just as good and by that time, he probably had plate +2 and a +2 or 3 shield. Never minding Full Plate (Unearthed Arcana) which comes with an AC 2.

If one's DM was a stickler about encumbrance and carrying capacity - or if one wanted to play a more stealthy-type warrior - going from heavy armour to bracers-ring and getting that 50-odd pounds of carry-cap back could be a big deal.

 

[Lanefan]

And, while all these house rules are cool and all, I thought we were discussing AD&D, not your home game. Wands don't explode if they are broken. There was nothing in the rules for that.

Actually yes there was, though I forget which book (PH or DMG). The term was 'retributive strike', where one could intentionally break a wand and generate a rather colossal >boom< with it (almost certainly killing oneself in the process, this was very much go-out-with-a-bang); and from there it's only reasonable to project that idea out to including unintentional breakage...

Necklaces of missiles also had risks attached.

As far as being ambushed or surrounded in an open field, yup, that means that someone done screwed the pooch there. No NPC outriders scouting your flanks? No dogs? No elves in the party? No rangers? Just how often are your AD&D parties getting surprised?

We rarely if ever have outriders, and pets of any kind aren't taken out into the field because all they'd do is die there; and PCs like their pets.

Elves and Rangers can be surprised - as can Monks - just not as often. Even then, not being surprised (in a game mechanics sense) and thus able to act in the first round doesn't necessarily mean you're not surrounded.

I dunno. When we played AD&D, we'd have 6-8 PC's, probably that many NPC henchmen and easily double that number in various other goodies - dogs, charmed stuff, animated dead depending on our alignment, and that's of course ignoring the umpteen other things you can do.

We usually have the 6-8 PCs but rarely if ever all the other stuff. Henches are surprisingly unpopular (probably because they expect to be paid), and animating dead is an instant argument generator in most parties (never mind that skeletons and zombies aren't exactly the best lookouts).

 

[Lanefan]

You are both wrong and right. It's not the amount of magic items you mention that brought the Mounty haul mention, but the fact that these items were on one character of a single digit. A +1 ring might not stack with magical armor but would definitely stack with a non magical one. Faced with the choice of a +2 chain mail or plate with a +1 ring, a fighter would always choose the later. The chances to get a magical plate were low but magical shields were more common.

Protection rings don't stack with magical shields either, if memory serves.

Yes the limitations of paladins on magical items was a harsh one. It meant that the paladin had no back up to rely on. The party fighter might have 3 +1 swords, 2 magical armors and 3 magical shields as backup if he lost his +2 long sword, +2 chain mail and +2 shield. The paladin, if push came to shove, was stuck with normal, non magical items.

IME the restriction isn't felt in the lack of backup weapons etc. but the inability to load up on minor potions and-or non-combat magics e.g. rope of climbing or ring of water-walk. Magic armour, magic shield, three magic weapons, maybe a backup set of armour (if you've a hench to carry it for you!) leaves you four slots for all other magic...which would include any magic helms, gauntlets, etc. you happened to find.

 

[Lanefan]

Keep on the border land was basic.

Most of us, me included, saw Basic and 1e as almost completely interchangeable, particularly when it came to adventure modules.

Also, there's a fair bit of magic in the 'true' 1e modules e.g. the A-series, G-series, S-1 (I can really speak to S-1; I'm running it right now and yeah, its a rich module!), and so forth. The expectation is that some of it won't be found.

KotB's amount of magic more or less fits right in with what I'm used to.

 

[Helldritch]

Actually yes there was, though I forget which book (PH or DMG). The term was 'retributive strike', where one could intentionally break a wand and generate a rather colossal >boom< with it (almost certainly killing oneself in the process, this was very much go-out-with-a-bang); and from there it's only reasonable to project that idea out to including unintentional breakage...

Only the staff of power and staff of the magi had the retributive strike ability. Of the other "charged" items, you are right. Only the necklace of missiles had risks attached to it.

Protection rings don't stack with magical shields either, if memory serves.

They do. But remember that in 1ed, shields were good only for 3 attacks, not 3 opponents (large shields), 2 attacks for medium shields and only one attack for bucklers. Ring would not stack but could over ride an existing armor magical bonus.

IME the restriction isn't felt in the lack of backup weapons etc. but the inability to load up on minor potions and-or non-combat magics e.g. rope of climbing or ring of water-walk. Magic armour, magic shield, three magic weapons, maybe a backup set of armour (if you've a hench to carry it for you!) leaves you four slots for all other magic...which would include any magic helms, gauntlets, etc. you happened to find.

It was not only 10 magical items but they were also specified: 1 Armor, 1 shield, 4 weapons and 4 others. Meaning that if you wanted a potion, you were down to 3 others... A lot harsher than what you make it seems. At least, munitions were counting as 1, no matter how many arrows/bolts you had.

Most of us, me included, saw Basic and 1e as almost completely interchangeable, particularly when it came to adventure modules.

Not us/me. Although the adventures of basic could be used by advanced as they were written, the reverse was not true. I would adapt basic "modules" for AD&D. (especially the NPCs).

Also, there's a fair bit of magic in the 'true' 1e modules e.g. the A-series, G-series, S-1 (I can really speak to S-1; I'm running it right now and yeah, its a rich module!), and so forth. The expectation is that some of it won't be found.

KotB's amount of magic more or less fits right in with what I'm used to.

You're absolutely right. It was assumed that you would not find all of them.

 

[Hussar]

Actually yes there was, though I forget which book (PH or DMG). The term was 'retributive strike', where one could intentionally break a wand and generate a rather colossal >boom< with it (almost certainly killing oneself in the process, this was very much go-out-with-a-bang); and from there it's only reasonable to project that idea out to including unintentional breakage...

Necklaces of missiles also had risks attached.

We rarely if ever have outriders, and pets of any kind aren't taken out into the field because all they'd do is die there; and PCs like their pets.

Elves and Rangers can be surprised - as can Monks - just not as often. Even then, not being surprised (in a game mechanics sense) and thus able to act in the first round doesn't necessarily mean you're not surrounded.

We usually have the 6-8 PCs but rarely if ever all the other stuff. Henches are surprisingly unpopular (probably because they expect to be paid), and animating dead is an instant argument generator in most parties (never mind that skeletons and zombies aren't exactly the best lookouts).

Retributive strike was an effect of Staff of Power or Staff of the Magi only. It did not apply to wands.

And, again, that's been my point all the way along here. Outriders and pets were pretty much SOP in any group I played in for years. I was actually quite shocked once I moved away from home and started playing with strangers that people didn't use them.

But, when people are making blanket statements about "the way the game was", they're ignoring the fact that the game didn't have to be the way they played. When I said that Temple of Elemental Evil had over FIFTY magic items, that was by the time you had completed the second dungeon level. Not even the nodes. For reference, I hightly, HIGHLY recommend reading: Treasure and leveling comparisons: AD&D1, B/ED&D, and D&D3 - updated 11-17-08 (Q1). @Quasqueton nicely lists out all the magic items that were possible to retrieve in the modules.

So, when you talk about how 1e "nerfed" MU's, it really does depend so heavily on the group. In a group which screwed over it's MU's by not giving them the best protection items (giving rings of protection to the fighter? Seriously?), didn't take advantage of hirelings/henchmen, and the amount of magical loot that was found by the group, would radically alter the experience of an MU in the group. For us, most of the issues you guys have listed were not serious issues. The MU often had the best or second best AC in the group by higher levels. Certainly the best saving throws. Best protection and whatnot. Survivabilty? MU's almost always the last to die in our groups.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As an aside (and not a comment directed at anyone in particular) I just had a chuckle. For decades I’ve seen arguments how fighters got screwed in AD&D because they are so dependent on magic items while MUs can cast reality bending magic, and now when I see folks point out how MUs often got screwed, the reply is “no they aren’t if they get all these magic items!”

Maybe 1e was more balanced than people give it credit....

 

[MichaelSomething]

You can nerf magic the 4E way by making them rituals! Making overpowered take an hour to cast and costing them hundreds of gold will bring them down the power scale..