D&D General TSR to WoTC shift--OR--the de-prioritization on Exploration spells/classes

[Mort]

I disagree. Again, sleep does not require a saving throw or attack roll.

Neither do any of the Power Words. Do they not break invisibility?

From what I remember of my 1e days, any spell USED as an attack broke invisibility - at least at our tables.

 

[Nikosandros]

Neither do any of the Power Words. Do they not break invisibility?

From what I remember of my 1e days, any spell USED as an attack broke invisibility - at least at our tables.

Yes, the power word spells are a great example of an obvious magical attacks. Saving throws have nothing to do with it...

 

[James Gasik]

I had thought this was addressed in a Sage Advice column, but after checking, apparently it wasn't until 3e that the term "attack" (for the purposes of invisibility) was rigorously defined. In AD&D, therefore, it looks like it was up to interpretation as to what counted as an attack spell. Likely, it was thought that the dictionary definition would be used, but the DM had a lot of leeway.

I, for one, would think that being magically put to sleep is an attack on my person, but since it doesn't seem to be clear, it comes down to how the DM rules it. That having been said, I'm pretty sure any of my DM's would rule against me playing an invisible Sandman wizard, lol.

 

[Mannahnin]

I had thought this was addressed in a Sage Advice column, but after checking, apparently it wasn't until 3e that the term "attack" (for the purposes of invisibility) was rigorously defined. In AD&D, therefore, it looks like it was up to interpretation as to what counted as an attack spell. Likely, it was thought that the dictionary definition would be used, but the DM had a lot of leeway.

I, for one, would think that being magically put to sleep is an attack on my person, but since it doesn't seem to be clear, it comes down to how the DM rules it. That having been said, I'm pretty sure any of my DM's would rule against me playing an invisible Sandman wizard, lol.

The quote Nikosandros found from Improved Invisibility seems pretty clear to me, especially alongside the language in Invisibility where it says "any form of attack".

Check also the description of improved invisibility: "This spell is similar to invisibility, but the recipient is able to attack, either by missile discharge, melee combat, or spell casting and remain unseen." It is quite obvious that any offensive spell will break invisibility. BTW, sleep is listed (quite naturally) as an offensive spell in the DMG.

 

[Mannahnin]

Bolded for emphasis. Also, both light and enlarge allow a saving throw in your scenarios (thus making it an attack spell) and sleep does not.

I can't go with that. As Mort reminded us, Power Word: Kill also doesn't allow a save... That can't reasonably be the determinative quality.

Spells
In TSR era D&D, utility spells were important, and often more important than combat spells. Most old school players knows how only a newbie Magic User takes Magic Missile at first level, the real powerful spell to take was either sleep or charm person. Spells like levitate, knock, teleport, invisibility, and dispel magic were very important. Sure, you also had combat spells, but crowd control was more important than DPR: hold person, sleep, stinking cloud, etc. If I were to make a guess, I'd say over 50% of your memorized spells were utility spells. Again, bypass monsters and traps (which there were a lot of), and get to the treasure.
In modern D&D, I'd say close to 75% of cast spells are combat encounter orientated. That's the style of play. Along with a philosophy of "every character should be able to overcome any challenge" (as opposed to how TSR emphasized a team niche aspect), there isn't as much of a need to spend your spells on exploration or utility spells--some other class has a power to help with that.

I do still largely agree that Sleep, despite definitely breaking Invisibility at any table I've been at, has useful non-"combat" applications in helping resolve situations or evade enemies without bloodshed. We're still mostly on the same side about this one.

I'd say the same about Charm Person or Charm Monster as well. They'd definitely count as offensive spells for the purposes of breaking Invisibility, but they're also great ways to avoid a fight or obtain information or something else without anyone dying.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I mentioned above how we won't ever have total agreement and that's OK, but you will never convince me that "it's a stretch to think sleep is more discreet than a fireball."

First you said it didn't list any sound, then you say a low roar (so that changed). A low roar is still a roar. And an explosion (it says that too) is still an explosion. I'm sorry, but I find it a bit silly to argue that sleep is not more discreet than a fireball.

I said that it didn't invoke any of the mechanical language that indicates a loud spell. I didn't say it doesn't list any sound. Just that it clearly isn't a loud spell as evidenced by the lack of mechanics associated with loud spells.

A low roar is what my furnace makes when it turns on. You can hear it if you're a few feet away, but not if you're in another room. In most circumstances, if you're in the same room as someone who is the victim of sleep, that's going to be quite obvious as well. Which is what I've been saying. In a lot of cases both sleep and fireball have a roughly similar level of discretion, and it doesn't matter which you use to disable the guards.

Regardless, my point has been and still is that sleep is not a non-combat spell. It's about as much a non-combat spell as the rogue sneaking up on someone and doing a non-lethal sneak attack to knock them unconscious. Which is obviously combat, even if the DM allows it to happen without rolling initiative.

In any case, I agree that it seems quite unlikely that we'll see eye to eye on this. I don't really care to keep going back and forth, so feel free to respond if you wish but don't take it amiss if I don't reply.

 

[Lanefan]

Given the high lethality/low durability of low levels in AD&D, strict by the book advancement in 2E is, IME, unacceptably slow.

For me it's a bit slow; but given a choice between that and 3e-4e-5e's insanely fast advancement, I'd take the 2e (or 1e without xp-for-gp) version every time.

Good catch, thanks. I was thinking of BECMI (which I started with), B/X (which I've played a bunch of during the pandemic), and post-Greyhawk OD&D (also played a bunch lately). Thieves get a d4 in these and it's another kick in the ribs for an already weak class. The d6 helps a little in AD&D, though due to their poor AC and the strict limitations on backstab, Thieves still rarely want to be in combat, and their poor skill percentages keep them cruddy outside combat too.

Thieves work best in non-static combats with lots of moving parts where they can backstrike in one round then move away, hide for the next round, come in and backstrike in the third round, etc. If a Thief gets into straight-up hand-to-hand melee then something's gone wrong.

Re: 4E making utility spells into rituals, I would say 4E temporarily reversed the power trend for casters, being the one edition in which casters and non-casters are inarguably well balanced. Yes, they weakened a lot of combat spells and watered down and weakened a lot of utility spells too, for example splitting Fly into two different spells- Fly and Overland Flight (IIRC). In combat everyone can be good, non-casters get lots of options and cool maneuvers and abilities, and casters don't make non-casters irrelevant at high levels. 4E was the first edition in which I ever enjoyed playing single classed Fighters.

Huh. Some of the best 1e characters I've had (including my namesake here) have been and still are single-class Fighters.

No, you're correct. But because of the geometric progression tables, they're still normally only 1 level ahead of other classes at most, sometimes not at all. And with their weak HD, terrible AC (until they get magic leather armor and protective items, the latter of which they will have to dicker with the magic users or other characters for), strict limitations on backstab, and terrible skill % chances, being one level ahead rarely matters.

Dicker with the MU or other characters? I've no idea what item you're talkng about. Never seen it. No sirree. Now, let's go adventuring, shall we?

he DSG is from 1985 (right?), and that Sage Advice was written for 2nd edition (1989). So 1E allowed for some limited climbing abilities for non-Thieves, then in 2E they seem to be aiming for more niche protection for the Thieves. But as I recall individual modules certainly were written to allow for "easy" climbs which any character could do.

I'm not sure where it came from (might even be right in the PH!) but Rangers - particularly outdoors - also had climbing ability and a few other things.

I agree with Sacrosanct generally on this fine-point dispute. You can certainly think of putting the guards or prey animal to sleep as engaging in combat with them, and it certainly breaks Invisibility, this fulfilling Lanefan's test. But it's a spell which also allows you to achieve goals without rolling initiative or killing anyone.

In your games, maybe. In mine it's exceedingly rare that the casting of Sleep is not soon followed by a localized epidemic of slit throats. Which makes sense in many situations, as if you leave the sleepers to waken naturally you're just going to have to deal with them again later at some point. "Never leave an enemy behind you" is a mantra that holds a fair degree of wisdom to it.

 

[Lanefan]

Invisibility is ruined if you cast any spell. So by your logic, light, goodberry, knock, wizard eye, etc are all combat spells.

That's a 5e thing, and IMO a dumb one. I'm thinking 1e, where invisibility was lost if you took any offensive action. Casting non-offensive spells like those was fine.

 

[Lanefan]

I said that it didn't invoke any of the mechanical language that indicates a loud spell. I didn't say it doesn't list any sound. Just that it clearly isn't a loud spell as evidenced by the lack of mechanics associated with loud spells.

Yeah, Fireball's not silent but it's also not an exploding bomb.

I've always had is as a dull roar or "whooshmp", enhanced a bit in confined spaces. Probably hear-able through a closed door, but that's about it.

A low roar is what my furnace makes when it turns on. You can hear it if you're a few feet away, but not if you're in another room.

Agreed; though as a Fireball probably packs a bit more punch that your furnace, the low roar would be a bit louder.

 

[Mannahnin]

For me it's a bit slow; but given a choice between that and 3e-4e-5e's insanely fast advancement, I'd take the 2e (or 1e without xp-for-gp) version every time.

This must have something to do with house rules you use for other XP sources and for greater survivability, too. For me, running TSR-era D&D the first few levels should only take 3-4 sessions to advance each, as Moldvay recommended in 1981. Slower than 5E, certainly, but if you're running pure BTB 2E, or 1E without gold for XP, you've got to be looking at more like 10-12 sessions per level, even to hit 2nd.

Thieves work best in non-static combats with lots of moving parts where they can backstrike in one round then move away, hide for the next round, come in and backstrike in the third round, etc. If a Thief gets into straight-up hand-to-hand melee then something's gone wrong.

So you've houseruled backstab to allow it multiple times in a single fight. That's certainly one way to help Thieves, albeit you don't take it as far as WotC.

Huh. Some of the best 1e characters I've had (including my namesake here) have been and still are single-class Fighters.

Yes. As I wrote, as I got more experience with the oldest editions in the last few years, Fighters have definitely grown on me.

Dicker with the MU or other characters? I've no idea what item you're talkng about. Never seen it. No sirree. Now, let's go adventuring, shall we?

If your character relies on having to steal from the party, as I'm sure I've seen you point out in other threads, you're asking for trouble.

In your games, maybe. In mine it's exceedingly rare that the casting of Sleep is not soon followed by a localized epidemic of slit throats. Which makes sense in many situations, as if you leave the sleepers to waken naturally you're just going to have to deal with them again later at some point. "Never leave an enemy behind you" is a mantra that holds a fair degree of wisdom to it.

Well, sure. But you seem to have lost track of the point of the discussion. That having the OPTION to leave guards alive and unharmed while you yoink a McGuffin or treasure or what have you (say, in a city adventure where you don't want to murder someone?) is often a really useful tool to have in the toolbox. Or to put down a Dominated party member without bloodshed. Or stop a bar fight in its tracks. Or capture the farmer's prized stallion. Etc. Sleep is a great tool for situations when you don't want people or animals dead.