Shadowdark Finally Played Shadowdark

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

poorly designed character with a bad spell loadout

Probably if the convention game revolved around a lot of combat. That said, Shadowdark adventures generally shouldn't revolve around a lot of combat, especially when you have a magic user without a bunch of offensive spells. Did you try avoiding combat?

But heck, let me at least get one spell to work if I'm the darned wizard.

You should have 4 more spells that you can use beyond that one.

have to sit in the back for the rest of the adventure

This is what happens in old school games when you're not the fighter, regardless of what kind of spellcasting system the game uses. The back tends to be safer.

 

[Retreater]

Probably if the convention game revolved around a lot of combat. That said, Shadowdark adventures generally shouldn't revolve around a lot of combat, especially when you have a magic user without a bunch of offensive spells. Did you try avoiding combat?

We did not have the choice. We were beset by mindless giant insects with no advance warning and couldn't escape if we tried. It was run poorly.
But honestly, this "combat as fail state" opinion in the OSR is impractical. People are going to fight. It should be what the core mechanics of the system are designed to handle - everything else is GM fiat and you don't need the book anyway.

You should have 4 more spells that you can use beyond that one.

Nothing for combat. Not like I could take out the giant insects with a Light spell or Feather Fall.

This is what happens in old school games when you're not the fighter, regardless of what kind of spellcasting system the game uses. The back tends to be safer.

If Kelsey Dionne agreed with you, the wizard would be able to use ranged weapons.
But seriously, if you have a staff/dagger you have to get up to fight. (Sure, I guess you can technically throw your one dagger.)
Not even the common courtesy to have darts or a sling in the equipment section.

 

[Scribe]

Anyway, magic in SD is not just a 50/50 luck thing. You need an 11 to cast a 1st level spell. You'll probably have a +2 or +3, so that's an 8 or 9 needed for a successful cast. Magic Missile casts with advantage, so a good spell to take if you want something that'll be more dependable. Magic is definitely geared toward being more useful than not. It's just not fully reliable. And as players gain levels, the magic fails a lot less.

This is really it. If one builds a bad character, and yes picking "Wizard" with 11 Int is a bad idea, then you will have problems.

The reality is, odds are pretty good you will as noted here, be at +2 or +3.

 

[nevin]

Martials have always had to roll to attack. And hope the enemies roll badly to hit them in turn. Their success has always been a combination of strategy and luck.

Having roll to cast just means it's on more of the same playing field. A mix of strategy (when to deploy spells, when to use Luck tokens) and luck (roll good!).

You could argue that under a roll to cast system casters are more at the mercy of luck, because their spells can run out on any given day, but one could argue just as well that martials are in turn more at the mercy of luck in the form of enemy attack rolls, which casters receive fewer of.

Plus saving throws, plus sr,.plus touch attack rolls, plus limits on spells, I don't think it's the same thing especially when you make the magic unreliable. Now if you want to go to say 1e good hits and bad misses and make the martials have to ris sucking chest wound death I 1d4 combat wounds in a critical failure then Id say it's the same. But there's a huge difference between making your primary resource for impacting the game unreliable and a martial who can attack every round with no penalty other than a single hit/miss roll.

 

[nevin]

Consider a Fighter swinging their 1 attack in combat, and they have to still get a hit in.

It is the same.

Then there shouldn't be anymore limits on spells cast per day than melee swings per day. Otherwise there is a huge difference.

 

[Mannahnin]

A fighter isn't limited to 2 swings of a sword per day. A miss with a martial attack doesn't mean that your character is "spent" for the day.

No, but on average two hits from an enemy is enough to "spend" a first level fighter in an old school game. Either for the fight or just forever. The front line martials are more at the mercy of enemy rolls. The back line casters are more at the mercy of how successful their spells are.

But in practice the game should be more about making good decisions and testing your luck judiciously. If you just constantly push into combat you will almost certainly die. But that's true even of WotC editions (as you've apparently discovered, per your comment about all but one of your 5E games also ending in TPKs). Even if the rules and death conditions are more forgiving, if you continually push your luck eventually it runs out. It's just a question of how soon rather than whether.

Let me put it this way. I had a 3rd level SD wizard with one attack spell (pregenerated at a convention). I missed with my one attack spell on the 1st round of the first combat. The rest of the session, the only thing I could contribute in a fight was a dagger attack, which paired nicely with my single digit HP and AC 11.
Sure, that could've been a poorly designed character with a bad spell loadout. But heck, let me at least get one spell to work if I'm the darned wizard.

Assuming that game ran by the normal rules, you had five spells and a better than 50/50 chance to cast each one. Plus probably at least one Luck token for a re-roll.

Compare to any TSR edition, where you'd have three spells, and any offensive spells other than Sleep or Magic Missile would have a 25%-35% chance of failure (assuming the usual monsters you'd expect to see at low level) through the target making its save. And you would have zero ability to roll well and cast the spell again. Zero ability to roll a crit casting and get extra effects.

A 3rd ed Wizard would have three leveled spells plus four castings of their cantrips. But they have the same D4 HD as a Shadowdark Wizard, in a game where enemies do more damage.

A 5E Wizard would have six leveled spells plus unlimited castings of their cantrips. They get upgraded to a D6 HD, but again enemy damage has increased, so there's not much durability gain if any from higher HP. It's really just the more generous death rules that help them. And Shadowdark has more generous death rules than the TSR editions.

Just going by the math, the WotC editions give the Wizard a few more spells than Shadowdark (especially 5E giving unlimited cantrips), but Shadowdark casters have a couple of advantages WotC casters don't, and more magic than they do at the same level in any TSR version. So just looking at the black and white rules, it appears that Shadowdark casters are less powerful and durable than 5E casters, but comparable at low levels to 3E casters, and more powerful than equivalent-leveled TSR era casters.

 

[nevin]

Also the people saying it's the same keep ignoring that a spell failure can mean no more spells that day. Are we going to put the melee in the same rule. Every time you swing and miss you can throw your back out and be done till you get some rest?

 

[Mannahnin]

lus saving throws, plus sr,.plus touch attack rolls, plus limits on spells, I don't think it's the same thing especially when you make the magic unreliable.

No. You're conflating and confusing different things from several different editions now.

Remember that enemies DON'T get saving throws against Shadowdark casters. The roll to cast REPLACES saving throws and rolls to hit.

But there's a huge difference between making your primary resource for impacting the game unreliable and a martial who can attack every round with no penalty other than a single hit/miss roll.

You can play 4E if you want them to work more the same. But in practice the martials in D&D are more at the mercy of enemy attacks and running out of HP first, where the casters are more at the mercy of their spell limitations. That's the nature of the game. EVERYONE is subject to luck.

 

[nevin]

No. You're conflating and confusing different things from several different editions now.

Remember that enemies DON'T get saving throws against Shadowdark casters. The roll to cast REPLACES saving throws and rolls to hit.


You can play 4E if you want them to work more the same. But in practice the martials in D&D are more at the mercy of enemy attacks and running out of HP first, where the casters are more at the mercy of their spell limitations. That's the nature of the game. EVERYONE is subject to luck.

Ok fair enough. But can a melee burn out for the day if they fail?

 

[Scribe]

Then there shouldn't be anymore limits on spells cast per day than melee swings per day. Otherwise there is a huge difference.

Melee has to be in Melee. That is a penalty in and of itself.

It's within the realm of possibility that a Wizard casts all day with 0 issues.