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

[Cadence]

Honest question - how many times have you had a player hit the level cap on a demihuman character and then keep happily playing along with no possible chance to advance or gain hp? Because I find this scenario really, really hard to wrap my head around.

I have plenty of firsthand experiences of playing demihumans in various 1E games. Generally, the level limits were rarely an issue because, as we almost always started at 1st level, most games were done well before anyone came to a level restriction.

In the handful of cases where this actually happened (I.e. hit the level cap), tge level cap rule was always house ruled away to maintain peace at the table.

I had an Elven cleric (allowed to use the NPC level cap) who I was fully planning to retire at the end of the last night when he hit 7th level, because it never occurred to me to keep playing him after that point.

Then the Lich showed up. :-/

 

[DND_Reborn]

I had an Elven cleric (allowed to use the NPC level cap) who I was fully planning to retire at the end of the last night when he hit 7th level, because it never occurred to me to keep playing him after that point.

Then the Lich showed up. :-/

I wasn't sure whether to give you or a or just a like... Take comfort in knowing all three responses are applicable.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

I had an Elven cleric (allowed to use the NPC level cap) who I was fully planning to retire at the end of the last night, because it never occurred to me to play it after that point.

Then the Lich showed up. :-/

That’s actually another good reason the level cap was rarely a point of discussion - we went through a LOT of characters.

I remember a couple of times during various summer sessions when we planned on “epic” games of 1E (basically we had all arranged to bounce from house to house daily over a week when everyone was home), making certain someone’s parents could run off extra blank character sheet photocopies ahead of time.

 

[Cadence]

That’s actually another good reason the level cap was rarely a point of discussion - we went through a LOT of characters.

It was a rarity to make it beyond 1st level, but then things usually got a bit easier.

I wasn't sure whether to give you or a or just a like... Take comfort in knowing all three responses are applicable.

IIrc, I had to go home for bed-time and missed the big final battle of the dungeon (run at the local book/record/comic/game store). My friend finished the night for my character and I think he reported that a vampire touched me, before the Lich teleported away from the high level Paladin and Magic-User in the front and let a 20 die bolt off against the back tier of the party who were fighting the minions. Maybe it was for the best that I was home brushing my teeth or whatnot when it got to that point!

 

[Helldritch]

I’m not quite sure if the logic train here. I don’t understand how changes to the MU from 1st to 3rd are related to Clerics/Druids?

Also, I disagree with what wgat I think I read as indication that D&D went from something “balanced” at 1st level to unbalanced in 3rd?

I don’t think 1e, 2e or anything flavor of 3e were ever “balanced”.

4E may very well have shown what a highly “balanced” rule set would be, but it was about as interesting as unseasoned gruel.
I have no idea about 5E, but it’s clearly a popular ruleset.

Let me explain in more details.
1ed was extremely well balanced because it was not balanced! Paradoxal, yes. But true nonetheless. Unfortunately, the "big" picture was lost at some point.

With all limitations put on the casters. Martial classes were strong in the beginning but declined as they rose in levels in favors of casters.
Casters were weak in the beginning (obviously) but got really powerful spells as they rose in levels. Yet, this was balanced again for long casting times. Everything was either check and counter check against the fighter and the thief.
Even the stats were a balancing factor. Only fighter type could hope for +3hp/hd or more con bonus. Other classes were limited to +2.
This limited the hp of casters so that it was possible for a martial character or a thief to slay a caster in one round. If the character could get to the caster.

Weapon speed factor and damage vs large opponents were important. As a they would give each weapon a different use and feel. The mighty two handed sword would do 3d6 dmg vs a large opponent but was slow as hell. Almost useless to stop a caster. But against a giant, a dragon or anything bigger than a man, ho boy was it unbeatable. The long sword was faster but did less damage. The middle ground was the bastard sword but finding one that was magical was not an easy task.

The goal was to do a lot of damage early against large opponent and to stop casters from casting. The rogue, when unseen, could get to the caster but it might take a few critical rounds. But once in place, 5x the damage of a +3 dagger/short sword with gauntlets of ogre strength would make sure that the caster would die in one hit. Fast weapons were used against casters to prevent them from casting. And the ultimate mage killer was... the monk. The only character that was fast enough to get to the casters, make zounds of attacks at 8d4 each... and each of those could stun or kill any target outright if the save was not made. Bless spells, chants and prayers were particularly effective on monks. But monks had relatively low hp and had to fight to rise in levels.

Everything was playtested and balanced for the long run. The stronger you were from the start, the slower was your power curve as you rose in levels. And the reverse was true. The weaker you were at the start, the faster your power curve. There were a few exceptions:

Paladins were balanced with their stat requirements. It was hard to make one. Again, by just allowing someone to make a paladin and give him the missing stat (usually charisma), it led to all kinds of abuses and to the ultimate paladin nerf: The Lawful Stupid.

Monks were also a bit balanced but really got strong around level 7. It was also at this level that they had to fight their way through. Their stat requirements were also a limiting factor but when a monk was in the party, I knew that enemy casters were done for.

Ranger were less affected by stat requirements but these requirements made them a bit hard to come by. Their strength was against humanoids and giants and it showed.

The real gem was the druids. Although the requirements were not as harsh as the paladin, their versatility was almost stupid. Druids were good everywhere even in caves and dungeons. Of course they had to carry mistletoe and seeds for many of their spells but it was often worth it. At high level it was almost impossible to kill one in a forest. Their main limiting factor was the fact that they had to fight to get to high level.


Again unfortunately, the "big" picture was lost at some point. As new players go around, the reasons why such thing were decided were forgotten. Never at my table have I heard that 1ed was not balanced. It was, but not from the start. It was understood that each classes would be better depending on the level they were at. But new players wanted to be as strong as anyone else from the start. 2nd edition was just a toned downed version of 1ed and many old players did not bothered with it. jBut it was a "popular" enough edition to keep the hobby alive and evolving. It did away with some of the harsh restrictions of 1ed but not all. The Lawful Stupid of 1ed was still a thing but since the paladin was not that restrictive, it slowly went away (at least, I saw a lot less lawful stupid in 2nd edtion than in 1ed).

3.xed was the first edition in which just about everyone was relatively on par from the beginning. It was not a perfect balance but it was a beginning. Relatively sooning, it proved to be but a wall of smoke as it was discovered the power of casters were unchecked for the first time in D&D. The arrival of the 5mwd and the Codzila created a lot of dissent. From level 7 and up, martial classes were there only so that the casters could do their stuff. The higher the level, the stronger this effect was. Enough that a new edition came relatively fast (3.5) and it didn't correct the problem. Pathfinder tried to correct it too but the success was, underwhelming?

4ed was the edition every "balance from the start" players dreamt of. Unfortunately, it was not well received. Although I was a fan, the edition suffered from the: "all things must be balanced" and it felt too MMORPG for a lot of people. But it had really good ideas and some of the best ideas of 4ed carried over to 5ed.

5ed is a throw back to 1ed with a bit of 4ed mixed in. Again, balance is now relative but in the long run, no classes outshine the others. 5ed does have its own problems but the limitations that have been put serve their purposes as they were intended.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Oh yeah, 5e rogues are so fun and varied. The mastermind is probably one of my favorite subclasses.

I didn't do much with rogues in 3e I must admit, but the 5e rogue is so nice. When making a PC I often try to "plug gaps" - much more comfortable to do so now. Their capacity to get themselves out of trouble is very nice.

But, going back to the 1e discussion, I'd like to point out the differing XP scales for earning levels. Until UA came along, the only class with higher leveling costs than the M-U was the paladin. Weirdly, the illusionist is slightly faster than the regular M-U.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But, going back to the 1e discussion, I'd like to point out the differing XP scales for earning levels. Until UA came along, the only class with higher leveling costs than the M-U was the paladin. Weirdly, the illusionist is slightly faster than the regular M-U.

Nothing weird about the Illusionist. Speaking as someone who loved that class .... it sucked. Hardcore. At best, it was fun with cool illusion spells. At worst, it was an off-brand Magic User with more limitations, worse spells, a minimum requirement of 16 dex (!!!! c'mon!!!!!), and no real advantages.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

The utility of the illusionist is entirely dependent on the creativity of the player and constrained by how good and fair the DM is at adjudicating the rules of the spells. A person's high level illusionist can be completely nerfed by how a DM conducts the game in a way that's not really the case for any other class. I like the class quite a bit, but there are plenty of DMs that don't.

Nothing weird about the Illusionist. Speaking as someone who loved that class .... it sucked. Hardcore. At best, it was fun with cool illusion spells. At worst, it was an off-brand Magic User with more limitations, worse spells, a minimum requirement of 16 dex (!!!! c'mon!!!!!), and no real advantages.

 

[Musing Mage]

Honest question - how many times have you had a player hit the level cap on a demihuman character and then keep happily playing along with no possible chance to advance or gain hp? Because I find this scenario really, really hard to wrap my head around.

I have plenty of firsthand experiences of playing demihumans in various 1E games. Generally, the level limits were rarely an issue because, as we almost always started at 1st level, most games were done well before anyone came to a level restriction.

In the handful of cases where this actually happened (I.e. hit the level cap), tge level cap rule was always house ruled away to maintain peace at the table.

It has really only happened once where a player reached the cap and stopped playing the character. He was running a single classed elven fighter, and made 5th level. The level cap didn't phase him but he wasn't having fun with a squishy archer and wanted a burly melee fighter so retired him and went with a half-orc.

It's also not like I'd hit players with a 'gotcha' when they reach their level caps. I make sure they understand at character generation what the limitations and perks are, and they can decide whether or not they want to go that route.

My campaign is an ongoing sandbox, not a limited series with a predetermined end, so most players make characters with the long term in mind. No one's making a single-classed halfling fighter with a level 4 cut-off.

I think it certainly helps if players understand the why of the restriction, and make the best out of the perks.

I can see level limits being frustrating if levels were being gained at a rate they do in 5e, and you've reached them after 4 games... but 1e is a slower burn as well. It took 4 years of play for our single-classed wizard to reach 7th level. He was human, but even if he were elven he'd still have two levels to go before reaching an elf's base cap for being a wizard, which even at a rate of a session every three weeks or so (our pre-COVID average) would probably be another couple of years.

 

[Helldritch]

The utility of the illusionist is entirely dependent on the creativity of the player and constrained by how good and fair the DM is at adjudicating the rules of the spells. A person's high level illusionist can be completely nerfed by how a DM conducts the game in a way that's not really the case for any other class. I like the class quite a bit, but there were plenty of DMs that don't.

Illusions were deadly in the hands of the right players. If the DM was "fair" as you imply, the illusionnist was simply and purely deadly. The only real weakness of the illusionnist were undead, mind affected immune monsters (which were not that many) and constructs. But the illusionnist could use any items that the wizard could so a good illusionnist would take wands and staves as needed to be able to act when facing illusion immune monsters.