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

[Hussar]

In first edition AC didn't help enough. If the MU stayed in combat and the DM was doing his job he was screwed. one point of damage spell over. at 10th level you probably had 35 hitpoints. Rangers and thieves could surprise and on a perfect roll get 3 full rounds of combat in before you got to react. Stoneskin in first edition was one combat round of attacks. It lasted until you were attacked. A woman in a bar slapping you used up the spell. Magic users in 1st edition were only powerful if they had a party to protect them. Take out the party Magic user was toast. seperate the magic user from the party, toast. Ambush him in the Inn by himself Toast. yes in 1st edition at high level you could have more magic items. Every failed save on a fireball, lightning bolt, dragon breath weapon etc required a save on every item not protected. and if you thought you were slick and put them all in a portable hole one failed save no more portable hole.

Stoneskin (Alteration)
Level: 4 Components: V; S, M
Range: Touch Casting Time: 1 segment
Duration: Special Saving Throw: None
Area of Effect: One creature
ExplanationlDescription: When this spell is cast, the affected creature
gains a virtual immunity to any attack by cut, blow, projectile or
the like. Thus, even a sword of sharpness would not affect a creature
protected by stoneskin, nor would a rock hurled by a giant, a snake’s
strike, etc. However, magic attacks from such spells as fireball, magic
missile, lightning bolt, and so forth would have normal effect. Any attack
or attack sequence from a single opponent dispels the dweomer,
although it makes the creature immune to that single attack or attack
sequence. Attacks with relatively soft weapons, such as a monk’s
hands, an ogrillon’s fist, etc, will inflict 1-2 points of damage on the attacker
for each such attack while the attacked creature is protected
by the stoneskin spell, but will not dispel the dweomer. The material
components of the spell are granite and diamond dust sprinkled on
the recipient’s skin.

AC didn't help enough? Bracers of Defence AC 2, Ring +3 Cloak +3 and a middling Dex and I've got a -6 AC. Most creatures need a 20 to hit me. And that was easily achievable in single digit levels in AD&D.

Oh, and with my now +6 on saving throws, yeah, I don't fail saving throws. Let's not forget, that +6 applies to my equipment as well. So, that aforementioned Staff of the Magi, needed an 11 to save vs fire - 9 with it's automatic +2 (why the lich didn't just absorb the fireball, I'm not sure), plus the lich's Magic Resistance. So, we needed to roll under a 6 for the Lich to fail it's save, then the staff needed to roll under a 9 to be destroyed by a fireball. And, that's assuming the lich did not have any rings of protection or cloaks. Or any defensive spells up. Or a simple ring of fire resistance.

Sure, it could happen, but, against a PC? Not likely. That 18th level PC would probably fail the fireball save on a 1 and the staff would fail on a 2. Not very likely.

And, let's be honest, any PC on his or her own was dead. Lone fighter is mulch. Single failed poison save and poof, dead fighter. Meanwhile, my lone MU is alone for about 1 round. That's the amount of time it takes to cast a Charm Person/Monster spell. And, again, this could easily last for days. Never minding Monster Summoning spells, Summon Elementals - oh, look, I can hit creatures that need +2 weapons to be hit. So on and so forth.

OTOH, was it 2e that changed Stoneskin to a number of attacks? I seem to recall it was something like a d4+something or other attacks that you were immune to. Was that 2e? But, the point you are forgetting is that I get a free round of actions where you can't hurt me. Fly away, teleport, heck, the simple Jump spell and I'm long gone. And, by the way, you should read that spell. If a Monk's fists don't break the spell, getting slapped in a bar won't either.

It always amazes me just how different people's experiences are with the game. Like I said earlier, if your MU is in combat, someone done screwed up. A lot. Why isn't your MU thirty feet behind the party with a wall of armored dudes in front? Do people just wade into combat with MU's?

 

[DND_Reborn]

It always amazes me just how different people's experiences are with the game.

Yep. Because if you had PCs with all this stuff....

Bracers of Defence AC 2, Ring +3 Cloak +3

...and it was...

easily achievable in single digit levels

...then we had very different experiences. While I agree those items might be available to an entire party (maybe...) I doubt one PC would get the benefit of all of them, at least IME.

As for your items gaining the bonus to saves, of course they did and against a fireball would have to make a 15 for the ring and a 17 for the cloak if you failed your save (granted, unlikely if you have both items on one PC!). Anyway, if you did fail your save, most likely one or both items are also destroyed.

And, let's be honest, any PC on his or her own was dead.

Yeah, that was very true, even more so than in 5E IMO.

if your MU is in combat, someone done screwed up. A lot. Why isn't your MU thirty feet behind the party with a wall of armored dudes in front? Do people just wade into combat with MU's?

Yep, I agree with this as well. The only way a MU should be on the front line would be if suddenly a second force moved in behind the party... where the MU should be.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

AC didn't help enough? Bracers of Defence AC 2, Ring +3 Cloak +3 and a middling Dex and I've got a -6 AC. Most creatures need a 20 to hit me. And that was easily achievable in single digit levels in AD&D.

Monty Haul, is that you?

Definitely not my experience of regularly seeing single digit AD&D characters with that kind of high end, very specific loot. IME more like Bracers AC 8, and a Ring +1 or +2.

 

[Helldritch]

Well, to find all these magic items would mean that you were higher than level 12, at least in my games and in no official adventures have I seen all these items reunited. More likely that you would have +1 ring, +1 cloak and bracers of AC 5. Give or take that one of the items might be better by +1 if you got lucky. And that is following the tables from the DMG. Bracers of AC 2 were extremely rare and +3 protection items were, well, hard to find in the extreme. That is when you were below level 12. At higher levels, it was a bit more easy to find them.

Yep, it really varied a lot with tables...

 

[jasper]

Shoot. Any time AC 2 (5e AC18) bracers were in the treasure hoard everyone fighter, thief, mu, cleric, druid, etc were rolling off for it, or trading for it.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

Shoot. Any time AC 2 (5e AC18) bracers were in the treasure hoard everyone fighter, thief, mu, cleric, druid, etc were rolling off for it, or trading for it.

Pretty much. The ring, cloak and bracers listed were all highly desirable. IME, if party found all three the Bracers AC2 would probably end up with the MU but the Ring and Cloak would be siresf our to other party members.

if there was a gaming group where all those items came to a MU before double digit levels, I’d expect that to be because the other magic loot in play fir other PCs was equally as good.

Which would bake that an atypical group. Nothing wrong with playing that way, but I don’t think the results of such extensive magic gear can be broadly applied to AD&D gaming as a whole.

 

[Helldritch]

Pretty much. The ring, cloak and bracers listed were all highly desirable. IME, if party found all three the Bracers AC2 would probably end up with the MU but the Ring and Cloak would be siresf our to other party members.

if there was a gaming group where all those items came to a MU before double digit levels, I’d expect that to be because the other magic loot in play fir other PCs was equally as good.

Which would bake that an atypical group. Nothing wrong with playing that way, but I don’t think the results of such extensive magic gear can be broadly applied to AD&D gaming as a whole.

I fully agree. I never saw all these items on one charcter before very high level. May be 16 or higher, at least... Seeing all this before level 12 would qualify as a Monty haul in my book. I have nothing against that type of play, but it was not the norm and certainly was not the thing you'd see at my table.

 

[nevin]

I just remembered in 1st edition you had to roll to learn a spell you found. I remember a game where a player of mine spent 10 levels trying to learn fireball and he started with a 16 intelligence to this day we joke and laugh about that char

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.

Illusionist could be the most powerful mage till you started messing with undead, dragons.and high level outerplanar creatures.

 

[nevin]

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.

You forgot that paladins were the ultimate against mages. 50%magic resistance vs mage of their level adjust up or down 5% per level difference. And that was a flat 50% chance it worked or not

 

[DND_Reborn]

You forgot that paladins were the ultimate against mages. 50%magic resistance vs mage of their level adjust up or down 5% per level difference. And that was a flat 50% chance it worked or not

With the requirements for Paladins, how many do you expect to be walking around? Especially high level ones...?