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

[Shiroiken]

RAW 1E life for a MU was brutal and often very, very short. You started with 4 spells (IIRC) in your spellbook, three chosen by either dice or the DM, and had to choose exactly which one you wanted each day. This joy lasted until you got more experience than any other PHB class required (except Paladin?), then you got to prepare TWO of them! This assumes you didn't die a horrible death first, which was not only common for all 1E characters, but you also had the lowest HD too. IME most parties had one of two views on low level MU's: "keep them around, because they'll be amazingly useful some day" or "I push the MU at the monster and run."

 

[CubicsRube]

I would play a wizard in 5e where you rolled randomly for what spells you learned. However I don't imagine many would.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes, to clarify, you started with 4 spells (one offensive, one defensive, one "extra, and read magic). You rolled randomly, on a 10 you could choose from the other 9.

When Unearthed Arcana came out, you also had a dozen or so cantrips but they were minor utility and you had to sack a level 1 spell slot to memorize 4 cantrips for the day.

1E magic-users had some benefits in that spell ranges and durations automatically scaled with class level. They also had more spells they could cast in 1E starting at 11th level, compared to 5E anyway. At the extreme, a 20th level 1E magic-user could cast 34 spells, while a 5E 20th level wizard can only cast 22 (of course with arcane recovery they get more).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Something like a DC 15 + spell level intelligence check in order to learn. Once you have chosen and arcane focus you may add your proficiency to learning spells from your school.

I've toyed around with something similar myself, but if you want it all comparable to 1E you don't want a 50/50 chance for learning 1st level spells, etc.

Also, it should be a spellcasting check (so the PC can add proficiency modifier) instead of just an Intelligence check, unless you want it to be harder to learn spells, which you might... shrug For "school-specific" spells, I would double the proficiency bonus.

Here is some math for it:

With DC 15 + spell level:

With DC 10 + spell level

Since 65% was more typical in 1E, a DC 10 + spell level Intelligence (spellcasting) check works better IMO anyway.

Also, here is the DC 10 + spell level with double proficiency for "school-specific" spells:

So, specialty spells would be very likely to learn.

 

[Ancalagon]

Other problem 1e wizards had was that monsters at higher levels got really good at saving throws...

Not to mention magic resistance! There were a lot of monsters where the only answers were either "fighter with + weapons" or diplomacy/avoidance

 

[Ancalagon]

I think that 3e attempted to remove the "fussiness" of being a caster and all the frustrating limitations. (yes, some of us enjoy a challenge but... some don't). BUUUT they remained just as powerful (or more, with more HP from con, more spell slots...) so as a result the 3e spell-casters are immensely powerful (and the spellcasters became more accessible, in theory).

5e's toning down of the casters was very, very necessary and makes for a better game. The "at will" cantrips almost seem like throwing them a bone so they aren't too upset (or are duplication of the 4e at will powers). (I know that PF has those at will cantrips, but they are very weak, doing like 1d3 dmg vs the more respectable damage of 5e cantrips).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Other problem 1e wizards had was that monsters at higher levels got really good at saving throws...

And for good reason. In 3e your wizard was not only quadratic, but cubic if you look closely.
You did not only get better spells levels. They also did more damage with levels and your saving throw difficulty went upwards. So for damage spells that growth was cubic in a way.
In 2e you got better spell levels. Your spells did more damage but there was no such thing like saving throw DC or spellcasting check to overcome spell resistace, but all that was mitigated by the fact that enemy spell resistance went up and saving throws went down (which was also good).
So your power increased more or less linear and in many cases in high level fights you either had to buff your fighter or find a way around spell resistance.
Another thing was magic items btw. Many items could not be used by all classes and fighters were very good at utilizing them. So while the wizard grew more power with spells, the fighter grew with their magic items that let him fly, teleport, become invisible and so on.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And where do you expect this to lead? This isn't how 5e works, you couldn't just cobble it on an have a functioning game. Saving throws for example - that would mean fundamentally changing all monsters, which would have a knock on effect on every class in the game, not just wizards. And that is before you get to asymmetric experience!

The easiest way to implement 1st edition spellcasting is to play with 1st edition rules.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

Generally, "balancing" things by making them frustrating and not fun, yet optimal is very poor game design in the 21st century.

 

[dave2008]

... 18th level MU, who can now bend reality to your will and finally can cast a ninth level spell. You'd probably have under 40hp. Most monsters and martial characters could easily kill you in one round.

Wait what? I stopped reading here, because it seems like you haven't paged through your 1e MM in a while. Most 1e monsters cannot can cause 40 hp damage in one round, and even fewer with standard attacks. Heck the average damage of red dragon's claw/claw/bite attack is 25 hit points of damage.