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

[DND_Reborn]

Heck the average damage of red dragon's claw/claw/bite attack is 25 hit points of damage.

Sure, but without the right spells protecting you, that 11 HD large ancient red dragon has a 88 point breath weapon--even half of which at 44 kills your magic-user unless he has a CON of 15 or higher. And without that CON HP bonus, a 20th level magic-user would only average 37 HP.

Oh, and dragons weren't considered nearly as powerful (and were more common) than in later editions. Even in 2E, dragon damage jumped a lot due to their combat modifier IIRC.

 

[Demetrios1453]

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.

The 1989 computer game Pool of Radiance followed this exactly, starting 1st level magic-users at with detect magic, read magic, shield, and sleep.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Pool of Radiance

Loved the original, loved the remake (it was a bit buggy at times though).

 

[Alzrius]

There was also a maximum number of spells known per level; a MU with a 16 intelligence could only learn 11 spells of any given level. Period.

One tidbit that's worth noting was that, in the first volume of the Wizard's Spell Compendium for AD&D 2E (affiliate link), there was an optional rule that an Intelligence of 19 or higher would only allow a magic-user to know 24 spells per spell level (30 for an Intelligence of 20+, stating that only creatures of "quasi-divine" status or higher could learn more than that) rather than an unlimited number. Presumably it was put there so that the flood of new spells wouldn't be unbalancing for campaigns where a PC magic-user had managed to get a 19 or higher Int score.

 

[Alzrius]

Reversible spells were also an artifact of those older editions. While they've since fallen by the wayside, being able to cast a particular spell "backwards" in order to bring about its opposite effect allowed magic-users to learn a few extra spells, since (if I recall correctly) they didn't need to make a separate check to learn a spell's reverse, nor did the reverse of the spell take a listing as part of their maximum spells known per level. So if you'd learned haste you also got slow for free, although you could still only memorize one of those in a given spell slot.

Of course, for a lot of clerics, their deity would typically never give out the reversed form of spells (or, alternatively, only give those out), since they would often fly in the face of their religious portfolio. If you worshiped a sun deity, you could pretty well count on never being granted a darkness spell, which was the reverse of light.

 

[jasper]

And magic resistance was geared at 11 the level. So the formula today would be (Spell resistance DC - ( 11- caster level) .So DC 13 for first level - (11 -1 ) 13-10. Resistance is DC3 on flat D20 roll. The if the monster failed. He had to save as normal.

 

[DND_Reborn]

And magic resistance was geared at 11 the level. So the formula today would be (Spell resistance DC - ( 11- caster level) .So DC 13 for first level - (11 -1 ) 13-10. Resistance is DC3 on flat D20 roll. The if the monster failed. He had to save as normal.

I don't think this is accurate, though, is it? I mean, Yes, MR in AD&D was based on an 11th-level caster, but monsters all had variable amounts of MR (generally ranging from 30-75%). So, each monster would have its own base DC really.

So, I am not quite following your logic in the math. shrug Maybe another example?

 

[jasper]

I don't think this is accurate, though, is it? I mean, Yes, MR in AD&D was based on an 11th-level caster, but monsters all had variable amounts of MR (generally ranging from 30-75%). So, each monster would have its own base DC really.

So, I am not quite following your logic in the math. shrug Maybe another example?

I was trying to adjust it to 5E. Magic Resistance varied back then. Adjusted up or down 5% per level. So Orcus with 85% was untouchable by Magic if you under 8th level caster. I generally just did the % with out the math.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

With Gary Gygax, one has to try to square the two facts that 1 - he said that he didn't like wizards and never understood why anyone would play anything but a human fighter and 2 - that his most famous character is Mordenkainen, a human magic-user. How that ended up informing 1e design is certainly a complicated legacy.

Playing a magic-user in 1e was an arduous task. I did so once. In all the characters we made back then, numbering in about 15-20 or so in total, there were but three magic-users, none of which were considered our "mains." It just wasn't fun to crawl through those brutal early levels (though I would argue that in fact the thief had it the worst of all).

As for spell memorization time, one thing to keep in mind is that 1e was absolutely predicated on longer periods of downtime. One of the reasons people had multiple characters is that after an adventure, it could conceivable take weeks to month in-game to recover from your wounds, lacking magical healing.

 

[Ancalagon]

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

As someone who's been playing for 30 years... I agree. I like retro gaming, but I find that we have, well, learned things in the last several decades of RPG experiences, and we've found that some things don't work very well. Balancing races by max level limitations is a bad idea. Balancing classes by role-playing limitations is a bad idea. Balancing classes by "it will be weaker at low levels and better at high levels" is a bad idea. Making a class "the heal bot" is not fun and a bad idea. Making the "healer class" all powerful (COD-zilla) is a bad idea.

I don't know if 5e has "gotten it right" yet.... but I think it's better than previous editions (excluding 4e, which I am not qualified to comment).