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

[Paul Farquhar]

What's the point of your comment? Why do you seem to be both condescending and rude in response to a perfectly reasonable post I made? Seriously, don't you have basic good manners?

I wasn't responding to you directly. I'm just puzzled about the purpose of this thread. I asked earlier about how this is relevant to 5e and go no answer.

The title of the thread is misleading - obviously 1st edition did not "nerf" wizards.

If the purpose is simply to inform people who never played 1st edition what wizards (MUs) where like, then that would make sense, but it's not what the title says.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm just puzzled about the purpose of this thread.

My take was exploring how 1E balanced the power of MUs (aka nerfing) over the course of the game. 5E (and other editions) balanced casters (especially MUs/Wizards) differently.

Many of us (myself included) have sought out ways to use the 5E framework, but make the experience more like AD&D. Getting rid of things like concentration, but adding instead spell disruption via actual casting times (instead of 1 action, etc.), change to learn spells (instead of automatically getting 2 freebies per level), etc.

So, the title, (and the first bit of the OP) is about what rules were in place to keep MUs balanced in power (very low HP, spell disruption, more complex components, lengthy memorization times, requiring multiple memorization uses for multiple castings, etc.).

That's what I got out of it anyway.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My take was exploring how 1E balanced the power of MUs (aka nerfing) over the course of the game. 5E (and other editions) balanced casters (especially MUs/Wizards) differently.

Many of us (myself included) have sought out ways to use the 5E framework, but make the experience more like AD&D. Getting rid of things like concentration, but adding instead spell disruption via actual casting times (instead of 1 action, etc.), change to learn spells (instead of automatically getting 2 freebies per level), etc.

So, the title, (and the first bit of the OP) is about what rules were in place to keep MUs balanced in power (very low HP, spell disruption, more complex components, lengthy memorization times, requiring multiple memorization uses for multiple castings, etc.).

That's what I got out of it anyway.

The trick to balancing 1st edition was that nothing was remotely balanced at all!

But it's not useful to say "spell interruption would be better than concentration in 5e" unless you address how it could be made to work in 5e. Interruption made it through three editions, but it was eventually dropped to simplify timing. If you wanted to bring it back you would probably need to also bring back segments, casting time, weapon speed factors, overlapping turns, etc.

Speaking as someone who actually played a lot of 1st edition, casting times and speed factors where something we quickly dropped as making combat too slow and complicated, and as a result interruption rarely happened.

It works quite well in Baldur's Gate, but that is because the computer is keeping track of all the timings. You might come up with some "hybrid" D&D system, using a computer to keep track of the timings, but otherwise I think there is a need to go back to the drawing board to come up with an interrupt system that actually works and is fun.

It's easy to say "this is how it worked in 1e", but the reality was, it didn't work, and it wasn't fun.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My take was exploring how 1E balanced the power of MUs (aka nerfing) over the course of the game. 5E (and other editions) balanced casters (especially MUs/Wizards) differently.

Many of us (myself included) have sought out ways to use the 5E framework, but make the experience more like AD&D. Getting rid of things like concentration, but adding instead spell disruption via actual casting times (instead of 1 action, etc.), change to learn spells (instead of automatically getting 2 freebies per level), etc.

So, the title, (and the first bit of the OP) is about what rules were in place to keep MUs balanced in power (very low HP, spell disruption, more complex components, lengthy memorization times, requiring multiple memorization uses for multiple castings, etc.).

That's what I got out of it anyway.

This is exactly correct. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is in the last sentence of the OP:

People played AD&D (1e) in a variety of fashions. Not everyone played the same. Some people played Monty Haul campaigns or campaigns that easily allowed MUs to bypass restrictions. Others ignored all combat rules related to spellcasting. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to play, and there was a lot less reliance on the RAW then there is now. This is simply an observation that while MUs could be pretty awesome, they had a lot of drawbacks that we need to remember and consider that were baked into the ruleset.

Mirroring the beginning:
I had been thinking, for the last week, of doing a deep dive into the restrictions that ye olde spellcasters in 1e faced ... But given the number of times that you see people, IMO, incorrectly assert that Magic Users (in today's parlance, Wizards) were always predominant in D&D, even in 1e, I thought I'd do an overview into the many ways that the magic users were underpowered in many ways back in 1e, especially compared to today (and even moreso compared to 3e).

Sometimes, you just want to discuss 1e.

Fortunately, I cannot see the post(s) that drove your response; life is too short.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

My takeaway from playing 1E is nothing was remotely balanced yet we still had tons of fun.

There’s a lesson there.

I think efforts to smooth out and, to an extent, balance out, the D&D in 3E and beyond we’re great. But I honestly believe far too much attention has been focused in recent times on achieving an elusive state of perfect class/rule/ability/rule set “balance”.

My personal approach is to spend far less time worrying about which class is overpowered or which class is nerfed and more time playing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sometimes, you just want to discuss 1e.

I think the thread title could have better reflected that intent.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My takeaway from playing 1E is nothing was remotely balanced yet we still had tons of fun.

There’s a lesson there.

I agree. People get far to hung up on the idea that the game needs to be "balanced"*. It can be as asymmetric as anything and still a whole lot of fun.



*Also too hung up on the idea that you have to stick to the rules!

 

[nevin]

@Man in a Funny Hat made a number of excellent points, but, I'd also like to address the XP thing as well. Yes, at 1st to, IIRC, 4th or maybe 5th, MU's needed a lot of XP. Then ZOOM, they just rocket up levels. To the point where they are generally one level ahead of fighters until 14th level. It was a wonky progression.

But, I'm frankly baffled why all these MU's get into melee combat. Didn't you guys plug up the front line with a couple of fighters and a cleric? Poof, no one can reach the MU and you cannot fire through melee easily. It was ridiculously easy, most of the time, for the MU to stay out of combat.

And, of course, I notice that this discussion has completely ignored magic items. Let's not forget our 100 charge wands of fireballs or magic missile. Those can't be interupted. If we're talking a double digit level MU, he's likely picked up half a dozen wands, a staff and possibly a rod or two. It's not like anyone else in the group can use them. And with the gobs of charges that AD&D wands had, it's not like you'd ever run out either.

Who else in the group did you give the Bracers of Defense to? And the ring of protection? We drilled our MU's AC into the stratosphere as fast as we could. Which also tended to mean that the MU had insane bonuses to saving throws as well - effectively saving on 2's and 3's by the time we hit double digit play.

And, this also ignores the fact that a lot of AD&D spells had insane durations. Charm person could last for WEEKS. Protection from Evil BLOCKED all physical attacks from extra-planar creatures. Stoneskin (Unearthed Arcana) lasted until you had taken X number of attacks and blocked all physical damage until then.

It's not like MU's were helpless here. Let's not oversell things.

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.

 

[nevin]

I agree. People get far to hung up on the idea that the game needs to be "balanced"*. It can be as asymmetric as anything and still a whole lot of fun.



*Also too hung up on the idea that you have to stick to the rules!

Everyone forgets that the purpose of playing a roleplaying game with a human GM is so you don't have to play some computer simulation where everything is known and you can minmax and never lose. I've also noticed a lot of younger players seem to feel that suffering consequences for actions or bad guys learning from what they do is "cheesy" they seem to expect it to be just like thier computer games. I think this whole idea of balance comes from that kind of thinking.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My takeaway from playing 1E is nothing was remotely balanced yet we still had tons of fun.

There’s a lesson there.

I think efforts to smooth out and, to an extent, balance out, the D&D in 3E and beyond we’re great. But I honestly believe far too much attention has been focused in recent times on achieving an elusive state of perfect class/rule/ability/rule set “balance”.

My personal approach is to spend far less time worrying about which class is overpowered or which class is nerfed and more time playing.

I think that there are a number of reasons for this (in terms of fun):

There was an emphasis on creating the character through the shared fiction (the play), and not through the process of character creation. This was mirrored in character abilities; early D&D primarily provided increased "power" and "customization" through the game (such as magic items), where modern D&D does it through class abilities.

Classes were not balanced in terms of each other; there was a great deal of niche protection. There had to be some level of balance within the party.

There was an emphasis on "skilled play" (dungeon exploration, clever roleplaying, and the proverbial 10' pole) and none on skills.

...now, that said, I think that the trend away from this reflect popular trends. There is a reason that OSR is a niche, and not the default. And that's because, for most of us, the "tons of fun" also represents a time when we had a lot more time to play, and were at the beginning of it all ... not closer to the end. Nostalgia is a heckuva drug.