OSR Old school wizards, how do you play level 1?

[Mannahnin]

This, to me, is what defines classic d&d/OSR: "Your Table Will Vary". Because of missing rules, contradictory rules, hidden rules, or confusing wording, every Referee and every table will play differently. There is no one true way to play. There is no "wrong" way to play.

Any attempt in modern OSR games/groups to play "as they did in the old days" will fail, because there is no monolithic "they".

True, but there's still also value to be gleaned from digging into those rules.

For example, stuff like dungeon crawl procedural rules turn out to be quite fun in application and play, once one does. Despite the facts that A) Many of us didn't understand or use them properly as kids, and B) The game shifted more to Trad plot-focused play and these procedures and rules were dropped in later editions.

 

[Maxperson]

So, beyond the torturing point, I think it's absolutely necessary when discussing 1e rules to disambiguate two important things-

1. What people did. Or, at least, claimed they did. Seriously- I've written an entire post about memory for a reason, and while I think we are all good and honorable gamers who are never given to hyperbole* or memory lapses or confusing how we played 1e and 2e ... but sometimes people are wrong about their own experiences. And ... even if they aren't .... even if they are 150% accurate, they aren't speaking for how everyone played.

I don't remember that post.

Okay, now that the joke is over, I seriously don't remember it. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that I've forgotten it, but perhaps I just didn't see it. Do you have a link that I could use to read it?

As we all know, get five grognards together to discuss how "people played 1e back in the day," and you'll get six different versions. Because TSR-era D&D, especially 70s and 80s D&D, was notoriously uneven from table to table. Not just because of house rules, and 3PP, and because lots of table simply ignored rules ... but also lots of people weren't even aware of a lot of the rules that existed.

Yep! I've made that point countless times and agreed with you making that point countless others, because it seems to need to be made a lot around here.

So, if even Gygax himself (blessed be his rolls) didn't play AD&D according to the rules he wrote, I don't think it's particularly helpful in discussing the rules qua rules to say, "Yeah, well, I just didn't know about that rule or do it that way," when talking about what the actual rule was. That said, if you want to talk about your personal experience, that's cool! But that's not really discussing or diving into the rule, which is what is interesting right now.

Nothing in the dragon Sage Advice was a rule, though. It's all just advice on how the author of the article would rule it. In the case of the Bard there's no rule that says to ignore the prior classes or rules that were gained using the The Character With Two Classes rules. Those rules allow you to wear weapons and armor not permitted by your prior class once you pass the prior class level. It even gives the example of a magic user/fighter being able to use, but not cast spells in, plate mail.

The bard rules allow the two class limit to be broken, since it clearly has you go from fighter to thief to bard, but there's no other exception written down. The Sage Advice is the author adding something to the bard rules via a non-rule ruling. Once the bard is higher level than the fighter, per the written rules in the PHB the bard should be able to use fighter arms and armor, though since he casts as a druid any metal armor other than magical chain would negate all his bardic magical abilities.

2. What the rules actually said. For better or worse (most would say ... for worse), AD&D instilled within my a lifelong love of how overly complicated and unclear rules interact with each other. So I find the subject of the rules interactions within 1e, regardless of how often they were applied in real life or how often they were used correctly, absolutely fascinating. Because it really gets into issues that have salience far beyond D&D. How do you understand language (like, say, "primary attribute(s)"). How do different rules interact? When rules conflict, how can you harmonize them (or, in the alternative, which rules take precedence)?

What the rules say is that the bard always fights as a fighter, which kinda gimps the bard since a 23rd level druid probably(I'm not going to check) fights better than a 5th-7th level fighter, but that doesn't mean that the other rules regarding the fighter levels in The Character With Two Classes don't apply.

And for this purpose, what counts as an "official authority." How official is "official?" Sage Advice has actually been with us now, in various version and in various media, since November 1979, and has had various levels of authority; arguably, it was "most official" from Dragon 42 on in that incarnation, and demoted to "here's what we were thinking, but it's not, you know, official official" in the most recent incarnation.

....but maybe that's for a separate thread.

It would certainly be an interesting thread.

*Look, you whippersnapper with your attack cantrips and your healing hit dice and your feats. Back in the day, I used to walk 10 miles in a snowstorm, uphill, just so that I could play a first level Magic User with 2 hit points. And you know what? I'd get there, and cast my single light spell that the monster saved, and right after that I was killed, KILLED by a kobold with a dull butter knife. And you know what I did then? I'd walk 10 miles back, ALSO UPHILL, in that same snowstorm. That's how I PLAYED REAL D&D, AND I LOVED IT!

Hah! I had a lot of magic users over the 1e years who would have died(and did!) to have 2 hit points. At least with 2 hit points there exists the possibility of taking damage without falling unconscious. Trying to get to 2nd level with 1 spell AND 1 hit point really blew chunks.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't remember that post.

Okay, now that the joke is over, I seriously don't remember it. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that I've forgotten it, but perhaps I just didn't see it. Do you have a link that I could use to read it?

https://www.enworld.org/threads/understanding-history-why-serious-scholarship-of-d-d-matters.698849/

Yep! I've made that point countless times and agreed with you making that point countless others, because it seems to need to be made a lot around here.

Nothing in the dragon Sage Advice was a rule, though. It's all just advice on how the author of the article would rule it. In the case of the Bard there's no rule that says to ignore the prior classes or rules that were gained using the The Character With Two Classes rules. Those rules allow you to wear weapons and armor not permitted by your prior class once you pass the prior class level. It even gives the example of a magic user/fighter being able to use, but not cast spells in, plate mail.

The bard rules allow the two class limit to be broken, since it clearly has you go from fighter to thief to bard, but there's no other exception written down. The Sage Advice is the author adding something to the bard rules via a non-rule ruling. Once the bard is higher level than the fighter, per the written rules in the PHB the bard should be able to use fighter arms and armor, though since he casts as a druid any metal armor other than magical chain would negate all his bardic magical abilities.

What the rules say is that the bard always fights as a fighter, which kinda gimps the bard since a 23rd level druid probably(I'm not going to check) fights better than a 5th-7th level fighter, but that doesn't mean that the other rules regarding the fighter levels in The Character With Two Classes don't apply.

I am not going to belabor the point, since I recall you .... well, let's say I have an otherworldly recollection of disintegrate v. wildshape.

That said, the "two-class" rule has no relevance once you become a Bard. Why? Because it doesn't.

The Character with Two Classes is a rule for exactly that, the character with two classes. While it applies when you are "pre-Bard," by definition it cannot apply when you are a Bard, because you are no longer a character with two classes. By the express terms of the rule, it is about "attain[ing] the second class[.]"


On the other hand, the Bard "class subsumes the functions of two other classes, fighters and thieves, and tops them off with magical abilities." Moreover, after doing completing the "two class" requirement, "bards must leave off thieving and begin clerical studies as druids; but at this time they are actually bards and under druidical tutelage."

They do not follow any rules from the two-class character; instead, they have all of their own rules.

Finally, and one more time- Sage Advice (especially from Dragon 42 on) was reserved for rules questions that were to be answered in an official capacity. That doesn't mean that they are always perfect .... just like the rules in the PHB and the DMG are not always perfect ... but they are as "official" as you can get.

And now I'm done. You are welcome to tilt at whatever quixotic windmills you wish, but please do so with another person.

 

[Maxperson]

https://www.enworld.org/threads/understanding-history-why-serious-scholarship-of-d-d-matters.698849/

Thanks!

I am not going to belabor the point, since I recall you .... well, let's say I have an otherworldly recollection of disintegrate v. wildshape.

That was an interesting discussion. I remember being either the only one on my side or maybe one other person. Then I went to Twitter and asked Crawford who answered that I was wrong. I then conceded in the thread only to see Sage Advice some months later that said that I was correct in my reading of RAW and disintegrate dusted wildshaped druids when the wildshape hit 0, but the intent was to let the druid live. THEN a year or two later when I went to look again, it was gone from Sage Advice and the new PHBs had the wildhsape wording changed to reflect their intent.

Ultimate conclusion. I was right in that thread with my interpretation of RAW.

What I don't remember is engaging you in that thread. I do remember you and I being on opposite sides of the druid wearing metal armor discussion, though.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I do remember you and I being on opposite sides of the druid wearing metal armor discussion, though.

That's because you hate things that are cool. Everyone knows that the only thing cooler than a Druid exploding in metal armor, is a Druid exploding in metal armor that Snarf has tied a Bard to.


Pictured- A Demonstration of the Advanced new Bard Antagonistic Druid Armor Super Slaughterer (B.A.D.A.S.*)

 

[nevin]

you did miss one option.....this Bard /Paladin tied to the druid....

 

[haakon1]

Can't speak to the rest but it's always bugged me in cinematic warfare of any kind that the archers or gunmen always seem to shoot at the riders rather than the mounts even though the mount is always a bigger target; never mind that if you take it down the rider goes down with it and may or may not get up again afterwards.

Hmmm, in Red Dead Redemption 2, one of my friends definitely prefers shooting the horse over the rider. But I guess that’s not the cinematic you meant, beautiful as that game is.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And now I'm done. You are welcome to tilt at whatever quixotic windmills you wish, but please do so with another person.

Although I understand your frustration...I had to block that particular poster...the whole "I've gotten my last word in, now please don't respond to me" thing is not cool. If you want to disengage, you go first.

 

[Guest 7042500]

What's all this got to do with first level magic users?

 

[Lanefan]

What's all this got to do with first level magic users?

Whoever casts the last spell wins?