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

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I started with Traveller and Runequest, and only later added AD&D to the repertoire. When we ran D&D style dungeon crawls, we used the Runequest system, since D&D combat was obviously inferior ;-)

It took a while to start using AD&D rules, and then we always started at higher level. It was much later that we actually discovered that starting with lvl 1's could be fun.

So what about low level wizards - almost anyone can cast Bladesharp, right?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Since you don't need to spend gold on gear, you might want to invest in a hireling or two to survive. But other than that, throw darts, as others have mentioned

War dogs are also a nice investment.

 

[nevin]

Which works fine until the players in-character start seeing the war dog as a pet (usually an almost-immediate development IME) rather than a tool, and thus don't want to expose it to any danger.....

I've seen characters die in order to save their pets.

My 20th level characters will die to save thier pets......Guess you don't like human behavior?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Same thing the fighter does when we enter an ancient library or laboratory, slightly burnt by dragon fire.

Look for ways to be supporting cast for a bit.

This. Accept the fact you're not going to be the star every round, and look for other ways to help.

 

[nevin]

I used to have a DM that hated pets. (back in 1e). His bad guys would kill all horses and pets at the beginning of every combat. He got really confused when the party started following the bandits, the warlords, the nobles, the monsters and killing or freeing everyone working for them. We told him if he was going to throw evil naughty words like that at us that we'd just make killing them to make the world a better place the focus of his game. Game ended I started a new one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

TSR disagreed with you. The adventures in the era we're talking about were full of combat.

The most popular adventure of the area, Keep on the Borderlands, centers on the Caves of Chaos, which are stacked with monsters, most of whom will absolutely be engaging in combat with the PCs eventually. There simply isn't an opportunity for a spell-less magic-user to do anything at the Caves other than to soak up a few kobold arrows.

The notion that D&D games used to be people sneaking through dungeons, largely avoiding combat, is revisionist history.

The rules leaned in that direction though, and it's a good way to play. Your fighter in the Metzer sample adventure in the Red Box isn't intended to charge in and kill every monster he sees, and he's actually equipped for it!

 

[nevin]

I do think the game lost something when groupthink suddenly turned to "We are hero's, hero's don't run" though I'll say this. most encounters I've had where the DM whined we wouldn't run had civilians and innocents about to be murdered. DM's often create situations where the Goodly players would rather die saving the innocents. Those DM's create the very problem they whine about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Citation(s)?

The advice I recall from the 1e DMG pretty much amounted to "let the dice fall where they may" other than in extremely rare once-per-campaign-ish circumstances.

That is certainly how I play.

 

[nevin]

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.

Well it can be a good tactic, but when you consider each of those horses is worth more than the riders in most cases and are valuable treasure and war equipment it doesn't make sense. Back in the day A warhorse or a trained war dog was worth more than 3 or 4 of your average front line troops. That warhorse you save after the battle is worth more than all the people you lost to kill it's rider.

 

[Mannahnin]

Nothing stops the Thief or MU character from physically donning a siut of plate, but if either hope to use any of their class abilities while in in they're flat out'a luck.

I didn't come from B/X and thus didn't have that built-in assumption. I've always had it that anyone can pick up any weapon and try to use it, at cost of a non-prof penalty (which counts toward fumble chances!) and, in the case of Clerics, possible divine annoyance if they use a weapon of a type frowned upon by their deity or pantheon.

This is ... interesting, as it's another one of those examples of how people tended to just "wing it."

The rules are clear in 1e.

A character can only use the armors and weapons permitted by their class. PERIOD.

Among those weapons, they can wield weapons in which they are proficient with no penalty, and weapons that they are allowed (but not proficient) with a penalty.

Character Classes Table II provides the quick list of those weapons that you can use per class.
The Weapon Proficiency Table tells you the initial number of allowable weapons you are proficient in, and the rate that you gain proficiencies.


So, for example, the Magic User-
Allowable Weapons: Dagger, Dart, Staff
At level 1, you get to choose one (1) weapon to be proficient at.
You gain a proficiency every six (6) levels.
So Futzwizz, the Ungainly, starts at level 1 and chooses the staff.
At level 7, he adds a proficiency in darts.
At level 13, he adds a proficiency in his final weapon, the dagger.
And that's it.

This was always well-known, but did cause some ... edge issues. See, e.g., Dragon #56 Sage Advice:

Q. A bard is limited to the use of certain weapons. However, is it possible for a bard to use a weapon he was previously trained in (for instance, a bow), perhaps with a penalty involved?

A. Again, this is a matter simply resolved by realizing the Players Handbook means what it says. No, bards cannot use bows, because that weapon does not appear in the list of weapons permitted to the class. A character who intends to become a bard should make a point of gaining proficiency with at least some of the weapons usable by a bard, in addition to skills with weapons (such as the bow) which the character might prefer to employ during his tenure as a fighter. A bard-to-be might wisely decide to become proficient with bow and arrow, to improve his chances of surviving during his fighter phase. But the use of that weapon is prohibited when the character switches to the thief class, and it can never again be legally employed before or after the character actually becomes a bard.

Snarf is on the money in every detail.

In OD&D and AD&D class restrictions on weapons and armor are absolute. AD&D non-proficiency penalties are for weapons allowed to your class which you don't happen to be proficient with. If a weapon or piece of armor isn't on your allowed list, you may not use it under any circumstance.

Per the rules for dual-classing (The Character With Two Classes, 1E PH p.33) if you dual-class and in an emergency use an weapon or armor or other class ability from your old class while adventuring as your new class, before you reach the point of having exceeded your old class level, you can do it, but you gain zero experience points from the adventure. Working from that precedent, it seems like if your suspension of disbelief can't countenance an absolute prohibition, the most natural house rule would be that if a regular MU or whoever uses forbidden gear = zero xp for the adventure.

There is an absolute ton of contemporaneous discussion about (e.g.) Magic Users being absolutely unable to use prohibited weapons under any circumstances. This was a frequent player complaint/subject of disbelief, and Gary confirmed it in editorials as well.