Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
But we are talking about first edition here, and you'll find no such statement in the 1e DMG. In fact, the PHB even states that character are expected to have two scores at "15" or better.
(Rambling) Why 4e doesn't "feel" 1e...
In general, I agree with these statements.
Of course, I have my own nitpicks to add to those already presented. (^_^)
1e had concessions towards helping players get the PC they wanted. (Which mainly came down to being able to arrange your ability scores to taste.) Simply because Gygax had to sit through enough players who would just keep making PCs until they got what they wanted. It doesn’t give a 100% guarantee, but you could almost always have a viable member of whichever of the basic classes you preferred.
Also, ability scores and hp never had as big an impact on my PCs’ fate as my decisions playing them did. But maybe that was an usual aspect of my group.
There is a lot of randomness, but be sure you’re considering that a number of the random tables in the DMG are only really meant to be used when the DM needs a little help.
Perhaps I’m recalling incorrectly, but I recall DMs also being encouraged to pick from a table rather than rolling if they wanted to.
“Reliable” is perhaps not the word I would’ve chosen. There is an element of that due to saving throws and magic resistance, but magic was often very reliable. What it wasn’t was unlimited. You can (glossing over the need for rest) swing a sword all day long; but spells, many special abilities, and many magic items had only limited use.
And it annoyed the heck out of me the few times when martial power was not reliable. (Creatures who could only be hurt my magic.) (^_^)
ExploderWizard
Hero
A nice overall observation. One result of the magic/ mundane unreliable/reliable split were that classes felt a lot different from each other. With hit points, damage, and monster hit points, and damage being much less random as editions progressed, everything seems to be exactly like everything else.
Achieving a mathmatical balance does not always equal a more fun game.
Achieving a mathmatical balance does not always equal a more fun game.
Remathilis
Legend
All of which makes me wonder...
Is there a way to achieve the magic/martial unreliable/reliable split AND even out fighters loosing effectiveness to wizards at high level?
Prior to 4e, a wizard was supposedly balanced by fire-and-forget magic. The problem is, wizards continued to get spell slots (both higher level and more lower level) so that a 9th level wizard had 18 spells slots (0-5th level) before bonus spells for high Int, specialization, and magical items. Assuming 3e's "Five encounters and rest", a typical 9th level mage with an 18 int had 22 spells to use across 5 encounters. That means he could cast one spell a round for four rounds per combat and just be sitting with a few of cantrips left. Most combats rarely went more rounds than that, negating the fighter's "all day long" balancing factor. (This also ignores any magic item like wands, staves, and scrolls which allow additional spellcasting beyond those 22 slots).
Beyond severly limiting spells/day or boosting fighter power (both of which 4e did) I'm not sure how to counter the fact few high-level mages are "powerful but limited" because they really aren't. The only thing I can think of was having more "save negates/SR" effects, but that can get frustrating for the mage ("My spells NEVER work").
Hmmm...
WayneLigon
Adventurer
However, it never worked this way in practice -- this is what a lot of people seem to forget. Many - most, I would say - changes in subsequent editions come from the fact that people are already playing the game that way.
I've played D&D since roughly 1977. I played under dozens of 1E GMs. I have never rolled strict 3d6-in-order. It was always either 4d6-drop-lowest, or the GM had some special way of rolling stats. [An example I remember was a guy that had a chart for each race and what they rolled for stats. Humans were 3d6 + you had 1d4 discretionary points to put anywhere you wanted. Orcs had Str on 4d6-2 and Int on 1d6+6, etc etc].
I have never had a GM tell me I couldn't play a race because of my stats. If I really wanted to play an elf, then if I had a stat under the minimum, it became the minimum. At least. Or just re-rolled it.
I have never played in a game where hitpoints were not max at first level since... mm, 1977. In fact, many games I played in used your CON score as your first level hit points, purely to boost first level survivability.
That first couple times your mighty fighter dies after failing to clear a garden gate because he had 2 hp and the fall was 1d6 damage might be funny.. the first couple times. Then it gets old and people start looking for better ways to handle this problem. This is what happened.
Many but not most games had you start with max starting gold. Again, it's funny when you roll so poorly you can't even afford a sword or decent armor... the first couple times. After that, again, it's just old and tiresome.
I've never seen a magic user roll for spells; they always picked what they wanted at first level. That silly idea where you rolled to see what spells it was possible for you to know? I never knew anyone who considered that anything but stupid, and that rule was ignored.
1E wasn't nearly as random as some might like to say, not in practice it wasn't.
My experiences:
- 3d6-in-order for a couple games; total munchkin 3 18-ability characters for a bit; then some of the alternate systems such as 4d6 & pick
- never did max hp at first level, but it was typical to set the minimum 1st-level hp to half your hit dice + Con bonus
- never did max starting gold, always rolled, never really had a problem with this
- rolled for spells, sometimes got spotted magic missile, until the UA rules which let you roll for one spell in each category (offense, defense, utility) as I recall.
- did do the rolling vs. Intelligence to try to learn a spell bit, but you had good chances for that with any mage you hadn't given up on because they had a sub-16 intelligence (because you needed high intelligence to cast high-level spells and ability bumps were rare & precious)
- 3d6-in-order for a couple games; total munchkin 3 18-ability characters for a bit; then some of the alternate systems such as 4d6 & pick
- never did max hp at first level, but it was typical to set the minimum 1st-level hp to half your hit dice + Con bonus
- never did max starting gold, always rolled, never really had a problem with this
- rolled for spells, sometimes got spotted magic missile, until the UA rules which let you roll for one spell in each category (offense, defense, utility) as I recall.
- did do the rolling vs. Intelligence to try to learn a spell bit, but you had good chances for that with any mage you hadn't given up on because they had a sub-16 intelligence (because you needed high intelligence to cast high-level spells and ability bumps were rare & precious)
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Can't argue with that.
Err. . . are we talking about the same AD&D 1e? In my copy of AD&D 1e, magic spells are often assumed to automatically 'fire' successfully and only fail in the rare instance that a saving throw is allowed and, subsequently, made successfully.
Last edited:
Irda Ranger
First Post
The amount of "random" in any D&D game I've played in (in any edition) always came down to the DM's taste. Each edition had its own "default" level of random, but (like Wayne Lion) I don't know anyone who actually uses the defaults in all respects. Particularly Stat Gen.*
There are certainly other differences though in attitude. I was just looking through the Rules Cyclopedia and saw that under the encounter design chapter the section on "balancing" encounters is specifically called an "Optional." That made me laugh.
I would love to see a 4E book full of random generator tables with the balance "option" turned "off."
But there are definitely real differences between editions that cannot be hand-waived away by a DM. The frequency/power continuum is certainly an accurate observation (at low levels). In 4E everyone has the same same frequency/power setup. If Necromancer ever made a alt-4E with a 1E feel the Martial classes would have to be all-at-will, all-the-time. It's the only way to really recreate the feel.
I've been trying to figure out how to balance Wizards with the other classes without screwing up the "powerful but rare" feeling of magic in previous editions. The little gordion knot I am still trying to untie is how to do that without making assumptions about how many encounters a party will face in a day. If a wizard is limited to X powers/day then too many encounters will leave him useless and the party in deep doo-doo. But too few encounters (or a 5 minute work day) makes the wizard too powerful. But on the third hand, if you balance the wizard strictly per encounter (as 4E has mostly done) then you lose the "rare and magical" part of magic.
So far the solution I am working is an encounter-power mechanic for spellcasting that allows a wizard to "over spend" his allotment in exchange for physical exhaustion. He gets one or two spells per combat (of any level he can cast) for free but can pull out all the stops if necessary. It's the magical equivalent of a Fighter Power-Whirlwind Attacking every round until taken down to 0 HP. It keeps magic relatively rare and special, doesn't assume a strict number of encounters per day, and allows for "Boo-yah!"** when necessary. In exchange I've allowed that Wizards can be non-useless melee combatants*** so that they have something reliable to do on rounds they aren't casting a spell.
_____________________
*My current favorite is to use Psion's Stat Deck, deal six pairs in order, allow one swap, +1 to Prime.
**One of the lesser known examples of Official Forge Terminology ("OFT").
***Like Gandalf.
There are certainly other differences though in attitude. I was just looking through the Rules Cyclopedia and saw that under the encounter design chapter the section on "balancing" encounters is specifically called an "Optional." That made me laugh.
I would love to see a 4E book full of random generator tables with the balance "option" turned "off."But there are definitely real differences between editions that cannot be hand-waived away by a DM. The frequency/power continuum is certainly an accurate observation (at low levels). In 4E everyone has the same same frequency/power setup. If Necromancer ever made a alt-4E with a 1E feel the Martial classes would have to be all-at-will, all-the-time. It's the only way to really recreate the feel.
I've been trying to figure out how to balance Wizards with the other classes without screwing up the "powerful but rare" feeling of magic in previous editions. The little gordion knot I am still trying to untie is how to do that without making assumptions about how many encounters a party will face in a day. If a wizard is limited to X powers/day then too many encounters will leave him useless and the party in deep doo-doo. But too few encounters (or a 5 minute work day) makes the wizard too powerful. But on the third hand, if you balance the wizard strictly per encounter (as 4E has mostly done) then you lose the "rare and magical" part of magic.
So far the solution I am working is an encounter-power mechanic for spellcasting that allows a wizard to "over spend" his allotment in exchange for physical exhaustion. He gets one or two spells per combat (of any level he can cast) for free but can pull out all the stops if necessary. It's the magical equivalent of a Fighter Power-Whirlwind Attacking every round until taken down to 0 HP. It keeps magic relatively rare and special, doesn't assume a strict number of encounters per day, and allows for "Boo-yah!"** when necessary. In exchange I've allowed that Wizards can be non-useless melee combatants*** so that they have something reliable to do on rounds they aren't casting a spell.
_____________________
*My current favorite is to use Psion's Stat Deck, deal six pairs in order, allow one swap, +1 to Prime.
**One of the lesser known examples of Official Forge Terminology ("OFT").
***Like Gandalf.
Similar Threads
