AD&D 1E Should 5e adopt 1e style arcane magic?

[kitsune9]

I just hope that spells in 5e will see more use of d12's.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'd say "The Magnificent Seven" is just as much an inspiration for D&D as Tolkien as far as the adventuring party is concerned. There's also Heinlein, Ralston, Phillip Jose Pharmer, Larry Niven and a host of others. I'm a HUGE Tolkien fan (see my handle), but I read Heinlein and Pharmer long before I'd ever heard of Tolkien.

While Anderson, Moorcock and others surely had influences, their writings came after Tolkien and were influenced by him.

Citation, please.

 

[WheresMyD20]

While Anderson, Moorcock and others surely had influences, their writings came after Tolkien and were influenced by him.

Lord Dunsany came long before Tolkien and was clearly an influence on Tolkien. In fact, just about every famous fantasy author of the 20th century, from Tolkien to Lovecraft to Howard to Moorcock etc. was influenced by Lord Dunsany.

Lord Dunsany's King of Elfland's Daughter laid down a modern interpretation of elves that was borrowed by many fantasy authors that came later - including Tolkien.

Anderson was a contemporary of Tolkien. His novel The Broken Sword was published in 1954 - the same year as The Lord of the Rings. Anderson was Danish-American and a scholar of Scandinavian mythology. Both he and Tolkien drew from the same mythological source material and wrote around the same time. Saying that he came after Tolkien and was influenced by Tolkien's writing is false.

Moorcock did come after Tolkien, but he was clearly not influenced by him. Moorcock as been an outspoken detractor of Tolkien and has referred to The Lord of the Rings as "epic Winnie the Pooh". Moorcock's fantasy novels are quite different from anything Tolkien wrote.

As for "the others" - Edgar Rice Burroughs and Robert E. Howard both predated Tolkien and were certainly not influenced by Tolkien. Leiber was a contemporary of Tolkien and wasn't influenced by him. (anyone who has read his books can tell you there's no influence)

Tolkien was a great writer, but you're giving him WAY too much credit...

 

[NewJeffCT]

Lord Dunsany came long before Tolkien and was clearly an influence on Tolkien. In fact, just about every famous fantasy author of the 20th century, from Tolkien to Lovecraft to Howard to Moorcock etc. was influenced by Lord Dunsany.

Lord Dunsany's King of Elfland's Daughter laid down a modern interpretation of elves that was borrowed by many fantasy authors that came later - including Tolkien.

Anderson was a contemporary of Tolkien. His novel The Broken Sword was published in 1954 - the same year as The Lord of the Rings. Anderson was Danish-American and a scholar of Scandinavian mythology. Both he and Tolkien drew from the same mythological source material and wrote around the same time. Saying that he came after Tolkien and was influenced by Tolkien's writing is false.

Moorcock did come after Tolkien, but he was clearly not influenced by him. Moorcock as been an outspoken detractor of Tolkien and has referred to The Lord of the Rings as "epic Winnie the Pooh". Moorcock's fantasy novels are quite different from anything Tolkien wrote.

As for "the others" - Edgar Rice Burroughs and Robert E. Howard both predated Tolkien and were certainly not influenced by Tolkien. Leiber was a contemporary of Tolkien and wasn't influenced by him. (anyone who has read his books can tell you there's no influence)

Tolkien was a great writer, but you're giving him WAY too much credit...

Sure, Dunsany may have influenced Tolkien, but Tolkien's popularity has been so great that much that came before him in the genre pales in comparison. I'd never even heard of him until this thread.

Moorcock created Elric to be an answer to Tolkien - if that's not influence, I don't know what is. Besides, while Elric has companions, he was the star of the show in his books, which is also the antithesis of D&D, which is a mixed race group of adventurers, not one star and a supporting cast.

Everybody had influences that came before them, but Tolkien's impact on the genre has been so great & so popular, that everything that has come since has been touched by his works in some way.

 

[baradtgnome]

Almost half of respondents voted "No, I don't like the 1e arcane magic system" with many more choosing that option than disliking the 1e wizard drawbacks.

Perhaps EN World really is biased in favor of 4th edition.

I voted no & no - and my group does not play 4th edition. You shouldn't assume those are related.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Sure, Dunsany may have influenced Tolkien, but Tolkien's popularity has been so great that much that came before him in the genre pales in comparison. I'd never even heard of him until this thread.

Wow. "Much that came before him in the genre pales in comparison." That's an awfully strong statement. I'm curious, how many pre-Tolkien fantasy novels have you read? For starters, check out The King of Elfland's Daughter by Lord Dunsany, The Well of the Unicorn by Fletcher Pratt, and The Broken Sword by Poul Anderson. All three are excellent books and all three are much more philosophically complex than The Lord of the Rings.

Oh, and even if you hadn't heard of him before, Lord Dunsany has had a major influence on modern fantasy. Most of the landmark fantasy authors of the 20th century have considered him a prime influence. He might not have had as much mainstream success as Tolkien, but his influence on the fantasy genre is enormous. Without Dunsany, Tolkien may not have had the proverbial "shoulders to stand on".

Moorcock created Elric to be an answer to Tolkien - if that's not influence, I don't know what is. Besides, while Elric has companions, he was the star of the show in his books, which is also the antithesis of D&D, which is a mixed race group of adventurers, not one star and a supporting cast.

Actually, Elric was an answer to and the direct antithesis of Howard's Conan and the many copycats Conan spawned. Moorcock was an editor for a sci-fi and fantasy magazine at the time he first created Elric in the 1950s. He was sick of all the muscle-bound barbarian stories that were being submitted, so he wrote about a sickly albino sorcerer instead.

Also, Moorcock wrote a book called Wizardry and Wild Romance. It's a history of the fantasy genre. In it, he talks a lot about his influences. It's clear from the book that Moorcock basically considers Tolkien's books to be a waste of time.

Everybody had influences that came before them, but Tolkien's impact on the genre has been so great & so popular, that everything that has come since has been touched by his works in some way.

Yes, but that's like saying that every sci-fi story that invovles space travel was influenced by Star Trek... or Star Wars... or Battlestar Galactica... or Buck Rogers... or Flash Gordon. If you set the bar low enough, then yes, you can find influence everywhere.

...Getting back to D&D....

Look at Appendix N in the 1e DMG. Gygax lists the literary influences of D&D. Tolkien is listed, but there are a lot of authors listed that pre-date Tolkien or were his contemporaries.

Then there's Dragon Magazine issue 95, pages 12-13. Gary Gygax wrote a two-page article entitled "The influence of J. R. R. Tolkien on the D&D and AD&D games". Here are a couple of quotes from the article:

"The popularity of Professor Tolkien'’s fantasy works did encourage me to develop my own. But while there are bits and pieces of his works reflected hazily in mine, I believe that his influence, as a whole, is quite minimal."

"A careful examination of the games will quickly reveal that the major influences are Robert E. Howard, L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt, Fritz Leiber, Poul Anderson, A. Merritt, and H. P. Lovecraft. Only slightly lesser influence came from Roger Zelazny, E. R. Burroughs, Michael Moorcock, Philip Jose Farmer, and many others. Though I thoroughly enjoyed The Hobbit, I found the 'Ring Trilogy' . . . well, tedious."

 

[CleverNickName]

I want a balanced, easy-to-use Magic Point system.

(I might as well ask for a bazillion dollars too, while I'm at it. But there it is.)

 

[qstor]

of course the votes were skewed to reflect the pro 4e crowd

 

[tlantl]

of course the votes were skewed to reflect the pro 4e crowd

I'm pretty sure that 1e was out of print before a majority of the people here were old enough to read. 2e is similar to 1e but there are differences, and from what I have seen of the majority of the people who frequent this forum not too many of them are reasonably familiar with 2e either.

Asking these people to advocate a system they know nothing about will return the same results.

The 1e system won't work unless a lot of old rules are used as well. The biggest of these is the length of the combat round. 1e spells have casting times that are measured in 6 second segments. Some spells take an entire minute to cast, often longer when you consider that the caster doesn't even start his spells until his turn in the initiative order which is also measured in segments. (sometimes it's good to lose initiative.)

 

[WheresMyD20]

Using an XP chart to balance a system is not going to work, and the idea was abandoned, with good reason. XP itself is of dubious value.

Using different XP charts worked perfectly well for 20+ years. IMO, the unified experience chart is just "unnecessary symmetry".

Many of the other requirements seem arbitrary. A percentage chance to *ever* learn a spell,

Some magic-users manage to figure the spell out, some don't. It's based on intelligence.

being absolutely unable to cast in armor,

Armor is heavy, restrictive, and fatiguing to wear. Magic-users don't normally train themselves to wear armor. Clerical magic isn't as physically demanding since the power is granted by a god. Besides, since they don't need to study, clerics have the time to train in wearing armor.

Elven and Half-elven fighter/magic-users are an exception since elves are innately magical, they live long enough to have trained themselves to both cast spells and wear armor, and as fighters, they've built up the necessary endurance to wear armor for an extended period without getting seriously fatigued.

and losing a spell any time you take damage are hard to justify.

It's hard to chant a spell when you have a sword in your gut. Remember that the average NPC human in 1e has about 3 hit points. A single hit point represents a significant amount of damage.

Why can't you try again to learn ("it's magic" is a weak excuse in this case)?

The character just can't "wrap his brain" around that spell. Magic is neither rational or formulaic. If the character doesn't "get it", he just doesn't "get it". He just doesn't "grok" the spell. If he gains intelligence, he can try again.

Why are wizards so inept that they lose a spell every time they take damage?

See above. One hit point of damage represents about 1/3 of the damage an average human (or a level 1 magic-user) can take before passing out/dying. It's a significant wound. (or a significant amount of effort by a high level character to avoid a wound)

Why is armor anathematical to spellcasting?

It takes a considerable amount of conditioning to wear armor for an extended period without getting exhausted. Magic-users don't spend their time conditioning their bodies to do so. They're too busy studying.

Percentage spell resistance was horribly unbalanced, 3e SR takes the caster and the target into account and makes much more sense.

Percentage spell resistance in 1e took both the caster and the target into account. Magic resistance is lowered by 5% per caster level above 11.

Also, magic resistance in 1e was better balanced since characters couldn't just take a bunch of spell penetration feats to make it irrelevant.