Edena_of_Neith
First Post
The Founders of the Game created a number of classes for 1st edition, and several of these classes had ... drawbacks.
The drawback on the 1E wizard was that she had Nothing.
For those of you who remember, this is old news. For those who do not, consider:
She began with 1 to 4 hit points (maximum hit points at 1st level were initiated in 2nd Edition) + 1 or 2 for constitution (if she had high constitution, which may or may not have been the situation.)
In short, few hit points, and no prospect of ever having any real number of hit points. 7th level? Still an average of around 18 hit points, plus - maybe - some bonuses for constitution.
She began with a THAC0 of 20 (BAB of +0.) It went up at a rate that would give due credit to a glacier (in 3E terms, +2 to BAB every 5 levels.)
1 attack per round. Never more.
She could use weapons that required 'little skill, little strength, or both.' The dagger, dart, staff, and staff sling, on a crude basis (throwing knives came in handy sometimes ...)
Never any other weapons.
She could not wear armor. If she tried, she was treated as having never having tried to wear armor before. In other words, can we say 'you fall down after 3 steps in that plate armor?'
Theoretically, a wizard could 'practice' wearing armor, and 'ride on the horse' while wearing armor (hope to heavens she doesn't fall OFF while doing so!) But this practice was rare, and disallowed by most DMs.
A wizard could wear elven chain, if it became available. This was the one exception to the rule. But 1st level wizards did not start with elven chain.
1st level wizards started with AC 10, or AC 6 if they were extremely dextrous (AC 14 in 3E.) In short, great target practice for anything capable of hitting the broad side of a barn.
No armor, no weapons, no hit points, no THAC0 / BAB.
So, she had spells instead.
But these spells suffered from a few restrictions ...
A wizard began the game with 4 spells, generally. One offensive, one defensive, one miscellaneous, and Read Magic. Or, perhaps, more if the DM allowed.
The wizard could swap spells with another party wizard IF she had Read Magic memorized and IF the other character agreed to the swap.
The wizard could NOT freely swap with NPC wizards, copy spells out of magical libraries, or anything of the like! The cost of acquiring spells this way, was, in the words of the DMG, 'so dear as to make the game not worth the candle.' It was intended to make it extraordinarily difficult for wizards to buy or purchase spells from NPCs.
If a spell was available, the wizard had to roll to see if she could know it at all. If she could, she had a limit to the number of spells per level she could know, no more than a dozen or so (unless she obtained 19 intelligence, that holy grail of wizards of the time.)
IF the wizard *had* the spell, she had to write it in her spellbook. Spellbooks were costly, time consuming affairs, easily destroyed or stolen, heavy and awkward to carry, and had a strict limit to the number of spells they could carry (within one book, that is.)
IF the wizard had the spell, and her spellbook, she could elect to memorize the spell.
This process required 10 minutes per spell level. (Not a problem for 1st level spells, a real problem at higher levels.)
This assumed uninterrupted study. Any interruption, the memorization process ruined.
This also assumed uninterrupted sleep. Any interruption, and no spells recoverable the next day.
So how many spells could our 1st level wizard memorize? You know the drill: one.
Spells represented magical energy that the wizard drew from Elsewhere and placed within her own mind. And at 1st level, her mind could only contain one level of spells.
Later, with specialists, this limit increased to two, if the wizard wanted a large part of the spell list permanently off-limits to her.
And no, the wizard *could not* create a ton of minor magical items (or any major ones) to help her out on an adventure! If she wanted magical items, she had to find them, and hope the party agreed to let her have them as part of her share of the treasure.
-
The situation for the wizard did not improve in 2nd Edition. Not really.
Now, she could not wear elven chain, unless she was an elf.
But the spell lists were expanded, greatly, giving her more choice of spells. A crucial thing, this.
In 3rd Edition, the wizard is not so much better off at 1st level.
She still begins with few hit points, a poor BAB progression, no armor (she can wear it, but spells like to fizzle if she does, and the feats to mitigate this aren't yet available at 1st level), and few weapons (not even Simple Weapon Proficiency.)
She has skills, and a starting feat or two (if human.) But that's it.
Still pretty much starting off with Nothing.
-
-
-
Simply put, folks, if you have Nothing, you will not survive in D&D. That's the Bottom Line.
Therefore, you must make an endeavor to obtain Something, if you wish to survive.
This desire for Something, is the at the Core of the Wizard.
This desire for Something, is also at the Core of all the troubles you see in wizards, have perceived in wizards, for all these years.
Why?
Because the desire for Something is, inherently, an anathema to Balance.
Balance assumes just that: Balance. A desire for Something is a desire for More, and More disrupts Balance.
And a wizard is always - always - going to desire More.
Why?
Because a wizard began with Nothing, and the process of obtaining Something was so difficult, so demanding, so arduous, that only those with a relentless desire for Something, for More, could hope to survive long enough to get past low level, survive to the point where the wizard became a viable character in her own right.
And by that time, the desire for More was, as they would say, institutionalized in the wizard's mind. She wanted More, and she still wants More. Just because she is mid level, now on a par with the other classes, is not going to be enough. Only More will be enough. And there will never be an end to the More (or, at least, the end will be a long ways off and involve something called Really Gamebreaking Power.)
The Fighter/Mage and 3E Multiclassing mitigates this, but for the Single-Classed Wizard, there was never any mitigation in her situation.
She was placed in a situation where an obsessive drive, a maniacal drive, for MORE, was the ONLY way she could make it, could survive. Content with what she had - Nothing - she was dead. Only if she was ruthlessly driven to seek for More, and willing to do what was required to obtain More, could she hope to survive, to where she was a viable character ... and by that time, More was her Way of Life.
*Everything* that has been discussed, argued over, altered, falls back upon this basic principle, this basic problem, that the wizard was faced with, in all the editions of D&D prior to 4th edition (where the Vancian Wizard does not exist, per se.)
Balance and More are not compatible. It has been shown to be thus, time and again. Yet More is the byword of the wizard, and it must be so, because only the wizard who is bright enough, determined enough, ruthless enough, and works hard enough - and is lucky enough - to obtain More, survives to become viable.
And once More is institutionalized, More is forever, in the wizard's mind.
Once the Founders of the Game created the wizard as she was, there was never any chance of her fitting in within the concept of Balance as it came to be known. The very concept of Balance, was anathema to the wizard from the very beginning.
This incompatibility, between the wizard's More and the concept of Balance, was enshrined within the first D&D games played. It has ever been so since, and how could it have ever been otherwise?
Edena_of_Neith
The drawback on the 1E wizard was that she had Nothing.
For those of you who remember, this is old news. For those who do not, consider:
She began with 1 to 4 hit points (maximum hit points at 1st level were initiated in 2nd Edition) + 1 or 2 for constitution (if she had high constitution, which may or may not have been the situation.)
In short, few hit points, and no prospect of ever having any real number of hit points. 7th level? Still an average of around 18 hit points, plus - maybe - some bonuses for constitution.
She began with a THAC0 of 20 (BAB of +0.) It went up at a rate that would give due credit to a glacier (in 3E terms, +2 to BAB every 5 levels.)
1 attack per round. Never more.
She could use weapons that required 'little skill, little strength, or both.' The dagger, dart, staff, and staff sling, on a crude basis (throwing knives came in handy sometimes ...)
Never any other weapons.
She could not wear armor. If she tried, she was treated as having never having tried to wear armor before. In other words, can we say 'you fall down after 3 steps in that plate armor?'
Theoretically, a wizard could 'practice' wearing armor, and 'ride on the horse' while wearing armor (hope to heavens she doesn't fall OFF while doing so!) But this practice was rare, and disallowed by most DMs.
A wizard could wear elven chain, if it became available. This was the one exception to the rule. But 1st level wizards did not start with elven chain.
1st level wizards started with AC 10, or AC 6 if they were extremely dextrous (AC 14 in 3E.) In short, great target practice for anything capable of hitting the broad side of a barn.
No armor, no weapons, no hit points, no THAC0 / BAB.
So, she had spells instead.
But these spells suffered from a few restrictions ...
A wizard began the game with 4 spells, generally. One offensive, one defensive, one miscellaneous, and Read Magic. Or, perhaps, more if the DM allowed.
The wizard could swap spells with another party wizard IF she had Read Magic memorized and IF the other character agreed to the swap.
The wizard could NOT freely swap with NPC wizards, copy spells out of magical libraries, or anything of the like! The cost of acquiring spells this way, was, in the words of the DMG, 'so dear as to make the game not worth the candle.' It was intended to make it extraordinarily difficult for wizards to buy or purchase spells from NPCs.
If a spell was available, the wizard had to roll to see if she could know it at all. If she could, she had a limit to the number of spells per level she could know, no more than a dozen or so (unless she obtained 19 intelligence, that holy grail of wizards of the time.)
IF the wizard *had* the spell, she had to write it in her spellbook. Spellbooks were costly, time consuming affairs, easily destroyed or stolen, heavy and awkward to carry, and had a strict limit to the number of spells they could carry (within one book, that is.)
IF the wizard had the spell, and her spellbook, she could elect to memorize the spell.
This process required 10 minutes per spell level. (Not a problem for 1st level spells, a real problem at higher levels.)
This assumed uninterrupted study. Any interruption, the memorization process ruined.
This also assumed uninterrupted sleep. Any interruption, and no spells recoverable the next day.
So how many spells could our 1st level wizard memorize? You know the drill: one.
Spells represented magical energy that the wizard drew from Elsewhere and placed within her own mind. And at 1st level, her mind could only contain one level of spells.
Later, with specialists, this limit increased to two, if the wizard wanted a large part of the spell list permanently off-limits to her.
And no, the wizard *could not* create a ton of minor magical items (or any major ones) to help her out on an adventure! If she wanted magical items, she had to find them, and hope the party agreed to let her have them as part of her share of the treasure.
-
The situation for the wizard did not improve in 2nd Edition. Not really.
Now, she could not wear elven chain, unless she was an elf.
But the spell lists were expanded, greatly, giving her more choice of spells. A crucial thing, this.
In 3rd Edition, the wizard is not so much better off at 1st level.
She still begins with few hit points, a poor BAB progression, no armor (she can wear it, but spells like to fizzle if she does, and the feats to mitigate this aren't yet available at 1st level), and few weapons (not even Simple Weapon Proficiency.)
She has skills, and a starting feat or two (if human.) But that's it.
Still pretty much starting off with Nothing.
-
-
-
Simply put, folks, if you have Nothing, you will not survive in D&D. That's the Bottom Line.
Therefore, you must make an endeavor to obtain Something, if you wish to survive.
This desire for Something, is the at the Core of the Wizard.
This desire for Something, is also at the Core of all the troubles you see in wizards, have perceived in wizards, for all these years.
Why?
Because the desire for Something is, inherently, an anathema to Balance.
Balance assumes just that: Balance. A desire for Something is a desire for More, and More disrupts Balance.
And a wizard is always - always - going to desire More.
Why?
Because a wizard began with Nothing, and the process of obtaining Something was so difficult, so demanding, so arduous, that only those with a relentless desire for Something, for More, could hope to survive long enough to get past low level, survive to the point where the wizard became a viable character in her own right.
And by that time, the desire for More was, as they would say, institutionalized in the wizard's mind. She wanted More, and she still wants More. Just because she is mid level, now on a par with the other classes, is not going to be enough. Only More will be enough. And there will never be an end to the More (or, at least, the end will be a long ways off and involve something called Really Gamebreaking Power.)
The Fighter/Mage and 3E Multiclassing mitigates this, but for the Single-Classed Wizard, there was never any mitigation in her situation.
She was placed in a situation where an obsessive drive, a maniacal drive, for MORE, was the ONLY way she could make it, could survive. Content with what she had - Nothing - she was dead. Only if she was ruthlessly driven to seek for More, and willing to do what was required to obtain More, could she hope to survive, to where she was a viable character ... and by that time, More was her Way of Life.
*Everything* that has been discussed, argued over, altered, falls back upon this basic principle, this basic problem, that the wizard was faced with, in all the editions of D&D prior to 4th edition (where the Vancian Wizard does not exist, per se.)
Balance and More are not compatible. It has been shown to be thus, time and again. Yet More is the byword of the wizard, and it must be so, because only the wizard who is bright enough, determined enough, ruthless enough, and works hard enough - and is lucky enough - to obtain More, survives to become viable.
And once More is institutionalized, More is forever, in the wizard's mind.
Once the Founders of the Game created the wizard as she was, there was never any chance of her fitting in within the concept of Balance as it came to be known. The very concept of Balance, was anathema to the wizard from the very beginning.
This incompatibility, between the wizard's More and the concept of Balance, was enshrined within the first D&D games played. It has ever been so since, and how could it have ever been otherwise?
Edena_of_Neith
