The basic tenet of the Wizard: More

[S'mon]

Good post, and I agree.

I think the 1e Magic-User is 'balanced' across a full adventuring career, for 1e that means something like 1st to ca 12th level. They start very weak, and are weak and slow to progress for 4 levels. Access to 3rd level spells at 5th level brings Real Power. Access to 5th level spells at 9th level makes them the most powerful class, and now they are progressing rapidly. The very high level 1e Wizard remains relatively vulnerable - even at 18th level they can die easily, unless you let them have something cheesy like Elminster's Evasion (*ugh*) - but they are at the same time godlike in their power.

Overall I think the system works very well as written, but can be smashed easily by eliminating wizard vulnerability through badly designed spells or other rules changes. Unfortunately 3e fell into this trap IMO, and 3e Wizards come to totally dominate play in a way I never saw previously.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

My thank you, my appreciation, to those of you who have complimented me and my posts here. I really do appreciate it. Thanks again!

You know what?

When I was a kid, back around 1980 (literally, three decades ago!) we kids were having the same kinds of arguments, that were taking place here on ENWorld with 3rd Edition in large numbers concerning class balance and game balance, especially where the wizard is concerned.
We didn't call it Balance. Nobody had thought up the term yet (not, at least, as something to use generically), but that's what was being debated.

Lots of kids were pointing at overpowerful (sometimes, Waldorf level) wizards, and to a lesser extent overpowered Other Classes.
A lot of people were complaining about how lame the monk was (everyone thought the monk was hopelessly underpowered, or ... simply ... hopeless.)
Others complained about the Big, Bad Bard (level 15 at 1st level!)
And when the Cavalier-Paladin (Unearthed Arcana 1E) came out, that generated quite a storm. (Heck, even the cavalier alone was a riot.)

In the 1E DMG, Gary Gygax warned about Monty Haulism. I'm sure the term didn't start with him there, but I believe that's where it became popular ('these characters run around, dozens of artifacts and mighty magical items bedecking them like they were Christmas Trees decked out in tinsel and ornaments ... and the game is a crashing bore.' to paraphrase.)
So, we had all these problems with Balance, way back then. It is nothing new.

I rarely saw single classed wizards played, way back then, either. Just too difficult to play, and keep alive. Wizards were sorta viewed as hopeless critters, like the poor monk. (Ironic, since the fighter/mage was the most popular class in the game ... get all the fighter abilities AND those spell goodies AND access to all the magical items of both classes.) Since only elves could be fighter/mages, the jokes about elves began around that time, and have continued since ...

However, a few players made it with single classed wizards, got them to high level, and stomped the campaign into the ground with assorted Shapechanges, Time Stops, Wishes, and self invented spells the likes of which you don't want to imagine (I hope!)

I have to sorta laugh at this. It's a laughing matter, even if I - and everyone else - has spent three decades discussing, arguing, and debating about it, and it has proved tremendously problematic (don't we *ALL* know just *how* problematic!!!) these imbalances have proven to be.
Why not laugh?
It was built into the game at the start.

I'm not criticizing the game, and certainly not criticizing the Founders of the game! Quite the contrary - D&D is a great game (I wouldn't be talking about it 30 years after starting in it, if I didn't think so!)
But we had this built in situation at the start, which I discussed in my OP, and which has caused us all assorted headaches ever since.

Yeah, the other classes suffered from the same problem.
Someone pointed out the Fighter had problems at the start. Did he? You bet!
He could start at 1 hit point, started with THAC0 20, started with 1 attack per round, didn't have the gold to buy plate mail (it was 400 gp, and he started with far less than that!), and he had to duke it out hand-to-hand with all the monsters. Everyone expected this, for he was the *fighter.* No hiding behind other party members for him!

And we all know how great a spell selection the cleric started out with (not!) And what his chances were of turning undead.
The thief? 'Open that trapped door, thief!' LOL. (You have about a 10% chance of success ... didn't make it? Roll that save versus poison!)

The drive for More was institutionalized with everyone.
For the monk, More didn't help. More just meant fighting other monks (and losing.) For the other classes, More meant a better shot at survival.

And, as I said, More is in contrast with Balance. Bit of an enigma.
Gary Gygax tried to address this enigma. He said, in the 1E DMG, that the way to address the situation was to keep the carrot in from of the characters constantly, forever in effect. Fulfillment of their desires ruined the game. He was right, but of course not every DM could do this ... keep that carrot forever in front of their players! (regardless of what players think, DMs are *not* Perfect People, with infinite patience and wisdom and knowledge.)

Someone above asked: what is the point of this thread?
This is the point.
The game was created with this enigmatic situation, where it encouraged the Get More attitude relentlessly ('you brought 20,000 gp home in that large sack? Get 20,000 experience points!') But without Balance, the fun ultimately collapses. And the More and Balance are at odds with each other!

I just happened to think that the single classed wizard, starting out with basically Nothing, and being required to pursue the More harder than any other viable class (I do not think of the poor monk as ever having been viable), and her high powered spells (6th level and up, as someone else in this thread pointed out) being more disruptive and gamebreaking than any other mechanic, is the epitome of the enigma of the D&D game.

We gamers have all gone on to play the game anyways, and we have had tons of fun with it, and made the wizard work (and even the monk!), and overcome all these enigmatic problems!
We have, however, experienced a few debates and arguments along the way. And the occasional hillarious situation, such as the whole Waldorf Situation. You just gotta laugh, when you read (and remember) situations like that one. : )

Just some general commentary on my part. Personal thoughts and opinions, and recollections. My take on some things.

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

 

[Cam Banks]

You know what's funny?

Raistlin starts out in the classic 1st edition AD&D modules as a 3rd level magic-user. He is consistently the lowest level character until Laurana hits her racial and gender level maximum at 5th and Raistlin finally catches up and goes on by. He is hopeless. I have heard of countless anecdotes about folks who played through the DL modules with the pregenerated characters and Raistlin dies at least once every other session.

Having his 6th level fighter brother (yes, Caramon is 6th level at the beginning, like Sturm) around to defend him is all well and good, but Caramon's not always going to be there. Right there, next to Raistlin, trying to get in the way.

If Raistlin doesn't die in the battle with Onyx in DL1, the luck gods are on your side.

Or, you could be playing him exactly how he's supposed to be played, which is to say, a manipulative and ambitious creep.

I don't think it's all that fair to compare his game stats to his novel characterization. Raistlin doesn't fare too well there. Even in 3.5, when I wrote his stats, I was fairly convinced that the poor sod was never going to make it to the end of the campaign.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[RFisher]

So D&D should support a single way to play a wizard?

What if a player wants to emulate a fictional character like Elric, or, god help me, Harry Potter?

Find a roleplaying game that emulates this sort of thing that we wants?

Yep.

Or house rule. While reading the initial post, for each lack of the MU listed, I was reminded of an individual campaign in which that lack was eliminated.

Back to Mallus’ question, though: Yes! More or less.

I no longer want nigh limitless flexibility in RPG systems. And if I did, GURPS, HERO, and Risus—among others—do that better than D&D ever should. To me, playing a D&D PC is now more like writing a sonnet. It’s about finding an interesting character within the given structure.

What is the point of this? Seriously.

I don’t know, but I’m glad it was posted.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

For what its worth, we've been playing the original DL modules, converting them to 4E as we go. Raistlin has been just as power hungry as he has always been in our games. Being a Blood Mage with 11 Constitution who damages himself with most of his spellcasting adds a lot of flavor.

 

[Orius]

One of the textbook examples of this mentality, it's institutionalization, and it being carried forward to it's ultimate end ... is Raistlin.

Raistlin wanted More, and he got More. He continued to strive for More, and obtained yet More. Finally, he strove for Everything.
When bequeathed with a chance to witness the future, the consequences of his quest for Everything, and with no other options available, he sacrificed himself instead.

Look at Raistlin's beginnings. He started with Nothing. Because of his background and the fact he began with Nothing, he desired very strongly to obtain Something, to obtain More.
And thus, a wizard came into his own.

And in the end, Raistlin ended up with Nothing.

What do you make of all the balancing measures in 1e then (like demi-human level limits, various weapon/armor restrictions, wizards 'weaker first, stronger later' design)?

Were they mistakes? Accidents?

Balance was a central design consideration in early D&D. Only the methods employed were different (and, I'd argue, the level of success, but that's neither here nor there).

Yeah, the early game had it balances, Gary had reasons for the rules that were in there, but as stuff started getting tacked onto the system as it developed, that balance started falling apart.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Laurana did not have gender level limits. She had racial level limits, as an elven fighter (until 3rd edition, of course.)

I simplified the situation with Raistlin to make my point. That complicated something called Roleplaying comes heavily into play with Raistlin (as it does with most D&D games and books based on D&D.) But roleplaying is a different topic, incredibly complicated, and I am unable to address it here (helpless look) except as how it relates to the More issue.

The More issue, leads to roleplaying. It isn't, by any means, the only thing that leads to roleplaying - there are a hundred things that lead to roleplaying. The More issue, is one of those many things.

My character wants More? Ok, how does she go about getting More? How does she stand up under crisis, how does she cope when the chips are down? How ruthless is she about getting More? And so on.

Alignment is thus brought into play, in it's basic form. At least, that's my take: in it's most basic form, alignment roughly defines how your character goes about getting the More.
Raistlin was neutral, then turned chaotic evil. He was willing to go after the More by any means necessary. Period. If that meant killing Caramon, his own brother, then so be it. If it meant killing a certain gnome with a Fireball, then so be it.

So, we have a game that demands (because your character starts with close to Nothing, or pretty much Nothing) that your character seeks the More.
Then, how your character goes about this, defines her alignment.
How your character goes about seeking the More, plays a part in the roleplaying aspect of the game.

-

You have said that Raistlin dies in most actual games played, involving him in the DL adventure series, as opposed to the books where he survived.
I don't doubt you. He should die most of the time. The odds are stacked against him. Even the protection of Caramon is not enough.
Raistlin is a *wizard*, and like all wizards, he starts with basically Nothing. The odds against wizards are ... (shrugs) ... just very long odds, that's all (just as they are with the hapless monk.) You wouldn't expect someone, where the odds are all against them, to survive. That's a truism. (Like a d6: If you must roll a 6 for your character to survive, and a 1 through 5 means she dies, then it is most likely that ... she dies!)

If the entire party - Goldmoon and Riverwind, Flint and Tasslehoff, Sturm and Tanis, Laurana and Tika, Elistan and Goldmoon, and the others, close ranks to protect Raistlin, he *still* is likely to die.
Even if the person playing Raistlin plays him very cleverly and intelligently, and the party protects him, he is still likely to die.

Such was the lot of the single classed wizard. She (or he, in the case of Raistlin) faced long odds. It was just that simple. The Founders of D&D made it that way. The authors of Dragonlance allowed Raistlin to survive in the books, but that does not mean he would be so lucky in actual games.

*Consider* that. Consider an important consequence of this imbalance, the fact of the long odds against the wizard.

*Some* people chose to play wizards *anyways*, in spite of the nearly hopeless situation facing them. (As opposed to monks - everyone I saw try to play monks, gave up in the end.)
*The people who chose to play wizards* took on an attitude. The reality of the wizard reinforced this attitude. Those who refused to adopt this attitude ended up with dead characters or switched to other classes. Those who retained the attitude, got their wizard characters to high levels (sometimes.)

This attitude was militant, aggressive, and ruthless. It wasn't necessarily evil, or even neutral, ala alignment, but it *was* very much about getting the More.
Raistlin is an example of this attitude taken to the extreme, but there are many famous examples of NPCs with militant attitudes, even good NPCs, and as go NPCs, I'm guessing, so go the PCs. (A militant white wizard, for example.)

This militant attitude, is inherently upsetting to Balance. Taken to extremes, it is gamebreaking. The player is not at fault, though. It is the game that encouraged him or her to play in this style to start with!
The enigma of D&D, once more. (To a lesser extent, true of all the classes, as others have pointed out.)

For example, there was a gamebreaking spell called Gemidan's Paralytic Missile, 2nd level, released in the 2nd Edition Waterdeep, City of Splendors, boxed set.
Now, if I was a wizard of 3rd level, with 1 2nd level spell and 2 1st level spells available, an AC of 8 (12, 3E), THAC0 20 (BAB +0, 3E), 1 attack per round, no weapons worth mentioning, 5 hit points, no magical items (or any real hope of getting any) and an extremely good chance of DYING the very next encounter (as with each and every encounter!) then I'd leap at that spell. Why not?!

The spell in question, auto-paralyzes opponents, who are allowed a save ... for half duration. Or, in short, an Autokill Spell worthy of the 7th level Power Word Stun, at 2nd level. A gamebreaker.
Yet, if I were that wizard, I'd leap at that spell. Why not? Why not grab every advantage I could get? Why not employ every ruthless, nasty, vile, gamebreaking tactic I could?
The game is set up against me anyways. The game odds say my character dies. The game, itself, is demanding I grab that gamebreaking spell ... demanding I ... literally ... BREAK the game! I win by ... breaking the game!! That's HOW I win, as a wizard ... by breaking the game!!
I overturn the odds, overturn the rules, overturn the game, and I ... win! The game ITSELF is demanding I do this!!

If I believe in Balance, and I - the wizard player - call the spell out for the gamebreaker it is, and the DM shelves it and grants me a lesser spell in it's place, I've just greatly increased the chances that my character dies. Since those chances were great anyways, I've made a bad situation worse.
If I am reasonable, if I want balance, if I want fairness, I'm going to end up with a dead wizard!
Only by seizing that spell, seizing each and every opportunity, nefariously plotting and planning, using every bit of cleverness and ruthlessness I've got, can I beat the odds, overthrow the realities the game is throwing at me, and make it to mid level.

-

And so, we've had 30 years of uproar, debate, argument, discussion, about this issue. We've never really found an answer.
OD&D framed the wizard's situation. 1E qualified it. 2E continued it. 3E also continued it. 4E? 4E has no wizard in the Vancian sense, but no game is going to make everything perfectly fair. And even if the game could, who says the players will think it so?

The wizard knows that she is in an unfair situation. She accepts this, and goes about turning the tables on the situation.
Any character can assume this attitude, in any game. And they will. Things are never fair. And even if they were, nobody would believe it.

30 years ago, this issue was on the table before us, as kids. It is still around now, facing us Old Timers. It will be around 30 years from now, too (regardless of what edition of the game we're at, or what they call the wizard at that point.)

Enigma. I'll say it again. It's an enigma. The desire for More helps make the game, but also destroys it. Enigma. And nowhere more so, than with the wizard (the monk might put in a protest here, but what chance did that poor fellow ever have? ...)
We'll go on wrestling with the enigma, for as long as we play Dungeons and Dragons and other roleplaying games (for if it's not the wizard, it will be all the other classes instead.)

(muses)

Enigma indeed.

Edena_of_Neith

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

(humor)

Did someone mention Harry Potter?
It is easy enough to convert a regular D&D campaign into a Harry Potter campaign. Here's how:

You introduce an Artifact/Relic called the Wand. It grants the following Prime Powers, with no Malevolent Effects (major or minor!) :

- Anyone holding the Wand, can now cast any of the spells she knows (she has in her spellbook ... except she doesn't need a spellbook: the player simply writes down what spells the character knows, period) any number of times per day she desires, once per round, 24 hours per day, forever.
- If the character could cast multiple spells in a round, she still can, and can cast these multiple spells each round, every round, 24 hours per day, forever.
- If it's 3E, then all the wizard's known metamagic feats are usable on an infinite basis, so long as they do not stack up the spell level - of spells she casts - to a final level higher than the wizard could normally cast.

If the Wand is destroyed, the character can no longer cast any spells at all (the whole concept of holding spells, magical power, in your mind, is completely dropped.)
If you obtain another Wand, you can once more cast spells as per above, with some minor penalties.

And ... EVERY wizard in the campaign has one of these Artifact/Relics. This includes even wizard apprentices, down to the lowliest and least (yes, even those good-for-nothing apprentices of the Red Wizards of Thay!)

Any being capable of casting spells can pick up one of these Wands and use it, to supplement their own powers, sometimes greatly (ala, the phaerimm, dragons, illithid, faerie, etc.)

Anyone who cannot cast spells gains a new title in their character description: Muggle.

And we now have a setting in which wizards are so supreme, that it makes the Age of Netheril look like the tinker gnomes with their Giant Space Hamsters were running the show, in comparison. : D

EDIT:

The Red Wizards of Thay, with Unlimited Spells Per Day.
Uh ... no. Let's not go there. Let's not even think about such things. There really are Places Where Man (and Beast) Were Not Meant To Go, and this is one of them!

 

[El Mahdi]

I know the conversation has moved on a bit since your OP (and I'm a little late to the party), but your description of 1E Wizards reminded me of why I always played Fighters. Man, those Wizards had it rough at lower levels.

By the way, I'd like to also add that this is a pretty cool thread.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Thanks much, El Madhi. : )

I never said the fighter had it easy. Not in 1E, not in any edition.
There's nothing to keep a fighter from thinking like a wizard. Heck, a fighter could almost be a defacto wizard, if he had enough magical items (remember the famous Girdle of Giant Strength? Vorpal Swords? And inevitably, items that allowed Haste without the aging?)

Enter the elven fighter/mage, and you could have it all (and did ... there must be dozens of elven subtypes that were imagined up, and about a million jokes about elves, since then.)

Anyways, any character could be ruthless and conniving, and plot to overturn the very game itself. Obviously so.
It's just that, at least in my opinion, the wizard was the most driven to do so, and most likely to finally actually do it (until the cleric got to his Heal/Harm spell that allowed no save, that is ... and other things like that ... lol.)