AD&D 1E Three Things that can't be Fixed in 1e AD&D

[Lanefan]

hmm. Did people actually use the random % chance to know a spell rules? From what I remember back in the 1E gaming days, we pretty much let starting mages pick the spells they wanted (they already had a difficult start). I don't think we used the % chance of adding a new spell either.... if they found a scroll, they could copy it in, no problem. I don't remember how we did 'adding new spells when you gained a level', although I think it was just 'add one of whatever you want'....

We do it that the DM randomly rolls what spells they start with (using the DMG as guidance).

We also use the chance-to-learn rules, meaning you have to roll to learn anything new. Exception: the spell you get at training is automatically learned, but rolled at random (in-fiction rationale: that's what your trainer decided to teach you).

That sais, Mages with money to burn can always go to guilds and try to buy access to spells.

 

[David Howery]

I let them choose their starting book and one spell on level up, but it is still subject to the % roll. In my most recent game a MU/T failed to know Sleep so they learned Charm Person instead. There are enough good spells per level so that no PC is crippled. A 15 Int still gives you good odds.

that's not too bad, although you could still end up with a frustrated player who doesn't get anything he wanted. I don't recall all the details about setting up a mage's spellbook (other than it has to have Read Magic in it), but a decent house rule could be 'pick one spell that is in there without randomizing it, and then randomize the rest'.... granted, if the mage has a 15 or higher INT, then chances are he'd get what he wanted anyway...

 

[Moving Pictures]

Burning Hands is even pretty marginal in 3e when it goes out in a 10' arc and does 1d4 per level (save for half IIRC).

I extended the range to 5m. I think that makes it a bit more useful in mass combat.

Rolling anything but Sleep, MM, or Charm Person as your starting offensive spells is a decently big incentive to go with darts and daggers and save your spells for defense or utility. It doesn't hurt that MUs are most competitive on THAC0 at level 1 (equal to everybody but the fighter).

Tweaked starting spells. One offensive, one defensive, one info/utility and then four "general" spells. Magic Missile is one of the generals....

MM is excellent for interrupting enemy spells, provided you allow the MM's caster to wait till she sees an enemy starting to cast.

The original "Counterspell."

 

[gban007]

I find all this conversation quite a fascinating look at 1e, and make me glad my journey due to availability was Basic to 2e.

 

[fuindordm]

Arguably, one of the things that "can't be fixed" about 1e is magic. The spells are all over the place, cursed items can killl your pc outright, and illusionists are somehow both powerful and useless.

If I had time, I would go through the whole PH and try to at least make the spells of each level similarly useful by adjusting thei power, AoE, and other details.

 

[Lanefan]

Arguably, one of the things that "can't be fixed" about 1e is magic. The spells are all over the place, cursed items can killl your pc outright, and illusionists are somehow both powerful and useless.

To me, that's the whole beauty of Illusionists: in some situations they're truly badass while in others they're a fifth wheel. On average, though, across a typical mix of situations they end up in balance with everyone else.

If I had time, I would go through the whole PH and try to at least make the spells of each level similarly useful by adjusting thei power, AoE, and other details.

Good luck with that.

Some spells - quite a lot of 'em, really - are like Illusionists: perfect in some situations and useless in others. Trying to make most or all spells always roughly the same level of useful regardless of situation is IMO a fool's errand and would serve only to make the game more boring.

 

[Celebrim]

To me, that's the whole beauty of Illusionists: in some situations they're truly badass while in others they're a fifth wheel. On average, though, across a typical mix of situations they end up in balance with everyone else.

Good luck with that.

Some spells - quite a lot of 'em, really - are like Illusionists: perfect in some situations and useless in others. Trying to make most or all spells always roughly the same level of useful regardless of situation is IMO a fool's errand and would serve only to make the game more boring.

Perhaps. But I think there are a considerable number of spells that have probably never been cast in play, or else are cast so rarely that you never see it, or if they are cast it's because they depend on generous house rules. And then there are the spells that are just so powerful, the DMG had to nerf them - like the fact that Haste ages everyone like 2 or 3 years anytime you cast it.

 

[Lanefan]

Perhaps. But I think there are a considerable number of spells that have probably never been cast in play, or else are cast so rarely that you never see it, or if they are cast it's because they depend on generous house rules. And then there are the spells that are just so powerful, the DMG had to nerf them - like the fact that Haste ages everyone like 2 or 3 years anytime you cast it.

There's spells that are always useful to some degree, and then there's spells that are extremely useful but only in specific circumstances.

Most of the time people will prepare/memorize the always-somewhat-useful ones, while the specific-purpose ones rarely if ever see the light of day; and that's a bit sad.

It can be solved by removing pre-memorization entirely - I did this for my current campaign and particularly at low levels I saw spells getting cast I'd never seen before, which was great - but this does makes casters way more flexible and, correspondingly, more powerful. Toning them down to balance off that added flexibility is a challenge I'm still working on.

As for putting in risks or drawbacks to tone down some otherwise-overpowered spells, I'm all for it. Far better than just putting in some sort of monetary cost or sacrifice requirement to cast, which is boring.

 

[Celebrim]

There's spells that are always useful to some degree, and then there's spells that are extremely useful but only in specific circumstances.

Most of the time people will prepare/memorize the always-somewhat-useful ones, while the specific-purpose ones rarely if ever see the light of day; and that's a bit sad.

It can be solved by removing pre-memorization entirely - I did this for my current campaign and particularly at low levels I saw spells getting cast I'd never seen before, which was great - but this does makes casters way more flexible and, correspondingly, more powerful. Toning them down to balance off that added flexibility is a challenge I'm still working on.

As for putting in risks or drawbacks to tone down some otherwise-overpowered spells, I'm all for it. Far better than just putting in some sort of monetary cost or sacrifice requirement to cast, which is boring.

Leaving one or two slots unprepared and then stopping for a few turns to memorize the utility spell you needed is an old trick. It just tends to summon wandering monsters if you do it too much.