D&D 2E Wait, what? (Spell memorization in 2nd ed AD&D)

[cbwjm]

I'm planning to put some of the old restrictions back in place in 3e to rein in caster power a bit.

Spell preparation times will be the first. I'll do 2e's 10 minutes/level times rather than 1e's 15 minutes because the math works better with cantrips which would be cosidered 1/2 levels. It's just more convenient to do them at 5 minutes than 7.5 minutes which would either be rounded down to 7 minutes per 3e's rounding standards or 75 rounds which just adds more complications to the math. I'm hoping that will strike a blow against the hated 15 minute workday.

For the spells known, will this also limit their spell slots? As in, will a sorcerer have to meditate for an hour to restore a 6th level spell slot.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Nor was it the only one. There were numerous other restrictions on spellcasters that were later jettisoned:

• Wizards had to make a check to learn every new spell they came across, which after 1st level was the only way to gain new spells (i.e. you didn't gain new spells automatically as you gained levels). If you failed that check, you had to wait an entire level to be able to try and learn that spell again.
• Clerics didn't actually get to pick their own spells. While low-level spells were gained through faith alone, higher-level spells had to be requested from your deity (or their divine servants), who might deny your request in favor of granting you different spells. So if you asked for an earthquake spell, and the DM knew you'd be facing a lot of undead, he might give you a spell that was more in tune with what you'd need instead.
• Wizards could only learn so many spells of each spell level. I don't mean memorize only so many, either; they had a maximum number of spells (based on their Intelligence) at each spell level that they could learn. So they had to judge each new spell they came across carefully to consider if they wanted to add it to their limited repertoire.
• All spellcasters automatically failed what we now call "concentration checks." If you were distracted, let alone injured, while casting - which was a very real possibility, as spellcasting times were measured in "round segments" that quite often overlapped other character's actions - you automatically lost the spell, no check.
• Magic item crafting was something spellcasters could do automatically at certain levels, but was never just a matter of time, gold, or other predefined resources. It always required esoteric components, which were determined by the DM. If you wanted to make a wand of fireball, you conducted research (or paid a sage to do it for you) in order for the DM to eventually tell you that it required phoenix feathers, the blood of a noble efreeti, and a fire ruby that had been dipped into an active volcano. And just like that, your wizard now had three new adventure hooks that they were pressing the rest of the party to pursue.
• The target numbers for saving throws were entirely determined by the characters/creatures you were attacking; they weren't set on your end. So if a high-level fighter had a "saving throw vs. spells" of 3, they just needed to roll a 3 or higher on their d20 roll against incoming spells, which meant that they were going to make their save almost all of the time. The best you got was to maybe inflict minor penalties to their roll if, for example, you were a specialist casting a spell from your favored school of magic.
• Magic resistance worked differently depending on your edition of choice. While in AD&D 1E your chance to overcome MR varied depending on your level (specifically, the listed magic resistance for a creature presumed that you were 11th level; for every level below that, you added 5% to the value, and for every level above, you subtracted 5%). Conversely, in AD&D 2E the percentage chance of magic resistance was absolute. So if a monster had MR 50%, then half of your spells were going to fail regardless of whether you were a 1st-level apprentice or Elminster himself.
• There were fewer safeguards written into the spells themselves. If you went off-target with a teleport spell, and ended up inside a stone wall, you were dead. No check, no saving throw, no "you shift to the nearest open space and take X damage." Everytime you used polymorph self, you made a system shock check, and while the percentage of success was slanted in your favor, if you failed then you died instantly. (On a related note, resurrection spells also had a chance of failure, and while that one was even more slanted toward success, if you failed it you were permanently dead barring divine intervention. Of course, you could only be resurrected as many times as your Constitution score anyway.)
• The level of spells that clerics could gain was partially dependent on the power of their god. Demigods could only grant up to 5th-level spells, and lesser deities could only grant up to 6th-level. This was supposed to be counterbalanced by higher-level clerics being big fish in smaller ponds, meaning that you had an outsized role in your deity's religious organization (potentially among their divine servitors as well as their terrestrial church), but that message seemed to be lost quite often.

Those are just off the top of my head, but these were how AD&D avoided "linear fighters, quadratic wizards." But a lot of people didn't like restrictions on what they felt should have been super-powerful high-level spellcasters, and summarily ignored some or all of these. When they made D&D Third Edition, Wizards of the Coast listened to those complaints and did away with all of these restrictions, only for the Law of Unintended Consequences to come back and bite them hard, as 3E came to be known as "caster edition."

I think the problem here is a lot of these balance techniques are "soft". I don't like rolls to learn spells for the same reasons I don't like rolling for ability scores. Clerics not having a choice in their own spells is a "soft" mechanic, not a hard "do this and get spells, do that and don't get spells" mechanic, and unlike a more narrative system you don't get fate point, fortune points or hero points if that occurs. Magic item creation rules weren't hard coded, and so forth.

Clearly they are not all soft balance techniques. The saving throw system, the max number of spells known, and the lack of concentration system were, IMO, good and hard balancing techniques.

I would like to see some restrictions, but I want to see hard, almost purely rules and numbers-based restrictions.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would like to see some restrictions, but I want to see hard, almost purely rules and numbers-based restrictions.

I can think of some that would work. For instance, magic use, being unnatural by definition, could potentially cause fatigue. Use too much or get unlucky with your rolls, and your wizard passes out. You could likewise use a similar rationale and have a temporary loss of sanity be the penalty.

D&D magic is pretty dependable, but it doesn’t have to be. Using the thief skill chart as a guide, break the magic system into its discrete schools. In each column, there would be a base “%fail” chance that goes down by level. Each MU’s actual % for a given school varies with stats and- if you wanted- other bonuses, So a glass cannon type mate might excel at schools with direct damage spells but not protective magic. A mage who prefers to buff his allies might have high failure % for schools with offensive spells.

Etc.

 

[Orius]

For the spells known, will this also limit their spell slots? As in, will a sorcerer have to meditate for an hour to restore a 6th level spell slot.

Yeah, there's possible balance issues with the sorcerer. Though who knows, sorcerers don't have to prep magic at all, they just need the normal 8 hour rest. And they still have a limited spell selection compared to the wizard.

 

[Orius]

I can think of some that would work. For instance, magic use, being unnatural by definition, could potentially cause fatigue. Use too much or get unlucky with your rolls, and your wizard passes out. You could likewise use a similar rationale and have a temporary loss of sanity be the penalty.

D&D magic is pretty dependable, but it doesn’t have to be. Using the thief skill chart as a guide, break the magic system into its discrete schools. In each column, there would be a base “%fail” chance that goes down by level. Each MU’s actual % for a given school varies with stats and- if you wanted- other bonuses, So a glass cannon type mate might excel at schools with direct damage spells but not protective magic. A mage who prefers to buff his allies might have high failure % for schools with offensive spells.

Etc.

That would be irritating. The Vancian system has a limited number of spells and having them fail would be rather punishing. I've played video games that did something like that, had a relatively low amount of magic points and/or expensive spells and then the spells could miss. I never liked that. The party fighter can miss pretty often at low level but he doesn't get a limited number of attacks per day.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That would be irritating. The Vancian system has a limited number of spells and having them fail would be rather punishing. I've played video games that did something like that, had a relatively low amount of magic points and/or expensive spells and then the spells could miss. I never liked that. The party fighter can miss pretty often at low level but he doesn't get a limited number of attacks per day.

Eh, no more irritating than having a spell disrupted by taking damage.

Besides, I wasn’t proposing ready-to-go solutions, just throwing out some ideas that might appeal to someone who- as stated- wanted hard-coded mechanical limits on spellcasters.

Even so, one way to work spell failure percentage into a game without making MUs completely useless would be to teak those percentages higher. You could even sweeten the pot by making a successful roll within the lowest tenth of your success (e.g., rolling a 7 when you have an 80% chance of successfully casting a spell) into a critical success. (What THAT means could depend on the spell type, the spell, the campaign, DM’s whim, whatever.)

 

[Ace]

In practice, most of those restrictions didn't actually restrict things very much.

SNIP

At a 19 intelligence, you had an unlimited capacity for new spells. This, in practice, meant that players of Wizard characters HEAVILY powergamed to get a 19 INT, such as doing anything it took to get an 18 starting INT and getting that extra +1 somehow.

Most of those various balancing factors just plain never came up, or players found ways around them, or there were optional rules that softened them that were widely used. . .and nobody missed when 3e came out because those rules were seen as archaic to begin with.

Getting a 19 INT was not as hard as you might think since any MU 8th level and above could learn to make things like elixir of youth and the less useful potion of longevity. There was also IIRC a Tome of Clear Thought which could be made.

Potions gave extra decades for the MU to adventure and over time INT and WIS were gained but those potions mitigated the effects on physical stats.

AD&D 2e which I am more familiar with would have gains of +2 INT and +3 WIS by 90 but this is roughly 7 potions of longevity which is risky (1 in 5 of dying if I did the stats right) to keep young

It is also mitigated by wish spells (I wish for all potions of longevity to have the best possible effects on me) which if allowed would grant a life span of over 10 centuries . Elixirs of youth always knocked off one year safely and could be made by an alchemist or wizard as well.

 

[Alzrius]

Getting a 19 INT was not as hard as you might think since any MU 8th level and above could learn to make things like elixir of youth and the less useful potion of longevity. There was also IIRC a Tome of Clear Thought which could be made.

If I recall correctly, making magic items of any sort depended upon exotic components, which the rules left undefined. That meant that if the DM didn't want to let your character make those, they could simply "soft ban" them by specifying components that were inaccessible or otherwise impossible to acquire.

 

[Ace]

If I recall correctly, making magic items of any sort depended upon exotic components, which the rules left undefined. That meant that if the DM didn't want to let your character make those, they could simply "soft ban" them by specifying components that were inaccessible or otherwise impossible to acquire.

Absolutely, I preferred (back in Ye Olden Daze of 2E) the opposite approach to encourage making items and to encourage spells research.

For the former, just get your mates and go on an adventure for whatever you needed and as to the later, do it during downtime. My house rule, never used as players never did spell research was to not count personal spells against the limits. This way if you make "Yourguy's Iceball." basically fireball but ice, not only did yoou get a new spell but you still had all your unused known spell slots.

However like henchmen, strongholds, weapon vs armor type and a host of other rules, it mostly when unused.

Players than as now (and I played with a LOT of groups) tended to like to bull through problems and keep to 4 or more guys vs a dungeon. I got a bit of a rep as crafty but eccentric for things like caltrops (useful to protect when sleeping in zombie infested strongholds) having a war dog as my MU's pet (not familiar, pet) and other old school tricks.

Personally I think the guys like Questing Beast on YouTube that make an effort to point out these little used things benefit the OSR as a mvement. The OSR is more than "less rules, more rulings" or "more gonzo" as seems to be a biig thig now. Its a way of approaching plan and problems solving that can lead to aheck of alot of fun with the right group.

 

[Orius]

Eh, no more irritating than having a spell disrupted by taking damage.

Besides, I wasn’t proposing ready-to-go solutions, just throwing out some ideas that might appeal to someone who- as stated- wanted hard-coded mechanical limits on spellcasters.

Even so, one way to work spell failure percentage into a game without making MUs completely useless would be to teak those percentages higher. You could even sweeten the pot by making a successful roll within the lowest tenth of your success (e.g., rolling a 7 when you have an 80% chance of successfully casting a spell) into a critical success. (What THAT means could depend on the spell type, the spell, the campaign, DM’s whim, whatever.)

True, on the point of spell interruptions.

Honestly though I think the chance of spell failure is covered by saving throws, though in something of a reverse fashion. That is, instead of the caster failing, the target gets lucky.