TheRPGSite

This came up in another thread - and I'd want to address it without the baggage of the other topic. ForgottenF suggested that he felt like AD&D magic users stretched plausibility that other adventurers would take them into a dungeon.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 26, 2024, 08:18:47 PM
Every occupation has a certain basic requirements where if you don't fill them, then no matter what your other merits are, you can't do that job. A fantasy adventurer needs to be able to run, climb, swim, sneak, fight and probably ride a horse. They don't need to be the best at any of those things, but if they can't do them at all, they're not qualified to be an adventurer. If they can't do those things physically, they need to be able to reliably produce an equivalent result magically.

You might say "Wait a minute! Lots of D&D characters can't do all those things". Yeah, I think it stretches plausibility that anyone would take a 1st level wizard with 6 strength, 3 HP, no armor and one spell per day with them into a dungeon. The chances are just too high of him either forcing the expedition to stall because he can't traverse the dungeon, or getting his companions killed trying to defend him. The only reason that happens is game convention.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 27, 2024, 03:17:11 PM
I'm apparently alone in this, but I don't buy that a person who can't withstand physical hardship or defend themselves would succeed long-term as a career adventurer. It's not often an issue in D&D because of a bunch of meta reasons which are external to the fictional world of the game: everything from the way turn-based combat works, to dungeon design, the experience system and which factors are and are not simulated in the rules. That's what I mean by "game convention". Mostly I can let willing suspension of disbelief fill in the gaps, but it does bother me a bit that most fantasy RPGs reward specialization over generalism, just because I personally find playing generalists more fun.

I think it's a matter of taste, but I think there are some differences in viewpoints.

It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

I also question your comment about can't withstand physical hardship. In my experience, most magic users have low Strength but do have high Constitution, and I think of them as being quite tough and able to endure hardship. They're just not very skilled at fighting.

There are exceptions, I'm sure. I never read any Dragonlance fiction, but I understand that Raistlin was portrayed as sickly - and that may have become a stereotype of D&D, but I'm not sure it was part of the original vision. Gandalf was the earlier stereotype for the wizard, and he was technically an extremely tough demigod who wielded a sword on his horse in battle. AD&D magic users weren't Gandalf, for sure, but they weren't necessarily delicate flowers who couldn't endure hardship.

Raistlin is portrayed as sickly in the novelization, but if you look at the modules, he has an average score in both strength and constitution.

It's possible the person you're quoting is imagining a SEAL team, but I doubt it. In fact, I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from, "I don't think any adventuring party even considers a member with 6 strength, 3 hit points, and only one spell per day," to, "You're picturing a SEAL team." One might even call it disingenuous.

Let's dispense with the strength problem and assume the wizard has average strength. No armor and 1-4 hit points is a big enough problem that the rest of the group has to babysit you, constantly.

Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 05:03:18 PM
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the "3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you'll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it" camp?

Paradox wizard; at once a 1d4 one hit wonder while also being the wise Pharoh of classes looking down on the fighters from the safety of a rope trick spell. Their abilities from our perspective are implausible to begin with and it almost feels like a patch attempt by software developers to portray them as physically weak to offset the cheat codes they accumulate.

I never took Gandalf in the lotr movies as physically weak since he fought with a sword and staff despite being old and looking like homeless magneto, and I seem to recall way back when I read the hobbit in like 5th grade that he used a sword on goblins in goblin town.

Non-wizards require magic items (which are largely dependent upon the willingness of wizards to create) to approach the power of puny wizards who gain skill in their craft, and you'd think that once you were wizard enough do such things that you'd use magic to not be puny anymore, or ugly for that matter.

Many contradictions with wizards arise upon examination of these things unless we assume a sort of sliding scale of magical availability across these stories which is then not really reflected properly by game mechanics. For example the game pretty much gives the wizard free reload of magic daily or with some rest period, whereas in the assorted literature there may be much less renewable magical powers or powers which face limitations such as not being able to cast the same spell more than once within a certain amount of time. Literature also features often enough it seems dial-a-yield magic use that was largely not featured mechanically until the end of 2e, start of 3e, with such things as meta-magic feats.

I mean, kind of. There is no reason they would wear robes instead of traveling clothes, either. If you look at fictional wizards, most of them are good in a fight, most of them have good general adventuring skills, and over half of them use swords. The d4 hit die guy that can't use a shield and spear to save his life is a bit of a comedy character.

Start out with only 1 spell per day; and you don't get to choose that spell from the spell list yourself, either.

I would say they probably are very weak to the point playing a multi-class Mage is an upgrade (like Mage/Thief). I would agree that they probably should be able to wield swords, much like Gandalf.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 28, 2024, 05:19:37 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 05:03:18 PM
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the "3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you'll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it" camp?

Greetings!

Good question, my friend! The truth is, it depends on the "Campaign Mode" I am running that particular group with. Normal Mode--which is 4D6 for each stat; or Hard Mode, which is 3D6 down the line. Of course, sometimes I will run the campaign one mode or the other, or allow the Players to select what they like. Some, after all, *prefer* the Hard Mode.

In recent campaigns, however, like my more recent group, I have been playing the Shadowdark rules, so, HARD MODE it is!

I can be lenient though. If they roll up a totally lame Character, yeah, reroll and get something decent. I don't let them reroll endlessly, seeking super stats--but simply to get that rough, decent range of stats. The driving point, being, yeah, Adventurers are unusual and somewhat elite. You have to be to even have a chance at surviving the challenges ahead. Being normal is ok, but let's face it--a large chunk of humanity are in fact, just walking corpses in a firefight. They are often mentally and physically entirely unsuited to fighting at the front. So, I am careful to supervise Players to make sure that they have rugged, functional characters. The weak, fat, crippled, and so on, well, again, let's be real. Those people stay back on the farm, or stay in the urban ghetto where they come from, or even a more well-off house. Those people stay near the temples, the schools, and markets, away from danger and real work.

As I recall, isn't the average for 3D6 like, 10? The average for 4D6 (drop lowest) is...12, I think? Depending on what scores the Players have in what, yeah, I try and hope they never get anything below a -1 modifier. Or at least, not having more than two (-1) attributes. Having two or more (-1) or (-2) attributes, well, yeah, you are getting very close to failure state there, you know? Again, depending on the attributes and the class, some things can slide better than others, more so in the mental, social areas than the physical, for example. Being socially clumsy, or mentally a bit on the slow side can be fine--but if you cannot run, climb, jump, swim, carry shit, dig, and fight to a basic standard, that seems like a huge no to me, right from the beginning.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 07:48:39 PM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 28, 2024, 05:19:37 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 05:03:18 PM
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the "3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you'll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it" camp?

Greetings!

Good question, my friend! The truth is, it depends on the "Campaign Mode" I am running that particular group with. Normal Mode--which is 4D6 for each stat; or Hard Mode, which is 3D6 down the line. Of course, sometimes I will run the campaign one mode or the other, or allow the Players to select what they like. Some, after all, *prefer* the Hard Mode.

In recent campaigns, however, like my more recent group, I have been playing the Shadowdark rules, so, HARD MODE it is!

I can be lenient though. If they roll up a totally lame Character, yeah, reroll and get something decent. I don't let them reroll endlessly, seeking super stats--but simply to get that rough, decent range of stats. The driving point, being, yeah, Adventurers are unusual and somewhat elite. You have to be to even have a chance at surviving the challenges ahead. Being normal is ok, but let's face it--a large chunk of humanity are in fact, just walking corpses in a firefight. They are often mentally and physically entirely unsuited to fighting at the front. So, I am careful to supervise Players to make sure that they have rugged, functional characters. The weak, fat, crippled, and so on, well, again, let's be real. Those people stay back on the farm, or stay in the urban ghetto where they come from, or even a more well-off house. Those people stay near the temples, the schools, and markets, away from danger and real work.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks for the response.  It is always good to know your take on things. 


I myself am kind of a softy when it comes to stats.  I would like a character to have two good stats and to be able to place them so they can pick a class that they want to play.  In the AD&D Player's Handbook Gary Gygax recommends that a player character have at least a 15 in two stats since they represent heroic adventurers.  Since I use the  B/X rules and the plusses start at 13, I would be okay with two stats of at least 13 or better.  My reasoning is that I can always bump up the challenge if the players are really "heroic" and cutting their way through hordes of enemies Conan style. 

Regarding Magic-Users, I have no problem with a mage swinging a sword in a fight.  They are still going to have crappy to-hit rolls in most systems.  Not sure how I feel about them wearing heavy armor, or any armor for that matter.  The whole "magic doesn't work 'cause metal armor" falls apart when the mage dons a suit of dragon scale armor or magical leather.  I am forced to say "no" for the sake of game balance.  I would rule if the mage wants to wear armor and fight well then they should branch off into fighter.

For me, this is yet another case of the excluded middle.

I typically set up rules (or house rules) somewhat in line with B/X 3d6 down the line at start, without much more capability, but then tip the scales ever so slightly in favor of the players with our rules.  Exactly how varies by system.  There is something that is "special" about a PC, even if only slightly tougher than your average first level scrub.  Then I throw them in a meat grinder world--expect them to scout, explore, and think--and rule impartially from that basis.  In other words, I put my thumb on the scale when your character was built. After that, the thumb comes off.  In my own system, not every creature has a class like PC's do, starting PC's get at least a +2 in one ability if they don't have one from the roll, and that's about it. 

The net result is that characters probably aren't all that capable (in Shark's terms) at start. They are just capable enough that if they can survive a couple of short adventures or one longer one, by using their brains, they'll then be capable.  Sometimes capable adventurers are having to nurse maid an incapable NPC or replacement PC for a while.  Since it's mostly a sandbox, and the players are mostly deciding what they think they can handle, it works.  You could look at it as players choosing a "boot camp" style adventure from time to time, when they need to get someone to that capable state, or at least find out if they can.

Of course, if I'm going to run a one-shot or a short campaign with a theme of highly capable adventurers taking on the world, then that's a different thing.  I've done old D&D modules that were very much "bring a character of N experience points", a completely different dynamic than zero to maybe hero in a sandbox.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 28, 2024, 08:33:08 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 07:48:39 PM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 28, 2024, 05:19:37 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 05:03:18 PM
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the "3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you'll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it" camp?

Greetings!

Good question, my friend! The truth is, it depends on the "Campaign Mode" I am running that particular group with. Normal Mode--which is 4D6 for each stat; or Hard Mode, which is 3D6 down the line. Of course, sometimes I will run the campaign one mode or the other, or allow the Players to select what they like. Some, after all, *prefer* the Hard Mode.

In recent campaigns, however, like my more recent group, I have been playing the Shadowdark rules, so, HARD MODE it is!

I can be lenient though. If they roll up a totally lame Character, yeah, reroll and get something decent. I don't let them reroll endlessly, seeking super stats--but simply to get that rough, decent range of stats. The driving point, being, yeah, Adventurers are unusual and somewhat elite. You have to be to even have a chance at surviving the challenges ahead. Being normal is ok, but let's face it--a large chunk of humanity are in fact, just walking corpses in a firefight. They are often mentally and physically entirely unsuited to fighting at the front. So, I am careful to supervise Players to make sure that they have rugged, functional characters. The weak, fat, crippled, and so on, well, again, let's be real. Those people stay back on the farm, or stay in the urban ghetto where they come from, or even a more well-off house. Those people stay near the temples, the schools, and markets, away from danger and real work.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks for the response.  It is always good to know your take on things. 


I myself am kind of a softy when it comes to stats.  I would like a character to have two good stats and to be able to place them so they can pick a class that they want to play.  In the AD&D Player's Handbook Gary Gygax recommends that a player character have at least a 15 in two stats since they represent heroic adventurers.  Since I use the  B/X rules and the plusses start at 13, I would be okay with two stats of at least 13 or better.  My reasoning is that I can always bump up the challenge if the players are really "heroic" and cutting their way through hordes of enemies Conan style. 

Regarding Magic-Users, I have no problem with a mage swinging a sword in a fight.  They are still going to have crappy to-hit rolls in most systems.  Not sure how I feel about them wearing heavy armor, or any armor for that matter.  The whole "magic doesn't work 'cause metal armor" falls apart when the mage dons a suit of dragon scale armor or magical leather.  I am forced to say "no" for the sake of game balance.  I would rule if the mage wants to wear armor and fight well then they should branch off into fighter.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Yeah, Svenhelgrim, I am much the same way. After all, allowing Players to actually play the Class that they want, and be fairly decent at it, I tend to think is a good thing, you know? Having said that, yes, there is also great fun--and hilarity--in letting Players roll up totally random characters, letting the dice fall where they may, and see what you get. Personally, I LOVE that. It provides lots of hidden dynamics that are good for the game as a whole, if you see what I'm saying.

But, it does have its limitations and lessened appeal when you have a Player that is really jazzed and excited about playing "X" class. Telling them, "Well, better luck next time!" does not appeal to me very much, and certainly not likely for many Players. So, yeah, as the GM, I think being flexible, and somewhat generous at character creation is probably best, and the most fun.

I know some people like being harsh and uber-dicks say for example, to strangers you just met at a Con or at the game store, and may be more generous to a group of friends. Myself, though, yeah. You know. *Laughing* I'm nicer, and cool, and like everyone to have a good time. I wear the DM's Viking Hat, that is certain, but I'm not trying to compete with somehow showing how mean of a bastard DM I can be. I usually play with friends, so these people know me. Even at the game store, having a couple young girls, an older vet come up, maybe a young guy in high school or college, eager to get into an awesome campaign of D&D, yeah, I want them to have a good time, too.

That is just how I roll, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
I think it's a matter of taste, but I think there are some differences in viewpoints.

It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

The problem I have with the Lewis and Clark analogy is that D&D adventures in general, and dungeons in particular, are phenomenally dangerous. Much more dangerous than even the American frontier was, and more dangerous than most historical wars. A D&D party goes into a dungeon fully expecting to face deadly traps and be in multiple life-or-death conflicts with supernatural creatures before they return, not to mention the likelihood they'll have to scale sheer surfaces or swim underwater for significant distances. I can't imagine anyone willingly taking a pregnant woman into that.

I don't know about the Navy Seal comparison. Frankly, I don't know that much about Navy Seals, but my understanding is that their job is to be elite combatants first, and everything else is in service to that. Maybe SHARK's "every Marine a rifleman" is a better analogy. I don't think every adventurer needs to be an elite fighter or necessarily an elite anything. As I said in the other thread, it strikes me as a profession which would reward generalism more than specialization. I accept class roles in D&D, because it's D&D and that's just how the game works, but I do think skill-based systems can sometimes produce more plausible, well-rounded adventurers out of character creation.

If we're open to literary examples, I'd point to adventure-fiction characters of the Indiana Jones/Alan Quartermain/Nathan Drake type. They're not usually the absolute best at anything, but they have a broad skill and knowledge base, and above-average competence in the things most important to what they do. Indiana Jones gets his ass whipped all the time, but he can still scrap. In the fantasy realm, characters like Conan or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are elite fighters, but they're also generalists who have plenty of skills beyond fighting.

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
I also question your comment about can't withstand physical hardship. In my experience, most magic users have low Strength but do have high Constitution, and I think of them as being quite tough and able to endure hardship. They're just not very skilled at fighting.

That has not been my experience, but obviously it depends on the luck of the die for attribute scores. I think it's fair to say that every other measure of physical resilience D&D tracks, wizards traditionally score very poorly. They always have the lowest hit die and usually have the worst poison or constitution saves. They usually don't have athletics as a class skill, and they don't get any class features related to travel or survival.

They're always bad at fighting, but the relevant question is how bad? Because they shouldn't be as good as a fighter or thief. What gets my goat is when people say that wizards (and thieves) aren't supposed to be able to fight, and shouldn't be fighting. Anyone who walks into an RPG dungeon should expect to be in a fight. If they're likely to be slaughtered as soon as a 1 hit-die goblin gets into melee with them, they have no business being there. 

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
There are exceptions, I'm sure. I never read any Dragonlance fiction, but I understand that Raistlin was portrayed as sickly - and that may have become a stereotype of D&D, but I'm not sure it was part of the original vision. Gandalf was the earlier stereotype for the wizard, and he was technically an extremely tough demigod who wielded a sword on his horse in battle. AD&D magic users weren't Gandalf, for sure, but they weren't necessarily delicate flowers who couldn't endure hardship.

I don't know if Raistlin is to blame or just the general stereotype that wizards are all egghead nerds. Gandalf is better, but it's a bit unfair because he's a superhuman. There aren't many great literary models for a wizard adventurer, because in most classic fantasy, wizards aren't adventurers. They're villains or advisor-types. Turjan from Dying Earth is probably the most apt example, but Turjan can handle a sword. In fact,  he and Cugel are both good examples of why a magic-user in a Vancian system better be able to defend themselves without magic.

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

John,

What is an "enslaved body servant?"

The magic users hire the other adventurers to protect them, of course. As for why they're going into a dungeon in the first place, well, that's never really explained. Because dungeons in fantasy land are full of wealth for no reason, presumably.

Quote from: Aglondir on March 28, 2024, 10:00:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

John,

What is an "enslaved body servant?"

In 1784, an enslaved boy was assigned to be 14-year-old William Clark's personal "body servant." Like many slaves, the boy didn't have a legal right to a last name, so he was known just as York.

All that is known about York's parents are their first names, which were listed in John Clark's will of 1799. York's father was called Old York, and his mother was named Rose. It's possible that Old York was John's personal servant, and Rose may have been a house servant.

According to Rhonda Blumberg's "York's Adventures with Lewis and Clark," black household servants like York were "upper-class slaves." He would have slept in the Clark's home, within earshot of William. He wore nicer clothing than those of field slaves, probably hand-me-downs from William and his brothers. He would have eaten better foods from the family's kitchen and would have acquired refined manners and speech patterns. But slaves of all classes were typically forbidden from learning reading and writing.

I have no idea if any of this is actually true, it's just what I found in a random internet article.

Yes and no. If you use the modern 4 person adventuring party, one is probably going to be useless except for that one fight where he uses sleep.

But back in the day if you had 6 to 12 people in the party, he could hide in the back throwing darts or whatnot until sleep was needed.

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team --

We don't have to wonder what he was picturing.  He said it straight out several times and it was not an elite Special Operations team.  It was a normal rifleman aka everyone in the Marine Corps.  Pretending that he is talking about an adventuring group that's like a SEAL team when he clearly said what he was talking about is highly disingenuous.

As someone else has already pointed out, there is a very large excluded middle ground between people who would be an active liability because they can't walk on one hand and super elite soldiers on the other.  This middle ground is where the large majority of D&D characters are.  The wizard isn't as physically capable as the barbarian but he can still keep up or he wouldn't be there.  Going from one extreme directly to the opposite extreme is highly disingenuous.

I suspect that this entire topic was started in bad faith.  I think you are trying to get someone to say something that you can then use to justify wheelchair bound characters going adventuring.  You are fishing for a gotcha in an argument in another thread.  Something like this

People would bring physically incapable wizards because they bring other utility.
Oh yeah well a character wheelchair bound character can also bring other utility.  Touche bigot.

People just aren't playing ball. 

A couple of thoughts on this ...

I believe the approach with early D&D was that the magic user paid for his nigh-demigodhood late in the game by having a difficult childhood.  This more or less worked, but in retrospect, I think it wasn't the best approach

My group played more or less RAW starting at 1st level, and the magic-users moved on to higher levels, proving that they weren't actually too frail to survive.

Playing a first level magic user and getting a critical sleep spell maybe once per session at the right time is glorious, but being weaksauce the rest of the time is boring and not very fun.  It's a legitimate play style but not one I care for.

My preferred approach follows SHARK's comments.  I'd like everyone on the team to be a competent but not necessarily expert combatant so they can pull their weight even at low level.  In AD&D (my preferred D&D) I think the best way to do this would be to give everyone a level of fighter from the git-go.  So your m-u would be a m-u 1 / fighter 1, the thief would be a thief 1 / fighter 1, and the fighter would be a fighter 2.  Then progression would happen in the non-fighter class.

Quote from: JeremyR on March 29, 2024, 03:12:06 AM
Yes and no. If you use the modern 4 person adventuring party, one is probably going to be useless except for that one fight where he uses sleep.

But back in the day if you had 6 to 12 people in the party, he could hide in the back throwing darts or whatnot until sleep was needed.

This was my experience as well. A clutch sleep or charm person was the main contribution. The secondary contribution was as a pack mule.

You could view an adventuring party more like one of those "lost expedition" type media ("starring Doug McLure") where the professor (the "magic user" in D&D's case) is the specialist who has no combat skills whatsoever (and fights with his umbrella, in one example) but is needed for their knowledge of archaeology/anthropology/botany or whatever. Magic users aren't just spell repositories - they should have an understanding of magical stuff that the fighters and other adventurers don't have.

Quote from: FingerRod on March 29, 2024, 07:22:42 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on March 29, 2024, 03:12:06 AM
Yes and no. If you use the modern 4 person adventuring party, one is probably going to be useless except for that one fight where he uses sleep.

But back in the day if you had 6 to 12 people in the party, he could hide in the back throwing darts or whatnot until sleep was needed.

This was my experience as well. A clutch sleep or charm person was the main contribution. The secondary contribution was as a pack mule.

Our usual approach was for a wizard to find* a wand of magic missiles pretty early in their career, and give them something to do/use when their big spells would be wasted.

*GM discretion when placing treasure.

With regard to magic users, we need to take a look at how they started out. In original pre-supplement OD&D there were only three classes. The fighting man got 1d6+1 hit points and the magic user and clerics each got 1d6, not exactly a huge disparity there. Since there were no bonuses to hit or damage for STR the fighting man only had a 5% edge in attacking in combat and EVERYONE did 1d6 damage on a hit  regardless of weapon. In fighting ability the cleric and magic user user fought as 1 man and the fighting man fought as 1 man +1. The cleric and fighting man could both wear armor while the magic user couldn't. Before skill systems and other assorted baggage was added, all characters were assumed to be equally competent general adventurers. Everyone could climb, ride, survive in the woods, and sneak around (if not heavily armored).

So in retrospect the original magic user wasn't particularly weak in relation to the other classes. Then comes:

- massive STR bonuses for fighters
-reordering the combat tables to leave magic users fighting as normal men for 5 LEVELS. In OD&D the magic user fought as 2+1 man at level 4.
-variable weapon damage leaving magic users with only d4 weapons
-reducing magic user hit dice to d4 while promoting the fighter to d10
-introducing a specialist thief class that gave the impression that other classes suddenly couldn't sneak around anymore.

So I firmly blame AD&D for making the magic user into the ultimate pussy.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 29, 2024, 08:00:31 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on March 29, 2024, 07:22:42 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on March 29, 2024, 03:12:06 AM
Yes and no. If you use the modern 4 person adventuring party, one is probably going to be useless except for that one fight where he uses sleep.

But back in the day if you had 6 to 12 people in the party, he could hide in the back throwing darts or whatnot until sleep was needed.

This was my experience as well. A clutch sleep or charm person was the main contribution. The secondary contribution was as a pack mule.

Our usual approach was for a wizard to find* a wand of magic missiles pretty early in their career, and give them something to do/use when their big spells would be wasted.

*GM discretion when placing treasure.

Fantastic idea. That never occurred to us.

Quote from: JeremyR on March 29, 2024, 03:12:06 AM
Yes and no. If you use the modern 4 person adventuring party, one is probably going to be useless except for that one fight where he uses sleep.

But back in the day if you had 6 to 12 people in the party, he could hide in the back throwing darts or whatnot until sleep was needed.

Agree in spades.  Then add light sources.  Sure, that 12 person party probably has the "link boy" to handle that, but as the hired help goes down, someone has to hold a torch or lantern.  Is it the thief trying to sneak, the fighter with sword & board or a 2-handed weapon or a ranger with a bow?  Nope.  Sure don't want your cleric to do it when he could be using a shield and staying up.  Heck, that's even true when you have a 5-person party, which was more typical of the "small" group.  Hand-wave all the light source stuff, and that all goes out the window.

Then as mentioned, there's the wand of magic missiles.  But you don't even need to go that far.  The GM can just use the treasure tables, where the majority of early magic is going to be magic arrows, potions, and scrolls--most of the latter being wizard scrolls.  By third or fourth level, the wizard has not only picked up a few more spells, he's also likely got several consumable things that might come in really handy.

However, I think the biggest roadblock to that kind of play is not embracing the style--whether because can't or won't doesn't really matter.  It can suck to be the wizard until about 5th level in that kind of game.  OTOH, giving a few hired NPC body guards to keep him out of the front line and playing smart, the wizard player gets a little dopamine hit every time they get a new spell, wand, or scroll.  What really sets it apart is the playing smart part, though.  If you stay at levels 1-3 perpetually, because the party keeps getting wiped out, then there's not enough payoff.

It's been very eye-opening for some of my moderately experienced but younger players in one of my new groups.  Even with my system allowing multiple charges of spells, having random cantrips to lead off is not what they are used to in a caster.  (Also, not being able to heal certain kinds of damage easily.)  Just last session I had a lightly-armored healer volunteer to hold the torch in a desperate running night fight, and he was reveling in it.  His decisions probably made the difference in the party not losing anyone.  And he knew it.  His announced reasoning was the was position in the middle so that everyone could see, he had a hand free, and the torch was a beacon for anyone hurt to make their way to him (or be dragged by someone else or for him to see to go to them).  That's in a party of 10 players, no one able to see in the dark.  He never even tried to attack, but did use tactical movement to stay out of melee until the last few rounds, where upon a couple of other PC's immediately converged on him to get him out of melee again.

Comment after the game, immediately echoed by several other players:  "This is so much more tactically rich than 5E".  None of them had ever played AD&D before.

Now I'm picturing a guy in a wheel chair getting picked for the team before the wizard.  No wonder there are so many bitter, evil wizards.

Quote from: David Johansen on March 29, 2024, 11:54:47 AM
Now I'm picturing a guy in a wheel chair getting picked for the team before the wizard.  No wonder there are so many bitter, evil wizards.

Or have the wheelchair character BE a wizard and really wheel on down in that race to the bottom  :P

AD&D 1e magic-users are a solid and reliable pick at 1st level.
Certainly, they have the worst hit points and armor, and no shield access.  But at first level, this isn't that much less survivable than a fighter.  If you apply some 21st century idea like point buy and don't have a good Dex or Con as a result (compared to the fighter or thief), then yes, the gap is wider; but if you are rolling as the PHB instructs, you might get a good or a bad Con, but assuredly you are mostly working with the same score for that as the fighter is.

For magic spells, you are subject to anything from a list that could be as bad as read magic, light, affect normal fires, and identify, up to a solid 5 spells that you yourself choose.  If you truly strike out of spells and stats, then sure, you are implausibly weak- but the average magic-user will not roll so badly.  Bad rolls can tank any class, of course.

So why would you, Mr. 4 hit point fighter with a , take the 2 hit point wizard with you?  He has an AC of maybe 10, compared to your 4, so you have to be in front.  Did you roll an 18/00 and change your character from human woman to human man so you wouldn't be capped on strength?  Then you probably don't want that guy, because his 1d4 damage per round is nothing compared to your likely 1d8+7, and you have a +3 to hit.  Go recruit a higher-level magic user!  But what if you didn't land such a mighty score?  What if your strength is a mere 16?  Now you have the exact same chance to hit as the magic-user does, and you deal probably two more points of damage on a hit.  With non-absurd stats, his ability to contribute to the fight is not so slight compared to yours.

What if a bad guy comes along who can deal 8 points of damage in a hit?  Both of you will be thoroughly wrecked by that, and while the magic-user is much more likely to be struck, frankly, neither of you can reasonably tank at all at level 1.

Finally, dungeons are stocked full of magic items.  If you don't bring a magic-user, you'll have to sell all the various loot that he could make incredibly powerful use of.  There's scrolls and spellbooks and all manner of things that will be incredibly useful to your team, but of course, someone has to be there to make use of it.

If you assume some modernist thing where the loot appears to suit the players, then you wouldn't consider this.  But run a module or create something that isn't artificially inserted for your players, and it's definitely silly to not bring along a magic-user to read magical inscriptions on doors, know important magical factoids, and make powerful use of single-use items that are simply all over the place.

All that being said, the point about them being weak has resulted in several modifications.
First, there were options from the start to start a bit stronger.
Second, by AD&D 2e the wizard class had a more solid way of starting out with spells, and you were much more likely to begin all your encounters with a mage armor active, removing you from AC 10 land.
Third, many games began starting at higher than 1st level- in Dark Sun, such a thing was mandatory, but it wasn't unique by any means.


I think AD&D magic-users are perfectly playable if the team is grabbing loot at the intended and high rate, and their extreme frailty at 1st level is merely the worst of a bad bunch- everyone is frankly just a shopkeeper at that level, with one or at most two things sticking out of that weak statblock (unless you got some incredible stats of course).  There's no reason not to include such a potentially powerful guy on your team.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 29, 2024, 08:21:38 AM
With regard to magic users, we need to take a look at how they started out. In original pre-supplement OD&D there were only three classes. The fighting man got 1d6+1 hit points and the magic user and clerics each got 1d6, not exactly a huge disparity there. Since there were no bonuses to hit or damage for STR the fighting man only had a 5% edge in attacking in combat and EVERYONE did 1d6 damage on a hit  regardless of weapon. In fighting ability the cleric and magic user user fought as 1 man and the fighting man fought as 1 man +1. The cleric and fighting man could both wear armor while the magic user couldn't. Before skill systems and other assorted baggage was added, all characters were assumed to be equally competent general adventurers. Everyone could climb, ride, survive in the woods, and sneak around (if not heavily armored).

So in retrospect the original magic user wasn't particularly weak in relation to the other classes. Then comes:

- massive STR bonuses for fighters
-reordering the combat tables to leave magic users fighting as normal men for 5 LEVELS. In OD&D the magic user fought as 2+1 man at level 4.
-variable weapon damage leaving magic users with only d4 weapons
-reducing magic user hit dice to d4 while promoting the fighter to d10
-introducing a specialist thief class that gave the impression that other classes suddenly couldn't sneak around anymore.

So I firmly blame AD&D for making the magic user into the ultimate pussy.

Great post. Certainly seem much stronger in OD&D (and I agree that thief skews play).

Let's see what Wizards can do in "Dragons at Dawn" which was an attempt to make a "how Dave Arneson originally ran things."

Quote from: Dragons at Dawn
Wizards can see in the dark as if in daylight and can cast Wizard Light, Lightning bolt and Fireball spells at will.

Holy shit. Well . . . there's more to it right?

Quote from: Dragons at Dawn
Wizards can channel raw magic energy to make Wizard Light, Lightning Bolts and Fireballs. This magic may be thrown at will but requires the Wizard to make a Saving Throw versus Health for the spell to successfully trigger. Failure of the Saving Throw means failure of the magic and causes the Wizard to collapse with exhaustion which will last for 2d6 turns. Note that, for Wizards, these Throws apply only to these magic energy spells and not material based spells.

Health stat is rolled (an attribute) at character creation. It's 2d6 - 2 (a score of zeros are re-rolled). For saving throws you make the same roll and want to roll under your score. They do get a bonus to this every 4 levels.
So how good this is really depends on your stat rolls.

So how good are these spells? Lightning Bolt is save or die for a 10 x 10 area. Fireballs do 20 damage to prime target and 7 to those within 10 feet (saves are allowed).

First level characters have between 4 and 7 hitpoints.

So that's some major fire power for any wizard to have at their disposal.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 29, 2024, 08:21:38 AM
With regard to magic users, we need to take a look at how they started out.
...
So in retrospect the original magic user wasn't particularly weak in relation to the other classes. Then comes:

You're correct that they started out much more similar in OD&D, but spells were capped at 6th level, and at that level a magic-user was attacking as two armored foot while a fighting-man was fighting as a superhero, which appears to mostly be the same as 8 men.  That is to say, the fighting ability of a fighter ramped up much higher, and even in AD&D, at the start magic-users and fighters were both bad at hitting things.

Quote- massive STR bonuses for fighters
-reordering the combat tables to leave magic users fighting as normal men for 5 LEVELS. In OD&D the magic user fought as 2+1 man at level 4.

At this level the fighting-man fought as a hero which appears to be 4 men.  The discrepancy in fighting between fighters and mages was extremely similar in OD&D and AD&D 1e; both started bad, and mages ramped up much more slowly than fighters.  The OD&D had a higher ramp for magic-users, sure, but it was even more aggressive for fighting-men.

Quote-variable weapon damage leaving magic users with only d4 weapons
-reducing magic user hit dice to d4 while promoting the fighter to d10
-introducing a specialist thief class that gave the impression that other classes suddenly couldn't sneak around anymore.

The other points are valid, but you are leaving out the addition of a variety of very powerful spells, including spells beyond 6th level, along with the general inclusion of single-use items well beyond what went before.

I think what we were witnessing was greater specialization, and a desire to make the casters as bad at physical combat as the non-casters were at magic (that is to say, to almost remove the capability completely).  Remember that spells did get stronger during this period.

Quote from: Thondor on March 29, 2024, 02:07:21 PM
Let's see what Wizards can do in "Dragons at Dawn" which was an attempt to make a "how Dave Arneson originally ran things."

Quote from: Dragons at Dawn
Wizards can see in the dark as if in daylight and can cast Wizard Light, Lightning bolt and Fireball spells at will.

Holy shit. Well . . . there's more to it right?

Quote from: Dragons at Dawn
Wizards can channel raw magic energy to make Wizard Light, Lightning Bolts and Fireballs. This magic may be thrown at will but requires the Wizard to make a Saving Throw versus Health for the spell to successfully trigger. Failure of the Saving Throw means failure of the magic and causes the Wizard to collapse with exhaustion which will last for 2d6 turns. Note that, for Wizards, these Throws apply only to these magic energy spells and not material based spells.

Interestingly, a lot of this is similar to Chainmail, where the Wizard is the 100 point variant of the spellcaster (the top dude).  Fighter types have "Hero" and "Superhero" and similar, and these titles carried into OD&D (and served as helpful points for determining how hits worked, as that was on the table and required reference to Chainmail to determine how hits work).  By contrast, the game you're running grants these powers to wizards at the start of the game.

QuoteSo how good are these spells? Lightning Bolt is save or die for a 10 x 10 area. Fireballs do 20 damage to prime target and 7 to those within 10 feet (saves are allowed).

First level characters have between 4 and 7 hitpoints.

This game has pretty wild stuff for warriors too:

QuoteWarriors gain advantages in defense (Armor Class) and Saving Throws. They receive a +1 at 1st level, a +2 at 4th (hero), and a +3 at
level 8 (superhero) to all Saving Throws vs. AC, Constitution and Strength. Unless the player specifies otherwise, damage will be shared out among all opponents within melee distance (10 feet), beginning with the weakest target. The warrior who successfully kills all of the opponents he strikes in the round, then gets another attack on any opponent within 20 feet. This continues until an opponent either survives the warriors attack or all opponents in range are dead. Thus a skilled warrior can chop through weaker creatures fairly quickly.

This means that while wizards have some wild aoe available to them, so do the fighters of this game.

I honestly consider all the first level abilities there to be pretty powerful by comparison- you'd need to list out the others for a fair comparison.

Quote from: FingerRod on March 29, 2024, 08:23:28 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 29, 2024, 08:00:31 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on March 29, 2024, 07:22:42 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on March 29, 2024, 03:12:06 AM
Yes and no. If you use the modern 4 person adventuring party, one is probably going to be useless except for that one fight where he uses sleep.

But back in the day if you had 6 to 12 people in the party, he could hide in the back throwing darts or whatnot until sleep was needed.

This was my experience as well. A clutch sleep or charm person was the main contribution. The secondary contribution was as a pack mule.

Our usual approach was for a wizard to find* a wand of magic missiles pretty early in their career, and give them something to do/use when their big spells would be wasted.

*GM discretion when placing treasure.

Fantastic idea. That never occurred to us.

It's so simple, I don't even know if this is sarcasm or not.  ;D

I find it's more thematic than a wizard chucking darts at enemies. And it gives a little more freedom to choose non-combat spells since they can fall back on their wand.
At higher levels, they usually upgrade to a staff of fireballs. Really, wizards access to scrolls and wands and staves bolsters their spellcasting especially at lower levels.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 29, 2024, 06:19:28 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on March 29, 2024, 08:23:28 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 29, 2024, 08:00:31 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on March 29, 2024, 07:22:42 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on March 29, 2024, 03:12:06 AM
Yes and no. If you use the modern 4 person adventuring party, one is probably going to be useless except for that one fight where he uses sleep.

But back in the day if you had 6 to 12 people in the party, he could hide in the back throwing darts or whatnot until sleep was needed.

This was my experience as well. A clutch sleep or charm person was the main contribution. The secondary contribution was as a pack mule.

Our usual approach was for a wizard to find* a wand of magic missiles pretty early in their career, and give them something to do/use when their big spells would be wasted.

*GM discretion when placing treasure.

Fantastic idea. That never occurred to us.

It's so simple, I don't even know if this is sarcasm or not.  ;D

I find it's more thematic than a wizard chucking darts at enemies. And it gives a little more freedom to choose non-combat spells since they can fall back on their wand.
At higher levels, they usually upgrade to a staff of fireballs. Really, wizards access to scrolls and wands and staves bolsters their spellcasting especially at lower levels.

No sarcasm. Kicking myself. Played a LOT of AD&D as a kid and legit never occurred to us to do something like that to help on ramp the magic user.

I guess I can throw a little elemental sodium in the punch bowl.  While I think the AD&D 1e magic-user is not horribly weak, and I've made that point above....

I think the Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e method of cantrips is just better than the method where you run out of juice.  I think this is something that OSR gets wrong, at least past the first few levels.  Further, I think that in 5e, the cantrips scale fine for that game- the game assumes that your bow and arrow boys and your sword boys have magic weapons by like 11th level and such.

If you love your games without cantrips, I'm not here to convince you.  But I will say that it's much more thematic for a dedicated caster to be doing some magic damage instead of being Guy Who Throws Knives, and I think it's ok if he does a reasonable fraction- say 40% to 60%- of martial damage without having to expend resources, and the 5th level magic-user is definitely at a level where he should have something to contribute without expending his mana or whatever.  Obviously, if you go down this path, you have to be sure that the cantrips don't become way too good for a class that actually has daily resources to expend- it shouldn't be as much damage as bowman or swordsman or buttstabber.

I think modern gaming has the right idea here, overall.  I will grant that one thing OSR has here is that, it's super easy to port baby versions of the 5e cantrips or the 4e wizard powers into any OSR game, as long as this is understood to be a buff for the selected classes, but it's really hard to tear these things out of 5e without making everyone scream.


Edit:  And in regard to "buy the magic-user a cheap wand or simply hand one out", I think that accomplishes the goal perfectly as well.

I put this under 'if it is not broke don't fix it' category. We have had weak D&D mages forever and it works, people like it. There are always folks who will find some issue to complain about but I think this is the kind of criticism, if addressed, removes an important trope from the game (however realistic or unrealistic it is)

Quote from: Venka on March 29, 2024, 06:41:21 PMI think the Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e method of cantrips is just better than the method where you run out of juice.  I think this is something that OSR gets wrong, at least past the first few levels.  Further, I think that in 5e, the cantrips scale fine for that game- the game assumes that your bow and arrow boys and your sword boys have magic weapons by like 11th level and such.

I agree. As far as I'm concerned, Apprentice Spells (what D&D calls Cantrips) should be readily available. In fact, I would expand the list a bit to include spells like Read Magic, Dancing Lights and even Nystul's Magic Aura (what I call Fool's Aura). Of course, I wouldn't go as far as 5E and allow Shocking Grasp or spells that do much damage past 1d4. In fact, I'd bump Magic Missile to a d6 or d8 or the like. You could even expand the list of Apprentice spells to include more 'flavorful' folk magic type spells like those in Frieren: Beyond Journey's End (ex - spell to track animals) or even The Lord of the Rings RPG (ex - Rainward).

IDK...I have always really enjoyed Vancian magic. The limitations that come with it are an important part

Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on March 29, 2024, 07:22:46 PM
I agree. As far as I'm concerned, Apprentice Spells (what D&D calls Cantrips) should be readily available. In fact, I would expand the list a bit to include spells like Read Magic, Dancing Lights and even Nystul's Magic Aura (what I call Fool's Aura).

I don't know what your Fool's Aura does, but the AD&D 2e version is a bit strong for below level 1.  The 1e version seems like it would be fine to cast a bunch of times, though likely not "every six seconds" as 5e cantrips allow.

QuoteOf course, I wouldn't go as far as 5E and allow Shocking Grasp or spells that do much damage past 1d4.

All the cantrips in 5e do the correct amount of damage for something in 5e at 1st level- the raw damage ones are 1d10, the ones with bonuses are 1d8 or 1d6, and the ones with mild penalties can hit 1d12.  This is in a world where 1st level characters have about 2.5 times the hit points that they would in older games, and where every martial character is going to be landing something like 1d8+3 immediately, and possibly as high as 2d6+3.

I don't think any of these guys would be appropriate for porting to older games, or to OSR, directly as written.  I think you'd need to reduce the damage die at a bare minimum.  If the game is designed for the magic user to reliably throw a 1d4 dagger, then the firebolt shouldn't be much beyond that, for instance.  Benefits over using physical weapons can be based on range, for instance.  In 5e, the spells will either require a save or an attack roll- something that requires an attack roll in most OSR games is going to be WAY more accurate that something that uses an attack roll at low levels (many characters you hit will fail a save like 80% of the time), and should either be changed to an attack roll, or the damage reduced below that of a dagger.

Quote from: FingerRod on March 29, 2024, 07:35:18 PM
IDK...I have always really enjoyed Vancian magic. The limitations that come with it are an important part

Yes, and if not Vancian magic, then some other limits that are similar.  the whole "thematic" wizard as doing magic all the time is only thematic for certain genre's.  It's self-referential to some of the higher powered stuff that spins off of RPGs, but not the original. Not that it never happens, but there are whole other genres where magic is limited and/or hard to build up to. 

There's also a practical side to this.  One group sees "sweet spot of the game was 5th to 9th level" and then seeks to make more of the game live in the same spot.  Another group sees the same thing, and then says if you want to play in the sweet spot, start at 5th level and slow the XP down.  There's pros and cons to both approaches, which means going after either direction in the extreme is going to throw out a lot of good things with the bad. 

The AD&D magic user is not "implausibly weak".  The magic user is plausibly weak, and that's part of what makes it work. 

Quote from: Venka on March 29, 2024, 07:54:52 PMI don't know what your Fool's Aura does, but the AD&D 2e version is a bit strong for below level 1.  The 1e version seems like it would be fine to cast a bunch of times, though likely not "every six seconds" as 5e cantrips allow.

Well, rounds are still a minute long. And turns are still 10 minutes. So, very different from 5E. And Nystul's Magic Aura isn't THAT powerful. Its basically 'putting mana' into an object and that's it. Not really powerful in the slightest.

QuoteIn 5e, the spells will either require a save or an attack roll- something that requires an attack roll in most OSR games is going to be WAY more accurate that something that uses an attack roll at low levels (many characters you hit will fail a save like 80% of the time), and should either be changed to an attack roll, or the damage reduced below that of a dagger.

The old 3E 'Ranged Touch Attack' rule seems to work well enough in that regard. And, as I said, I don't think allowing any more than a d4 for a spell damage would be advisable. In fact, you could even rule no Cantrip can do damage, or can only do 1HP worth of damage. Now, a more useful Cantrip might be something like Ignite which causes flammable objects to burn, such as being able to light a roomful of candles or get a torch lit.

"class" is meaningless to me outside of a description of what the setting demands of a set of skills and abilities.

By backwards engineering what a class is in your favorite D&D edition, you can infer what the intention of those types of people were. So no, they weren't implausibly anything. They simply were.

Defining them is on you as a GM in your setting. Including tossing whatever St. Gary and St. Dave said about them. To your own success or detriment.

Quote from: Domina on March 28, 2024, 10:03:04 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on March 28, 2024, 10:00:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

John,

What is an "enslaved body servant?"

In 1784, an enslaved boy was assigned to be 14-year-old William Clark's personal "body servant." Like many slaves, the boy didn't have a legal right to a last name, so he was known just as York.

All that is known about York's parents are their first names, which were listed in John Clark's will of 1799. York's father was called Old York, and his mother was named Rose. It's possible that Old York was John's personal servant, and Rose may have been a house servant.

According to Rhonda Blumberg's "York's Adventures with Lewis and Clark," black household servants like York were "upper-class slaves." He would have slept in the Clark's home, within earshot of William. He wore nicer clothing than those of field slaves, probably hand-me-downs from William and his brothers. He would have eaten better foods from the family's kitchen and would have acquired refined manners and speech patterns. But slaves of all classes were typically forbidden from learning reading and writing.

I have no idea if any of this is actually true, it's just what I found in a random internet article.

Interesting Wikipedia article about York:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_(explorer)

I'm thinking of allowing wizards to cast directly from their books, in addition to their vancian spell slots.  Each round he can make an intelligence check (roll under intelligence on a 20-sided die).  A spell requires one success per level, so a fireball cast straight from the book would take a minimum three rounds, while casting it from memory would take just one action.  This means that a wizard could attempt a magic missile every round.  Taking damage would reset your progress, so you would get some of that spell-fizzling that 2e had.

Quote from: Glak on March 30, 2024, 09:01:25 PMI'm thinking of allowing wizards to cast directly from their books, in addition to their vancian spell slots.

To take this idea further, what if like in Frieren: Beyond Journey's End a Mage had could cast some Cleric spells as long as they were in a Grimoire? Like basically translated into whatever cypher it is Mages use (hence why Read Magic is a thing)? And must consume a slot 1 lvl higher than the corresponding Cleric spell.

So like this one time, in the lunchroom, I rolled up a character with a 7 strength so I made him a magic-user because everyone knows wizards are weak as fuck. Then my buddy playing the roid monster barbarian made sure I didn't die and I eventually got 9th level spells and we killed Orcus and stole his stuff.

 ;D In AD&D you only need a 9 INT -- everything else can be 3s.  8) I've ran as GM many a character who only rolled a 1 HP, and they still adventured.  :o For I am the hardest of cores!  ::)  ;D It's a game of pretend, what's the worst that can happen?

>:( Also wizards can't wear armor because they have to old style vogue to cast spells.  :-*

Low stats in AD&D have to be real low to be truly painful, in my experience. Even a few 6 & 7 are often not penalized in the stat mods. Low CON seems like the real serious one but the minimum gain keeps it fine -- and you only need 1 HP to adventure!  ;) What I have found is a real serious low stat is oddly CHA if your GM rolls Reactions rolls.  :) However that just means roleplaying effort to bribe and parley up through encounters. Hint, bring lots of yummy food stuffs and low value coinage. ;D It's amazing what some roasted meat on a fire can befriend!

The big secret is try not to go it alone.  :( That's hard for just about everybody starting out.  :) Hirelings and buddy NPCs are your friends.  ;) And you quickly learn how to bluff a pair of twos into a winning hand as a wizard with some janky spell choices. Even the rest of the party can play off it!  8)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 29, 2024, 09:02:04 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on March 29, 2024, 03:12:06 AM
Yes and no. If you use the modern 4 person adventuring party, one is probably going to be useless except for that one fight where he uses sleep.

But back in the day if you had 6 to 12 people in the party, he could hide in the back throwing darts or whatnot until sleep was needed.

Agree in spades.  Then add light sources.  Sure, that 12 person party probably has the "link boy" to handle that, but as the hired help goes down, someone has to hold a torch or lantern.  Is it the thief trying to sneak, the fighter with sword & board or a 2-handed weapon or a ranger with a bow?  Nope.  Sure don't want your cleric to do it when he could be using a shield and staying up.  Heck, that's even true when you have a 5-person party, which was more typical of the "small" group.  Hand-wave all the light source stuff, and that all goes out the window.

Then as mentioned, there's the wand of magic missiles.  But you don't even need to go that far.  The GM can just use the treasure tables, where the majority of early magic is going to be magic arrows, potions, and scrolls--most of the latter being wizard scrolls.  By third or fourth level, the wizard has not only picked up a few more spells, he's also likely got several consumable things that might come in really handy.

However, I think the biggest roadblock to that kind of play is not embracing the style--whether because can't or won't doesn't really matter.  It can suck to be the wizard until about 5th level in that kind of game.  OTOH, giving a few hired NPC body guards to keep him out of the front line and playing smart, the wizard player gets a little dopamine hit every time they get a new spell, wand, or scroll.  What really sets it apart is the playing smart part, though.  If you stay at levels 1-3 perpetually, because the party keeps getting wiped out, then there's not enough payoff.

It's been very eye-opening for some of my moderately experienced but younger players in one of my new groups.  Even with my system allowing multiple charges of spells, having random cantrips to lead off is not what they are used to in a caster.  (Also, not being able to heal certain kinds of damage easily.)  Just last session I had a lightly-armored healer volunteer to hold the torch in a desperate running night fight, and he was reveling in it.  His decisions probably made the difference in the party not losing anyone.  And he knew it.  His announced reasoning was the was position in the middle so that everyone could see, he had a hand free, and the torch was a beacon for anyone hurt to make their way to him (or be dragged by someone else or for him to see to go to them).  That's in a party of 10 players, no one able to see in the dark.  He never even tried to attack, but did use tactical movement to stay out of melee until the last few rounds, where upon a couple of other PC's immediately converged on him to get him out of melee again.

Comment after the game, immediately echoed by several other players:  "This is so much more tactically rich than 5E".  None of them had ever played AD&D before.

This, this this!  ;D

I am usually generous with hirelings and NPCs with my smaller parties and make it a point that -- though useful -- the spotlight is on my players leading through their PCs. So sacrificial losses can feel agonizing and stressful. But too helping hands of even mundane acts being clutch in the chaos leave as deeply memorable moments.

I too had a few moments like the torchbearer above, where the NPCs are cooperating for their lives with the PCs, and the players leave feeling AD&D is so much more intense and rich. I think the fragility of needing others makes the magic happen. Perhaps something about the immediacy in desperation breathes life into the fiction.

For everyone it's not the only way, or best way, but for my immersive itch it's been my favorite way.  :)

"The premise is that each player character is above average—at least in some respects—and has superior potential.  Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no less than two ability scores." —Gary Gygax, AD&D Player's Handbook, 1978

And don't forget about TIMEKEEPING, too!  >:( Damn heathens!

Meh, all that powergaming Montey Haul stuff was dropped for the onetrueway of AD&D 2e, Method I: 3d6 down the line (Methods II through IX allowed for the fragile of ego ;D).  ;) The hardest of cores.  :o 8)

Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 29, 2024, 08:21:38 AM
With regard to magic users, we need to take a look at how they started out. In original pre-supplement OD&D there were only three classes. The fighting man got 1d6+1 hit points and the magic user and clerics each got 1d6, not exactly a huge disparity there. ....

So I firmly blame AD&D for making the magic user into the ultimate pussy.

In my opinion; AD&D and B/X both...

In the AD&D MM, the basic bitch human has 1-6 HP.  Even in AD&D giving the MU 1-4HP is a fuck you.
(The AD&D MM is janky as it sets humans apart from humanoids like orcs...)

In B/X the basic bitch human get a full HD. 1HD=1d8...  So in B/X the 1-4HP for the MU is a capitalized Fuck You.

Anything less that the standard Hit Die (1d8 B/X) basically goes against the guidelines for human NPC's.


0e got it right the first time with all the PC's having the same HD, with a discreet bonus for the Fighter.

Massively Nerfing hit points for the non-fighter classes is not a good way to "balance" the game. Even ACKSII falls short on this.

It should be done by carefully curating the class abilities and spell lists.

But people are used to the way things have been done, so don't hold your breath.

I don't like unlimited "cantrips" for world-building reasons. It's rare in fiction, and raises a lot of questions about how the world works. I think it's okay for "warlocks" and archmages, but your average mage should conserve their power.

To me, it's implausible that a professional adventurer, "wizard" or no, can can tramping around for months out of the year with professional warriors, no, legendary swordsmen, and not pick up enough in sparring to take out a bandit with a sword. If you look at wizards in fiction, Harry Potter, Elric, Gandalf, the bad guy in Jason and the Argonauts, Darth Vader, Belgarath, and solidly half the wizards you can think of use swords. And even the ones who aren't fencers, tend to be agile, quick, brave, and least able to brawl a little. The magicians who aren't fighters in fiction tend to be thieves; the Grey Mouser is all three.

The idea of dragging a PhD student along to fight dragons, and they never learn to camp, or to wield a sword, or to swim, and they never get tough, is a peculiar conceit of D&D and its imitators.

I think it's part of the world building of your world.  I'm running AD&D in Greyhawk.  One of the PCs is a half-elf Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric and has been playing her from 1st level (and is now Fighter 2/Magic-User 2/Cleric 3).   Takes forever to level her (some of the other PCs are 5th) but it's been working out and she has a lot of flexibility, can wear armor and cast a good deal of magic now, and swing a bastard sword when need be- usually only against weak foes.   She's the only wizard in the group. 

I like the weaker magic of AD&D.  No spamming cantrips.  Eventually the magic will run out if you don't conserve it.  And big magic usually has some side effect (often aging- which has a chance to kill the PC or NPC through system shock).   Which is awesome.   

Though, if I were running a more "gonzo" setting, I might opt for a different system.  This... it feels more like a fantasy novel to me. 

So, to answer the OP's question- yeah, a 1st level mage was totally viable.  Though the one in my game was multi-classed, a single classed wizard would have lived (though I let PCs start off with max hp, and use 4d6, drop lowest, re-roll "1's" for character creation, so they are a little beefer, than 3d6 down the line.  But even Gygax didn't do that, apparently...)

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 05:03:18 PMArmy Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform -

Fighters are the infantry, they fight. Thieves are recce teams - if they get into a fight, they fucked up. Clerics fight, they're infantry who are medics. Magic-users are forward observers, or the nerdy airforce guys who sit in a shipping container in Iowa controlling a drone in Afghanistan - toss those guys in a shitfight and don't expect anything good out of it.

Plus, in the real world you get your skills, you might improve them slightly over time, but not a heap. Real people get shot 1-2 times and fall over, they don't have any prospect of getting up to 5th level and being able to be shot 5-10 times before they fall over.

It's a game. All these complaints come from people who are bad at playing the game.

I like realistic-themed games, that's why I wrote Conflict - see sig. But despite all your whinging, none of you actually want a realistic-themed game, or you'd all have bought this - or Twilight 2000 2nd edition, or Aftermath, or Millenium's End, or GURPS with all the realism options turned on, or Basic Roleplaying, or whatever. Instead you bought D&D, but are still bitching about "realism". Which means you don't actually care about realism, you just want to be able to play without using your brains and power-game blast your way through shit without any danger to your character. Go ahead, play a computer game with all the cheat codes on.

Alternately, stop being a lazy pussy and learn to play D&D well.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on March 31, 2024, 11:48:40 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 05:03:18 PMArmy Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform -

Fighters are the infantry, they fight. Thieves are recce teams - if they get into a fight, they fucked up. Clerics fight, they're infantry who are medics. Magic-users are forward observers, or the nerdy airforce guys who sit in a shipping container in Iowa controlling a drone in Afghanistan - toss those guys in a shitfight and don't expect anything good out of it.

Plus, in the real world you get your skills, you might improve them slightly over time, but not a heap. Real people get shot 1-2 times and fall over, they don't have any prospect of getting up to 5th level and being able to be shot 5-10 times before they fall over.

It's a game. All these complaints come from people who are bad at playing the game.

I like realistic-themed games, that's why I wrote Conflict - see sig. But despite all your whinging, none of you actually want a realistic-themed game, or you'd all have bought this - or Twilight 2000 2nd edition, or Aftermath, or Millenium's End, or GURPS with all the realism options turned on, or Basic Roleplaying, or whatever. Instead you bought D&D, but are still bitching about "realism". Which means you don't actually care about realism, you just want to be able to play without using your brains and power-game blast your way through shit without any danger to your character. Go ahead, play a computer game with all the cheat codes on.

Alternately, stop being a lazy pussy and learn to play D&D well.

Greetings!

*Laughing* I think it is ok if people want varying degrees of realism in whatever game they are playing, whether that is D&D or something else.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on March 31, 2024, 11:48:40 PM
Magic-users are forward observers, or the nerdy airforce guys who sit in a shipping container in Iowa controlling a drone in Afghanistan - toss those guys in a shitfight and don't expect anything good out of it.

Definitely not. They are walking into the same dungeons as the fighters. Most of them have been stabbed at by a goblin at one point or another. If someone yells a formation, they better know exactly where to stand. I'd say they are more comparable to a flamethrower guy, or a designated rifleman.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on March 31, 2024, 11:48:40 PM
Fighters are the infantry, they fight. Thieves are recce teams - if they get into a fight, they fucked up. Clerics fight, they're infantry who are medics. Magic-users are forward observers, or the nerdy airforce guys who sit in a shipping container in Iowa controlling a drone in Afghanistan - toss those guys in a shitfight and don't expect anything good out of it.

Monks are the drifter who signs on as the tavern bouncer, sleeps in a nearby barn, falls in love with the cleric, and rips the throat out of the crimelord at the end of the adventure.

 >:( Roadhouse  8)

;D Family Guy meme. 

See?! ;D I'm old yet hip & with it... a legend in my mind!  :o

Since MUs are physically weaker than other classes, I've made a house rule to compensate by MUs having bonus spells based upon INT, just like clerics. I even use the same table. So far it's worked pretty well.

I'm in an OD&D campaign. We have two mages who just reached 5th level out of probably 20 PCs who've been in the campaign over the year.

In most OSR campaigns, adventurers are nutters who band together to go places sane people never go. They aren't society's best and brightest - just greedier and more daring than the average bear.

You bring along a 1st level Wizard because he has ONE magic spell.

And THAT is freaking amazing to have at the right moment, because without that Wizard, your crew would have ZERO magic spells.

As for Weak vs. Strong, that's not a big issue in OSR games. Most OSR games have a stat range of -3 to +3 and the vast majority have +0 in most stats. If your mage has a -1 STR, then so what? He just went from rolling D20 to D20-1, aka 5% penalty.

In actual play, the mage is going to flank and stab when he's out of spells only SLIGHTLY worse than your hirelings and men-at-arms.

If the party is smart, they fund that mage so on the NEXT adventure, he has 1 spell and maybe 2 scrolls!! Now we're cooking with gas!

I love making a few Magic User hirelings who typically work elsewhere for a living. Gives you a sense of a living, breathing world  -- and they love otherwise charging the going DMG price for magical services! 8) (I typically reduce it by a decimal place for my smaller economy.) Sure you could hire the tour guide linguist in the big city to help you, even possibly pay for their Comprehend Languages spell once and then beeline into enemy territory, or you could befriend them as a party member and give them a cut (a player runs them as their PC later).  ;)

It's fun making NPCs that'd otherwise be considered gimped PCs but end up offering useful services for special one-shot occasions: MUer with Alarm along with camp guardians, another firefighter with Affect Normal Fires on a boat, Ventriloquist NWP with Ventriloquism spell helping you avoid or cause trouble in catacombs/sewers, etc. ;) It costs a half share, but it's fun to watch players build attachment to hirelings from a stable of them.

Funny thought: but (at least in early D&D) the default assumption was that past civilizations were more advanced than the era the players are in. Hence the ruins, liches and the like you find from time to time. Frieren: Beyond Journey's End touches on that and you have to wonder if ancient Magi weren't just more adept than the ones running around in the current fantasy realm, but they were way more numerous in comparison (maybe/maybe not per capita). I mean, D&D owes a lot of its feel to those stories that are basically post-apocalyptic in some way, such as REH's Conan, Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, Vance's Dying Earth and even Lieber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser.

Edit: One interesting thing from Frieren: Beyond Journey's End is that the Imperial Mage Denken and the 2nd class Mage Richter get into a fist fight with another pair of Mages and beat the shit out of them. All four of them are out of Mana and so cannot cast spells, and yet can still scrap.

Well the assumptions you point out are well taken and well represented.

Spellcasters are spending their time cloistered in room poring over their tomes and experimenting with arcane and occult arts. Nothing says they *should* outdoorsmen of any sort by implication of the AD&D rules. They're academics, not men of the field, to say less than being men-at-arms.

I know something's wrong with me head but --- are you guys arguing that a game with elves and dragons and magic should be more realistic?

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/BIZkwFtu2xDlS/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952xy8gibmis4g78h8htjyj8eyp5e6n36q3fsqhdjaa&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)

Quote from: Theory of Games on April 02, 2024, 08:57:35 PMI know something's wrong with me head but --- are you guys arguing that a game with elves and dragons and magic should be more realistic?

Not really. Just offering speculation on making Mages a little beefier, especially at low levels.

For example, the fact is everyone (and their brother) would need to be wearing a helmet cause getting your noggin clobbered would be extremely bad. I think Mages should be able to wear SOME light armor like a short-sleeved aketon or even gambeson, maybe pauldrons to protect the shoulders and a kettle helm and yet still able to cast spells. Your movement isn't really going to be restricted and even the 'Spell Failure' mechanic from 3E wasn't terrible per se. 

Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on April 02, 2024, 11:10:22 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on April 02, 2024, 08:57:35 PMI know something's wrong with me head but --- are you guys arguing that a game with elves and dragons and magic should be more realistic?

Not really. Just offering speculation on making Mages a little beefier, especially at low levels.

For example, the fact is everyone (and their brother) would need to be wearing a helmet cause getting your noggin clobbered would be extremely bad. I think Mages should be able to wear SOME light armor like a short-sleeved aketon or even gambeson, maybe pauldrons to protect the shoulders and a kettle helm and yet still able to cast spells. Your movement isn't really going to be restricted and even the 'Spell Failure' mechanic from 3E wasn't terrible per se.

Greetings!

Yeah, I'm fine with someone that wants to beef up the Wizard a bit, for all the reasons discussed in this thread. Yes, I know the Wizard is theoretically supposed to be this frail, academic type--to an extent, that is ok, yes, it mitigates the Wizard's later huge power, and also serves as a class differential. However, having said that, again, the vigorous wilderness environment makes some harsh demands on everyone of the team. As a Wizard, you may have trained in an academy, but out in the wilderness and dungeons, yeah, I see it as essential that the Wizard develops basic physical skills and abilities.

And yeah, pussy weak Wizards were screamed about constantly back in the old days, too. Having Wizards be good for their one spell, and then mostly helpless and needing babysitting all the time gets annoying very fast. As well as Wizard characters having an extremely high fatality rate.

And no, the Wizard certainly should not be a Fighter. But a bit of survivability, survival skills, swimming, etc, is not drastically uber-powering the Wizard.

Just another quality-of-life improvement over class design in the modern era of D&D.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Theory of Games on April 02, 2024, 08:57:35 PM
I know something's wrong with me head but --- are you guys arguing that a game with elves and dragons and magic should be more realistic?

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/BIZkwFtu2xDlS/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952xy8gibmis4g78h8htjyj8eyp5e6n36q3fsqhdjaa&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)

The game should have verisimilitude.  Just like when you read a fantasy novel like Lord of the Rings, or Elric of Melníbonè, or Leiber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser stories.  That seeming of reality is what makes you continue to read the story...or co time to play the game instead of throwing up your hands and saying "This makes no sense".


I have to ask, Do you even play RPG's?  Or are you just passing through here on your way to some boardgame forum?

Quote from: Theory of Games on April 02, 2024, 08:57:35 PM
I know something's wrong with me head but --- are you guys arguing that a game with elves and dragons and magic should be more realistic?

My view is that RPGs should be as realistic as possible and only depart from realism when necessary for the premise of play or to make the game rules practical.  If your game is about elves and dragons, it needs unrealistic elves and dragons.  It doesn't need untrained weaklings to be equal to experienced warriors in melee combat.  Unless for some reason that's what you want the game to be about.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on April 03, 2024, 12:21:36 AM
The game should have verisimilitude.

That's the pretentious prick's way of saying, "I want to argue for realism when it suits me, and discard realism when it suits me." Same as the nonsense about female characters not being as strong as male.

It's a long word for dodging the point. Don't be a pretentious prick, and do contend with the actual arguments presented.

So... I don't get some of this, honestly.  Playing AD&D you can make a very survivable 1st level wizard. 

Let's do some in vivo, character generation, using AD&D 2nd edition.

The way I generate characters is 4d6, drop the lowest, re-roll ones, place the scores where I want.  For this post I generated some rolls with the intent to make a hypothetical wizard.  I got 16, 12, 10, 12, 9, 17.  Very decent.  Int is 17.  Con is 16.  Who cares about the other scores, they're mostly irrelevant.   

If I'm playing a single classed Wizard, I'm playing a specialist.    Therefore, I get two (not one) spells per day.  One from my specialty school, and Sleep.  With a 16 con, he can be an Invoker or Conjurer.  I want Sleep, but I hate losing Magic Missile, so I'll just go with color spray instead, I'll make him an Invoker.   

Most house rules, in any game I've ever played say max hp at 1st level, so he has 6 hit points.  Decent.  And he'll have weapon proficiency Darts.  3 ranged attacks per round.  He can fight from range as well as just about anyone at first level.

Spells at first level:  Let's say Read Magic, Cantrip, plus 4 others.  I'll go with Magic Missile, Color Spray, Detect Magic, and Identify.   Usually, will be memorizing Magic Missile and Color Spray. 

I've also got 10! slots for non-weapon proficiencies.  This will be in the Greyhawk campaign.  We'll put these to: Read/Write Common.  Speaks Elven.  Read/Write Elven.  Speak Orc.  Speak Dwarf.  Read/Write Dwarven.  Ancient History (Ancient Magical Ruins of Local Area).   Ancient Language (Old Oeridian), Spellcraft, Riding (Land-based)

All of a sudden this dude seems decently playable.  Not bad for a 1st level AD&D wizard, eh?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 03, 2024, 07:00:21 AM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on April 03, 2024, 12:21:36 AM
The game should have verisimilitude.

That's the pretentious prick's way of saying, "I want to argue for realism when it suits me, and discard realism when it suits me." Same as the nonsense about female characters not being as strong as male.

It's a long word for dodging the point. Don't be a pretentious prick, and do contend with the actual arguments presented.

Actually, stating that realism is not a concern in games with fantasy elements is the ultimate dodge.  OK, if we can have dragons and not break the tone, why can't we have a Corvette ZR1?  It's fantasy, right?

You know this; you're just being a pretentious prick about it.  Certain elements fit the setting and tone of the game world.  Some don't.  It is dependent on the tone developed by the players and DM.  Some groups would think adding a Corvette to the game is the coolest thing ever.  For some, it would be a game-destroying decision.  So, why don't you stop dodging the point and explain why the martial abilities of a magic user don't matter in fantasy RPGs.  At least then you'd be contending with the actual arguments presented...

Quote from: zagreus on April 03, 2024, 09:28:27 AM
So... I don't get some of this, honestly.  Playing AD&D you can make a very survivable 1st level wizard. 

Let's do some in vivo, character generation, using AD&D 2nd edition.

The way I generate characters is 4d6, drop the lowest, re-roll ones, place the scores where I want.  For this post I generated some rolls with the intent to make a hypothetical wizard.  I got 16, 12, 10, 12, 9, 17.  Very decent.  Int is 17.  Con is 16.  Who cares about the other scores, they're mostly irrelevant.   

If I'm playing a single classed Wizard, I'm playing a specialist.    Therefore, I get two (not one) spells per day.  One from my specialty school, and Sleep.  With a 16 con, he can be an Invoker or Conjurer.  I want Sleep, but I hate losing Magic Missile, so I'll just go with color spray instead, I'll make him an Invoker.   

Most house rules, in any game I've ever played say max hp at 1st level, so he has 6 hit points.  Decent.  And he'll have weapon proficiency Darts.  3 ranged attacks per round.  He can fight from range as well as just about anyone at first level.

Spells at first level:  Let's say Read Magic, Cantrip, plus 4 others.  I'll go with Magic Missile, Color Spray, Detect Magic, and Identify.   Usually, will be memorizing Magic Missile and Color Spray. 

I've also got 10! slots for non-weapon proficiencies.  This will be in the Greyhawk campaign.  We'll put these to: Read/Write Common.  Speaks Elven.  Read/Write Elven.  Speak Orc.  Speak Dwarf.  Read/Write Dwarven.  Ancient History (Ancient Magical Ruins of Local Area).   Ancient Language (Old Oeridian), Spellcraft, Riding (Land-based)

All of a sudden this dude seems decently playable.  Not bad for a 1st level AD&D wizard, eh?

I think your scenario is reasonable.  I think part of the issue here is one of poorly expressed expectations.  Most people I've encountered complaining about "weak" wizards usually mean "wizards don't do very much wizarding at low levels in early editions."  It's more about the lack of magical options to interact with the world than it is about total options to meaningfully interact.  I think subconsciously they are looking for Harry Potter wizards (where spells seem to be unlimited and the first option in most cases), instead of the implied setting of early D&D that magic was rare and powerful.  That one Sleep spell was the equivalent of a hand grenade... it was a game-changer.  So, I think it's a conflict of expectations more than a mechanical problem...

Quote from: zagreus on April 03, 2024, 09:28:27 AM
So... I don't get some of this, honestly.  Playing AD&D you can make a very survivable 1st level wizard. 

Let's do some in vivo, character generation, using AD&D 2nd edition.

The way I generate characters is 4d6, drop the lowest, re-roll ones, place the scores where I want.  For this post I generated some rolls with the intent to make a hypothetical wizard.  I got 16, 12, 10, 12, 9, 17.  Very decent.  Int is 17.  Con is 16.  Who cares about the other scores, they're mostly irrelevant.   

If I'm playing a single classed Wizard, I'm playing a specialist.    Therefore, I get two (not one) spells per day.  One from my specialty school, and Sleep.  With a 16 con, he can be an Invoker or Conjurer.  I want Sleep, but I hate losing Magic Missile, so I'll just go with color spray instead, I'll make him an Invoker.   

Most house rules, in any game I've ever played say max hp at 1st level, so he has 6 hit points.  Decent.  And he'll have weapon proficiency Darts.  3 ranged attacks per round.  He can fight from range as well as just about anyone at first level.

Spells at first level:  Let's say Read Magic, Cantrip, plus 4 others.  I'll go with Magic Missile, Color Spray, Detect Magic, and Identify.   Usually, will be memorizing Magic Missile and Color Spray. 

I've also got 10! slots for non-weapon proficiencies.  This will be in the Greyhawk campaign.  We'll put these to: Read/Write Common.  Speaks Elven.  Read/Write Elven.  Speak Orc.  Speak Dwarf.  Read/Write Dwarven.  Ancient History (Ancient Magical Ruins of Local Area).   Ancient Language (Old Oeridian), Spellcraft, Riding (Land-based)

All of a sudden this dude seems decently playable.  Not bad for a 1st level AD&D wizard, eh?

Yes, in regards to 2nd ed AD&D. But you don't have skills, specialization, or cantrips in 1st ed AD&D and some OSR versions.

True.  But it's not like 2nd Edition is some "newfangled" game.  It's been around since 1989.   Anyway, YMMV. 

(edit:  Minor correction, 2nd edition only had the Cantrip spell- just minor non damaging effects and such, puffs of smoke and the like via one spell.  AD&D 1st edition was the one that actually introduced Cantrips via Unearthed Arcana.) 

Quote from: zagreus on April 03, 2024, 10:53:51 AM
True.  But it's not like 2nd Edition is some "newfangled" game.  It's been around since 1989.   Anyway, YMMV.

Correct, but the point is what works for 2nd ed AD&D might not work with other editions.

It's a solution, but not THE solution.

just saying...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 03, 2024, 10:02:33 AMI think subconsciously they are looking for Harry Potter wizards (where spells seem to be unlimited and the first option in most cases)...

One of the things I did in my custom ruleset (godsmonsters.com) is that everyone gets a specialty every odd level (this is how classes with extra abilities, such as Paladins, Druids, whatever, are created—there are only five classes, but they are specialized via specialties). For the players of magic-users who want to cast common magics regularly, I created the cantrip specialty. For any spell the character has memorized, they can do unlimited minor, non-damaging effects.

For example, if you have Fan of Fire memorized, you can create a tiny flame from the end of your wand. If you have Great Ball of Fire memorized, you can create a tiny globe of flame that explodes in tiny, harmless fireworks. If you have Dust Wand memorized, you can clean a small table. If you have Open memorized, you can nudge open an unlocked door. Each without expending the spell in question.

They require the same components as the full spell, but those components aren't used up. And of course they require that the character have a special wand to cast. And if they cast the full spell, they can no longer cast cantrips from it.

It allows the player to have their character do cool, modern-style sorcery stuff at least until they exhaust themselves without the overpowering nature of having full unlimited spells to cast.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 03, 2024, 07:00:21 AM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on April 03, 2024, 12:21:36 AM
The game should have verisimilitude.

That's the pretentious prick's way of saying, "I want to argue for realism when it suits me, and discard realism when it suits me." Same as the nonsense about female characters not being as strong as male.

It's a long word for dodging the point. Don't be a pretentious prick, and do contend with the actual arguments presented.

I am saying the mechanics imply the exact "thing" a mage is supposed to represent. And this changes edition by edition. Everyone is going to have their flavor of what they want in their game. But we're talking the difference between what that flavor is and how its mechanically represented and what those mechanics mean. But you know this, K-money!

If people want Mages to have Fighter HD - knock yourselves out. Just make sure your setting represents that.

Quote from: zagreus on April 03, 2024, 09:28:27 AM
So... I don't get some of this, honestly.  Playing AD&D you can make a very survivable 1st level wizard. 

Let's do some in vivo, character generation, using AD&D 2nd edition.

The way I generate characters is 4d6, drop the lowest, re-roll ones, place the scores where I want.  For this post I generated some rolls with the intent to make a hypothetical wizard.  I got 16, 12, 10, 12, 9, 17.  Very decent.  Int is 17.  Con is 16.  Who cares about the other scores, they're mostly irrelevant.   

If I'm playing a single classed Wizard, I'm playing a specialist.    Therefore, I get two (not one) spells per day.  One from my specialty school, and Sleep.  With a 16 con, he can be an Invoker or Conjurer.  I want Sleep, but I hate losing Magic Missile, so I'll just go with color spray instead, I'll make him an Invoker.   

Most house rules, in any game I've ever played say max hp at 1st level, so he has 6 hit points.  Decent.  And he'll have weapon proficiency Darts.  3 ranged attacks per round.  He can fight from range as well as just about anyone at first level.

Spells at first level:  Let's say Read Magic, Cantrip, plus 4 others.  I'll go with Magic Missile, Color Spray, Detect Magic, and Identify.   Usually, will be memorizing Magic Missile and Color Spray. 

I've also got 10! slots for non-weapon proficiencies.  This will be in the Greyhawk campaign.  We'll put these to: Read/Write Common.  Speaks Elven.  Read/Write Elven.  Speak Orc.  Speak Dwarf.  Read/Write Dwarven.  Ancient History (Ancient Magical Ruins of Local Area).   Ancient Language (Old Oeridian), Spellcraft, Riding (Land-based)

All of a sudden this dude seems decently playable.  Not bad for a 1st level AD&D wizard, eh?

Greetings!

Good work, Zagreus! That Wizard won't be pathetically helpless and weak with everything. I like it very much!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 03, 2024, 09:55:49 AM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 03, 2024, 07:00:21 AM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on April 03, 2024, 12:21:36 AM
The game should have verisimilitude.

That's the pretentious prick's way of saying, "I want to argue for realism when it suits me, and discard realism when it suits me." Same as the nonsense about female characters not being as strong as male.

It's a long word for dodging the point. Don't be a pretentious prick, and do contend with the actual arguments presented.

Actually, stating that realism is not a concern in games with fantasy elements is the ultimate dodge.  OK, if we can have dragons and not break the tone, why can't we have a Corvette ZR1?  It's fantasy, right?

You know this; you're just being a pretentious prick about it.  Certain elements fit the setting and tone of the game world.  Some don't.  It is dependent on the tone developed by the players and DM.  Some groups would think adding a Corvette to the game is the coolest thing ever.  For some, it would be a game-destroying decision.  So, why don't you stop dodging the point and explain why the martial abilities of a magic user don't matter in fantasy RPGs.  At least then you'd be contending with the actual arguments presented...

Greetings!

*BOOM* Absolutely right, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 03, 2024, 07:00:21 AM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on April 03, 2024, 12:21:36 AM
The game should have verisimilitude.

That's the pretentious prick's way of saying, "I want to argue for realism when it suits me, and discard realism when it suits me." Same as the nonsense about female characters not being as strong as male.

It's a long word for dodging the point. Don't be a pretentious prick, and do contend with the actual arguments presented.

Should the game have no rules then?  Should the characters have no boundaries?
Should Wizard get the same hit dice as fighters, AND be able to wear any armor they wand AND be able to use any weapon? Why not give them theif abilities too? Heck they are smart, they learn the skills.

If that's your jam, go ahead and run that game.  It will probably suck though because the players will probably play your Omni-wizard and forgo anything else.  Let them all fly, and turn invisible at will. Most players will jump at the chance to get those abilities.  Why should they have to earn those abilities as spells?  Why the limits? 

Verisimilitude is a sliding scale.  I want the players to have enough "seeming of reality" to get immersed in the game and enjoy the act of overcoming challenges.  They can role play their characters as though they were real people because the world, though fantastical, is real enough to them.

Sometimes you can go to far with the realism.  It's up to you to decide where to draw the line.  And if you draw that line too far to one side or the other, your game will suck.

Have fun.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 03, 2024, 09:55:49 AM
Actually, stating that realism is not a concern in games with fantasy elements is the ultimate dodge.  OK, if we can have dragons and not break the tone, why can't we have a Corvette ZR1?  It's fantasy, right?

It's medieval fantasy, not Middle-Aged Fat Bastard Fantasy.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 03, 2024, 11:34:47 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 03, 2024, 09:55:49 AM
Actually, stating that realism is not a concern in games with fantasy elements is the ultimate dodge.  OK, if we can have dragons and not break the tone, why can't we have a Corvette ZR1?  It's fantasy, right?

It's medieval fantasy, not Middle-Aged Fat Bastard Fantasy.

So what?  Are you suggesting that the medieval setting imposes some requirement to limit the fantasy to what might seem realistic in that setting?  Are you actually arguing for realism when it suits you, but not when it doesn't?

Quote from: SHARK on April 03, 2024, 02:00:34 PM

Quote from: zagreus on April 03, 2024, 09:28:27 AM
So... I don't get some of this, honestly.  Playing AD&D you can make a very survivable 1st level wizard. 

Let's do some in vivo, character generation, using AD&D 2nd edition.

The way I generate characters is 4d6, drop the lowest, re-roll ones, place the scores where I want.  For this post I generated some rolls with the intent to make a hypothetical wizard.  I got 16, 12, 10, 12, 9, 17.  Very decent.  Int is 17.  Con is 16.  Who cares about the other scores, they're mostly irrelevant.   

If I'm playing a single classed Wizard, I'm playing a specialist.    Therefore, I get two (not one) spells per day.  One from my specialty school, and Sleep.  With a 16 con, he can be an Invoker or Conjurer.  I want Sleep, but I hate losing Magic Missile, so I'll just go with color spray instead, I'll make him an Invoker.   

Most house rules, in any game I've ever played say max hp at 1st level, so he has 6 hit points.  Decent.  And he'll have weapon proficiency Darts.  3 ranged attacks per round.  He can fight from range as well as just about anyone at first level.

Spells at first level:  Let's say Read Magic, Cantrip, plus 4 others.  I'll go with Magic Missile, Color Spray, Detect Magic, and Identify.   Usually, will be memorizing Magic Missile and Color Spray. 

I've also got 10! slots for non-weapon proficiencies.  This will be in the Greyhawk campaign.  We'll put these to: Read/Write Common.  Speaks Elven.  Read/Write Elven.  Speak Orc.  Speak Dwarf.  Read/Write Dwarven.  Ancient History (Ancient Magical Ruins of Local Area).   Ancient Language (Old Oeridian), Spellcraft, Riding (Land-based)

All of a sudden this dude seems decently playable.  Not bad for a 1st level AD&D wizard, eh?

Greetings!

Good work, Zagreus! That Wizard won't be pathetically helpless and weak with everything. I like it very much!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Want me to make a 3d6 straight down the line Wizard, Shark?  :D I'll make it extra special!  8) Promise!

In OD&D, you can't cast in armor. Thus, you can always wear armor before and after you cast your holy hand grenade for the day.

As others have mentioned, unless your mage's CHA is crap, that gold you don't need to spend on armor and weapons means you can spend it on HD 0 meat shields!

BTW, one common houserule back in the day was to begin everybody at 3rd level. That shut up most of the complainers. In fact, it became the default rule for Dark Sun too.

Quote from: Theory of Games on April 02, 2024, 08:57:35 PM
I know something's wrong with me head but --- are you guys arguing that a game with elves and dragons and magic should be more realistic?

Every day in this hobby since 1974!

We could put this the other way around - compared to folkloric tales and Swords and Sorcery literature, AD&D magic users become implausibly strong.

Early medieval Northern European magic tends not to involve magic users who can shoot balls of fire, rather they have the power of foresight, or charm (such as the Norse vǫlva in the saga of Erik the Red) and can make talismans of protective magic. Even the late medieval and renaissance magicians of the Faustus/grimoire tradition made amulets that conferred some specified power (such as luck or protection from disease) or obtain the favor of a summoned demon aristocrats to indirectly obtain goals like treasure finding or special knowledge (locate object  or legend lore) - but such magic is not really fitted to going into a dungeon and fighting orcs.

Sword and Sorcery literature preceding D&D also does not generally describe wizards with vast magic powers compared to AD&D wizards - as was explain in an early Dragon article Gandalf's spells can all be cast by a 5th level AD&D magic user (oh yeah, he has a magic bastard sword - but who is to say his rather crappy use of Glamdring was not due to the balancing of its +5 bonus with the magic users' -5 penalty for using it). In Vance's The Dying Earth, the nearest to Gygax's system, the trick to killing Mazirian the Magician was to make him use up all his spells, which he did very quickly and then died very quickly.  Most of the 'magic users' in Howard's Conan are clerics of Mitra, but the actual sorcerers tend to be old and frail no where near as powerful in a dungeon as, say, Ernie Gygax's Tenser.  In Fritz Leiber's stories, the Gray Mouser's master Glavas Rho is easily defeated by soldiers and Ningauble and Sheelba are not adventuring magicians. Even a post D&D author like Susanna Clarke in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell makes magic users quite limited in their powers. If anyone is to blame for magic user power creep, it is Joanne Rowling and her kiddies shouting Wingardium Leviosa every five seconds. AD&D magic users by 6th level wipe the floor with the powers of most folkloric or fictional magic users.

In the 80s I heard all the complaints about Gandalf and swords and the 1st level/1 spell thing. Personally, I like the speed and simplicity of Gygax's Vancian system, but if players moaned, I let them start at 3rd level and use a short sword (after all, it is 1D6 like a staff - as I didn't play Weapon v Armor so it didn't matter). That tended to end the complaints - as did the players  returning to AD&D after playing 2nd edition Chivalry and Sorcery (especially its rule that players could not look up the magic system in the book while playing).
   

Quote from: Opaopajr on April 04, 2024, 01:47:11 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 03, 2024, 02:00:34 PM

Quote from: zagreus on April 03, 2024, 09:28:27 AM
So... I don't get some of this, honestly.  Playing AD&D you can make a very survivable 1st level wizard. 

Let's do some in vivo, character generation, using AD&D 2nd edition.

The way I generate characters is 4d6, drop the lowest, re-roll ones, place the scores where I want.  For this post I generated some rolls with the intent to make a hypothetical wizard.  I got 16, 12, 10, 12, 9, 17.  Very decent.  Int is 17.  Con is 16.  Who cares about the other scores, they're mostly irrelevant.   

If I'm playing a single classed Wizard, I'm playing a specialist.    Therefore, I get two (not one) spells per day.  One from my specialty school, and Sleep.  With a 16 con, he can be an Invoker or Conjurer.  I want Sleep, but I hate losing Magic Missile, so I'll just go with color spray instead, I'll make him an Invoker.   

Most house rules, in any game I've ever played say max hp at 1st level, so he has 6 hit points.  Decent.  And he'll have weapon proficiency Darts.  3 ranged attacks per round.  He can fight from range as well as just about anyone at first level.

Spells at first level:  Let's say Read Magic, Cantrip, plus 4 others.  I'll go with Magic Missile, Color Spray, Detect Magic, and Identify.   Usually, will be memorizing Magic Missile and Color Spray. 

I've also got 10! slots for non-weapon proficiencies.  This will be in the Greyhawk campaign.  We'll put these to: Read/Write Common.  Speaks Elven.  Read/Write Elven.  Speak Orc.  Speak Dwarf.  Read/Write Dwarven.  Ancient History (Ancient Magical Ruins of Local Area).   Ancient Language (Old Oeridian), Spellcraft, Riding (Land-based)

All of a sudden this dude seems decently playable.  Not bad for a 1st level AD&D wizard, eh?

Greetings!

Good work, Zagreus! That Wizard won't be pathetically helpless and weak with everything. I like it very much!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Want me to make a 3d6 straight down the line Wizard, Shark?  :D I'll make it extra special!  8) Promise!

Greetings!

Yeah, Opa! Sounds good!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Spinachcat on April 04, 2024, 04:03:05 AM
In OD&D, you can't cast in armor. Thus, you can always wear armor before and after you cast your holy hand grenade for the day.

As others have mentioned, unless your mage's CHA is crap, that gold you don't need to spend on armor and weapons means you can spend it on HD 0 meat shields!

BTW, one common houserule back in the day was to begin everybody at 3rd level. That shut up most of the complainers. In fact, it became the default rule for Dark Sun too.

Quote from: Theory of Games on April 02, 2024, 08:57:35 PM
I know something's wrong with me head but --- are you guys arguing that a game with elves and dragons and magic should be more realistic?

Every day in this hobby since 1974!

Greetings!

Yeah, my friend! I think that low-level parties being sure to always be on the lookout for hiring a half dozen or more spearmen or swordsmen, your basic, low-level Men-at-Arms, not necessarily to be wasted as so-called "cannon fodder"--but to form a defensive cordon around weaker characters like the wizard, and to form a backstop to protect other missile-firing and ranged members of the party, is always a smart move. I think that strong policy has somehow been forgotten and left by the wayside through the years for some reason.

Such mercenary troops do not need to be uber-spectacular--just sturdy enough to hopefully stay alive, and keep the monsters from eating the wizard and ranged characters. Every round that the ranged characters can fire un-inhibited, serves to act as a decisive force-multiplier, and actually contributed to providing the party with a strong advantage, and tends to progressively end fights quickly in the party's favour.

As the party advances a level or two, gains a bit more gold, the smart move is to supplement those half dozen or so swordsmen hirelings with an additional 6 or so hireling archers. They have instructions to focus fire, taking out enemy spell-casters and missile troops as first priorities; before focusing fire on stronger line troops. Thus, the group's firepower is further maximized and sharpened into an ever-lethal killing machine.

Somewhere around the party reaching level 4 or 5, they should augment their retainer troops even more, with their own dedicated armourer, a pair of medics/herbalists, and a healing-specialized Cleric.

Following these principles, the Wizard is seldom in any real danger. Through this process as well as insuring that the Wizard is cleaning up with collecting potions, scrolls, wands, and ointments and all manner of other weird, specialized magic items, the Wizard shouldn't need to dream of reaching high-level before they can shine. If they can manage to survive through levels 4, 5, and especially 6, the party Wizard should really be coming into their own of being an increasingly prominent and dangerous character.

I have not really had a problem with Wizard's early limited magical powers. The sticking point it often seems is their absolute physical weakness, and or lack of basic survival skills. Being able to climb, swim, run and jump and all that. That is where I think later editions made some improvements. Nonetheless, having a decent Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution score, even for a Wizard, is very helpful. I would argue also leaning into being "generalists" as so much of the adventuring life is physically demanding on every member of the team, and having such minimum requirements and standards should be expected and encouraged. That is *not* to argue that Wizards need to have Fighter Hit Dice, or uber-physical combat abilities. Wizard's shouldn't have such, and arguably don't even need them. But having sufficient physical and survival skills to keep up with other members of the party seems reasonable to me.

I think Old School Wizards are mostly fine. The adventuring party needs to function as a team, and always be creative, tenacious, and resourceful. As noted previously, the whole party needs to invest in hiring Expert Hirelings, to provide the cushion and resilience that the party needs, and especially to defend the weaker members of the party. I know modern groups do not tend to do this very often, which leads to them getting overwhelmed and jacked hard. That harsh reality then leads them to make all kinds of flawed assessments and assumptions about the various Classes. Much of their suffering and experienced problems actually is a reflection of their own lack of creativity, resilience, and resourcefulness.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: El-V on April 04, 2024, 09:58:40 AM
We could put this the other way around - compared to folkloric tales and Swords and Sorcery literature, AD&D magic users become implausibly strong.

Early medieval Northern European magic tends not to involve magic users who can shoot balls of fire, rather they have the power of foresight, or charm (such as the Norse vǫlva in the saga of Erik the Red) and can make talismans of protective magic. Even the late medieval and renaissance magicians of the Faustus/grimoire tradition made amulets that conferred some specified power (such as luck or protection from disease) or obtain the favor of a summoned demon aristocrats to indirectly obtain goals like treasure finding or special knowledge (locate object  or legend lore) - but such magic is not really fitted to going into a dungeon and fighting orcs.

Sword and Sorcery literature preceding D&D also does not generally describe wizards with vast magic powers compared to AD&D wizards - as was explain in an early Dragon article Gandalf's spells can all be cast by a 5th level AD&D magic user (oh yeah, he has a magic bastard sword - but who is to say his rather crappy use of Glamdring was not due to the balancing of its +5 bonus with the magic users' -5 penalty for using it). In Vance's The Dying Earth, the nearest to Gygax's system, the trick to killing Mazirian the Magician was to make him use up all his spells, which he did very quickly and then died very quickly.  Most of the 'magic users' in Howard's Conan are clerics of Mitra, but the actual sorcerers tend to be old and frail no where near as powerful in a dungeon as, say, Ernie Gygax's Tenser.  In Fritz Leiber's stories, the Gray Mouser's master Glavas Rho is easily defeated by soldiers and Ningauble and Sheelba are not adventuring magicians. Even a post D&D author like Susanna Clarke in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell makes magic users quite limited in their powers. If anyone is to blame for magic user power creep, it is Joanne Rowling and her kiddies shouting Wingardium Leviosa every five seconds. AD&D magic users by 6th level wipe the floor with the powers of most folkloric or fictional magic users.

In the 80s I heard all the complaints about Gandalf and swords and the 1st level/1 spell thing. Personally, I like the speed and simplicity of Gygax's Vancian system, but if players moaned, I let them start at 3rd level and use a short sword (after all, it is 1D6 like a staff - as I didn't play Weapon v Armor so it didn't matter). That tended to end the complaints - as did the players  returning to AD&D after playing 2nd edition Chivalry and Sorcery (especially its rule that players could not look up the magic system in the book while playing).

Quote from: El-V on April 04, 2024, 09:58:40 AM
We could put this the other way around - compared to folkloric tales and Swords and Sorcery literature, AD&D magic users become implausibly strong.

Early medieval Northern European magic tends not to involve magic users who can shoot balls of fire, rather they have the power of foresight, or charm (such as the Norse vǫlva in the saga of Erik the Red) and can make talismans of protective magic. Even the late medieval and renaissance magicians of the Faustus/grimoire tradition made amulets that conferred some specified power (such as luck or protection from disease) or obtain the favor of a summoned demon aristocrats to indirectly obtain goals like treasure finding or special knowledge (locate object  or legend lore) - but such magic is not really fitted to going into a dungeon and fighting orcs.

Sword and Sorcery literature preceding D&D also does not generally describe wizards with vast magic powers compared to AD&D wizards - as was explain in an early Dragon article Gandalf's spells can all be cast by a 5th level AD&D magic user (oh yeah, he has a magic bastard sword - but who is to say his rather crappy use of Glamdring was not due to the balancing of its +5 bonus with the magic users' -5 penalty for using it). In Vance's The Dying Earth, the nearest to Gygax's system, the trick to killing Mazirian the Magician was to make him use up all his spells, which he did very quickly and then died very quickly.  Most of the 'magic users' in Howard's Conan are clerics of Mitra, but the actual sorcerers tend to be old and frail no where near as powerful in a dungeon as, say, Ernie Gygax's Tenser.  In Fritz Leiber's stories, the Gray Mouser's master Glavas Rho is easily defeated by soldiers and Ningauble and Sheelba are not adventuring magicians. Even a post D&D author like Susanna Clarke in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell makes magic users quite limited in their powers. If anyone is to blame for magic user power creep, it is Joanne Rowling and her kiddies shouting Wingardium Leviosa every five seconds. AD&D magic users by 6th level wipe the floor with the powers of most folkloric or fictional magic users.

In the 80s I heard all the complaints about Gandalf and swords and the 1st level/1 spell thing. Personally, I like the speed and simplicity of Gygax's Vancian system, but if players moaned, I let them start at 3rd level and use a short sword (after all, it is 1D6 like a staff - as I didn't play Weapon v Armor so it didn't matter). That tended to end the complaints - as did the players  returning to AD&D after playing 2nd edition Chivalry and Sorcery (especially its rule that players could not look up the magic system in the book while playing).

This is why the martial-caster balance is so bad. DND martials wouldn't survive the Trojan War, let alone the Kurukshetra War. DND casters could not only survive, but thrive. If casters get to be stronger than any mythological wizard, then DND martials need to be stronger than Arthur or Achilles or Herakles.

Quote from: El-V on April 04, 2024, 09:58:40 AM
We could put this the other way around - compared to folkloric tales and Swords and Sorcery literature, AD&D magic users become implausibly strong.

Early medieval Northern European magic tends not to involve magic users who can shoot balls of fire, rather they have the power of foresight, or charm (such as the Norse vǫlva in the saga of Erik the Red) and can make talismans of protective magic. Even the late medieval and renaissance magicians of the Faustus/grimoire tradition made amulets that conferred some specified power (such as luck or protection from disease) or obtain the favor of a summoned demon aristocrats to indirectly obtain goals like treasure finding or special knowledge (locate object  or legend lore) - but such magic is not really fitted to going into a dungeon and fighting orcs.

Sword and Sorcery literature preceding D&D also does not generally describe wizards with vast magic powers compared to AD&D wizards - as was explain in an early Dragon article Gandalf's spells can all be cast by a 5th level AD&D magic user (oh yeah, he has a magic bastard sword - but who is to say his rather crappy use of Glamdring was not due to the balancing of its +5 bonus with the magic users' -5 penalty for using it). In Vance's The Dying Earth, the nearest to Gygax's system, the trick to killing Mazirian the Magician was to make him use up all his spells, which he did very quickly and then died very quickly.  Most of the 'magic users' in Howard's Conan are clerics of Mitra, but the actual sorcerers tend to be old and frail no where near as powerful in a dungeon as, say, Ernie Gygax's Tenser.  In Fritz Leiber's stories, the Gray Mouser's master Glavas Rho is easily defeated by soldiers and Ningauble and Sheelba are not adventuring magicians. Even a post D&D author like Susanna Clarke in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell makes magic users quite limited in their powers. If anyone is to blame for magic user power creep, it is Joanne Rowling and her kiddies shouting Wingardium Leviosa every five seconds. AD&D magic users by 6th level wipe the floor with the powers of most folkloric or fictional magic users.

In the 80s I heard all the complaints about Gandalf and swords and the 1st level/1 spell thing. Personally, I like the speed and simplicity of Gygax's Vancian system, but if players moaned, I let them start at 3rd level and use a short sword (after all, it is 1D6 like a staff - as I didn't play Weapon v Armor so it didn't matter). That tended to end the complaints - as did the players  returning to AD&D after playing 2nd edition Chivalry and Sorcery (especially its rule that players could not look up the magic system in the book while playing).

I agree with almost all of this. One of the things that boggles my mind is that so many people insist that old-school D&D is a Sword & Sorcery game. Sword & Sorcery fiction is clearly among the inspirations, but the end product looks nothing like it. D&D is a lot like Star Wars, in that it's a massive genre mashup that ends up producing something wholly unique. You can put a genre-label on it, like people do with "space opera" for Star Wars, but it still essentially stands alone.

Gygax and company probably deserve more credit than they get for developing an entirely new subgenre of fantasy. Despite not having a label like "space opera" coined for it (that I'm aware of), D&D has more things in it's same genre than Star Wars does, only because it has so many more imitators. The fact that a lot of people refer to it as "standard fantasy" is just a testament to the level of influence it has.

You mentioned in there that J.K. Rowling might be to blame for people thinking wizards should be able to constantly throw around flashy magic. I've heard that the magic in Harry Potter is heavily inspired from the magic in Tales of Earthsea, but since I haven't read the latter, I can't confirm or deny. The steady power creep of magicians in popular fiction is probably owed to a lot of things. If I had to guess, I'd probably assume videogames are the most major factor, but if you dig deep enough, I wouldn't be surprised if you found that the real culprit was D&D itself.

For my own tastes, I'd prefer a game that represents wizardry more as it exists in those old S&S novels, but that would require essentially getting rid of the magic-user as a player class. I think you'd have to either make magic something which is only used by NPCs, or a kind of bonus skill system, not very applicable in combat, which players can learn on top of being a warrior or thief or whatever. But at that point, we're talking about a hypothetical game which isn't D&D.

Quote from: SHARK on April 04, 2024, 10:04:58 AM
Greetings!

Yeah, Opa! Sounds good!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Va-va-va-voom!

Guinevere, the Recently Released Page of the Enchantress
Human Female Wizard

STR 08, WgtAlw 35, MxPrs 90, OpDrs 5, BB/LG 1%
DEX 07,
CON 07, SysShk 55%, Rez 60%
INT 13, #Lng 3, Splv 6th, Lrn% 55%, (Mx# SpLv 9)
WIS 08,
CHA 15, MaxHnc 7, LoyBas +3, RctAdj +3

HP: 1d4 (I rolled a 2)
AC: 10.
Lang: Bilingual with room for one more language. e.g. English, French

Wiz: * No Armor.
* Wpns (dagger, knife, dart, sling, staff).
* Magic allowed wpns, potions, rings, wands, rods, scrolls, & misc. (still no armor).
* Create Magic Items start 9th potions & scrolls
* 1d4 HD 1st-10th lvs
Mage: * Any Magic School.

Wizard Spells
Spell Book Title -- "Madam Kitty's Hostess Primer" (there's a spell or 3 still unlearned inside)
1st Lvl: Cantrip, Detect Magic, Friends, Mending, Message, Read Magic, Unseen Servant.

Optional Skills
Secondary Skills: Page to an Enchantress, Courtly Education (etiquette, heraldry, religion, read/write, etc.)
NWP, Class 4: Etiquette, Heraldry, Read/Write, Read/Write. NWP, Int 3: Dancing, Religion, Singing

GP: 1d4x10 (I rolled a 3, so 30gp)
Weapons: knives x2 (1gp), darts 6 (3gp), sling & bullets x10 (0.6gp), quarterstaff (-)
Rest of 25.4gp spent on comforts, fashions, and toiletries to look attractive, then a men-at-arms just in case.

Bio: Was a page of an enchantress, an observer and courier to exciting high society life. Guinevere was
raised to extend her patroness' reach as another young enchantress, but once grown she was not beautiful
enough (only CHA 15). Sadly released, yet with good references and vague protege social protection. Guinevere
plies her services to adventurers in hopes to make her patroness proud one day. Their fortune seeking world is
surprisingly coarse, but intriguing... 

8) Not gonna lie, I wanna play her already!

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 04, 2024, 01:32:27 PM
Gygax and company probably deserve more credit than they get for developing an entirely new subgenre of fantasy. Despite not having a label like "space opera" coined for it (that I'm aware of)

"Dungeon Fantasy". That's it.  That's the label.

Quote
I wouldn't be surprised if you found that the real culprit was D&D itself.

That.  No RPG has ever been commercially successful if it doesn't grant the players cool ass-kicking superpowers, and "Seventeen different kinds of Fireball spells (including the Bouncing Betty)!" (https://kenzerco.com/hackmaster/) is the ultimate expression of that.

Quote
D&D is a lot like Star Wars, in that it's a massive genre mashup that ends up producing something wholly unique

As Mike Mornard was fond of saying, "We made up some shit we thought would be fun".  Also like Star Wars, D&D has fallen victim to hagiographers who need there to have been a great deal more thought and intention put into it than there ever was.

This wizard's survivable as well, imo!  Even without the stuff I did.  She would just be relying on her men-at-arms, and 0-level guys for the first adventure.  Totally reasonable!

Another kick in the nuts for AD&D mages is starting money. In D&D everyone starts with 30-180 g.p. to equip their characters. In AD&D magic-users and illusionists only get 20-50 gold. Good luck hiring one bodyguard, let alone two or three!

A simple way to help AD&D magic-users is to use OD&D rules for them. Oh, and the Cover & Concealment Table: learn it; use it; LIVE IT!

 ;) Spell services are surprisingly costly. :D If you cannot afford them, perhaps letting them in on the party's adventures to gain shares of experience and loot can be arranged...

Want that ratty, filled with holes and faded ink, non-magical treasure map to be Mended? Well, perhaps we can come to an agreement. ;D (Paper is typically made of wood, vellum of skin, and inks typically of dyes, pigments, or charcoal, no? Just like fixing clothes.  :) )

Quote from: zagreus on April 04, 2024, 05:53:29 PM
This wizard's survivable as well, imo!  Even without the stuff I did.  She would just be relying on her men-at-arms, and 0-level guys for the first adventure.  Totally reasonable!

;D She sounds like a hoot, doesn't she! :-* The temptation is to not lean too heavily into the Legally Blonde trope. Lean in enough to show some cleavage of course, but tastefully coquettish. ;)

In AD&D Magic users listed age for human was in their 20s.

This and other comments in the book paint the picture of an apprentice who has been cloistered away studying and not much else for most of their formative years.

Quote from: Opaopajr on April 05, 2024, 03:58:17 AM
;) Spell services are surprisingly costly. :D If you cannot afford them, perhaps letting them in on the party's adventures to gain shares of experience and loot can be arranged...

Want that ratty, filled with holes and faded ink, non-magical treasure map to be Mended? Well, perhaps we can come to an agreement. ;D (Paper is typically made of wood, vellum of skin, and inks typically of dyes, pigments, or charcoal, no? Just like fixing clothes.  :) )

Greetings!

Yeah, my friend! Also, while not specifically detailed and explained within the rulebooks, Wizards would certainly be able to earn *huge* amounts of gold, simply by selling their basic services and their intellectual and academic abilities. Spells and Cantrips, all easily inspire regular customers. Light, Identify, and on and on are especially valuable and needed by Adventurers. Many more mundane spells would be in high demand by ordinary, local people everywhere. Love spells, fertility, forune telling, and so on.

Then, going with the fiercely beloved Old School trope of "magic being rare!"--there isn't likely to be too many other Wizards providing competition for such services--thus, enhancing the Wizard's industriousness and wealth potential even more.

Furthermore, intellectually and academically, the Wizards likely knows a great deal of exotic knowledge that others are certainly likely to respect, appreciate, and pay well for. Wizards can very easily become tutors providing academic services and instruction in noble households--even Barons and other great Lords may often seek out personal instruction in History, Philosophy, Engineering, Astrology, Geography, and similar. The Wizard's knowledge of more than the Common tongue also means that the Wizard can easily make gold as an interpreter--not just interpreting speech and meetings, negotiations, and the like, but also translating books, scrolls, and other documents from "X" Language to the Common language. Noble courts, Churches and Temples, Counting Houses, Guilds, as well as any local academic institutions are all likely customers and patrons for the Wizard. Even when some of these jobs are not permanent, the Wizard gains very important *references* from the respected and upper echelons of society--and thus opens up new doors for new, more important and profitable associations for the well-respected and skilled Wizard.

Thus, at any time when the Wizard wants a break from their many duties, projects, and enriching gigs--they can choose to step out and accompany a band of adventurers. Along the way, even relatively low-level Wizards are likely to possess such considerable wealth and prestige, from all of these diverse activities. That means hiring a dozen Hireling bodyguards should not be a problem, even for a relatively low-level Wizard.

Wizards can be extremely capable, especially when played with some intelligence, tenacity, and resourcefulness.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 ;D I was naughty in a campaign, I made an NPC wizard, who could've been a hireling at the PCs' request, work a day job as a beer keg mover for his Tenser's Floating Disc. He made it so much easier to move barrels of beer by skipping the ramps and stairs issues that he was retained and allowed days off to freelance. He was sullen with himself that it's hard for him to speak up and befriend adventurers to improve his skills (has low CHA). >:(

Wimpy wizard works with longshoreman and has gruff and sarcastic demeanor to match. :o

8) I'm always a little proud of my silly NPC hireling creations. Short and sweet and something I'd want to play.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 03, 2024, 11:41:42 PM
So what?  Are you suggesting that the medieval setting imposes some requirement to limit the fantasy to what might seem realistic in that setting?  Are you actually arguing for realism when it suits you, but not when it doesn't?

No, I'm suggesting that medieval fantasy is medieval fantasy, and modern world fat bastard fantasy is modern world fat bastard fantasy. Neither is a realistic understanding of how the medieval world worked, nor of how the modern world works, with or without fat bastards.

I don't want sports cars in D&D for the same reason I didn't like Shadowrun. I don't like to mix genres.

Quote from: Omega on April 05, 2024, 04:41:07 AM
This and other comments in the book paint the picture of an apprentice who has been cloistered away studying and not much else for most of their formative years.

Yes. Dweeby weaklings. In other words, your typical gamer. This is why people are uncomfortable with magic-users being weak, it reminds them too much of themselves. Neckbeard and all.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 05, 2024, 10:08:25 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 05, 2024, 04:41:07 AM
This and other comments in the book paint the picture of an apprentice who has been cloistered away studying and not much else for most of their formative years.

Yes. Dweeby weaklings. In other words, your typical gamer. This is why people are uncomfortable with magic-users being weak, it reminds them too much of themselves. Neckbeard and all.

There's a lot of projection in this post...

The OD&D magic user proves that the class does not need to be overly weakened for any kind of balance. The combat progression, lack of armor, and inability to use magic swords is restrictive enough without lowering hit points.

I have been unable, until now, to be able to post for this reply because I kept getting Internal Server Error. My previous post was an error cause I somehow hit Post and then everything went haywire for me. Anyway,

To El-V:

Just a quibble for a moment, but 2 of Gandalf's spells were basically made into 6th and 7th lvl Druid spells for AD&D 1E. That is Fire Seeds (when he lights pinecones and hurls them at the Wargs in The Hobbit). The other is Fire Storm (when he sets the woods ablaze near Moria fighting the warg pack lead by the werewolf in The Lord of the Rings). He also hurls the threat to 'shrivel you from tail to snout' at the werewolf, which sounds an awful lot like the 7th lvl Cleric spell Wither (the reverse of Regenerate). He also cast 5th lvl Mage spell Telekinesis on Gimli, pulling his axe from his hand, in The Lord of the Rings when he found Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas on the edge of Fangorn Forest. Gandalf is way more than 'just a 5th lvl Magic-User'.

I have my doubts as to people being uncomfortable with the MU being weak because they identify with it (due to a lack of physicality themselves) I think it is more of a case of lacking in delaying satisfaction.  People are delusional and usually do not realize they are pretty frail and weak unless put into a situation to demonstrate that to themselves...so I don't buy the uncomfortable personal reflection angle.   The AD&D MU is the game on a harder mode until you level up a bit...then it starts to change pretty drastically in the MU's favor.  I think more players want to think of themselves as "doing it all" or at least not dying in a fight with a house cat. 

  I always thought given how powerful Mages are later in the game the steep early ramp for magic users was fine.  The mere existence of the class points to the intention of the game to be a "team" game.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 05, 2024, 10:19:06 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 05, 2024, 10:08:25 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 05, 2024, 04:41:07 AMThis and other comments in the book paint the picture of an apprentice who has been cloistered away studying and not much else for most of their formative years.

Yes. Dweeby weaklings. In other words, your typical gamer. This is why people are uncomfortable with magic-users being weak, it reminds them too much of themselves. Neckbeard and all.

There's a lot of projection in this post...

So strong that it blinded the sun.

I would assume this line of questioning primarily applies to low level magic users, since high level magic users are potentially quite terrifying, and at the very least are arguably more impressive in raw HP/To-hit than low level fighters and the like. They may not be max-level fighter good at fighting outside certain buffs and such, but really who is?

That said, I'm pretty sure even low level magic users have at least some degree of weapon proficiency/martial training, or else they probably wouldn't have that mechanically reflected as something where they are better with certain weapons. I'd assume this probably implies some degree of capacity with them. I also feel like they are at least deadlier than a lot of level 0 characters or the like, and many NPC weaklings, or literal rats, when you factor in that they have at least one spell on top of that. I'd bet on the average magic user over the average commoner, maybe even with both at level one, even though the commoner probably has more real world experience with hardship outside book learning.

Not really sure how to address verisimilitude and realism, but I don't think magic users are really all that weak in general, I guess.

Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on April 16, 2024, 03:12:34 PMGandalf is way more than 'just a 5th lvl Magic-User'.

LOL - I am sure if Jim Ward and Rob Kuntz had the rights to stat block Gandalf in Deities and Demigods they would have made Gandalf a 30th lvl MU, 14th lvl Druid and 8th level Fighter with 200hp. I was repeating a joke article by Bill Seligman from Dragon No.5 (March 77) that Gygax used to repeat at conventions to annoy fans of everyone's favorite Professor. That article lists Gandalf's spell list as Phantasmal Force, Ventriloquism, Light, either burning Hands, pyrotechnics or fireball for the pine cones, lightning bolt, charm person and protection from normal missiles. The article also notes that he has a magic ring and staff that could have given him more magic. You had me at the telekinesis - but iirc that was a Peter Jackson invention, not from JRRT himself. The best bit about that article was Tim Kask's 'Please address your responses to 'Out on A Limb'.   

Nope. From Book III: The White Rider (what is considered the first book of The Two Towers)

The old man was too quick for him. He sprang to his feet and leaped to the top of a large rock. There he stood, grown suddenly tall, towering above them. His hood and his grey rags were flung away. His white garments shone. He lifted up his staff, and Gimli's axe leaped from his grasp and fell ringing on the ground. The sword of Aragorn, stiff in his motionless hand, blazed with a sudden fire. Legolas gave a great shout and shot an arrow high into the air: it vanished in a flash of flame.

Ok, fair enough, thank you for taking the time to dig out the quote - but it could be a spell from Gandalf's staff rather than his ability as a mage. In any event, Gimli dropping his axe could be the result of the 4th level spell Fumble rather than Telekinesis, followed by Heat Metal (although a Druid spell) and Protection from Normal Missiles. As Gandalf has just gone up at least one level after fighting the Balrog - to become Gandalf the White - he is probably at that stage a 7th level magic-user :-)

The Gandalf the White in Fangorn scenario does indicate another problem making AD&D magic users weak - and that is spell casting time. Fumble is 4 segments (24 seconds) as is Heat Metal, if it was Telekinesis that would be 5 segments (30 seconds), Protection from Normal Missiles takes 3 segments (18 seconds) and lasts for 1 turn a level (so if Gandalf was 7th level he could have it 'on' for 1 hour and 10 minutes). The time for casting doesn't change with increase in levels, or a Haste spell. Even assuming Gandalf rolled a 2 on surprise, won a 6-1 initiative and the rules allowed such a combo of spells in a combat round, he could not fire off them all off before at least one of the three fighters got in an attack.

The casting time issue is therefore another factor that makes the magic user weak in a fight - indeed, Gary makes this explicit in the 1e DMG -  'spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer! ... most magic-users and clerics will opt to use magical devices whenever possible in melee, if they are wise (DMG p.65).

Quote from: El-V on April 18, 2024, 02:31:56 AMOk, fair enough, thank you for taking the time to dig out the quote - but it could be a spell from Gandalf's staff rather than his ability as a mage. In any event, Gimli dropping his axe could be the result of the 4th level spell Fumble rather than Telekinesis, followed by Heat Metal (although a Druid spell) and Protection from Normal Missiles. As Gandalf has just gone up at least one level after fighting the Balrog - to become Gandalf the White - he is probably at that stage a 7th level magic-user :-)

The Gandalf the White in Fangorn scenario does indicate another problem making AD&D magic users weak - and that is spell casting time. Fumble is 4 segments (24 seconds) as is Heat Metal, if it was Telekinesis that would be 5 segments (30 seconds), Protection from Normal Missiles takes 3 segments (18 seconds) and lasts for 1 turn a level (so if Gandalf was 7th level he could have it 'on' for 1 hour and 10 minutes). The time for casting doesn't change with increase in levels, or a Haste spell. Even assuming Gandalf rolled a 2 on surprise, won a 6-1 initiative and the rules allowed such a combo of spells in a combat round, he could not fire off them all off before at least one of the three fighters got in an attack.

Or it could be that it was a glamour effect from Gandalf meeting his old friends. "Magic" in Middle Earth was rarely (if ever) as mechanical as D&D. Casting times and somatic components and whatnot. I really do not think Gandalf was chucking spells in that scene. It was more apprehension and the aura of majesty of a Maiar reborn.
Plus, writers gonna write what reads good.