Like many people, I acquired a copy of the basic and expert rule books when they were released by WotC as PDFs.  The books are not tightly written, but I was struck by some small points that show up in the text.  

B15 clarifies that spells can't be cast while "walking or fighting".  
B17 notes that attacking or casting any spell breaks invisibility

X11 the caster can do nothing else in the round that a spell is cast
X11 declaration of a spell is made before rolling for initiative
X11 any damage disrupts the spell

X25 the spell caster must have stable support to cast a spell (reading levitate, it allows the caster to move upwards without support but nothing in the spell suggests it supplies support and this would apply to the fly spell as well).

X23 Initiative is, by default, rolled for an entire side

One thing that I notice is that this completely changes the caster paradigm of d20 era D&D (which is where I have done the majority of my gaming).  I am used to flying, invisible wizards with defensive casting and the ability to mix mobility with spells.  You could argue the precise interpretation of some of these rules, but even a high level magic user is going to have to work to get spells off.

There is also a dearth of the sort of protective spells seen in later editions.  Mirror Image is good, but only gives 1d4 images.  Shield is quite good but the duration is only 20 minutes.  Magic items can do a lot but, in this edition, they are still under DM control (default easy crafting isn't around).  

So I suspect this greatly mitigates the problems with casters in the d20 era.

Also note that in B/X D&D magic-users and elves can only know as many spells as they can cast per day!  So a first level m-u can only have one spell in her spellbook and no more.  (This is far more restrictive than BECM/RC D&D or 1e AD&D.)

Quote from: Votan;627220...
So I suspect this greatly mitigates the problems with casters in the d20 era.

Quite!  If anything, B/X magic-users are too weak.

If I ever run B/X D&D again, I'll allow magic-users and elves to cast whatever spells they know, up to the limit they can cast per day (essentially what sorcerers could do in 3.x D&D).

Quote from: Votan;627220So I suspect this greatly mitigates the problems with casters in the d20 era.

Yes, while the caster restrictions vary somewhat from one version of TSR D&D to another, most of these restrictions are present in all versions of TSR D&D. Combine this with fewer restrictions on other classes (no feats or skills needed to attempt actions, for example) and GM control of what magic items (and spells in most versions) are available and casters are much less able to dominate the game as they can in 3.x. At high levels they are still somewhat more powerful than other classes, but even then as saving throw are fixed (instead of scaling with caster level as they do in 3.x) they can still be taken out by a fighter or two of similar level.

If anything, the weakness of casters in B/X means that it becomes all the more important for a caster to acquire magic to supplement their abilities --staves, rods, wands, but especially scrolls.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;627227If anything, the weakness of casters in B/X means that it becomes all the more important for a caster to acquire magic to supplement their abilities --staves, rods, wands, but especially scrolls.

I actually don't see casters as weak in B/X.  More that they are a high risk/high reward class.

Consider the sleep spell.  It has a range of 240 feet, a duration of at least 240 combat rounds, affects 2-16 levels of creatures, and there is no save.  A 1st level magic-user in melee with 3 1st level fighters is almost certain of victory if they win initiative with this spell ready.  But they are in deep trouble if they lost initiative.  

I see this as very different than 3rd edition, where a wizard is going to have layers of protection and the ability to nest a ton of defense.  It makes then both tough and dangerous.  In B/X the same caster is much more dangerous than tough . . .

Quote from: Votan;627229I actually don't see casters as weak in B/X.  More that they are a high risk/high reward class.

Consider the sleep spell.  It has a range of 240 feet, a duration of at least 240 combat rounds, affects 2-16 levels of creatures, and there is no save.  A 1st level magic-user in melee with 3 1st level fighters is almost certain of victory if they win initiative with this spell ready.  But they are in deep trouble if they lost initiative.  

I see this as very different than 3rd edition, where a wizard is going to have layers of protection and the ability to nest a ton of defense.  It makes then both tough and dangerous.  In B/X the same caster is much more dangerous than tough . . .

It is a high risk/reward class, but it may also depend on how the DM handles allowing the M-U/Elf to handle learning new spells.  While the Expert rulebook allows either the Player or DM to choose any new spells from the list, a DM could decide to not allow the player to choose certain spells that might unbalance the game.  ("Sorry, I'm not letting you choose big-boss-zapping Disintegrate, you can take Death Spell, however.")

Quote from: flyerfan1991;627227If anything, the weakness of casters in B/X means that it becomes all the more important for a caster ...

I was going to finish that sentence with, "... to acquire a competent band of henchmen to perform basic tasks for him, and to have a party that protects him by maintaining defensive ranks - covering the front, flanks, and rear and obscuring the caster from ranged and hand-to-hand attacks.

Magic items are swell, but having a cooperative support-team is vital, initially.

Quote from: Votan;627229I actually don't see casters as weak in B/X.  More that they are a high risk/high reward class. Consider the sleep spell.

Well, Sleep is the best offensive, 1st level spell you can get, right out of the gate. As you describe: great range, great area of effect. What if your B/X caster starts with a different spell, because your DM selects what your caster has in his spellbook?

Let's say your caster starts with Hold Portal. You're clearly quite weak - pretty much one-and-done, and not by providing offensive support. (Well, not exactly. You can still contribute in other areas. Mapping, solving puzzles, providing leadership to henchmen or party members).

B/X casters eventually 'grow-out' of their weakness but it's a long, slow road to get there.

Nah, there's no difference, haven't you heard?  

Eliminating every possible restriction of TSR D&D, layering on skills and Feats for spellcasting, and allowing multi-dipping of classes, had nothing to do with Fighters v. Wizards in WotC D&D.  We've.Been.Told.  

BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner was coded into D&D from the beginning.  Iron Man and Jibba said so, or something.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;627277It is a high risk/reward class, but it may also depend on how the DM handles allowing the M-U/Elf to handle learning new spells.  While the Expert rulebook allows either the Player or DM to choose any new spells from the list, a DM could decide to not allow the player to choose certain spells that might unbalance the game.  ("Sorry, I'm not letting you choose big-boss-zapping Disintegrate, you can take Death Spell, however.")

It is true that there is the possibility of the class being underpowered if the DM pushes as hard as possible on all of the levers.  But in general play, I suspect the practical result of the levers is to make the magic-user useful but a bit unreliable.  That gives the classic B/X party with a few fighters and a single magic-user.  

Disintegrate has a saving throw.  Most of the time I prefer fireball or lightning bolt . . .

One member of my old group rolled up an m-u for a very short B/X game we ran between major campaigns.  He insisted on Read Magic as his initial spell as he wanted to see what it was like to run a scroll specialist (in B/X RM is required to read scrolls).  He turned out to be pretty badass for a 1st level dude.

I feel very safe in saying that the vast majority of people who complain that TSR MUs were overpowered also ignored many of those rules that kept the MU in check (like spell components, interruptions, etc).  So you can't exactly blame the game for that one.  That's like saying Paladins are overpowered while ignoring the alignment and behavior restrictions.

Really, I have no idea WTF WotC was thinking when they decided to strip away all of these caster restrictions, and then add a lot more power to them.  It's no wonder you had people complain about power imbalance.

Quote from: K Peterson;627299Well, Sleep is the best offensive, 1st level spell you can get, right out of the gate. As you describe: great range, great area of effect. What if your B/X caster starts with a different spell, because your DM selects what your caster has in his spellbook?

Let's say your caster starts with Hold Portal. You're clearly quite weak - pretty much one-and-done, and not by providing offensive support. (Well, not exactly. You can still contribute in other areas. Mapping, solving puzzles, providing leadership to henchmen or party members).

B/X casters eventually 'grow-out' of their weakness but it's a long, slow road to get there.

True.  I think that magic users are very robustly balanced in B/X and you can house rule (or select options) around a few of their balance points and still have a reasonably balanced class.  It's removing all of them that surprised me.

I also put a huge amount of weight on how they seem to make it hard to exploit flight and invisibility as ways of casting in comparative safety.  Add in a smaller and well controlled spell list and it really was a different world.

I can tell you guys that having played RC (BECMI) D&D to level 36, in our campaign it was the Fighters who were "angel summoner", not the magic-users.  Of course, we were using smash, multiple attacks, and weapon mastery.


RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;627617I can tell you guys that having played RC (BECMI) D&D to level 36, in our campaign it was the Fighters who were "angel summoner", not the magic-users.  Of course, we were using smash, multiple attacks, and weapon mastery.


RPGPundit

That matches my really early memories.  It's also a lot more consistent with the literature from which D&D arose -- good wizards (think Merlin) were counsellers and not demigods.  It is really useful to have one around but the warriors made up the most critical group.

Quote from: Votan;627229I actually don't see casters as weak in B/X.  More that they are a high risk/high reward class.

... In B/X the same caster is much more dangerous than tough . . .

That's the case in my experience -- and in principle, considering the RAW -- in all TSR editions of D&D. MU survival becomes increasingly difficult, and more rapidly after "name" level (less so in AD&D 2E).

The real imbalance in B/X is between human MUs and Elves, the former rather resembling the remark regarding Hobbits in the original D&D set: "should anyone wish to play one . . ."