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 . . ."
Clerics are a lower-risk/lower-reward strategy than MUs.
Fighter Lords don't get their due in the common shape of campaigns today, but their sheer toughness should be significant unless the DM's playing with kid gloves and a candy handout for the magicians. If you think they should pack more punch, try something like Weapon Specialization (from UA or AD&D 2E) or Weapon Mastery (from BECMI's "M" or the RC).
Also note the HD boosts -- for everyone except MUs and (oddly?) monks -- in AD&D.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;627325I 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.
If you use spell components and interruption a MU is useless.
So I would have to agree.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;627325Really, 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.
The other two chief designers thought they'd keep Monte out of their hair by letting him create his spell-caster's dream world?
Quote from: Bill;627641If you use spell components and interruption a MU is useless.
So I would have to agree.
Useless seems strong.
Now I'm heading into unfamiliar territory, but from what I've heard so far, B/X Magic-Users don't sound 'useless' so much as situational and context-sensitive.
Their full potential is highly reliant upon them continuing their spells uninterrupted in combat: they can't move, and they can't get attacked or take damage. It's not enough to just keep them out of melee; an archer can disrupt a spell, too.
If the spellcaster's in an open plain with no cover, or nobody can keep the enemy monsters off of him, he's going to suck badly. If they can get the surprise on unaware opponents, or he's kept safe while he casts spells, then he's going to rock.
Quote from: CRKrueger;627303Nah, 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.
It's nice that my BMX bandit and Angel Summoner example is still getting airplay.
Like I always said casters in TSR D&D need to be rebalanced. More spells at lower levels less at upper. You can do it with spell points or you can do it with looking at the aquisition of spell slots which basically jumps in AD&D from acquiring 12 spells from levels 1 -7 to acquiring 18 spells from levels 8-15 and those spells being higher level and therefore more powerful.
I never played B/X so I can just talk to AD&D.
Whereas the figther quickly gains power and slowly their progression weakens thus their curve starts steep and levels off, The caster starts slow and then their power curve steepens drastically (you cna make a case for a J curve I suspect with a 3rd level wizard weker relative to 3rd level fighter than at 1st level) . In AD&D a 20th level figther versus a 30th level fighter will be a contest largely about magic items, yes the 30th level guy will have 40 extra HP (maybe a 25-30% benefit) but they will have the same combat table and saves, number of attacks etc etc...
The opposite is true of casters and a 30th level caster will be far more powerful than a 20th level because of the increased rate of spell acquisition and the level of those spells.
Of course AD&D's sweet spot is c. levels 5-9 so its somewhat moot although that sweet spot I think could be extended to 3rd - 15th if the caster was tweeked and magic items reappraised.
Rebalancing that spell slot progression to give casters a smoother curve I personally think makes them a more usuable class. Of course you won't agree but meh...
Quote from: Libertad;627736Now I'm heading into unfamiliar territory, but from what I've heard so far, B/X Magic-Users don't sound 'useless' so much as situational and context-sensitive.
Their full potential is highly reliant upon them continuing their spells uninterrupted in combat: they can't move, and they can't get attacked or take damage. It's not enough to just keep them out of melee; an archer can disrupt a spell, too.
If the spellcaster's in an open plain with no cover, or nobody can keep the enemy monsters off of him, he's going to suck badly. If they can get the surprise on unaware opponents, or he's kept safe while he casts spells, then he's going to rock.
Which leads to scry-port-fry tactics as the obvious way an actual wizard with those restrictions would act if able.
Quote from: jibbajibba;627751Which leads to scry-port-fry tactics as the obvious way an actual wizard with those restrictions would act if able.
Keep in mind that when teleporting has actual risks involved, using it as a default tactic becomes less optimal.
Also, the lack of guaranteed access to relatively cheap wands and scrolls means that utility spells often take actual spell slots.
Quote from: Bill;627641If you use spell components and interruption a MU is useless.
I would disagree with this. MUs were my favorite class to play in older D&D, and my DM used both of these. One of the things I liked about playing MUs, in fact, was keeping track of and having to chase after spell components. My group used to roll their eyes when my MU would invariably be found crawling all over defeated beasties extracting potential magical bits and pieces, muttering to himself.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;627832Keep in mind that when teleporting has actual risks involved, using it as a default tactic becomes less optimal.
Also, the lack of guaranteed access to relatively cheap wands and scrolls means that utility spells often take actual spell slots.
Yes I agree teleporting is not without risk, it was just an example there are no doubt others.
As for utility slots only if the wizard is adventuring in the typical dungeoncrawl/hexcrawl/citycrawl model. If you are a Vancian wizard that lives in a big tower surrounded my flying monkey guards and who ventures forth but once a cycle having prepped themselves upto the eyeballs then its a fine MO.
Remember a typical Vanican wizard has maybe 4 or 5 spells but 2 or 3 insanely powerful magic items (and of course there is no concept of a saving throw) .
Quote from: jibbajibba;627850Yes I agree teleporting is not without risk, it was just an example there are no doubt others.
As for utility slots only if the wizard is adventuring in the typical dungeoncrawl/hexcrawl/citycrawl model. If you are a Vancian wizard that lives in a big tower surrounded my flying monkey guards and who ventures forth but once a cycle having prepped themselves upto the eyeballs then its a fine MO.
Remember a typical Vanican wizard has maybe 4 or 5 spells but 2 or 3 insanely powerful magic items (and of course there is no concept of a saving throw) .
No concept of a saving throw?
What house rules are you using? Are you all that familliar with the spell lists in B/X ?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;627852No concept of a saving throw?
What house rules are you using? Are you all that familliar with the spell lists in B/X ?
Um... I was talking about Vancian wizards as in the wizards that appear in the Dying Earth books. Scry-port-fry is exactly their Modus Operandi, except they prefer to port in someone else to do the actual frying......
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
When we play AD&D high level wizards we start from a Vancian Premise.
Apologies for any failure to communicate that.
Quote from: Sigmund;627836I would disagree with this. MUs were my favorite class to play in older D&D, and my DM used both of these. One of the things I liked about playing MUs, in fact, was keeping track of and having to chase after spell components. My group used to roll their eyes when my MU would invariably be found crawling all over defeated beasties extracting potential magical bits and pieces, muttering to himself.
Spell Components and Interuption. I did not say only spell components.
However, many spell components create huge handicaps for a MU.
Hope your live spider did not die that you have carried around for that spider climb spell.
I love spell componants, but I give a modest bonus for using them instead of preventing spell casting without them. Its the roleplay element of spell components I value, not the loss of spellcasting they can cause.
Spell interruption is the bigger offender. Any idiot can poke a Wizard with a stick and he loses a spell. I have run many, many multi year 1E dnd games, and never used spell interuption as a normal practice.
I find that the limitations of a spellbook and being well rested to memorize spells is plenty without interruption.
Quote from: jibbajibba;627751Which leads to scry-port-fry tactics as the obvious way an actual wizard with those restrictions would act if able.
It makes sense to use those tactics, but as a player and as a gm....soooooo boring :)
Also, players whine when the gm uses those same tactics.
Quote from: Bill;627862It makes sense to use those tactics, but as a player and as a gm....soooooo boring :)
Also, players whine when the gm uses those same tactics.
Quite I was merely saying that in a universe where you were an actual magic user with powers of that sort these are the tactics you would actually adopt. Which is what Vance does in his books with wizards with these powers and restrictions.
You would scan the location from your satelite analyze the defenses and weaknesses then send in a remote drone to bomb the crap of it. Or if the location was not accessible to wizard eye - fireball, you would teleport (airdrop) in a precision team with just the right spells and equipment (weapons and tactics) to deal with the enemy in the most effective manner then you would port (evac) the fuck out of there before the rest of the gnolls/orcs (terrorists/Somali millitants) turned up to give you a pasting.
Quote from: jibbajibba;627866Quite I was merely saying that in a universe where you were an actual magic user with powers of that sort these are the tactics you would actually adopt. Which is what Vance does in his books with wizards with these powers and restrictions.
You would scan the location from your satelite analyze the defenses and weaknesses then send in a remote drone to bomb the crap of it. Or if the location was not accessible to wizard eye - fireball, you would teleport (airdrop) in a precision team with just the right spells and equipment (weapons and tactics) to deal with the enemy in the most effective manner then you would port (evac) the fuck out of there before the rest of the gnolls/orcs (terrorists/Somali millitants) turned up to give you a pasting.
It would be a challenging tactic for an "Expert" Magic-User to try to utilize. Meaning, a lot of requirements:
- You'd have to be at least 10th level - to have 2 instances of Teleport memorized. 450,000 XP, and a lot of risk through standard adventuring.
- For effective satellite-scrying, you really need a crystal ball. Clairvoyance and Wizard-eye is limited to 240', which is not that remote for a hostile environment.
- B/X Teleport only allows you to 'port yourself or one other target to the destination. So, that prevents a 'strike team' or horde of winged monkeys from getting the job done for you.
A certainly possible approach, but your M-U will have done a lot of standard dungeon-delving, fighting 6+ HD monsters (that are of the right treasure type to have the possibility of hoarding a Crystal Ball) for quite some time before you get to the satellite stage.
Quote from: jibbajibba;627860Um... I was talking about Vancian wizards as in the wizards that appear in the Dying Earth books. Scry-port-fry is exactly their Modus Operandi, except they prefer to port in someone else to do the actual frying......
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
When we play AD&D high level wizards we start from a Vancian Premise.
Apologies for any failure to communicate that.
No worries. I thought we were discussing B/X casters and the rules for them.
There are some aspects of casting in AD&D that generally don't apply to B/X such as variable segment casting times and most spell components.
Spell interruption still applies and is an important part of a caster balanced diet in B/X. :)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;627924No worries. I thought we were discussing B/X casters and the rules for them.
There are some aspects of casting in AD&D that generally don't apply to B/X such as variable segment casting times and most spell components.
Spell interruption still applies and is an important part of a caster balanced diet in B/X. :)
I am curious why spell interuption is important. I have never used it, and no problem arose. What makes it important?
Quote from: Bill;627927I am curious why spell interuption is important. I have never used it, and no problem arose. What makes it important?
because if someone so much as throws a handful of rocks at you, you lose your spell. Ruined. Can't cast again unless you happened to have another one memorized.
Quote from: Bill;627927I am curious why spell interuption is important. I have never used it, and no problem arose. What makes it important?
There are many handicaps a wizard has to using his power in combat. Spell interruption is the cornerstone to this. It is a key element of balancing the M-U with the fighter.
There is a reason the 1E DMG explicitly advises that smart M-Us will forego spell casting in combat, and instead use wands or other charged/single-use magic items for combat spells - spell casting in combat is supposed to be very easy to disrupt. (Another balancer is that wands, staves, etc., generally have damage dice capped at around 6-8 dice, instead of per level of the M-U.)
Spellcasting is best used for non-combat utility magic. Taking away all the limits, I feel, is a chief cause of the complaints that fighters can never match up with Magic Users.
Quote from: Bill;627927I am curious why spell interuption is important. I have never used it, and no problem arose. What makes it important?
A lot of B/X spells are fight-enders, like Web/Hold Person/Charm Person/Sleep/etc, and even though B/X PCs have better saves against high-level casters than 3.x+ editions grant, they still end up rolling 11+ to save versus losing. Without spell interruption, your party
will eat a few volleys of these spells every time they have to deal with a wizard, unless they can somehow one-round KO him before he can get anything off. If an enemy wizard is reasonably certain that the PCs can't off him in one round, he's incentivized to care about nothing but unloading his offensive spells as quickly as possible. If he can empty his wand before the PCs can zero his HP, he wins- and if that's not enough to win, well, he was screwed from the start.
Quote from: SineNomine;627935A lot of B/X spells are fight-enders, like Web/Hold Person/Charm Person/Sleep/etc, and even though B/X PCs have better saves against high-level casters than 3.x+ editions grant, they still end up rolling 11+ to save versus losing. Without spell interruption, your party will eat a few volleys of these spells every time they have to deal with a wizard, unless they can somehow one-round KO him before he can get anything off. If an enemy wizard is reasonably certain that the PCs can't off him in one round, he's incentivized to care about nothing but unloading his offensive spells as quickly as possible. If he can empty his wand before the PCs can zero his HP, he wins- and if that's not enough to win, well, he was screwed from the start.
So when a wizard wins initiative he wipes your pc's? About half the time they fight a wizard they all die? And thats before interuption would even be a factor.
Just curious, as I have never used interuption and it never created a problem.
I did switch from basic/expert to ADD 1E fairly early, but as I recall the spells were similar.
Wizards tend to be scary but fragile.
Quote from: Bill;627927I am curious why spell interuption is important. I have never used it, and no problem arose. What makes it important?
Spells provide effects that can be much more potent than mere damage. One of the balancing factors of that potency is reliability.
Fighter types are the consistent performers. Magic users make the big impact plays at the cost of being able to do so in a reliable fashion via spell disruption.
Getting the big guns means sometimes firing a dud.
If magic users get to make the high impact moves with nearly complete reliability then you have the 3E issue of : why NOT play a caster?
Quote from: Bill;627938So when a wizard wins initiative he wipes your pc's? About half the time they fight a wizard they all die? And thats before interuption would even be a factor.
Just curious, as I have never used interuption and it never created a problem.
I did switch from basic/expert to ADD 1E fairly early, but as I recall the spells were similar.
Wizards tend to be scary but fragile.
Without spell interruption, including a midlevel wizard with reasonably sharp tactical skills means that he
will get off at least one round of spells on the PCs unless they both win initiative and manage to kill him before he can act.
If that wizard spends his time buffing himself or is forced to move to an advantageous position before he can get a round off, then it can sometimes be avoided, but otherwise, including a no-interruption wizard in a hostile group is a guarantee that somebody's gonna get blasted in the ensuing fight. This gets even uglier when clerics with Hold Person spells get involved, since they get to wade around in AC 3 plate mail and have better hit dice to boot.
Quote from: EOTB;627933There are many handicaps a wizard has to using his power in combat. Spell interruption is the cornerstone to this. It is a key element of balancing the M-U with the fighter.
There is a reason the 1E DMG explicitly advises that smart M-Us will forego spell casting in combat, and instead use wands or other charged/single-use magic items for combat spells - spell casting in combat is supposed to be very easy to disrupt. (Another balancer is that wands, staves, etc., generally have damage dice capped at around 6-8 dice, instead of per level of the M-U.)
Spellcasting is best used for non-combat utility magic. Taking away all the limits, I feel, is a chief cause of the complaints that fighters can never match up with Magic Users.
Just strange to me; I have run a ton of multi year 1E campaigns and I can't recall a single player bitching about fighters being weaker than wizards.
I do tend to be strict about resting to rememorize. A Wizard in my game is unlikely to always have every spell available evry time combat occurs.
Pretty much every wizard pc I have ever seen is quite fragile. A level 10 wizard in 1E has 25 hp on the average. With a generally horrid AC, a mere troll can kill him in two rounds. That wizard is toast if he did not have time to cast spells before the fight.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;627940Spells provide effects that can be much more potent than mere damage. One of the balancing factors of that potency is reliability.
Fighter types are the consistent performers. Magic users make the big impact plays at the cost of being able to do so in a reliable fashion via spell disruption.
Getting the big guns means sometimes firing a dud.
If magic users get to make the high impact moves with nearly complete reliability then you have the 3E issue of : why NOT play a caster?
The big impact is until they are out of spells. Then they don't have much oomph.
I consider clerics vastly more powerful than wizards, but thats another debate.
Why not play a Wizard?
Player does not like being a low hp easy kill to pretty much anything.
Some types of enemies are tough for some wizards.
That hold person spell he depends on is useless vs a ton of enemies.
GM, in theory, will provide challenges that are appropriate to the characters.
So if a wizard is 'playing thief' with invisibility and knock, does that make thieves useless?
This really is perplexing; never been a problem for me.
Quote from: Bill;627944Pretty much every wizard pc I have ever seen is quite fragile. A level 10 wizard in 1E has 25 hp on the average. With a generally horrid AC, a mere troll can kill him in two rounds. That wizard is toast if he did not have time to cast spells before the fight.
I have no interest in the D&D specific aspect of this, but the line I put in bold interests.
How often are they actually toast in the game (i.e. killed)?
Quote from: gleichman;627947I have no interest in the D&D specific aspect of this, but the line I put in bold interests.
How often are they actually toast in the game (i.e. killed)?
If one runs 1E raw, with only the core books, a wizard is very likely to die in any signifigant battle they did not have time to prepare for.
Even losing initiative could easily be fatal.
It reverses based on prep time; a well forewarned wizard is unlikely to die.
Quote from: Bill;627948If one runs 1E raw, with only the core books, a wizard is very likely to die in any signifigant battle they did not have time to prepare for.
That seems to be a theory based answer.
In actual play, how often is the wizard killed (and to make the question more meaningful) while the rest or even most of his party isn't?
Quote from: Bill;627948If one runs 1E raw, with only the core books, a wizard is very likely to die in any signifigant battle they did not have time to prepare for.
Even losing initiative could easily be fatal.
It reverses based on prep time; a well forewarned wizard is unlikely to die.
Funny anecdote. A couple years ago I ran my group through T1. 1st encounter at the moathouse (the frogs)? The MU was the one who hit most often and did the most damage. Sure, luck of the rolls, but at low levels the THAC0 of a MU isn't much different than anyone else, so ranged attacks are just as effective.
Quote from: gleichman;627950That seems to be a theory based answer.
In actual play, how often is the wizard killed (and to make the question more meaningful) while the rest or even most of his party isn't?
Depends on how often there is a combat with something actually dangerous, and depends on if the gm pulls his punches in some way.
I would estimate in my games, a single classed wizard would die every third signifigant combat encounter that the wizard did not have time to prepare for.
I use the death at -10 optional rule, so that would make some of those deaths a 'close call'
Quote from: Bill;627957I would estimate in my games, a single classed wizard would die every third signifigant combat encounter that the wizard did not have time to prepare for.
estimate... would...
Do you play the game we're talking about? This might be a question I shouldn't be asking you if you don't.
It's all nice and fine to look at the rules and develop a idea of what should happen. I do it all the time, it's a valid thing to do. What I'm interested in is if anyone's experience matches it or is it different from what one would expect. If different, why that would be the case.
It's my opinion that it's very likely that even given such limits in the rules and the natural result one would expect from them- in practice it just doesn't happen much.
In part this comes from threads here where people praised games that have a good chance of killing characters, and then find out after questioning that the poster doing the praising has never actually had his character killed...
How easy is it for a B/X Magic-User to avoid damage? Or situations where he can afford to do nothing but cast spells?
Quote from: Libertad;627960How easy is it for a B/X Magic-User to avoid damage? Or situations where he can afford to do nothing but cast spells?
At low levels, its pretty hard if the MU is actually fighting. There are a lot of factors that can influence this. In a large party with some merc fighters it might be possible to stand back and hurl daggers.
In a smaller group against larger numbers of enemies, the battleground/engagement circumstances will be a larger factor in determining victory than character stats.
Some groups play with lots of retainers, others don't use them much. The number of meatshields that you can place between the MU and the enemy will play a large part in how much and how often the MU takes damage.
Quote from: gleichman;627959estimate... would...
Do you play the game we're talking about? This might be a question I shouldn't be asking you if you don't.
It's all nice and fine to look at the rules and develop a idea of what should happen. I do it all the time, it's a valid thing to do. What I'm interested in is if anyone's experience matches it or is it different from what one would expect. If different, why that would be the case.
It's my opinion that it's very likely that even given such limits in the rules and the natural result one would expect from them- in practice it just doesn't happen much.
In part this comes from threads here where people praised games that have a good chance of killing characters, and then find out after questioning that the poster doing the praising has never actually had his character killed...
I have been playing 1E dnd for over 30 years. So yes, I do play the game.
I don't track character deaths. Thats why it is an estimate.
My experience is that many games are fairly lethal, but gm's often find ways to let a character cheat death.
I personally have had at least two 'wizard' deaths in 1E dnd as a player. A level 15 llusionist died outright from poison in one game.
In another I had a level 8 Diviner specialist wizard die from being strangled by a revenant while both he and the revenant were torched by a moltov cocktail from an ally trying to help.
Probably other deaths of my personal wizard pc's I am forgetting about.
I am reasonably sure I lost one at very low level.
I play more Paladins and Clerics than Wizards.
Quote from: Libertad;627960How easy is it for a B/X Magic-User to avoid damage? Or situations where he can afford to do nothing but cast spells?
I doubt you're going to get a good answer on this as much depends upon GM style.
If one is using maps and minis and open or large encounter areas (i.e. outside for example) against foes with ranged weapons, a maneuver or a number advantage, it would be very difficult indeed if not impossible.
For those GMs who don't use maps and minis, and/or restrict things to closed in areas, or who always have the bad guys come from one direction, etc. it can be much easier. A player may simply say "I'm hiding behind the Fighter" and have it work.
The lack of consist GM policy and rule usage makes an answer very individual to the group being examined.
Quote from: gleichman;627966I doubt you're going to get a good answer on this as much depends upon GM style.
If one is using maps and minis and open or large encounter areas (i.e. outside for example) against foes with ranged weapons, a maneuver or a number advantage, it would be very difficult indeed if not impossible.
For those GMs who don't use maps and minis, and/or restrict things to closed in areas, or who always have the bad guys come from one direction, etc. it can be much easier. A player may simply say "I'm hiding behind the Fighter" and have it work.
The lack of consist GM policy and rule usage makes an answer very individual to the group being examined.
I agree, and I am a gm that is guilty of letting fighter types take hits for the frail types.
Quote from: Bill;627964I don't track character deaths. Thats why it is an estimate.
We did when we played AD&D, one player was given a limited edition special character (tm) upon his 100th death but he was the run away leader of lost characters for the group.
Quote from: Bill;627964My experience is that many games are fairly lethal, but gm's often find ways to let a character cheat death.
This is an important point.
As is the fact that in the two character deaths you listed, neither seemed to be due to lack of preparation (although that might have been part of the cause and you just didn't list it).
Even so, 2 characters in 30 years with maybe a third in practical terms doesn't sound like the weaknesses of Wizards spoken of here had much impact.
Quote from: gleichman;627969We did when we played AD&D, one player was given a limited edition special character (tm) upon his 100th death but he was the run away leader of lost characters for the group.
This is an important point.
As is the fact that in the two character deaths you listed, neither seemed to be due to lack of preparation (although that might have been part of the cause and you just didn't list it).
Even so, 2 characters in 30 years with maybe a third in practical terms doesn't sound like the weaknesses of Wizards spoken of here had much impact.
My illusionist died from not having any warning of the battle to come, and the general lethality of poison.
My diviner died after the party was in a pitched battle and had no resources left, and was ambushed at that point.
I may not be the best example as I have not played wizards as often as any other class but thief.
I believe that 1E wizards largely survive at the whim of the gm.
Quote from: Bill;627968I agree, and I am a gm that is guilty of letting fighter types take hits for the frail types.
Thanks for that, most would just have whined that I was just complaining about maps and minis again.
I don't fault you for the approach you take here. I think it's a rather natural one. As I said in another thread, a GM runs his games with bias towards player success. It's necessary to have a campaign of any real length. It's this bias that makes it difficult for a GM to enforce weaknesses of this nature.
So while a wizard my be weak in hit points, and have his spells disrupted all the time, and be a wet tissue that can be killed in passing- he seldom actually is.
Instead GMs allow fighters to easily protect him, uses random target selection instead of tactical selection, always moves to attack closest opponent (instead of most important), limits enemy lines of approach and fire, and other (sometimes unconscious) means that in combination serve to protect the wizard. If the players make even the weakest suggestion that they're taking protective measures- they will be ruled to work.
The end result is what was intended to be a balancing feature by the designer is mostly negated.
Carrying this a bit further, it's why many players don't remember or account for these weaknesses when talking about Wizards and old versions of the game. They in truth didn't really apply in their experience.
Quote from: gleichman;627971Thanks for that, most would just have whined that I was just complaining about maps and minis again.
I don't fault you for the approach you take here. I think it's a rather natural one. As I said in another thread, a GM runs his games with bias towards player success. It's necessary to have a campaign of any real length. It's this bias that makes it difficult for a GM to enforce weaknesses of this nature.
So while a wizard my be weak in hit points, and have his spells disrupted all the time, and be a wet tissue that can be killed in passing- he seldom actually is.
Instead GMs allow fighters to easily protect him, uses random target selection instead of tactical selection, always moves to attack closest opponent (instead of most important), limits enemy lines of approach and fire, and other (sometimes unconscious) means that in combination serve to protect the wizard. If the players make even the weakest suggestion that they're taking protective measures- they will be ruled to work.
The end result is what was intended to be a balancing feature by the designer is mostly negated.
Carrying this a bit further, it's why many players don't remember or account for these weaknesses when talking about Wizards and old versions of the game. They in truth didn't really apply in their experience.
Trivia:
4E dnd has robust, effective rules for sturdy classes bodyguarding others.
Quote from: gleichman;627971Thanks for that, most would just have whined that I was just complaining about maps and minis again.
I don't fault you for the approach you take here. I think it's a rather natural one. As I said in another thread, a GM runs his games with bias towards player success. It's necessary to have a campaign of any real length. It's this bias that makes it difficult for a GM to enforce weaknesses of this nature.
So while a wizard my be weak in hit points, and have his spells disrupted all the time, and be a wet tissue that can be killed in passing- he seldom actually is.
Instead GMs allow fighters to easily protect him, uses random target selection instead of tactical selection, always moves to attack closest opponent (instead of most important), limits enemy lines of approach and fire, and other (sometimes unconscious) means that in combination serve to protect the wizard. If the players make even the weakest suggestion that they're taking protective measures- they will be ruled to work.
The end result is what was intended to be a balancing feature by the designer is mostly negated.
Carrying this a bit further, it's why many players don't remember or account for these weaknesses when talking about Wizards and old versions of the game. They in truth didn't really apply in their experience.
From my experience in B/X and 1e, a 1st Level M-U was a walking speed bump, and the best thing for said M-U was to stay as far back as possible from the fight and cast from the rear. Even then, intelligent monsters would rain arrows in the direction of the M-U because they were easily taken out. One friend used to describe an M-U's clothing as having targets painted on it.
Quote from: Bill;627972Trivia:
4E dnd has robust, effective rules for sturdy classes bodyguarding others.
And 4E is seen as too wargame like here, telling me that people (i.e. many at this site) want the fuzzy protections, and don't want effort and/or focus actually drawn to doing 'real' protective actions.
That's likely a bit of an overstatement (i.e. that's not the *only* reason), but I think the concept applies across a wide range of what are considered 4E crimes- it makes you actually do what older versions just allowed you to claim. And if you failed to so, you'd pay for it (assuming you're following the rules).
Quote from: Bill;627972Trivia:
4E dnd has robust, effective rules for sturdy classes bodyguarding others.
So does B/X D&D: 3 Fighters can block a 10 foot wide corridor... No one is getting to the squishy center until one of those fighters goes down...
And hopefully you have a line of guys behind those meatshields with Polearms that can fill any holes as needed.
You dont need MMO/4e style Threat/Aggro mechanics to play Turtle... Just proper strategy and tactics.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;627978So does B/X D&D: 3 Fighters can block a 10 foot wide corridor... No one is getting to the squishy center until one of those fighters goes down...
And hopefully you have a line of guys behind those meatshields with Polearms that can fill any holes as needed.
You dont need MMO/4e style Threat/Aggro mechanics to play Turtle... Just proper strategy and tactics.
Sure. But that example is what I call interposing/blocking a position with ones body.
Also, in an open area, one fighter could protect another, and the above example would not seem to allow that.
You can also have rules for making an ally harder to hit, perhaps with a shield, like real phalanxes do.
You can have rules to parry attacks against an ally, etc...
For me, ideally, I would like both interposing, and realistic bodyguarding in a game system.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;627978So does B/X D&D: 3 Fighters can block a 10 foot wide corridor... No one is getting to the squishy center until one of those fighters goes down...
Just out of interest, could the hiding Wizard cast spells through the location of his friendly Fighters? How about through the location of the enemy fighters that implied to be facing your allies?
Quote from: gleichman;627971Thanks for that, most would just have whined that I was just complaining about maps and minis again.
I don't fault you for the approach you take here. I think it's a rather natural one. As I said in another thread, a GM runs his games with bias towards player success. It's necessary to have a campaign of any real length. It's this bias that makes it difficult for a GM to enforce weaknesses of this nature.
So while a wizard my be weak in hit points, and have his spells disrupted all the time, and be a wet tissue that can be killed in passing- he seldom actually is.
Instead GMs allow fighters to easily protect him, uses random target selection instead of tactical selection, always moves to attack closest opponent (instead of most important), limits enemy lines of approach and fire, and other (sometimes unconscious) means that in combination serve to protect the wizard. If the players make even the weakest suggestion that they're taking protective measures- they will be ruled to work.
The end result is what was intended to be a balancing feature by the designer is mostly negated.
Carrying this a bit further, it's why many players don't remember or account for these weaknesses when talking about Wizards and old versions of the game. They in truth didn't really apply in their experience.
The balance issue is that the wizard is by far the most effective as a member of a team. You would see the spell interruption issue come up all of the time when the wizard tried to do battles by him or herself.
It also has a few other subtle balance points, like making the Elf on the front lines more reluctant to cast unless it is a tough situation.
In later editions of D&D (Pathfinder, 3rd edition), it is quite possible to imagine a party of all wizards. In B/X the wizard is deathly effective as a member of a large group. Not that they cannot win a solo fight -- it happens. Just that they are playing a high stakes gamble.
The real test for how hard core the DM is is whether the DM allows people to take into account who is casting a spell when selecting a target. The rules are a bit vague on this point, but rules as written it is a very possible interpretation of the order of declaration. [of course, if he does this for PCs then he should do it for NPC casters too and these tactics go both ways] If (s)he does allow an archer to try and ping the spell caster then there is a very non-theoretical risk of a spell not going off (and I saw this in actual play all of the time). However, there is at least a 50% chance of the spell working (win or tie initiative) and these spells can be game changing when they work.
But, without fighters and clerics, the battle with a couple of bad initiative rolls will be a blood bath. I remember the cumulative effect of removing restrictions in my later experience (2nd edition AD&D) and it completely changed the power curve.
One thing that is true in B/X is even the strongest caster is deeply concerned with being attacked by a squad of opponents. In 2E, especially if you drop spell interruption or use spells like Stoneskin, there is a point when this situation becomes a speed bump.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;627974From my experience in B/X and 1e, a 1st Level M-U was a walking speed bump, and the best thing for said M-U was to stay as far back as possible from the fight and cast from the rear. Even then, intelligent monsters would rain arrows in the direction of the M-U because they were easily taken out. One friend used to describe an M-U's clothing as having targets painted on it.
Just to contrast, OD&D first level characters are pretty much the same. A marked contrast to my AD&D campaigns back in the day. A fighter may survive two hits and go down on the third and a magic-user may survive a hit and go down on the second. They all attack on the same chart and with the original rules only do the same damage.
Playing a wizard is about prep. A decent wizard will always have
i) a thing to stop him being suprised killed - most popular would be to steal the party's cloak of displacement
ii) a method of escaping - eventually this will be a contingency trigged to occur all by itself
iii) a thing to distract the people trying to kill him while he runs away
So at first level with limited options the wizard might
i) disguise himself as a hireling or torch bearer to reduce the chance he will be the target of snipers or ambushes, he may also give another bearer a hat to wear with wizard written on it and a robe with stars on it to wear
ii) the wizard stays at the back of the party and at a certain point flees, always no exceptions so when the bad guys get through this far I am off
iii) at first level this might be hirelings or the other PCs or a pet dog
At 16th level
i) cloak of displacement
ii) Contingent teleport of some type
iii) magically charmed or bound creature, big scary demon trapped in a crystal etc etc
I can remember a great D&D game when our pretty tough group of 7-9th level PCs were taking on some elves. One PC was a wizard who had acquired a sphere of anhilation which he stored mostly in a portable hole. This thing was devastating, however..... at one point an elven cleric attacked us with a pillar of flame targetted the Wizard and pop.... he only had 24 HP or something and had never thought of getting himself prepped probably because in previous games the DMs has been easy on him for some reason.
In AD&D the caster starts to surpass the figther by about 9th level and by 15th level the gap is a wide one. By 20 the Wizard is godlike and keeps on improving.
Some will say that this is fine because of the pain a wizard goes through from 1-5. I would argue that it would be relatively easy to smooth that curve just through manipulating the spell slots.
The more I think about it the more I think everyone should get a d6 HP (or even a set number from 1-6 based on stats with an average 11 Str, 11 Con male getting 4hp) at 0 level then any class HP should be added to that. This would serve to make wizards less fragile at lower levels and you could if you wished easly differentiate the skill part of HP from the physical wounds part so If you are asleep then you have your 0 level HP etc etc
Quote from: jibbajibba;628006Playing a wizard is about prep. A decent wizard will always have
i) a thing to stop him being suprised killed - most popular would be to steal the party's cloak of displacement
ii) a method of escaping - eventually this will be a contingency trigged to occur all by itself
iii) a thing to distract the people trying to kill him while he runs away
So at first level with limited options the wizard might
i) disguise himself as a hireling or torch bearer to reduce the chance he will be the target of snipers or ambushes, he may also give another bearer a hat to wear with wizard written on it and a robe with stars on it to wear
ii) the wizard stays at the back of the party and at a certain point flees, always no exceptions so when the bad guys get through this far I am off
iii) at first level this might be hirelings or the other PCs or a pet dog
At 16th level
i) cloak of displacement
ii) Contingent teleport of some type
iii) magically charmed or bound creature, big scary demon trapped in a crystal etc etc
I can remember a great D&D game when our pretty tough group of 7-9th level PCs were taking on some elves. One PC was a wizard who had acquired a sphere of anhilation which he stored mostly in a portable hole. This thing was devastating, however..... at one point an elven cleric attacked us with a pillar of flame targetted the Wizard and pop.... he only had 24 HP or something and had never thought of getting himself prepped probably because in previous games the DMs has been easy on him for some reason.
In AD&D the caster starts to surpass the figther by about 9th level and by 15th level the gap is a wide one. By 20 the Wizard is godlike and keeps on improving.
Some will say that this is fine because of the pain a wizard goes through from 1-5. I would argue that it would be relatively easy to smooth that curve just through manipulating the spell slots.
The more I think about it the more I think everyone should get a d6 HP (or even a set number from 1-6 based on stats with an average 11 Str, 11 Con male getting 4hp) at 0 level then any class HP should be added to that. This would serve to make wizards less fragile at lower levels and you could if you wished easly differentiate the skill part of HP from the physical wounds part so If you are asleep then you have your 0 level HP etc etc
In B/X there is no contingency spell. The Rules Cyclopedia has it as a 9th level spell (available at 21st level). Even then it can only trigger a spell of 4th level or less (so maybe a dimension door).
Displacer cloak exists but the game effect (-2 to hit) is nice but not perfect although the protection versus missile weapons is pleasant, but only in the Rules Cyclopedia version.
I think the shift towards invulnerable wizards is why they outpace Fighters by so much in later editions. In B/X the real strength of the wizard is in:
1) Utility spells (many of which are enormously useful)
2) Massive attack spells (for more effective than a melee warrior) like web, sleep or fireball.
There are also some protective spells, with Mirror Image and Protection from Normal missiles standing out. But playing a wizard is all about living with risk. Even teleports have a bad habit of eventually going really wrong and need that full round of casting to work.
It is not that they are weak, but rather that (with the rules as written) it is hard to imagine them completely dominating the battlefield either. That really is the natural home of the Fighter.
Quote from: Votan;628012In B/X there is no contingency spell. The Rules Cyclopedia has it as a 9th level spell (available at 21st level). Even then it can only trigger a spell of 4th level or less (so maybe a dimension door).
Displacer cloak exists but the game effect (-2 to hit) is nice but not perfect although the protection versus missile weapons is pleasant, but only in the Rules Cyclopedia version.
I think the shift towards invulnerable wizards is why they outpace Fighters by so much in later editions. In B/X the real strength of the wizard is in:
1) Utility spells (many of which are enormously useful)
2) Massive attack spells (for more effective than a melee warrior) like web, sleep or fireball.
There are also some protective spells, with Mirror Image and Protection from Normal missiles standing out. But playing a wizard is all about living with risk. Even teleports have a bad habit of eventually going really wrong and need that full round of casting to work.
It is not that they are weak, but rather that (with the rules as written) it is hard to imagine them completely dominating the battlefield either. That really is the natural home of the Fighter.
My examples were just that, examples. The basic rules are the same.
If a wizard goes into a combat situation cold they will probabaly die if they go in well prepared they can usually survive. This is unlike a fighter where the base level is the same unless you use weapons v armour table but even that is a minor 'prep' item.
1E wizards have better spells and magic items than B/X Wizards, generally.
With 1E I am not overly fond of some spells from unearthed arcana, like stoneskin.
Spells that are insanely effective tend to become omnipresent and thus boring to me.
I would rather see a wizard protect himself with a clever use of an illusion or charm than the boring old Mirror image, Invisibility, Stoneskin. Yawn.
1E rules question: If a wizard has stoneskin up, is he immune to spell interuption?
Just curious how that works raw.
I don't use interruption, so I have no idea.
Improved invisibility, Stoneskin, Fireshield...trifecta of uberness.
Quote from: Bill;6280751E wizards have better spells and magic items than B/X Wizards, generally.
With 1E I am not overly fond of some spells from unearthed arcana, like stoneskin.
Spells that are insanely effective tend to become omnipresent and thus boring to me.
I would rather see a wizard protect himself with a clever use of an illusion or charm than the boring old Mirror image, Invisibility, Stoneskin. Yawn.
1E rules question: If a wizard has stoneskin up, is he immune to spell interuption?
Just curious how that works raw.
I don't use interruption, so I have no idea.
Improved invisibility, Stoneskin, Fireshield...trifecta of uberness.
I always played it like it was damage immunity. If you get hit, you still get hit, it's just that it doesn't damage you. Ergo, you still had spell interruption as a possible result.
However, I could see it played like it was total immunity and an M-U could keep casting.
Quote from: Bill;6280751E wizards have better spells and magic items than B/X Wizards, generally.
With 1E I am not overly fond of some spells from unearthed arcana, like stoneskin.
Spells that are insanely effective tend to become omnipresent and thus boring to me.
I would rather see a wizard protect himself with a clever use of an illusion or charm than the boring old Mirror image, Invisibility, Stoneskin. Yawn.
1E rules question: If a wizard has stoneskin up, is he immune to spell interuption?
Just curious how that works raw.
I don't use interruption, so I have no idea.
Improved invisibility, Stoneskin, Fireshield...trifecta of uberness.
Remember in 1e and I suspect B/X, wizards don't get to pick their spells they get what they find and they need to roll % to be able to learn a spell based on their int so spells only become ubiquitous if the DM chooses to make them so.
I think Stoneskin would make you immune to most forms of interupt, so for example an arrow, dagger, sling stone could be ignored. However touch based attacks still have effect. The intention here one supposes was to allow level drain etc , but you could extrapolate to say that any form of grapple is in effect a touch attack with a special effect since having skin as hard as stone would be no protection against someone bending one's arm behind one's back I would therefore allow grapples to cause an interupt. I would extend that to include triping the wizard, with a whip, bolas etc, putting a sack over their head, wrapping bandages round their mouth to interupt the verbal component etc etc
By the letter of course a bag of stones can close a stoneskin in one attack, as stoneskin lasts for x attacks rather than x rounds so throwing a bucket of stones at someone would effectively use up one defense for each stone even if each stone would in itself cause no damage and merely be enough to trigger a spell interupt due to failed concentration.
See that bag of marbles has many uses ......
Quote from: gleichman;627981Just out of interest, could the hiding Wizard cast spells through the location of his friendly Fighters? How about through the location of the enemy fighters that implied to be facing your allies?
Yes, with a little common sense and unit tactics.
Movement phase: front line opens ranks, crouches w/shields, and/or otherwise gets out of the way (a generous DM might not even count this as full "movement phase")
Missile phase: archers/slingers/hurlers fire
Spell phase: magic-user unleashes spell
How would you do it?
Note that by the time the enemy closes in, it's probably too late to use any "artillery" (i.e. spells). In the case of ambush, tighten the ranks around the weaker members of the party (such as the MU), and fight for your life!
Quote from: The Were-Grognard;628085Yes, with a little common sense and unit tactics.
Movement phase: front line opens ranks, crouches w/shields, and/or otherwise gets out of the way (a generous DM might not even count this as full "movement phase")
Missile phase: archers/slingers/hurlers fire
Spell phase: magic-user unleashes spell
How would you do it?
Note that by the time the enemy closes in, it's probably too late to use any "artillery" (i.e. spells). In the case of ambush, tighten the ranks around the weaker members of the party (such as the MU), and fight for your life!
One of the problems though is that most games don't rely on tactical ability they substitute it for system mastery.
In the best case the designer knows as much about small unit tactics as you do and agrees with your version of the benefits and bonuses, Worst case they know nothing at all and have got all the rules wrong or the GM is encouraged to ad lib and their views and yours are radically opposed.
Often use of small unit tactics can become use of the player skill of 'ability to pursuade the GM I know what I am talking about' . Useful but not directly related.
Quote from: Bill;627861Spell Components and Interuption. I did not say only spell components.
However, many spell components create huge handicaps for a MU.
Hope your live spider did not die that you have carried around for that spider climb spell.
I love spell componants, but I give a modest bonus for using them instead of preventing spell casting without them. Its the roleplay element of spell components I value, not the loss of spellcasting they can cause.
Spell interruption is the bigger offender. Any idiot can poke a Wizard with a stick and he loses a spell. I have run many, many multi year 1E dnd games, and never used spell interuption as a normal practice.
I find that the limitations of a spellbook and being well rested to memorize spells is plenty without interruption.
No, I know. I was just saying I as a player liked the spell components rules. I, naturally, hated the interruption rules :) I still was able to play a wizard though. I made very good use of "meat shields"... and my dagger occasionally. I also kept the cleric busy.
I had a little box for the spider. I had a custom backpack made with an internal wooden frame, and exterior pockets for wands and scrolls. I had a better utility belt than Batman. When I had a live spider, I kept him under my hat in his little box. There was the now cliche many-pocketed robe, supplemented by wrist pouches. It was awesome.
Yes, it made playing the wiz challenging (which was the point, otherwise everybody would be one), but IMO "impossible" is a bit too extreme a description.
Quote from: jibbajibba;627866Quite I was merely saying that in a universe where you were an actual magic user with powers of that sort these are the tactics you would actually adopt. Which is what Vance does in his books with wizards with these powers and restrictions.
You would scan the location from your satelite analyze the defenses and weaknesses then send in a remote drone to bomb the crap of it. Or if the location was not accessible to wizard eye - fireball, you would teleport (airdrop) in a precision team with just the right spells and equipment (weapons and tactics) to deal with the enemy in the most effective manner then you would port (evac) the fuck out of there before the rest of the gnolls/orcs (terrorists/Somali millitants) turned up to give you a pasting.
So... Wraith Recon :)
Quote from: flyerfan1991;627974From my experience in B/X and 1e, a 1st Level M-U was a walking speed bump, and the best thing for said M-U was to stay as far back as possible from the fight and cast from the rear. Even then, intelligent monsters would rain arrows in the direction of the M-U because they were easily taken out. One friend used to describe an M-U's clothing as having targets painted on it.
This is why my MUs almost always would hire the biggest, dumbest, shield-bearing bodyguards they could afford as soon as they could afford them. Next came a bearer so my wiz wouldn't have to carry his own shit.
Quote from: The Were-Grognard;628085Yes, with a little common sense and unit tactics.
Makes sense, the default answer seems to be no but you can always maneuver to allow it. I would imagine however that doing so would 'open the window' both ways.
Quote from: The Were-Grognard;628085How would you do it?
I don't play D&D in any version, so the answer there is that I don't :)
In HERO you can freely fire through other characters. They have the option of throwing themselves in the way, or perhaps burning an action on missile deflection if they have the ability.
In
Age of Heroes things are much more complex and it depends on the Spell.Characteristic Assaults can be targeted freely, but direct combat spells need to worry about the target being in melee or people in the line of fire parrying the attack or being hit by mistake.
Quote from: jibbajibba;628091One of the problems though is that most games don't rely on tactical ability they substitute it for system mastery.
Add in the fact that system mastery is often very easy in modern games, and things are... boring.
Quote from: jibbajibba;628081By the letter of course a bag of stones can close a stoneskin in one attack, as stoneskin lasts for x attacks rather than x rounds so throwing a bucket of stones at someone would effectively use up one defense for each stone even if each stone would in itself cause no damage and merely be enough to trigger a spell interupt due to failed concentration.
Well, there was no stone skin spell in B/X. But I think that this would be a DM call, although making grant immunity to interruption would make it the single most widely picked spell, ever.
One thing to consider is that the magic-user has a lot of utility outside of combat. Just the existence of fly creates an amazing set of options. So if your campaign isn't focused on battles then it isn't as big of a deal if the magic user isn't the star player -- they have lots of other things to do. But since they can do a "hail mary" showstopper spell (remember, if they win initiative nothing can stop the spell) then it is also the case that they are not bored in combat.
Dragon magazine used to be filled with DM complaints about how a strategic sleep spell utterly transformed the battlefield (a dozen goblins droped with a single, well timed spell).
So I don't want to argue "perfect balance". Playtable variation will make that impossible to precisely define. More, I am in reaction to the Pathfinder/D&D 3.5 tier system where a wizard is a tier one class and the poor fighter is something like tier 4 or tier 5.
B/X seemed to leave both classes a clear role and make a party feel like it was a mistake to omit either, even at levels like 12.
Quote from: Sigmund;628097This is why my MUs almost always would hire the biggest, dumbest, shield-bearing bodyguards they could afford as soon as they could afford them. Next came a bearer so my wiz wouldn't have to carry his own shit.
Which kind of feeds the stereotype of an evil mastermind's big dumb henchmen. I'd much rather have my M-U hire big smart henchmen who understand tactics.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;628187Which kind of feeds the stereotype of an evil mastermind's big dumb henchmen. I'd much rather have my M-U hire big smart henchmen who understand tactics.
Meh, then he'd be smart enough to either tell me to piss off and join the party as a full member, or blackmail me into ever-increasing shares of the loot :)
1e may have more powerful spells, but it also has material components (as well as verbal and somatic), and a few other details that when used correctly likewise serve to put some roadblocks on caster-supremacy.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;6286511e may have more powerful spells, but it also has material components (as well as verbal and somatic), and a few other details that when used correctly likewise serve to put some roadblocks on caster-supremacy.
RPGPundit
The initiative/casting time interaction in 1e also means that casters will be hit (and presumably disrupted) frequently even when they
win initiative. (Depends on weapon speed as well, so the light skirmisher with a short sword is going to do better than Mongo the barbarian with his zweihander.)
Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;628654The initiative/casting time interaction in 1e also means that casters will be hit (and presumably disrupted) frequently even when they win initiative. (Depends on weapon speed as well, so the light skirmisher with a short sword is going to do better than Mongo the barbarian with his zweihander.)
Yes, true. In B/X if your side wins initiative you're golden.
RPGPundit
Quote from: jibbajibba;628081Remember in 1e and I suspect B/X, wizards don't get to pick their spells they get what they find and they need to roll % to be able to learn a spell based on their int so spells only become ubiquitous if the DM chooses to make them so...
Actually, in B/X magic-users don't need to roll % to check whether they can learn any particular spell that they find. (But, as I mentioned earlier, they can have far, far fewer spells in their spellbooks, and typically will have to wait until they level up before adding any spell
they find.)
Quote from: RPGPundit;628800Yes, true. In B/X if your side wins initiative you're golden.
Yeah, so even though AD&D magic-users are more powerful than their B/X counterparts in many respects (viz., they can have more spells in their spell books, they have access to more spells overall, etc.), they are weaker in some other respects.
Quote from: Akrasia;628983Actually, in B/X magic-users don't need to roll % to check whether they can learn any particular spell that they find. (But, as I mentioned earlier, they can have far, far fewer spells in their spellbooks, and typically will have to wait until they level up before adding any spell they find.)
Fair enough. My point was that the DM can control the spell economy to a large degree.
QuoteYeah, so even though AD&D magic-users are more powerful than their B/X counterparts in many respects (viz., they can have more spells in their spell books, they have access to more spells overall, etc.), they are weaker in some other respects.
the inititive comment is actually worthy of some deeper consideration.
If you are using casting times and weapon speeds as initiative modifiers then the caster is actually better off than in a straight initiative situation.
Weapon speeds from 1 for a fist to 10 for a halberd are generally much slower than casting times which are in general 1-9 based on level
So a 1st level spell generally has 4 initiative bonus over a long sword. so in a low level battle Burnng hands (casting time 1) versus Long bow (weapon speed 7 unless the arrow is already notched) the burning hands is massively more likely to go off first. Now some spells like Sleep (if I recall correctly) have longer casting times as a gamist way of counteracting their effectiveness. Which is fine.
However, the net result is still that a wizard castig fireball gets a +4 initiative over a sniper with a bow.
Quote from: Bill;627948If one runs 1E raw, with only the core books, a wizard is very likely to die in any signifigant battle they did not have time to prepare for.
Even losing initiative could easily be fatal.
It reverses based on prep time; a well forewarned wizard is unlikely to die.
If you mean "wizard" in the old literal sense of a "name level" MU (as opposed to applying it as well to those of lower levels), then the difference that preparation can make is somewhat limited in 1E when the opposition likewise includes an MU.
Spells such as
lightning bolt do an average -- before halving for a successful save -- of 3.5 points per level of a caster who gets (before any constitution bonus) an average of 2.5 points per level at full strength.
That's
up to becoming a wizard. Beyond that point, hit points per level fall even further behind. Moreover, there are an increasing number of both "save or die" and "no save, just die" spells -- especially for an MU who does not currently have an exceptionally high number of hit points.
Wizards are on average rather better equipped for offense than for defense, "glass cannons." Increasing vulnerability to rivals an increasing number of levels lower adds to the hazard.
Quote from: jibbajibba;628984the inititive comment is actually worthy of some deeper consideration. If you are using casting times and weapon speeds as initiative modifiers then the caster is actually better off than in a straight initiative situation.
Weapon speeds from 1 for a fist to 10 for a halberd are generally much slower than casting times which are in general 1-9 based on level
So a 1st level spell generally has 4 initiative bonus over a long sword. so in a low level battle Burnng hands (casting time 1) versus Long bow (weapon speed 7 unless the arrow is already notched) the burning hands is massively more likely to go off first. Now some spells like Sleep (if I recall correctly) have longer casting times as a gamist way of counteracting their effectiveness. Which is fine.
However, the net result is still that a wizard castig fireball gets a +4 initiative over a sniper with a bow.
1st edition AD&D doesn't work like this. Your comment is probably valid for 2nd edition, which aimed for clarity at the expense of effectiveness, but there is a reason in 1st edition why the weapon speed/initiative mechanic was done with subtraction and absolute numbers.
People complain it is difficult to grok (and it is), but it generally works against the situation you describe above.
Quote from: EOTB;629135People complain it is difficult to grok (and it is). . .
. . . e.g., "whichever is applicable" :confused:
Quote from: EOTB;6291351st edition AD&D doesn't work like this. Your comment is probably valid for 2nd edition, which aimed for clarity at the expense of effectiveness, but there is a reason in 1st edition why the weapon speed/initiative mechanic was done with subtraction and absolute numbers.
People complain it is difficult to grok (and it is), but it generally works against the situation you describe above.
In 2E, weapon speed factors are listed as optional rules whereas spell speed factors are not.
Or at least I think so. I am using the May 1996 printing (2nd printing of 2.5e core rules). Spellcasting and initiative (page 127) is in white test. Weapon Speed and initiative (Optional Rule) is in a grey box they used for the optional rules. Both Group (as in groups of creatures on the same side getting different initiative) and Individual initiative are option rules. The precise sequence of what you pick matters a lot. Also note if you use weapon speeds, the speed factor of the weapon is reduced by the plus. This actually makes it harder on high level magic-users. The weakness of this approach is that it is very hard to give clear weapon speeds to the creatures in the monster manual.
One thing to remember about TSR D&D, in general, is despite the commonalties of some of the rules the system was (for good reasons) often extensively house ruled. Otherwise good editions could screw something up (see Rules Cyclopedia, Thief).
That's an important point. In actual play any edition of older D&D played out a lot closer than the rules of any given edition might seem to imply.
RPGPundit