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