Quote from: tenbones on February 22, 2024, 01:37:49 PM
Don't forget bows. You can always shoot an arrow.

Bottles of flaming oil are always a nice thing for your spell-less Magic User to toss at enemies.

Quote from: tenbones on February 22, 2024, 01:37:49 PM
Don't forget bows. You can always shoot an arrow.

I always reminded my D&D players about the value of darts, knives, and slings. Not only are they cheap and smaller (thus easier to hide), they are also ranged! And darts, knives, and daggers have a higher rate of fire! Oh sure, they pooh-poohed it at first, but a few hirelings showing them up with action economy, or being the armored front line for other hirelings to pepper darts into melee, and the lesson was learned. Buying a high AC for your hirelings and a hamper of darts is not a waste of cash! 

Quote from: Opaopajr on February 22, 2024, 09:46:41 PM

Quote from: tenbones on February 22, 2024, 01:37:49 PM
Don't forget bows. You can always shoot an arrow.

I always reminded my D&D players about the value of darts, knives, and slings. Not only are they cheap and smaller (thus easier to hide), they are also ranged! And darts, knives, and daggers have a higher rate of fire! Oh sure, they pooh-poohed it at first, but a few hirelings showing them up with action economy, or being the armored front line for other hirelings to pepper darts into melee, and the lesson was learned. Buying a high AC for your hirelings and a hamper of darts is not a waste of cash! 

Player Character: "Yeah I used to be a mage.  But I started carrying around a bandolier of darts to throw at my enemies after I used up my one spell.  It turns out that I can throw several darts a round so I just switched over to being a fighter and specialized in Dart.  Now I can stop other mages from casting spells!"

  Be like Oprah, "You get a dart. You get a dart! And you get a dart! Darts for everybody!"

Seriously though a well placed spell often ends an encounter, and sometimes by avoiding it entirely. But wizards don't always have the right spell for the occasion, let it be not found & learned yet, or not currently memorized. It's a great power to skip encounters or laterally skip whole problem areas, but it takes time to get enough options and then enough good guesswork to choose the right ones to memorize.

It's really a different approach to play, like dungeon crawling with a Game Genie and a handful of temporary wonky cheat codes (I know, old reference, maybe one could call it 'mods' that are finite and only turned on at special times).  But typically the adventure should be mostly doable without such wonky cheat codes, so playing like a warrior is fine. Thieves are sort of like another set of 'always on' cheat codes that grow in power over time. This conceptualization helps me avoid bad adventure design -- regular elbow grease and appropriate gear should complete most adventures -- and makes magic & thieves' skills feel like an alternate speed run while hunting for Easter eggs with some fun counterbalancing handicaps. 

Quote from: Mishihari on February 12, 2024, 09:46:55 PM
My recollection from AD&D etc is that much of the strategy both for the players and the DM revolved around protecting the magic-user from interruption so he could nuke the enemy.  I think this produced more interesting tactical play by far than later editions where it was not needed.  So I consider it a feature, not a bug.

The rule from AD&D is that once you enter melee range (10 ft) of an enemy, you are engaged and may not move until you either defeat the enemy or complete a tactical retreat.  There is no getting past the fighter to tackle the Wizard if he is positioned properly.

Quote from: JRR on February 25, 2024, 07:57:39 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on February 12, 2024, 09:46:55 PM
My recollection from AD&D etc is that much of the strategy both for the players and the DM revolved around protecting the magic-user from interruption so he could nuke the enemy.  I think this produced more interesting tactical play by far than later editions where it was not needed.  So I consider it a feature, not a bug.

The rule from AD&D is that once you enter melee range (10 ft) of an enemy, you are engaged and may not move until you either defeat the enemy or complete a tactical retreat.  There is no getting past the fighter to tackle the Wizard if he is positioned properly.

Yes, with up to three front-facing enemies held at bay per person. Over that number you get to flank (one per each side) and finally rear (one). So each individual can be surrounded by six individuals before it goes to second ranks. Further it applies to everyone that individual is aware of in combat that they know is opposed to them -- which gets into useful things like remaining hidden out of combat or backstab betrayals.

So two fighters can flank a wizard on both sides and tie up 3 combatants on each side (3 frontal attackers kept at bay per) and make the wizard essentially unreachable unless using 2nd rank weapons (polearms) at 1st rank (CH:F polearm reach optional rules, GM purview) or ranged into melee.

I've successfully had a wizard hireling NPC defend a druid player like this in the hopes the spell cast was a combat ender -- it was. It also drove home the danger that the wizard and druid were exposed when the wizard had to run melee interference to ensure the spell goes off. Later magic users stayed much closer to the fighters during potential combat situations. 

I don't really feel like most of OSR is suited for "boss fights", because the boss fight in early D&D was the dungeon itself. Monster boss style gameplay was more of a later edition thing and probably really came into its own in 4e. In B/X all monsters are fodder and fairly pointless to fight. The dungeon is what you want to defeat.

Quote from: Dracones on February 25, 2024, 11:13:41 PM
I don't really feel like most of OSR is suited for "boss fights", because the boss fight in early D&D was the dungeon itself. Monster boss style gameplay was more of a later edition thing and probably really came into its own in 4e. In B/X all monsters are fodder and fairly pointless to fight. The dungeon is what you want to defeat.

What about dragons?

Quote from: Persimmon on February 13, 2024, 01:48:17 PM
I do think a lot of players of later (post-TSR) editions of D&D have been conditioned in a totally different way in terms of approach and problem solving.  Instead of using your limited abilities to creatively solve challenges, like, for example, casting create water in the villain's throat or casting silence 15' radius on an object and tossing that at the enemy caster's feet, they're always looking for specific situations to use their cool abilities or signature moves.  I saw this firsthand in a game where all of us except one (the son of one of the other players) were 30 plus year D&D vets.  The whole time we played the teenage kid was just reading the rulebooks, trying to wait for scenarios when he could use very specific powerful abilities.  So rather than adjust tactics to situations, they wait for the situation to fit their preferred tactics, if that makes sense.

I've also been in games where the DM disallowed that kind of creative casting. As in they just flat out say it doesn't work and your spell is wasted. Do that a couple of times and players soon learn not to try anything creative. Ever.

Quote from: mightybrain on February 26, 2024, 05:38:48 AM
I've also been in games where the DM disallowed that kind of creative casting. As in they just flat out say it doesn't work and your spell is wasted. Do that a couple of times and players soon learn not to try anything creative. Ever.

Part of this is a natural evolution of GM skill.  First the budding GM is anything goes because they want to please the players and it is funny to do all kinds of crazy stuff.  Then they realize that some of their rulings are causing a lot of trouble in the campaign, and the pendulum swings hard, way too far, the other way.  Giving time and encouragement, eventually the GM learns to strike a balance.

The other part is largely attributed to "sage advice" being increasingly terrible, and then the internet magnifying that trend.  This is "rules lawyer" GMs and players stagnating in the second phase, thinking that they can collectively set up a body of rules that removes the problem.  Then the game gets more legalistic to cater to them, and the whole process becomes a negative feedback loop on the game.

The cure is a hard break from "sage advice" and all that kind of thinking.  Or, that's the cure for the GM.  For the players, you need more than that.  That's why when I rewrote all the spells for my game I deliberately kept the rules minutiae to a minimum, and even went so far as to deliberately introduce options into as many spells as possible.  Some options are obvious, some are subtle, and some are only emergent once the players have gotten into the style. 

That's not as hard as it sounds, either.  For example, I've got a level 2 fire spell that leaves a ball of fire in the caster's hand, that acts more or less like a torch, except that the player can snuff it/light it with an action, and it is easier to throw than a torch.  At higher levels, it gets a little more damage.  It's a straight-forward "light" spell that you can also use to attack (though the attack is not typically as good as using a weapon).  Can you set things on fire with it?  Of course, it's a ball of fire in your hand.  Does getting doused make it go out?  Of course, it's a ball of fire in your hand.  Does it give off smoke and light and possibly warn others of your approach? You guessed it!  It's easy to remember my rulings, because all I'm doing is ruling on how "fire works" in the game (mostly like real world, with a few elemental magic tweaks). 

Using spells and items like that, I'm slowly weaning players new to my group off of this distrust of GM rulings.

I just stopped using systems where you can't choose to both have magic and be able to take a punch without exploding.

Quote from: mightybrain on February 26, 2024, 05:38:48 AM

Quote from: Persimmon on February 13, 2024, 01:48:17 PM
I do think a lot of players of later (post-TSR) editions of D&D have been conditioned in a totally different way in terms of approach and problem solving.  Instead of using your limited abilities to creatively solve challenges, like, for example, casting create water in the villain's throat or casting silence 15' radius on an object and tossing that at the enemy caster's feet, they're always looking for specific situations to use their cool abilities or signature moves.  I saw this firsthand in a game where all of us except one (the son of one of the other players) were 30 plus year D&D vets.  The whole time we played the teenage kid was just reading the rulebooks, trying to wait for scenarios when he could use very specific powerful abilities.  So rather than adjust tactics to situations, they wait for the situation to fit their preferred tactics, if that makes sense.

I've also been in games where the DM disallowed that kind of creative casting. As in they just flat out say it doesn't work and your spell is wasted. Do that a couple of times and players soon learn not to try anything creative. Ever.

"Note that water can neither be created nor destroyed within a creature."

Having played many OD&D Wizards (both as PC and NPC), they are perfectly fine as RAW and far better if you allow them to scribe scrolls regularly and easily at low levels.

A smart OD&D wizard uses hirelings as meat shields. Charm Person means that you regularly get enemy NPCs as disposable warriors and at higher levels, Charm Monster means a wizard can have scary hirelings.

Also, low level wizards are dagger throwers and in OD&D, they really aren't THAT much worse in combat than Clerics or Fighters. So it's common for Wizards to toss daggers and flank foes when the shit goes down so they can do some stabby stabby. 

But that's an advantage of OD&D (or Swords & Wizardry, etc) where weapons are base 1D6 and monsters are based 1D6 per HD. AKA, a lucky wizard can stab a 2 HD monster to death in one hit! (Or vice versa).

A buddy of mine in an OD&D game recently got incredibly lucky with a Troll failing its magic save vs. Charm. Totally unbalanced? Sure, but in OD&D that's a FEATURE not a BUG.

Quote from: Spinachcat on March 02, 2024, 09:13:25 PM
Having played many OD&D Wizards (both as PC and NPC), they are perfectly fine as RAW and far better if you allow them to scribe scrolls regularly and easily at low levels.

A smart OD&D wizard uses hirelings as meat shields. Charm Person means that you regularly get enemy NPCs as disposable warriors and at higher levels, Charm Monster means a wizard can have scary hirelings.

Also, low level wizards are dagger throwers and in OD&D, they really aren't THAT much worse in combat than Clerics or Fighters. So it's common for Wizards to toss daggers and flank foes when the shit goes down so they can do some stabby stabby. 

But that's an advantage of OD&D (or Swords & Wizardry, etc) where weapons are base 1D6 and monsters are based 1D6 per HD. AKA, a lucky wizard can stab a 2 HD monster to death in one hit! (Or vice versa).

A buddy of mine in an OD&D game recently got incredibly lucky with a Troll failing its magic save vs. Charm. Totally unbalanced? Sure, but in OD&D that's a FEATURE not a BUG.

I don't follow you. It's unbalanced that a monster failed its saving throw? should monsters not fail their saving throws?

I never got the whole "Daggers only" rule for Magic-Users.  Wouldn't a guy with a high intelligence and no armor want to keep thier enemies as far away as possible? 

Daggers are difficult weapons to throw, requiring lots of practice.  The range sucks.

Can you imagine the wizard acadamies teaching young apprentices how to fight with daggers?

If you ask me, Magic-Users should be training with the sword and buckler, and the quarterstaff.  Since these were the weapons often used by medieval university sturents.  Of course daggers would be an option.  And also maybe the crossbow since it required a bit of intellect to maintain.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 04, 2024, 11:19:36 AM
I never got the whole "Daggers only" rule for Magic-Users.  Wouldn't a guy with a high intelligence and no armor want to keep thier enemies as far away as possible? 

Daggers are difficult weapons to throw, requiring lots of practice.  The range sucks.

Can you imagine the wizard acadamies teaching young apprentices how to fight with daggers?

If you ask me, Magic-Users should be training with the sword and buckler, and the quarterstaff.  Since these were the weapons often used by medieval university sturents.  Of course daggers would be an option.  And also maybe the crossbow since it required a bit of intellect to maintain.

I always thought that light crossbows should be the most common ranged weapons for a magic user since it is the most simple to actually use. Far easier than bows. Slings and daggers are much harder to become sufficiently trained with to be effective.