Plus you can bluff. You can lie to monsters.

"I command you to die!" followed by a magic missile spell that Does kill a half hit die monster, makes you a credible threat. The problem is of course too many people used the rules AGAINST players rather than for players.

A monster doesn't KNOW your first level. He doesn't know you can't kill him instantly with a gesture. I mean they grow up in a world where such things HAPPEN everyday.

I've loved playing magic users who use their brains to intimidate, trick, overcome monsters. Even without magic. Sure the magic is a powerful back up. I've even taken Magic missile as a first level spell, then did more things to play up intelligent PERSON, not just one shot magic item.

For example. I had one PC who went and carried a bag of ground pepper. Sure he can't do more than 1d4 damage with a dagger but he can throw pepper in monsters faces to get the slight advantage that gives for him AND the other party members.

Now not all monsters are dumb, but the dumb ones show up more often at low levels. Which makes that a huge edge.

Another MU I played worked with the theif to constantly trick monsters into their own traps. Use climb walls to climb down into a pit trap once they've found it. Talk about all the pain in the darkness, and how your magic whatsit will be lost here forever....!

Of course the entire party is in the trap, so when some start climbing down (the more the better.) "Sleep!" and watch them fall into their own traps and waiting weapons of your allies..


Of course I may just have been a mean player..

My experience with older editions of D&D is mainly RC and 2nd, but in both, we tended to rule that MUs were generally more educated than average PCs, and we let them get away with more for their intelligence checks as well. Deciphering a strange language, knowing an obscure fact, or getting a clue to a puzzle were all bonuses that a wizard could get from intelligence checks that fighters and thieves didn't normally.

I guess some people don't like the "game" challenge of starting with a weak character and surviving esp at lower levels by one's wits alone. I mean IMO the MU class is the purest form of tactical play + role play. Also with my group at least, playing a 1st level MU and crawling your way up seems to be a powerful archtype of D&D. It's one of the reasons why the newer (est) edition does not appeal to them.

Regards,
David R

Well, as I had some time, (and even though the Bears/Eagles game is close and interesting), I rolled up a Basic character for nostalgia sake.  Grabbed 3d6 (including my lucky lobster D6) and out came Slivern Baklar, the fighter.
STR:18 (yes, I couldn't believe it, but it was my first toss)
INT: 9
WIS: 9
DEX: 13
CON: 12
CHR: 8

One thing it impressed upon me--3D6 produces playable characters (although a lucky 18 is a very rare occasion).  Lots of games I have been in since I started back again with gaming have been point buys.  Essentially, you have a blank slate, make it how you will.   Cripes, for my last game, we had 89 points to assign.  

I am going to toss another 4 sets of 3D6 (to simulate a 5 PC party).  I wonder if the law of averages would get me prime attributes to put at least one Thief, Fighter, MU, Cleric in the party.

I could see a situation where if you rolled as per the book, you could wind up with no Clerics or MUs for example.

Ahhh.... I almost feel 9 again.

Quote from: David R;252440Also with my group at least, playing a 1st level MU and crawling your way up seems to be a powerful archtype of D&D. It's one of the reasons why the newer (est) edition does not appeal to them.

And one of the reasons I was very disappointed with GURPS Dungeon Fantasy - all the characters started off as 250 points. This is described in the GM's book as
   Larger-than-Life: Leading roles in kung fu movies, fantasy novels, etc. Typical of the professional adventurer who has already made a name for himself.
 which misses the point of classic dungeon adventurers. You adventure to make a name for yourself, you don't make a name for yourself and then adventure.

A lot of people don't get that. In the age of saved games and cheat codes it's hard to get people to sit still long enough to enjoy zero to hero.

I mentioned that to a player of mine, he was the guy who in the Gygax Memorial AD&D1e game went through four or five characters through the dungeon, and his last character was an assassin, outside the door of the evil sorceror he imitated the voice of an NPC minion they'd slain "come out, we need your help!" and made like a ninja and perched himself in the archway above the door, then jumped the wizard as he came through the door. Failed his instant-kill roll, but the other PCs were backing him up with their bows and such. They slew the sorceror.

"That's true, and that was cool," he said, "but also I get to experience doing a dramatic car chase and rolling my vehicle onto its side and having it skid along the road and the bad guy gets away."

"That's the dice, they bring joy and misery," I replied, "that's part of the thrill of roleplaying."

The thrill would mean nothing if nobody took risks. You can have a risk of a 1st level 10HP fighter taking on five orcs, or a 1st level 4HP Magic-User taking on one orc - same kind of risk, and same kind of thrill if they pull through.

The other thing about being the MU, apart from as people mentioned the great potential, is also what was touched on earlier, the bonuses you get from a good DM which go beyond what's written in the rules, considering the MU as a sort of sage, their knowledge being in proportion to their Intelligence, Wisdom and level.

Because that's the thing about D&D before edition 3.5, the game is defined as much by what's not written in the rules as by what is written in them. There's no rule for an assassin to perch on an archway to ambush someone, there's no rule for someone to imitate someone's voice, still less are there rules for Magic-Users to be sages, or for Fighters to know a well-made weapon when they see it. The players and DM were just expected to be creative.

Holmes D&D - the original rules-light rpg!

Quote from: David R;252440I guess some people don't like the "game" challenge of starting with a weak character and surviving esp at lower levels by one's wits alone. I mean IMO the MU class is the purest form of tactical play + role play. Also with my group at least, playing a 1st level MU and crawling your way up seems to be a powerful archtype of D&D. It's one of the reasons why the newer (est) edition does not appeal to them.

Regards,
David R

Interestingly enough, when I think back on how my 13-year-old-self would have reacted to something like 4e, I think I'd have vastly preferred to have a M-U that could hang in there with the other PCs at low levels. I get the feeling the other guys I gamed with at the time would have preferred the same. I have to say that the modern incarnations of the game - both 3e and 4e - are a lot closer to the game we wanted to play back then than the actual game we played. That's just my experience. I know everyone's tastes differ.

Well said kyle. I didn't know that about GURPS DF. I never thought of myself as old school. See Sett, we have a lot more in common than you realize.....

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;252463Interestingly enough, when I think back on how my 13-year-old-self would have reacted to something like 4e, I think I'd have vastly preferred to have a M-U that could hang in there with the other PCs at low levels. I get the feeling the other guys I gamed with at the time would have preferred the same. I have to say that the modern incarnations of the game - both 3e and 4e - are a lot closer to the game we wanted to play back then than the actual game we played. That's just my experience. I know everyone's tastes differ.

I have a feeling you're not alone in this Colonel. I think D&D designers know a lot more about what dedicated gamers want out of D&D than their critics give them credit for. Of course experiences and expectations differ.

Regards,
David R

Col., that was one of the attractions of The Fantasy Trip. Beginning mages were both fairly balanced vis a vis other classes in combat, and quite viable. (Though, not sure how the experience compares to 4e, in TFT the way a mage fights is very different from other classes--often using defensive spells and various types of illusion/summoning.)

However, as much as I used to slag D&D back in the day, I think the thing to realize for many of these questions is that the game was much more oriented toward exploration and characterization (of both characters and the "world"), and toward non-combat challenges, than is generally supposed these days. So balance really didn't/doesn't have to be stressed everywhere along the line.

The thing most people seem to forget is your powers aren't all you have in 4e, either. For example, in a playtest they blogged about, one player wanted to kick out a table from under a baddie.

Five seconds later, the GM says 'Roll Strength versus Reflex'.

The way I view 4e, your Powers are the things you know how to do reliably, without having to improvise. But jumping off the balcony, swinging from the chandlier and crashing down on the corrupt Sherriff is still Skill (Acrobatics) vs. DC, then Dex vs. Defense (Reflex). It's just that now, you consult page 42, the PC is level 3 and it's likely once-per-encounter, so he does 2d10+3.



When I first got into 4e, I started thinking I'll never go back to 4e. Now I'm thinking, 3e is fun, 4e is fun and hey, I had fun with the AD&D computer game 'Curse of the Azure Bonds', so why not try some of the earlier editions?

The best games are the ones you are playing now. The ones you had before are over; the ones you will have aren't there yet and why play if it doesn't rock?

One interesting take on the issue comes by way of the topic of "game balance", with a fairly old school gamer writing,
   "Also I like rolling dice, and I like variation. 4e sort of feels like a McD&D to me. Just like how a McDonald's hamburger tastes the same everywhere in the world, so too does it feel to me like a lot of customization and variation has been lost in the name of balance. To me balance is just a buzzword. A smart player's fighter is just as devastating as her druid, in my experience.

"(My god. I finally understand what James is talking about when he says a game should test player skill. Shit. Old school makes sense now. Cool.)"
Let's set aside the bit about D&D4e - suffice to say that old D&D or AD&D are very different.

I do stand by what I said, that in limiting yourself to the letter of what the book says this or that class can do is missing the point of those kinds of rules - for inspiration more than determination.

But it's also true that a less capable character is a better test of player skill than a more capable one. Anyone can wade through a dungeon without thought or effort if they're a 20th level half-dragon fighter/magic-user/thief, that's no great accomplishment. But if you're a 2HP 1st level Magic-User in AD&D1e, then even reaching 2nd level is an accomplishment.

Naw, it's still the case in 3.5 that you houserule and make on-the-spot ruling. If we had more people who played 3rd instead of just talking about it, you'd see how vibrant the houseruling community is for that game.

Also, reaching 2nd level--or 20th level--can just mean the DM is your bitch.

Practically, a 1st level M-Us in A/D&D is typically shielded by multiple melee combatants, and is in danger either when he comes under missile fire, or when other PCs are killed - which is a distinct possibility, but in this case, others are just as screwed.

On the other hand, sleep is and insta-kill spell which can really turn the battle where several weak opponents gang up on the party - and that is one of the most dangerous situations you are going to face. Second, the M-U has approximately the same combat ability as all other classes, maybe with a Dexterity bonus to missiles, making him a valuable ally if he is casting daggers or darts (I don't remember Basic D&D, but in AD&D, you could throw 2 daggers or 3 darts per round, which comes in handy; also, all classes have THAC0 20 on first level, not just M-Us!). Third, charm person can give you power in situations/adventures not focused on straight fighting; as a DM, one of the first surprises my players taught me was about the powers of charm in an environment full of low level NPCs (and PCs; in our group, this was at one time a bit of a problem). Finally, of course, there is the possibility of bluffing with your deadly power, which can be either entirely useless or very powerful based on DM adjudication.

Granted, the M-U still runs out of spells pretty soon. But when he gets one off, it can be very spectacular, and his powers are a threat many will take seriously - after all, there is no save at those levels! Or there was the case (AD&D 2nd edition) when the 1st level PCs ambushed a group of mounted fighters with a well-placed grease spell, and killed them while they were trying to get up from the ground. That campaign became... interesting in a short time (I was planning for some good old feudal fun, and got a brutal and rather successful usurpation story instead).

Of course, you can also start PCs on the third level: a nice compromise where the characters can be credibly called beginning adventurers, yet are less fragile than a first leveler. But really, it worked out pretty well for us. BD&D characters are a bit weaker than AD&D equivalents, but the principles are largely the same, or very similar.

Also, as a pertinent side note: the power scale in A/D&D is different than late 2e/3e/4e. Parties of fourth or fifth level characters can be very powerful in the human world - so once you get there, you are not a low level character anymore. Invisibility and others open up even more possibilities.

I endorse the points made by RandallS, noisms, Kyle, and Melan.