* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : House rules for magic in OD&D Started at 07-05-07 06:52 PM by casimps1 Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=880350 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : casimps1 Date : 07-05-07 06:52 PM Thread Title : House rules for magic in OD&D So, I started DMing a few friends new to role-playing through some old OD&D adventures (B-series modules). This was also my first time picking up D&D in about 15 years. As I was running the game I started to remember various little things that always annoyed me about D&D (or at least OD&D, I'm not as familiar with the AD&D rulesets), particularly with the magic system. So, I was curious if any of you guys typically run with certain house rules regarding magic. Here are some of my gripes: 1) 1st-level clerics have no spells. This seems inexcusable. A player wants to be a healing support character, but they have to make a level before they can do it? They seem to have remedied this in 3.5e 2) Clerics in general are expected to prepare healing spells which seems to relegate most other spells to never being used 3) Similarly, magic users are expected to prepare standard offensive spells like magic missile or sleep 4) Spell preparation in general - is there really any advantage to forcing the player to prepare certain spells? Why not just say you can cast 2 1st-level spells per day and choose them at casting time? It just seems unnecessarily cumbersome. Since all spells must be prepared ahead of time, the best strategy is to prepare general-purpose spells that will be useful regardless of what you encounter. Thus, more special-case spells like Remove Fear, Resist Cold, Hold Portal, Ventriloquism, etc. will most likely never be prepared by players. So, if a situation arises where those spells might be useful, the players don't have them ready anyway. 5) Number of spells that can be cast at low levels - Fighters can always swing their sword in combat... but a 1st-level magic-user casts one Magic Missile spell and he's useless for the rest of the day! After casting his spell he becomes a liability to the party. I understand that magic-users start out weak, but they become practically worthless after that one spell. I think I may have had a few other gripes, but those are the big ones. Anybody have any suggestions on how to deal with those issues (while preserving game balance), or good reasons why they shouldn't be tampered with? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : DojiHoturi Date : 07-06-07 01:49 AM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D Not sure what edition you are running. My friends and I experimented with some house rules regarding this using 3.5edition as the base. Basically, to bridge the gap in HPs which we thought was a bit overly skewed, we made all classes use a d8 as the base die. a Wizard would roll just a d8 (normally a d4) a Rogue would roll a d8+1 (normally a d6) a Cleric would roll a d8+2 (normally a d8) a Fighter would roll a d8+3 (normally a d10) and a Barbarian would roll a d8+4 (normally a d12) you then add the CON bonus. Now, for spells... We used a concept based more on spells points. We rolled them like Hit Points every level. Wizards and Clerics would roll 1d4+1 Bards would roll 1d3 Paladins and Rangers would roll 1d2 when spells become available. you would then add the appropriate stat bonus (WIS for clerics, INT for wizards) to the roll. you would also be eligible for additional points to be used solely for your wizard school specialization (such as Divination or Evocation) or your cleric domains (such as Good or War). you would spend points to cast spells on a point/spell level basis up to the normal amount you would be able to cast according to the Player's Handbook. So for a Level 5 Wizard (no spec) with a 16 INT (+3) you would be able to cast 4/1st, 3/2nd, and 2/3rd at that cost. If you choose to cast additional spells outside the base number (beyond the 4th 1st spell, for example), you would have to pay double the spell point cost. If you continued to cast to where you were triple the normal amount of spells of a particular level (beyond the 8th 1st level spell, for example), you would then take damage equal to the level of the spell. Sorcerers kind of go away with this type of spell system, but nothing is perfect and it gives alot of flexibility to your casters. 2 pennies, Doji -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : havard Date : 07-06-07 05:02 AM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D Here are some of my gripes: 1) 1st-level clerics have no spells. This seems inexcusable. A player wants to be a healing support character, but they have to make a level before they can do it? They seem to have remedied this in 3.5e This is due to the fact that Clerics in Classic D&D are highly competent fighters. Giving them a spell at 1st level is possible, but it would give the class and advantage over the other classes. 2) Clerics in general are expected to prepare healing spells which seems to relegate most other spells to never being used That depends on your group. I see the 3e sollution of allowing other spells to be dropped on the fly in favor of healing spells as a possible sollution to this that would not alter the game balance too much. 3) Similarly, magic users are expected to prepare standard offensive spells like magic missile or sleep I see less of a problem with this. Also, it depends on how you set things up. If combat is the main feature of your games, m-us will likely rely on firepower, but if you stress that the game will focus on solving problems of other kinds, they may begin looking for other types of spells... Also, you decide which spells they get, so you could give them other spells instead... 4) Spell preparation in general - is there really any advantage to forcing the player to prepare certain spells? Why not just say you can cast 2 1st-level spells per day and choose them at casting time? It just seems unnecessarily cumbersome. Since all spells must be prepared ahead of time, the best strategy is to prepare general-purpose spells that will be useful regardless of what you encounter. Thus, more special-case spells like Remove Fear, Resist Cold, Hold Portal, Ventriloquism, etc. will most likely never be prepared by players. So, if a situation arises where those spells might be useful, the players don't have them ready anyway. As above. I might consider changing it, but it does give the spellcasters an advantage over the other classes that needs to be kept in mind. 5) Number of spells that can be cast at low levels - Fighters can always swing their sword in combat... but a 1st-level magic-user casts one Magic Missile spell and he's useless for the rest of the day! After casting his spell he becomes a liability to the party. I understand that magic-users start out weak, but they become practically worthless after that one spell. They are not that incompetent in combat. Allow the mage to wield a staff and he will cause as much damage as the fighter. Clerics are already competent fighters. Its a good idea to let m-u´s start out with a maxed HD though. I think I may have had a few other gripes, but those are the big ones. Anybody have any suggestions on how to deal with those issues (while preserving game balance), or good reasons why they shouldn't be tampered with? You already mention the reason for not tampering with them: game balance. If you change things in favor of the spellcasters, fighters and especially thieves will be less attractive classes. My sollution to the fact that some classes start out fairly weak is to let them all start at 2-3rd level. This should be based on a sum of XP though, since different classes have different XP requirements. A modified version of your suggestion to get rid of spell memorization is to allow this option for 1st level spells only. At highter spell levels, the spells are more powerful and potentially more unbalancing if they can be selected at a whim... Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : SamualT Barronsword Date : 07-06-07 06:18 PM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D 1) 1st-level clerics have no spells. This seems inexcusable. A player wants to be a healing support character, but they have to make a level before they can do it? They seem to have remedied this in 3.5 Clerics could cast a 1st level spell at first level in 1st and 2nd ed. AD&D. If their wisdom was high enough they could have additional 1st level spells (up to three total at 1st level, four total if you could somehow get a 19 wisdom at first level). 2) Clerics in general are expected to prepare healing spells which seems to relegate most other spells to never being used Yep. In most campaigns at low levels especially, clerics pretty much cast healing spells the majority of the time, but somebody's got to do it unless the party wants to spend a lot of time resting in between combats. 3) Similarly, magic users are expected to prepare standard offensive spells like magic missile or sleep Yea, well... most campaigns tend to have a lot of combat. I did go through a couple of home-brew 1st level dungeons where there were nothing but puzzles to solve, not a single thing to fight. Personally I found those dungeons rather boring, but if that's more to your taste then go with it. 4) Spell preparation in general - is there really any advantage to forcing the player to prepare certain spells? Why not just say you can cast 2 1st-level spells per day and choose them at casting time?. In my campaigns for 1st and 2nd AD&D I did allow clerics to cast any 1st or 2nd level spell they wished, but spells third level and above I required them to "pray for" in advance. It just seems unnecessarily cumbersome. Since all spells must be prepared ahead of time, the best strategy is to prepare general-purpose spells that will be useful regardless of what you encounter. Thus, more special-case spells like Remove Fear, Resist Cold, Hold Portal, Ventriloquism, etc. will most likely never be prepared by players. So, if a situation arises where those spells might be useful, the players don't have them ready anyway. In the campaigns I played in, magic users were allowed, if not pressed for time, to "replace" one memorized spell with another. So say you had a magic missile[I] spell memorized and you suddenly came upon a need for a [I]read magic[I] spell instead, well assuming you weren't being attacked you could pull out your spell book and sit down and study it for a while, and "exchange" one spell for another. But otherwise, unlesss the players know in advance they will be facing say, a white dragon, lots of spells like [I]Resist Cold were never memorized. Then again it's a lot easier to look through a select list of previously chosen spells in a combat situation when deciding what to cast, than it would be to look through the whole list of spells available. And at higher levels where the spellcasters start having a decided advantage over non spellcasters anyway, the possibility that the spellcaster has the "wrong" spells memorized might be the only thing providing a semblance of balance in a given situation between spellcasters and non spellcasters. 5) Number of spells that can be cast at low levels - Fighters can always swing their sword in combat... but a 1st-level magic-user casts one Magic Missile spell and he's useless for the rest of the day! After casting his spell he becomes a liability to the party. I understand that magic-users start out weak, but they become practically worthless after that one spell.. Yeah playing a low level magic user is really tough. As pointed out in another post, clerics aren't shabby in a fight at low levels, so its not really bad for them, but wizards, their pretty pathetic. Only the power crazed types who really wanted that high level magic user as the end product ever actually stuck through with playing a single classed wizard from low level to high level in my experience. Of course, when dealing with newbies who don't have a clue as to what a high level wizard can eventually do, well they never even put up with the frustration long enough to get up to even a moderate level before finding a way to ditch thier wizard for something "more powerful". In 1st and 2nd edition AD&D it was possible to play a "multiclass" character (nonhuman). That's usually to way I did it if going to play a magic user at low level. I'd play a elf or half-elf magic user/thief. Still not a power house in combat but a lot more versatile and useful to the party at low levels than a straight up one spell a day magic user. As a DM the only thing I could do to encourage players to stick with being a mage at low levels was encourage them to take the long view (yea your pretty weak now, but latter...) and by allowing scrolls (which gave them some "extra" spells they could cast per day) and other magic items most useful for wizards (like bracers of Armor) turn up in slightly higher quantities than the treaure type might actually call for. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 07-08-07 11:15 AM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D Starting with the Keep on the Borderlands, my husband (he was just my neighbor at the time) started playing a MU and was disgusted at how pitifully weak the MU was. Even with a quarterstaff, his chances to hit were abyssmal. He spent most of his time hiding and running away, which made "Uffy" the laughing stock of any party. We offered to let him ditch the MU for something more suitable, but he was determined to stick with it. He didn't start kicking fanny until 4th level. Off game time, he asked me why the MUs were so underpowered. All of the great spellcasters from literature seemed to be able to sponatneously fire spells from the hip. They always had just the spell they needed when they needed it. They didn't have to memorize spells at the start of each day, they just cast them. How we reworked is was that you can cast any spell from your corresponding level. A MU1 could cast any first level MU spell. Where we put a governor on it was to state that the level of the spell or the number of HD of effect it had, whichever was greater, also represented how many turns you had to wait before you could cast it again. You could try, but there was a cumulative 10% chance of spell failure for every turn you were early on the re-cast. It was an on-the-fly adjustment, but it worked out. He found the class challenging that he often had to get creative, but he also finally felt like his character was holding his own. It made the class more attractive for other players as well. Of course, I didn't just give him the adjustment. I made him delve for it. Some might not like our tweak to the magic system, but in the end it made our game more fun for everybody. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Orion72 Date : 07-09-07 11:12 AM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D 4) Spell preparation in general - is there really any advantage to forcing the player to prepare certain spells? Why not just say you can cast 2 1st-level spells per day and choose them at casting time? That's how I run it. I've found that by allowing the M-U to be more flexible, I was able to be more flexible as a DM. I could have a thinking-based encounter and a combat-based encounter in the same session, and the M-U could contribute a bit to each, instead of being useless in one situation or the other. 5) Number of spells that can be cast at low levels - Fighters can always swing their sword in combat... but a 1st-level magic-user casts one Magic Missile spell and he's useless for the rest of the day! Starting the M-U out with a wand of magic missiles solves this nicely. Make it a 'graduation' gift from the M-U's teacher/master/mentor. Make him use it often enough that it runs out of charges just when he becomes powerful enough not to need it anymore (or finds something better). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : RobertFisher Date : 07-11-07 08:39 AM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D Allow me to play devil's advocate. Not because I want to tell you how to play, but just because I think it's worth considering a different point-of-view. ('Cause I've been known to change my own on occasion when presented with a different one.) 1) 1st-level clerics have no spells. This seems inexcusable. A player wants to be a healing support character, but they have to make a level before they can do it? They seem to have remedied this in 3.5e I don't really see an oD&D Cleric as much as "a healing support character" as something of a fighter/magic-user. (Though with a different flavor than a magic-user.) In the AD&D PHB Gygax likened them to the holy orders of knighthood from the Crusades. They are warrior-monks. Devout soldiers for the faith. That said, Gygax recently said that when he plays oD&D these days, he gives Clerics a spell at first level. 2) Clerics in general are expected to prepare healing spells which seems to relegate most other spells to never being used This was never the case in my games. Nobody tells the player playing a Cleric what spells to prepare, & they apprepciate it when a Hold Person or other non-healing spell saves their bacon. In fact, I find the spontaneous swapping for a healing spell in 3e means that Clerics cast fewer non-healing spells because the non-healing spells end up getting swapped out. That said, I let Clerics use the swapping rule in older edition games if they wish. 3) Similarly, magic users are expected to prepare standard offensive spells like magic missile or sleep Again, trying to dictate what spells another player's PC prepares has never been tolerated in my groups. 4) Spell preparation in general - is there really any advantage to forcing the player to prepare certain spells? As you say, it creates a strategic element. Some people enjoy that. Some spells may even be a little more powerful than they would be otherwise because the preparation/memorization mechanic made spell slots a more precious resource than in its absence. That said, I've played in groups that use the "3e sorcerer" style with earlier editions without any great head-aches. 5) Number of spells that can be cast at low levels - Fighters can always swing their sword in combat... but a 1st-level magic-user casts one Magic Missile spell and he's useless for the rest of the day! After casting his spell he becomes a liability to the party. I understand that magic-users start out weak, but they become practically worthless after that one spell. This is a pet peeve of mine. A 1st level MU who has cast is spell is worthless only if the player is worthless. The game is meant to be so much more than mechanics. Plus, in oD&D--depending on how you play--a MU can actually do OK in mundane combat. Tenser did, which became the inspiration for the AD&D spells Tenser's Transformation when AD&D made MUs less effective in combat. All weapons do 1d6 damage, & the way Gygax plays oD&D MUs get 1d6 hp/level. At first level, the only thing a fighting-man really has over an MU in combat is armor. That said, I do think that having some minor "cantrips" that MUs can use without limit can make them feel more "magical" & provide some opportunities for intimidation without unbalancing things. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 07-20-07 12:20 PM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D So even Gygax has to use House rules for his spellcasters? Interesting. My husband played the MU as written for the first four levels. His concern was very out-of-game, that no new players would want to play a MU because of a "high turnover rate". Clerics in my game have always been crusader-ish. In fact, one cleric PC took on the role of setting the example of courage and faithfulness for the party. His reasoning was that a cleric who is afraid to go toe-to-toe with evil doesn't have much faith in his god. He really kicked, finally dying an appropriate death rescuing the rogue from a kraken. It was an inspiring enough performance that the party took on the cleric's god (I think it was St. Cuthbert) as their patron deity as a group. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Agathokles Date : 07-20-07 03:18 PM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D I think the issue with 1-st level clerics is minimal -- they are good fighters, and can turn undead, so they are quite viable. At higher levels, they will carry healing spells, of course, but the spell selection closely depends on the type of challenges -- if the adventures are mostly combat-oriented, even a 3e cleric will in the end cast mostly healing spells, no matter what he memorized. As for magic users, the Gazetteers and the RC introduce general skills, which help making 1st level MUs more useful, as the MU is likely to have a couple more skills than other characters, due to high Intelligence. Also, high Intelligence means a number of interesting skills will have high ratings. Also, allowing a larger weapon selection (dagger, staff, whip, blowgun and net) as per Master Set or RC gives more options to the wizard. He will still be a last ditch weapon in combat, keeping his sleep-per-day in reserve, but he will be quite useful otherwise. Still, something could be done to further rectify these characters, e.g. using the cantrip/orison idea from AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 07-20-07 04:46 PM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D There was a viable weapon in the 2e when MUs weren't allowed to use swords. It was the staff sling. It isn't in the 3e PHB, so we had to crawl through tons of old character sheets before we found the stats on it. It had 2 attacks at 1d4+1(S/M targets) and 1d6+1 (L targets).* While it was too late for Uffy to use, it was used for another MU character. Is there a 3e book that has this weapon listed? *That was something I'm not sure I ever understood. Why would a weapon do less damage against a smaller target? If anything, you'd think it would do more damage. Take a club to an elf. Now take that same club to a Hill Giant. Slightly different result. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : casimps1 Date : 07-20-07 11:44 PM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D OK, so first, let me clarify what edition I am working with. I wasn't initially aware that "OD&D" could refer to different things. I am playing the BECMI Mentzer D&D rules. I don't really see an oD&D Cleric as much as "a healing support character" as something of a fighter/magic-user. (Though with a different flavor than a magic-user.) In the AD&D PHB Gygax likened them to the holy orders of knighthood from the Crusades. They are warrior-monks. Devout soldiers for the faith. That said, Gygax recently said that when he plays oD&D these days, he gives Clerics a spell at first level. I can buy the fact that clerics are fighter/magic-users... but the fact remains that at first-level, clerics have a lower hit-die and can only use a 1d6 damage weapon... which makes them inferior fighters with nothing to compensate for their shortcomings unless they are fighting undead. I ended up doing as Gygax did and gave my clerics a spell at first-level. This was never the case in my games. Nobody tells the player playing a Cleric what spells to prepare, & they apprepciate it when a Hold Person or other non-healing spell saves their bacon. I can believe this as well... but I was really speaking towards the spells that aren't useful in combat. I think this is especially problematic with the MUs and spells like Hold Portal, Read Languages, Locate Object, etc. When I said they were expected to prepare certain spells I didn't mean that they would be pressured by anyone (player or DM). Rather, I meant that they would only feel useful in the game if they prepared certain spells. If a MU decides to prepare Read Languages "just in case", and the party never comes across a need for that spell, the MU will feel like dead weight and unable to contribute as much as the other classes because his specialty (MU spells) becomes insignificant. The thing about combat oriented spells is that they are usually general purpose and useful in any combat situation. On the other hand, non-combat spells are very specialized in their usefulness. Spellcasters can expect to encounter combat in practically any adventure, but they may never find a situation where they need to use Floating Disc or Purify Water. As you say, it creates a strategic element. Some people enjoy that. Some spells may even be a little more powerful than they would be otherwise because the preparation/memorization mechanic made spell slots a more precious resource than in its absence. I totally agree with the strategic element if enough preliminary information is given to the player so that they have a decent chance of figuring out what spells will be useful to them in the near future. It's not strategic if you're making random uneducated guesses. Plus, in oD&D--depending on how you play--a MU can actually do OK in mundane combat. Tenser did, which became the inspiration for the AD&D spells Tenser's Transformation when AD&D made MUs less effective in combat. All weapons do 1d6 damage, & the way Gygax plays oD&D MUs get 1d6 hp/level. At first level, the only thing a fighting-man really has over an MU in combat is armor. That said, I do think that having some minor "cantrips" that MUs can use without limit can make them feel more "magical" & provide some opportunities for intimidation without unbalancing things. While the MU does still have some usefulness in combat, to me, that is strongly offset by how easy it is to die in the old 0hp=death ruleset. One swipe from almost any monster can take out a 1d4 hp MU. So, it seems foolish to ever put a MU into the midst of battle willingly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 07-21-07 12:13 AM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D I wasn't initially aware that "OD&D" could refer to different things. Yeah, when I hear Old D&D, I think of the dinky little box with the "Men & Magic", "Monsters & Treasure", and "The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures" supplements. To keep my mind straight, I use what I've heard elsewhere, which is to call that version "Old School" D&D as opposed to "Old" D&D. Can we get a standardization for the various editions so we can all be on the same page? I don't know if there's one listed somewhere. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : caeruleus Date : 07-21-07 04:39 AM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D Can we get a standardization for the various editions so we can all be on the same page? I don't know if there's one listed somewhere. I think that OD&D is just ambiguous because of all the ways in which it is used. I like to refer to the Mentzer rules (or BECMI), the Moldvay/Cook rules (or B/X), or the Holmes edition, as such, when I want to refer to a specific one of those. I tend to refer to the original 1974 rules as "the original 1974 rules". Perhaps not the most elegant, but it avoids ambiguity. I think it would also be useful to have a term to refer to all of these collectively. OD&D is often used, but as I said, it's ambiguous because some people use it to only refer to the original 1974 rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : RobertFisher Date : 07-24-07 12:05 PM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D *That was something I'm not sure I ever understood. Why would a weapon do less damage against a smaller target? If anything, you'd think it would do more damage. Take a club to an elf. Now take that same club to a Hill Giant. Slightly different result. "Damage" in the game is a pretty abstract concept. It includes a component of physical harm, but there's more to it than that. Think of it more as an indication of how--all things considered--effective the weapon is. A weapon can be more effective against larger opponents. The greater "damage" against large opponents doesn't represent doing more actual physical trauma, just overall greater effectiveness. You can also rationalize it in a "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" fashion. e.g. An arrow that goes completely through a human's shoulder & out the back didn't do all the damage it could've. The same arrow hitting an ogre didn't make it all the way through & thus delivered more damage. A sword swing that cuts to the bone cuts through a lot more muscle on the ogre than on the human. I can buy the fact that clerics are fighter/magic-users... but the fact remains that at first-level, clerics have a lower hit-die and can only use a 1d6 damage weapon... which makes them inferior fighters with nothing to compensate for their shortcomings unless they are fighting undead. I tend to take a wider view. First level is a relatively short time. Sure, the fighters shine brightest in the early levels, but that shine is also the first to fade. More than that, I guess I tend to take a more co-operative view. I don't look at the party & try to rank myself within it. Instead, I tend to look for what I can bring to the party. I've seen first-level characters in a party of fifth & sixth level characters be a vital contributor. They choose to concentrate on what they could do rather than on how much inferior they were to the party. Besides, as you go farther back in editions, you find less & less mechanical differentiation between the classes at low level. A first-level Mentzer-era fighter with his slightly larger HD & slightly more damaging weapon really isn't significantly more effective in combat than his first-level cleric companion. Depending on how the dice fall, he's got a decent chance of being less effective. The thing about combat oriented spells is that they are usually general purpose and useful in any combat situation. On the other hand, non-combat spells are very specialized in their usefulness. Spellcasters can expect to encounter combat in practically any adventure, but they may never find a situation where they need to use Floating Disc or Purify Water. There is truth to that. In many of my games there are spells that casters only memorize once they know they need them. The party looks for the first opportunity to camp so they can. But the real issue to me is that I've never seen a player who primarily concentrates on how useful his spells are or how effective his weapon is really enjoy the game. That's part of it, but there is so much more. It's playing a part. It's being part of a group working together towards a common goal. It's making decisions & overcoming obstacles when neither sword nor sorcery apply. While the MU does still have some usefulness in combat, to me, that is strongly offset by how easy it is to die in the old 0hp=death ruleset. One swipe from almost any monster can take out a 1d4 hp MU. So, it seems foolish to ever put a MU into the midst of battle willingly. A first-level Mentzer era fighter has only 1d8 hp. Even with an 18 Con, that can mean only 4 hp. If you use the reroll 1s & 2s rule, then he could have a few as 6 hp. Take away his 18 Con & he might be down to 3. & there's nothing keeping the MU from having a high Con himself. A lucky MU might start with 7 hp. Now, look through the monsters. How many of them do only 1-4 damage? My experience is that first-level PCs in classic D&D are all roughly equally fragile once the dice start hitting the table, nitpicks about the minor differences aside. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Extempus Date : 07-24-07 09:16 PM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D When I said they were expected to prepare certain spells I didn't mean that they would be pressured by anyone (player or DM). Rather, I meant that they would only feel useful in the game if they prepared certain spells. If a MU decides to prepare Read Languages "just in case", and the party never comes across a need for that spell, the MU will feel like dead weight and unable to contribute as much as the other classes because his specialty (MU spells) becomes insignificant. I don't know why a wizard would "feel like dead weight" if they memorized a spell that didn't turn out to be useful, or that they are "unable to contribute as much as the other classes." Wizards are highly intelligent, and even though at 1st level they have only one spell they can use, once it's gone, that does not mean that they cannot further contribute anything. While fighters may be the brawn, wizards are the brains, and should be looked upon, not necessarily as the leaders of a party of adventurers, but certainly as an advisor at the very least. Intellect is a far more dangerous weapon than any spell can be (although spells do help). That being said, in my campaign, wizards are the ones who normally run the show, and they don't often cast spells of any sort. The main wizards are all over 18th level (mine is 23rd) and have access to very destructive spells, and often use them only as a last resort in large battles to take out massive numbers of enemy troops. When they're otherwise occupied (enchanting magic items etc), normally one of the fighters or archers takes command during an adventure (recently, we had a thief lead an adventure, and very successfully too). But, at low levels, wizards are hadly useless once they've cast all their spells... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : chatdemon Date : 07-31-07 06:05 PM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D Here are some of my gripes: 1) 1st-level clerics have no spells. This seems inexcusable. A player wants to be a healing support character, but they have to make a level before they can do it? They seem to have remedied this in 3.5e Actually, AD&D 1st edition "remedied" that. 2) Clerics in general are expected to prepare healing spells which seems to relegate most other spells to never being used 3) Similarly, magic users are expected to prepare standard offensive spells like magic missile or sleep This all depends on the campaign. If your game, as was assumed when the game was designed, is mostly focused on combat, then yes, those statements are true. If, otoh, you focus on other things in the campaign, giving the Magic Users and Clerics other roles, they are free to pick other spells. 4) Spell preparation in general - is there really any advantage to forcing the player to prepare certain spells? Why not just say you can cast 2 1st-level spells per day and choose them at casting time? It just seems unnecessarily cumbersome. All editions of the game use this concept. It's easily ignored, especially in Classic D&D ("OD&D") though, just let the spellcasters pick the spells as needed when they cast them. 5) Number of spells that can be cast at low levels - Fighters can always swing their sword in combat... but a 1st-level magic-user casts one Magic Missile spell and he's useless for the rest of the day! After casting his spell he becomes a liability to the party. I understand that magic-users start out weak, but they become practically worthless after that one spell. Unlike later editions of the game, which (unsuccessfully, IMO) try to balance every class at every level, the early editions assume big picture game balance. Magic Users are extremely weak at low levels because when they do reach high levels, they are utterly bad ass. It's the reward for being weak early on. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : casimps1 Date : 08-01-07 02:03 PM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D Unlike later editions of the game, which (unsuccessfully, IMO) try to balance every class at every level, the early editions assume big picture game balance. Magic Users are extremely weak at low levels because when they do reach high levels, they are utterly bad ass. It's the reward for being weak early on. Now that is an interesting way to look at it. I've honestly never played a really high-powered/high-level game (tended to favor the lower level campaigns and retire early), so maybe that's why the early weakness always seemed unfair to me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : caeruleus Date : 08-01-07 07:42 PM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D Now that is an interesting way to look at it. I've honestly never played a really high-powered/high-level game (tended to favor the lower level campaigns and retire early), so maybe that's why the early weakness always seemed unfair to me. And in that case, I'd say a more powerful low-level magic-user might be just what your campaigns need. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : chatdemon Date : 08-01-07 09:11 PM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D And in that case, I'd say a more powerful low-level magic-user might be just what your campaigns need. I agree, the basic/etc D&D game assumes a long term campaign stretching all levels. If your game doesn't follow that model, you might want to beef up the Magic Users (or, on the other hand, tone down the more powerful classes, mainly the elf). One method I've considered, but not playtested, is granting bonus spells to MUs and Clerics (but not elves) based on their INT or WIS, thusly: INT/WIS 13-15 1 bonus level INT/WIS 16-17 2 bonus levels INT/WIS 18 3 bonus levels The bonus levels correspond to spell levels, per day. So a MU with an INT of 15 gets one extra 1st level spell per day, while a Cleric with an 18 WIS gets either 3 1st level spells, one 1st and on 2nd level spell, or one 3rd level spell per day in addition to the normal allowed spells. The bonus spells must be of a level the character can normally cast, so a 2nd level MU with a 17 INT still cant cast 2nd level spells until he is allowed to do so by his class level. If you want to be extra nice, you can make an exception and allow 1st level clerics with a high WIS to use their bonus 1st level spells, even though they technically cant cast them yet. Also, you might consider adding cantrips and/or orisons (cleric cantrips) to the game. For ideas on this, check out this thread on the Grognard's Tavern Classic D&D forum: http://grognardstavern.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=bdnd&action=display&thread=1083219366 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Alcamtar Date : 10-04-07 01:23 AM Thread Title : Re: House rules for magic in OD&D 1) 1st-level clerics have no spells. This seems inexcusable. A player wants to be a healing support character, but they have to make a level before they can do it? Clerics are a powerful combination of fighter and spellcaster with few meaningful restrictions. I think of the classic cleric as being a "paladin" sort of character, not a priest.They get good hit points, good weapons and equipment, spells, and the ability to turn undead. I see 2nd level is the "real" first level, and 1st level is more like a "zero level" proving period in which the cleric has to "prove" his dedication and alignment and faith by adventuring without spells. Personally I really like the 1st level "proving period" and feel it adds a lot of flavor and interest to the class. If you don't like this, just assume 2nd level is the real first level, like this: Lev XP HD Spells 2 0 2d6 1 3 3,000 3d6 2 4 6,000 4d6 2/1 5 12,000 5d6 2/2 etc. Everything else is the same. This works fine and is not unbalanced. However like I said I really like the first level "proving period". What I do as DM is to allow clerics a WIS roll (1d20 <= WIS) once per day. If successful the cleric is granted a spell of the DM's choice, based on the DM's fore-knowledge. The cleric must then make the best of what he is given. Selfish use means a penalty to future WIS rolls. Upon reaching 2nd level, spells are granted automatically and the cleric gets to choose. 2) Clerics in general are expected to prepare healing spells which seems to relegate most other spells to never being used In question (1) you said the cleric wanted to play a healer/support character, but in question (2) he doesn't want to be a healer? Anyway clerics have a huge advantage that they do not need to memorize spells. That means they can "fill in" for magic-users; if the magic-user doesn't have detect magic or dispel magic, the cleric can take care of it... but he'll need a day to pray. This adds role-playing flavor. 3) Similarly, magic users are expected to prepare standard offensive spells like magic missile or sleep There are a lot of fun ways to play a magic-user. A magic user with Charm Person and Ventriloquism and decent Charisma is a very different character that can be a lot of fun to play. 4) Spell preparation in general - is there really any advantage to forcing the player to prepare certain spells? It helps game balance, not so much at lower levels but very important at higher levels. The difference between having one fireball and four fireballs cannot be overstated. A lot of spells can completely bypass plot challenges; this is cool from time to time, but not EVERY time. DMing is much easier if you can challenge the players. Also wizards are supposed to be SMART. If you're going after a white dragon, you load up on fire spells and protection from cold. Any decent wizard should try to research what he'll need and plan appropriately. 5) Number of spells that can be cast at low levels - Fighters can always swing their sword in combat... but a 1st-level magic-user casts one Magic Missile spell and he's useless for the rest of the day! After casting his spell he becomes a liability to the party. I understand that magic-users start out weak, but they become practically worthless after that one spell. Hardly a liability. Some useful things a magic-user can do: -- hold the lantern -- throw daggers -- toss flaming oil -- hold the horses so they don't run off (or the mule in the dungeon) -- direct the NPC men-at-arms (you *do* hire men-at-arms..?) -- read scrolls*,** -- use magic items** -- administer potions to the wounded -- gather treasure -- tie up captured enemies, or finish off the wounded -- search for secret doors -- solve a puzzle before time runs out -- command his war-dog*** -- parley with NPCs or monsters -- distract someone so the thief can get into position -- pretend to cast a spell and force the goblins to make a morale check *Scrolls and potions are fairly easy to make following the Expert rules, even for a 1st level wizard. **I sometimes give a magic user disposable magic such as a wand of magic missiles, or scrolls/potions as a gift when starting out. A wand is very powerful and can easily take down big monsters so you may want to limit the charges (or keep them hidden). ***Give the wizard a trained wolf or dog or he play when not casting spells. It doubles as a bodyguard. I've run numerous adventures with a lone 1st level wizard and only one spell. There is always plenty to do (and the DM can compensate as needed.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:22 AM.