PDA

View Full Version : [1/2E] First level uselessness



Ethdred
2008-09-19, 05:19 AM
Just reading the My Experiences with 4E thread, and the discussion came up about how in previous editions clerics were heal bots and mages couldn't do anything after they threw their one spell. There was debate about whether this was true or not, but it mainly concentrated on the third of these 'myths': that melee combat was just 'I hit it with my weapon'. So, rather than re-de-rail that much de-railed thread, I thought I'd start another one and ask the question - for 1st and 2nd editions only - how did you make the mage and cleric experience more interesting? After all, a mage at 1st level did just have the one spell (usually Sleep), and once he cast that he had to resort to sniping with his darts, or hoping he got lucky in melee. And higher levels weren't much more interesting for quite some time. Remember, this was back in the days when even Read or Detect Magic were 1st level spells, so if you wanted to check the treasure, you had to wait until the next day, and burn your only spell of the day. Similarly, clerics could decide not to take Cure Light Wounds, but the party would have no other access to healing so they probably wouldn't be very popular. Of course, when they got 2nd and 3rd level spells, there were no healing options so they had to take something else, but equally there wasn't much combat-related they could take. I always thought that the increase in spell choice was one of the best changes 3E brought about (even if it did lead to other problems, but let's not go there).

Matthew
2008-09-19, 05:31 AM
At first level, clerics are almost the equals of fighters in terms of combat ability. In terms of drawbacks, they lack an effective ranged weapon (depending on edition and what optional rules are in play), they use 1d8 rather than 1d10 for hit dice, and they cannot access the higher benefits of strength and constitution. However, they have better saving throws and access to spells. Typical examples follow:



Aldros (Level One Human Fighter) Alignment Lawful Neutral
Strength 16, Dexterity 13, Constitution 12, Intelligence 12, Wisdom 11, Charisma 13,
Movement 90 ft, Armour Class 4, Hit Points 10,
Saving Throws: 16/17/14/15/17
Possessions: Helmet, Mail Armour, Long Spear (1d6+1), Large Shield, Long Sword (1d8+1), Dagger (1d4+1),

Thagos (Level One Human Cleric) Alignment Neutral Good
Strength 14, Dexterity 10, Constitution 15, Intelligence 12, Wisdom 15, Charisma 13,
Movement 90 ft, Armour Class 4, Hit Points 9,
Saving Throws: 14/16/10/13/15
Possessions: Helmet, Mail Armour, Large Shield, Heavy Mace (1d6+1), Holy Symbol,
Spells: Bless (1), Cure Light Wounds (2),


Magicians are not much for combat contribution; if all your doing is fighting stuff, the player is probably going to be bored out of his mind, but at least he can run away faster than everybody else... On the other hand, they can be expected to have a greater knowledge of languages than other party members and should be able to provide lots of information on anything magical that is encountered (depending on the game master). Certainly, they are as useful as anybody else during the exploration and roleplaying phases of the game.

There are a bunch of optional rules for 2e that might be in play to make magicians more combat effective, or whatever (and in 1e a bunch of cantrips). The alternative is to just give them a wand of magic missiles... :smallbiggrin:

Kami2awa
2008-09-19, 05:34 AM
Technically it was true, though there were quite a few published houserules to avoid it (mostly using 'Mana points' of some kind to give spells a cost). L1 Clerics were pretty good warriors once their spell was cast, but mages generally weren't (though an elven mage could be a pretty good support archer with their bow proficiencies). A lot of people started their campaign at level ~3 to avoid this.

Furthermore, casting was difficult; if you got hit while preparing the spell, the spell fizzled and you lost it as if it had been cast. Some spells took several rounds to cast so casters HAD to have some kind of protection against melee Usually this meant bodyguards, but one nasty encounter in a published adventure had an illusionist throwing spells from behind an invisible wall of glass. The need for bodyguards meant that fighters were essential for spellcasters, and they were always in a supporting role, so the martial classes were a lot more important.

However, I agree that wizards were too weak at low level, and they still overtook fighters at high level; but reaching high levels was rare (a high level NPC mage was the equivalent of a 'Keep Out!' sign for PCs).

bosssmiley
2008-09-19, 05:39 AM
question - for 1st and 2nd editions only - how did you make the mage and cleric experience more interesting?

1E - characterisation and clever use of equipment + wizard cantrips if you use the original "Unearthed Arcana"
2E - kits. It really is that simple. :smallwink:

Challenge the player's ingenuity, rather than the character's class abilities.

nagora
2008-09-19, 05:43 AM
It's not as big a deal with clerics as they get bonus spells for high wisdom, and post-UA magic users can use cantrips which aer fun for a creative player. But, the other thing is that the MU's 1st level spell can be regained after 4.25 hrs of rest, so three spells in one day is perfectly possible in certain types of scenarios. My current group is based in a village and the sessions are based around that, so by and large they can rest up fairly easily (at least until the kobolds arrive, he he).

Starting the magic user with some scrolls as a "graduation gift" from their mentor is a popular way to get them up and running too.

But, wits and creativety have carried many a 1e magic user through 1st level.

Grey Paladin
2008-09-19, 05:51 AM
Fighters are as interesting as the GM lets them be- the less you improvise and stick to the rules as written, treating them as a system instead of a toolbox, the more bland this class becomes.

Clerics are just Fighters with more options.

As to Mages, my 2E party has always played with this optional rule: You can prepare spells at any time by spending [Spell level]! minutes or [Spell level]*5 minutes on preparation, whichever is higher.

This both greatly strengthens the Mage early in his career and later on makes him think twice before casting spells above 4th level.

For obvious reasons, we introduced a save to sleep (and its kin) and used the average or the random roll for HP (for both PCs and monsters), whichever was higher.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-19, 06:05 AM
The point that some people appear to be missing is that, at least in earlier editions, low-level gameplay was not supposed to be about combat as much. No, a party of four 1st-level adventurers probably can't defeat an orc warband - that's why they talk, barter, hide, run away, or plan something involving the local villagers.

Simply put, at level one you're not a hero yet. You've got the potential, but not yet the power.

Note that "their one spell" is false anyway, since wizards tend to specialize and clerics tend to get bonus spells from slightly-above-average wisdom. Note also that the first-level wizard has pretty much the same chance-to-hit with a quarterstaff as the fighter or cleric (barring the fighter's strength bonus) and that while the wiz has less hit points, a solid blow can drop the fighter just as easily. Skill levels diverge much farther later on in play.

nagora
2008-09-19, 06:11 AM
Simply put, at level one you're not a hero yet.
Yes, that's fourth level!


Note that "their one spell" is false anyway, since wizards tend to specialize
That's 2e.


and clerics tend to get bonus spells from slightly-above-average wisdom. Note also that the first-level wizard has pretty much the same chance-to-hit with a quarterstaff as the fighter or cleric (barring the fighter's strength bonus) and that while the wiz has less hit points, a solid blow can drop the fighter just as easily. Skill levels diverge much farther later on in play.
Yes, a 1st lv magic user is only -1 to hit compared to the fighter. Lot less HPs and probably a crap AC, though.

Matthew
2008-09-19, 06:33 AM
That's 2e.

Yes, a 1st lv magic user is only -1 to hit compared to the fighter. Lot less HPs and probably a crap AC, though.

Aye there is a bit of variation between the 1e magic user and the 2e mage in terms of starting combat power; the 2e armour spell is also more powerful than the 1e version, which makes a fair difference:

Magic User AC 8; MV 120'; HD 1; hp 1-4; THAC0 21; AT 1; D 1-6 or 1-4
Mage AC 6; MV 120'; HD 1; hp 1-4; THAC0 20; AT 1; D 1-6 or 1-4

RebelRogue
2008-09-19, 06:51 AM
While not strictly what you asked for, in OD&D (The Basic, Expert etc. edition) I had an affinity for playing Magic-Users (even at first level), and in retrospect I fail to see what appealed to me: one spell a day (if you were a magic-user, at least you had a few options compared to the elf, but usually you ended up memorizing that good ol' Sleep spell anyway) and your only other combat options were running away and attacking with your dagger! Somehow, I still loved it back then...

Come to think of it, I actually once DMed a first level party, and the dude playing the MU was really careful about not letting his memorized Sleep go to waste. "Is now a good time?", he'd ask the fighter types. "Nah, we can handle it". It was a rather large dungeon (the "Rahasia" module if anyone remembers it) and the party went way further than I expected them in that one day. So finally the party faces something that seems dangerous enough to make the casting of his spell worthwhile: a minotaur. So he fianlly casts it... only to discover that the minotaur had too many HD for the spell to have any effect at all. Poor guy! In retrospect I should probably have given him an Int roll, but I wasn't that experienced as a DM back then. I still remember feeling a lot of sympathy for him (maybe because I usually played Magic-Users myself, as noted).

erikun
2008-09-19, 09:04 AM
Didn't magic users get bonus spells for high Int also? It's been awhile since I played 2nd AD&D.

Anyways, yes. Wizards aren thieves were mostly uses once combat started, as they just plinked stuff with crossbows. Well, a thief could technically re-hide and stab someone again, but I don't think I ever saw that successfully pulled off. Clerics, with their low AC, could take hits and hit back as well as a fighter, at least at low levels.

Also, clerics were awesome in 2nd ed. Spiritual Hammer was actually a good spell, and Create Food and Water meant no more worrying about rations or scavenging. Heck, the only thing they had problems with was traps. (Which was why the cleric/thief was so nice, if you could survive long enough to get into level 2/2.)

ken-do-nim
2008-09-19, 09:12 AM
As Nagora said, clerics (and druids) get bonus spells starting at only a 13 in wisdom, so they usually have 3 spells per day a piece.

To balance this out, I give magic-users and illusionists bonus spells based on int as follows:
15 int - bonus 1st level spell
16 int - bonus 2nd level spell [when 2nd level spells are reached]
17 int - bonus 3rd level spell
18 int - bonus 4th level spell

So a 1st level m-u with high int has 2 spells instead of 1, and that makes a big difference. A 3rd level m-u with high int has 5 spells instead of 3.

Also multi-classing m-u's tend to have a lower int than single-classed ones, so this gives a little boost to single-classers and a reason to do so.

So far this has worked out great.

Matthew
2008-09-19, 09:13 AM
Didn't magic users get bonus spells for high Int also? It's been awhile since I played 2nd AD&D.

No, but by all accounts a lot of people house rule that they do (including me).



Anyways, yes. Wizards aren thieves were mostly uses once combat started, as they just plinked stuff with crossbows. Well, a thief could technically re-hide and stab someone again, but I don't think I ever saw that successfully pulled off. Clerics, with their low AC, could take hits and hit back as well as a fighter, at least at low levels.

Thieves are not that bad in melee at low levels, especially if the magician has cast armour on them and they have a high dexterity or spent a weapon proficiency on two weapon fighting. Better to stand off with a short bow, though.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-19, 09:19 AM
Thieves are not that bad in melee at low levels, especially if the magician has cast armour on them and they have a high dexterity or spent a weapon proficiency on two weapon fighting. Better to stand off with a short bow, though.

Thieves rock at 1st level. They usually have one of the best armor classes in the group because of their dex bonus, and the fighters don't have the best armor money can buy yet. They two-weapon fight, they shoot bows (assuming you use UA or 2E), they backstab, they climb walls to get into good position to shoot, what's not to love?

I'm a big AD&D thief fan. Great class. Actually I love just about all of them, come to think of it :)

Thane of Fife
2008-09-19, 09:32 AM
the fighters don't have the best armor money can buy yet

Eh, I don't know about that. Splint Mail's fairly easily affordable at level 1, so long as you don't want a bow, and it's tough for a thief to compete with AC 4, or better if the fighter has a Dex bonus of his own.

LibraryOgre
2008-09-19, 09:42 AM
Wizards could get interesting, even at low levels. First of all, darts were really a trap for a low-level wizard. Daggers gave you almost the same RoF, and you had the option of wielding one in melee if you got cornered; my wizards never went into melee if they could help it. Secondly, because they had a very high intelligence, they usually had more NWPs than other people, meaning they could cover a wider range of non-combat situations. If you were using Spells and Magic's point system, wizards also had several castings of Cantrip... there were a great Dragon articles on cantrips... one which made them a proficiency (calling it "The Little Wish"), and another which went into some alternate uses for it. Depending on the flexibility of your DM, Cantrip was an hour of spellcasting.... and the Armor spell was a godsend, since it could be pre-cast.

Anyone who says that low-level clerics aren't worth it has obviously never played the game. Sure, you were more limited in spells you could choose, but you were a stout combatant, certainly as a second-ranker. Warhammer and sling... fast, good damage, and ok range.

nagora
2008-09-19, 10:02 AM
As Nagora said, clerics (and druids) get bonus spells starting at only a 13 in wisdom, so they usually have 3 spells per day a piece.

To balance this out, I give magic-users and illusionists bonus spells based on int as follows:
The problem with that is that 3rd+ level magic users really don't need any help, IMO. Bonus spells keep on helping, so I dislike them. I'm much more amenable to the "graduation scroll" for the simple reason that it eventually stops giving.

RebelRogue
2008-09-19, 10:06 AM
I'm much more amenable to the "graduation scroll" for the simple reason that it eventually stops giving.
That sounds like a pretty good way to make the first level tolerable, actually!

RagnaroksChosen
2008-09-19, 10:08 AM
1st of all I've only played in one game where any PC was just a single class.
2nd of all i believe both Mage's and priests gained bonus spells from wisdom. Which to me makes sense.
3rd clerics could still hold there own in 2nd. not sure about first as i've never played. As far as mages go I'm not 100% sure. But I've seen some be very powerful in both Combat and out of combat encounters. Don't forget the styles of play from before where a bit different. If you run 2nd ed like you do your third ed games players are gonna die and bad things will happen.. thats my opinion though.

LibraryOgre
2008-09-19, 10:21 AM
The problem with that is that 3rd+ level magic users really don't need any help, IMO. Bonus spells keep on helping, so I dislike them. I'm much more amenable to the "graduation scroll" for the simple reason that it eventually stops giving.

One thing I did adopt from 3e in my Advanced games is that making a scroll is a 1st level ability, not a 7th level ability. It's a money sink, which is useful, since I don't use training rules.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-19, 10:25 AM
2nd of all i believe both Mage's and priests gained bonus spells from wisdom. Which to me makes sense.

Eh? No way - only priests (i.e. clerics and druids) got bonus spells for Wisdom in AD&D 2E (which I take it you played).

ken-do-nim
2008-09-19, 10:33 AM
The problem with that is that 3rd+ level magic users really don't need any help, IMO. Bonus spells keep on helping, so I dislike them. I'm much more amenable to the "graduation scroll" for the simple reason that it eventually stops giving.

Actually, they kinda do. 3 spells is not that much, especially since they often haven't picked up a wand yet. Of course in the world of 4d6 ability score rolling, not all magic-users will have a 16 int to even get that bonus 2nd level spell.

Considering that many DMs simply use the cleric bonus spell chart for magic-users, I thought my trimmed down chart was a nice compromise.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-09-19, 10:33 AM
Eh? No way - only priests (i.e. clerics and druids) got bonus spells for Wisdom in AD&D 2E (which I take it you played).

Yep in right now 2ed black books... I play a forest gnome fighter/cleric.
Says spell casters, not just priests... I don't have the books in front of me but I'm pritty sure. I could swear that our Mage/priest has gotten bonus spells, for both...

Thane of Fife
2008-09-19, 10:41 AM
Says spell casters, not just priests... I don't have the books in front of me but I'm pritty sure. I could swear that our Mage/priest has gotten bonus spells, for both...

2e PHB says:


Bonus Spells indicates the number of additional spells a priest (and only a priest) is entitled to because of his extreme Wisdom.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-09-19, 10:47 AM
2e PHB says:

Which 2e book is that. You do know there where multiple printings correct? there was 1st edition which i can't remeber the color of the cover then there was 2ed then there was 2ed that was reprinted... there where slight rules changes to each of the books. I've seen all three there pritty cool.

One of my GM's is a collector thats why I ask which book your reading that out of.

Thane of Fife
2008-09-19, 10:53 AM
Well it's definately not the 1st edition one.

As far as I can tell, it's the original 2nd edition player's handbook - it's kind of brownish, with two guys on horses on the cover.

I take that back - there's a third guy in the background.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-09-19, 10:55 AM
Well it's definately not the 1st edition one.

As far as I can tell, it's the original 2nd edition player's handbook - it's kind of brownish, with two guys on horses on the cover.

I take that back - there's a third guy in the background.

ya thats secound edition part 1... there was another book the book is Black and the cover i believe has a guy (rediculously buff) breaking down a door.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-19, 11:01 AM
The black cover would be the second printing book, which I have, which is quite clear that only priests get bonus spells for Wisdom. The 2nd ed. rules did not change between printings (although I suppose some things were clarified), and your group is doing it wrong, by the sound of it.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-19, 11:10 AM
Magicians are not much for combat contribution; if all your doing is fighting stuff, the player is probably going to be bored out of his mind, but at least he can run away faster than everybody else... On the other hand, they can be expected to have a greater knowledge of languages than other party members and should be able to provide lots of information on anything magical that is encountered (depending on the game master).

To be fair, this issue is a very large part of the reason I never played much of the pre 3.x editions of the game. The one time that stands out in my memory of trying it was in a game where I was a first level wizard added to a 4th or 5th level party, had one spell, one dagger, and the game was pretty much entirely combat so the RP stuff never came into play. It was frustrating beyond belief.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-19, 11:53 AM
The one time that stands out in my memory of trying it was in a game where I was a first level wizard added to a 4th or 5th level party
Yeah, well, you shouldn't do that in any edition of D&D.

At any rate, those who were bothered by this perceived usefulness were free to start their campaigns at, say, level 3 (so you get 5 spells per day, that's not too shabby). It all depends on how much combat you expect in your game. In 4E you are expected to be able to handle four "level-appropriate encounters", i.e. groups of probably more enemies than you, per day; in 2E, that's not how things worked. Different expectations, different games.

(besides, try fighting four combats per day in Vampire, or Call of Ctulhu, or Paranoia, and watch how fast you'll drop...)

Matthew
2008-09-19, 03:41 PM
ya thats secound edition part 1... there was another book the book is Black and the cover i believe has a guy (rediculously buff) breaking down a door.

You won't find wisdom (or indeed intelligence) governing additional magician spell slots in any edition or printing of AD&D. You may find something to that effect in one of the optional supplements, I think Spells & Magic discusses the possibility in relation to several different variant magic systems.



The 2nd ed. rules did not change between printings (although I suppose some things were clarified), and your group is doing it wrong, by the sound of it.

Well, you can't really "do it wrong" with AD&D 2e, but it is correct to say that very little errata was issued between printings. :smallwink:



To be fair, this issue is a very large part of the reason I never played much of the pre 3.x editions of the game. The one time that stands out in my memory of trying it was in a game where I was a first level wizard added to a 4th or 5th level party, had one spell, one dagger, and the game was pretty much entirely combat so the RP stuff never came into play. It was frustrating beyond belief.

I am not sure how really different it is in D20/3e, even with the addition of a few more spells and a sword you're still pretty glass cannonish. In fact, by way of anecdote, we once had a guy join our AD&D group of fourth to fifth level characters as a level one illusionist. Everybody who had joined had started at level one and earned their levels (even late on in the game), so it seemed only fair. This illusionist had an intelligence of 18, and I was using a house rule where he had four first level spells (basically a free floating additional three spell slots) and the guy still had a bad time of it to start off with.

I don't, however, think this was a result of the low power level of his character, especially since the first two or three sessions contained almost no combat at all (he confessed later he would probably have walked on account of the lack of combat and dungeons if we weren't such a friendly group). He was also the only guy to join who fielded the question "Why aren't you playing D20/3e?"

My feeling is that a number of factors were at play here.

1) The campaign had been underway for some time, meaning the other players were famliar with the setting, plot, and one another.

2) The new player's preferences probably were not best met with game with infrequent combat.

3) He didn't seem too interested in the roleplaying part of the game.

None of the above are criticisms, and there are certainly ways in which I could have done more to integrate him into the game in retrospect. I don't think if I had started him off at level five, though, it would have made very much difference to these issues.

horseboy
2008-09-19, 07:18 PM
You know, I can't remember ever playing a first level caster in AD&D. With the exception of the very first campaign, I can't remember one that didn't start in the 3-6 area.

Kantur
2008-09-19, 07:46 PM
(besides, try fighting four combats in Call of Ctulhu and watch how fast you'll drop...)

I have the odd feeling that's more accurate...:smalltongue:

DeathQuaker
2008-09-19, 08:55 PM
In somewhat repeating what other people said: the adventure should not be just combat (true of any version of D&D). In fact, though I honestly like the beefing up of first level characters in 4E, it seems to make it encourage to have most challenges be combat. There's other kinds of challenges and problem solving to be had, and a Wise Cleric and an Intelligent Mage should definitely be helping out with those a lot (whether you're talking mechanically making die rolls or roleplaying wise).

Though I have to say, honestly, most of my 2e GMs just had us start the campaign at higher levels... but this honestly because it wasn't one-spell wonder issues, but more that an unlucky die roll could instantly kill you (especially indeed if you were a d4 HD mage... you didn't max your first level hit die in older editions). Annoying to keep having to reroll a character right out of the gate.

The "healbot cleric" thing is as mythy now as it was (and oddly, in 4E what are they crazily good at? Healing). Clerics have always been competent meleers. The "healbot" thing largely comes not from the fact that is the only thing they could do, but rather that they were one of few classes that *had* healing abilities, so they were viewed as the party band-aid box (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0006.html).

Now yeah, there is the issue that there was no spontaneous casting in older eds, so if you WERE indeed the party bandaid, you had to occupy a lot of prepared spell slots with Cure spells and the like, but I recall playing a 2E cleric and never having that bother me that much. 'Specially since once that character converted to 3.x she was just converting lots of other spells into Cure spells instead.... :smallsigh:

Chronos
2008-09-19, 09:16 PM
Back when I played 2e, the usual solution was to either start at higher levels, or to multiclass. There's a reason the mage/thief was so popular: Even after you used up your spell, you still had nifty things you could do.

But yes, running out of spells was definitely a real issue. Even once you got a few levels on you and had enough, you still had to make a conscious effort to conserve them. I like that being part of the system, but I've never been very good at managing limited resources, which is part of the reason I like thieves so much.

Another point is that I think that it's an essential feature of the game, that characters should suck at first level. When you get up to high levels and start turning the tide against the massive goblin army, you really appreciate it a lot more if you remember back to the days when you had to run away from three or four goblins.

SeeKay
2008-09-19, 09:47 PM
This takes me back....

In 1st and 2nd ed, I can't remember when we started at 1st level where someone didn't multi-class the MU. Usually we started at 2nd or 3rd level. If someone did go with a straight MU, they usually bought a lot of daggers (dirt cheap and MU's got a lot of "extra" starting cash) and after their Magic Missile or Sleep spell, just shot off daggers.

Thane of Fife
2008-09-19, 10:40 PM
I like to give mages decent familiars at low levels - not imps or pseudodragons or anything ungodly, but something more powerful than a normal rat. Controlling it can give them something to do while they conserve their spell, and I don't have to worry about it scaling up in power.

Diamondeye
2008-09-20, 09:39 AM
I used to just let mages/magic-users use the Cleric bonus spell by wisom table, but base it on intelligence instead.

I also remember almost every mage being a mage/thief, fighter/mage, or fighter/mage/thief, and that we rarely started at 1st level anyhow since we generally didn't have new players. We generally started at 5001 EXP; enough that magic-users/mages were 3rd level. I suppose if you were a 1E barbarian you would have had to just suck it up, but I don't recall anyone playing one.

only1doug
2008-09-20, 09:58 AM
The "healbot cleric" thing is as mythy now as it was (and oddly, in 4E what are they crazily good at? Healing). Clerics have always been competent meleers. The "healbot" thing largely comes not from the fact that is the only thing they could do, but rather that they were one of few classes that *had* healing abilities, so they were viewed as the party band-aid box (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0006.html).

Now yeah, there is the issue that there was no spontaneous casting in older eds, so if you WERE indeed the party bandaid, you had to occupy a lot of prepared spell slots with Cure spells and the like, but I recall playing a 2E cleric and never having that bother me that much. 'Specially since once that character converted to 3.x she was just converting lots of other spells into Cure spells instead.... :smallsigh:

I never really heard the Healbot thing until i played EQ and i'd been playing a cleric in DnD for several years before that.

IN EQ healbot was literal, playing a cleric was a dull process of heal, rest, heal, rest which caused many players of clerics to choose something more interesting. this resulted in people lending their account details to trusted guild members and when you couldn't find a healer for your group someone would log a healbot in by two-boxing a cleric from someone else's account as well as their normal character.

Project_Mayhem
2008-09-20, 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
(besides, try fighting four combats in Call of Ctulhu and watch how fast you'll drop...)

I have the odd feeling that's more accurate...

I was going to say, the best Cthulhu campaign I've ever seen has about 2 compulsory fights in the whole thing

nagora
2008-09-20, 11:47 AM
Though I have to say, honestly, most of my 2e GMs just had us start the campaign at higher levels... but this honestly because it wasn't one-spell wonder issues, but more that an unlucky die roll could instantly kill you (especially indeed if you were a d4 HD mage... you didn't max your first level hit die in older editions). Annoying to keep having to reroll a character right out of the gate.

Well, two things (maybe three-let's see how we get on): firstly, the idea that a good slash with a longsword will end your life is reasonable and leads to a fairly realistic attitude to fights, and secondly that slow crawl up from being wary of four bandits to being the Magnificent Seven is very satisfying when you pull it off. And thirdly (I knew it!), UA canonised the "HP must be at least average" rule that a lot of people had houseruled anyway. A post-UA magic user with a familiar thus has a reasonable chance of 7+ HP; with a Con bonus, double figures is not out of the question for a first level magic user if s/he is prepared to take the risk of a familiar (an option I usually allow rather than requiring a roll on the "Misc spells" table for starting spells).

Charity
2008-09-20, 12:18 PM
My 1e DM's were a lot more hardarsecore than you guys, i have had many a character ruined by a sucky HP roll at 1st level.

nagora
2008-09-20, 12:23 PM
My 1e DM's were a lot more hardarsecore than you guys, i have had many a character ruined by a sucky HP roll at 1st level.
Well, I think I've cultured an image hereabouts of being a very laid-back and forgiving kind of guy, so it should be no surprise that I go so easy on my players.:smallbiggrin:

There's no point in just re-rolling characters over and over again; 1st level should be a fair but difficult period and if the player still gets unlucky or makes a stupid mistake then they shouldn't feel that it's because the DM was being a git.

only1doug
2008-09-20, 12:43 PM
My 1e DM's were a lot more hardarsecore than you guys, i have had many a character ruined by a sucky HP roll at 1st level.

One of the best features of 3xx is max hps at L1, the other is BAB+attack roll Vs AC (instead of Thac0).

Matthew
2008-09-20, 04:05 PM
My 1e DM's were a lot more hardarsecore than you guys, i have had many a character ruined by a sucky HP roll at 1st level.

I think we only ever did that in our first few games of basic. I know the CFHB recommends full hit points for Warriors, but I don't recall where we got the idea to apply it across the board; most likely a Dragon magazine.



One of the best features of 3xx is max hps at L1, the other is BAB+attack roll Vs AC (instead of Thac0).

Yes, both of those were quite common house rules as well. I am not a huge fan of AB+1D20 versus AC, but I can definitely see the sense in it.

Diamondeye
2008-09-20, 04:26 PM
I never understood why people thought THAC0 was hard. Counterintuitive yes, hard no.

There was a way to make it somewhat less counterintuitive too. You had people add up all their bonuses to hit and add them to the D20 roll, rather than use them to reduce the THAC0. Then you just subtracted the AC from the THACO. This way, attack bonuses were additions, not reductions.

As long as the person understood that subtracting a negative caused a positive result (necessary for negative AC) you never had a problem.

nagora
2008-09-20, 04:35 PM
There was a way to make it somewhat less counterintuitive too. You had people add up all their bonuses to hit and add them to the D20 roll, rather than use them to reduce the THAC0. Then you just subtracted the AC from the THACO. This way, attack bonuses were additions, not reductions.
People hate subtracting - that's one of the more universal things I've learnt about people from gaming.

As Matt pointed out on another thread, though, you can add the target's AC to your roll too. If the result is equalt to or greater than your THAC0 then you've hit. However, that requires the DM to tell you the AC.

In the long run, I think just looking the target value up on the inside of the DM's screen was better than THAC0 for most people.

Chronos
2008-09-20, 04:58 PM
I never understood why people thought THAC0 was hard. Counterintuitive yes, hard no.It's not all that hard, on the grand scale of things. Still, it's harder than BAB, and achieves exactly the same mechanical result. So once it occurs to you to use the BAB system, there's really no reason not to.

Actually, I'd extend this to 3e's system of "higher rolls are always better", in general. My old d20 is strongly biased against rolling natural 20s (it's only done it six times, four of which were in the statistical trials of about a thousand rolls I ran to see just how biased it was), and I still remember how excited I was the first time it actually rolled a natural 20 in a game... Until I realized that the roll I was making was a proficiency check, and that I had just botched it.

nagora
2008-09-20, 05:30 PM
Actually, I'd extend this to 3e's system of "higher rolls are always better", in general.
That makes d100 rolls quite hard to work with, though. Different horses for different courses is fine in that case, I think.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-20, 06:10 PM
I never understood why people thought THAC0 was hard. Counterintuitive yes, hard no.

People have a tendency of overexaggerating their nitpicks. People in general are apt to say that [something bad] happens "all the time" when in fact they mean "just twice, ever, but it really annoyed me".

That said, THAC0 was unnecessary complexity.

kjones
2008-09-20, 06:43 PM
Actually, I'd extend this to 3e's system of "higher rolls are always better", in general.

This. I can't tell you how often new players would ask me, "Do I want to roll high or low on this?", or get really excited about a natural 20 on a Strength check. "Always roll high" makes so much more sense, it's not even funny.

That being said, there was something viscerally delightful about having a -10 AC... seems so much more untouchable in the grand scheme of things than AC 30, even though they're mechanically identical.

Knaight
2008-09-20, 06:49 PM
Probably because its maxed out. The whole maximum(or in that case minimum) thing has a nice feel to it. "I have the best AC possible in this game, now take a swing at me" just sounds better than "AC 30 biyotch(which itself sounds better extended)".

nagora
2008-09-20, 06:57 PM
Probably because its maxed out.
Actually, I don't think there's a rule anywhere in 1e to say that -10 is maxed-out. In fact, I think there's a note somewhere about how to extend the table onwards if you need to.

Knaight
2008-09-20, 07:00 PM
Maybe that was 2e. They blur together, since I haven't played either of them that much, and don't particularly like them. Actually, now that I think about it all the games that I do like are classless games, that don't use battle maps, and have wound systems that aren't hit points, so that probably explains that one.

nagora
2008-09-20, 07:10 PM
Maybe that was 2e. They blur together, since I haven't played either of them that much, and don't particularly like them. Actually, now that I think about it all the games that I do like are classless games, that don't use battle maps, and have wound systems that aren't hit points, so that probably explains that one.
Yes, I have to say I often wonder what you're doing around here :smallsmile:

I've never understood the attraction of non-hp systems, and as I've gotten older I've become less and less convinced of the wisdom a detailed skill system. I think that, given the right classes, almost any genre of setting is better done with the combination of a class system and lose mechanics.

Knaight
2008-09-20, 07:25 PM
In many cases it makes it so easy to have wound penalties and such, as for a detailed skill system I like a loose and easy to use skill system, which includes combat skills. Its so much more versatile in my opinion. I agree with you on loose mechanics(don't like lose mechanics so much though :smallwink:), but not classes. Basically humans can only perceive so many differences any ways, and seeing as there is no way we could tell the difference between a 80 and 81 in a percentile system in real life without exhaustive testing, and that doesn't fit well with the time scheme of role playing games, I just don't see the point. This is precisely why fudge is my favorite system. Seven named levels for skills and attributes is just so convenient.

And as for why I'm around here, I like order of the stick, and talking about games and such, including games I wouldn't want to necessarily play. And since there are a huge amount of really annoying people on the Wotc forum, many of which don't even know that there are tabletop games other than D&D, and others who happily insult the intelligence of everyone who likes rules light systems because they like 3e, or insult the creativity of everyone who likes rules heavy systems because they like 4e, so I left that forum.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-20, 08:28 PM
Probably because its maxed out. The whole maximum(or in that case minimum) thing has a nice feel to it. "I have the best AC possible in this game, now take a swing at me" just sounds better than "AC 30 biyotch(which itself sounds better extended)".

I thought I was the only one who felt that way. AC -10 does sound more intimidating than AC 30. I think it is because there are few beings in the printed D&D books who go beyond it (I think there's one god in Deities & Demigods with -12), whereas AC 30 is eclipsed by many monsters in 3E.

Diamondeye
2008-09-20, 08:39 PM
People hate subtracting - that's one of the more universal things I've learnt about people from gaming.

As Matt pointed out on another thread, though, you can add the target's AC to your roll too. If the result is equalt to or greater than your THAC0 then you've hit. However, that requires the DM to tell you the AC.

In the long run, I think just looking the target value up on the inside of the DM's screen was better than THAC0 for most people.

Well, the other way to solve it, if you didn't want to tell them the AC, was to do the subtracting or adding of the AC yourself.

The reason I didn't use adding the AC to the attack roll was negative ACs. Invariably you ran into confusion because one person would talk about "adding the negative number" and someone else would say "just subtract it." (I remember this add a negative vs. subtract terminology causing no end of repeated explainations by my 9th grade algebra teacher too). Anyhow, you'd inevitably run into someone who would subtract the negative AC, thereby getting a positive, and hitting when he should ahve missed. I saw this in two one-shot adventures I played during my freshman year of college, and it wasn't long after that I came up with the idea I described above.

THAC0 is definitely more complex than 3.X's system, but I kind of liked it. I thought it was a good evolutionary improvement over the Wall Of Tables in the 1E DMG.

Knaight
2008-09-20, 08:48 PM
Agreed, although I like BAB better. Its not an aversion to subtraction, we have that every attack roll in Fudge, admittedly with small numbers most of the time, as big numbers mean that your hugely outclassed, but its a matter of muddy writing between adding the negative and subtracting and such. The base concept isn't difficult, it was just poorly explained. Its like trying to learn science from a teacher who is explaining simple science with a lot of examples that don't fit well and just make things more complicated(granted, it was 7th grade so I already knew all of it, but I could tell that the explanations made no sense).

Chronos
2008-09-20, 09:10 PM
That makes d100 rolls quite hard to work with, though. Different horses for different courses is fine in that case, I think.I don't think d100 is really used in 3.x any more, though, aside from tables. Well, OK, there are a lot of things that are listed as 50%, or whatever, but nobody ever actually rolls a d100 for those; they just flip a coin.


I thought I was the only one who felt that way. AC -10 does sound more intimidating than AC 30. I think it is because there are few beings in the printed D&D books who go beyond it (I think there's one god in Deities & Demigods with -12), whereas AC 30 is eclipsed by many monsters in 3E.In the core rules, great wyrm gold dragons got to -12, and reds and silvers reached -11. You could also turn a dragonhide into an armor four points worse than the dragon's AC, so gold great wyrmhide armor would get you to -8, all by itself. Then you enchant it to +5, for a -13. Then you toss in a +5 shield, for -19. Then you add a dex bonus, and Barkskin, and whatever all else you could. And then you ignore the bit in the rules that explicitly says that -10 is the best possible, since hey, the dragon started it.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-21, 03:00 AM
Then you add a dex bonus, and Barkskin, and whatever all else you could. And then you ignore the bit in the rules that explicitly says that -10 is the best possible, since hey, the dragon started it.

Alternatively, use a couple dozen of dusty rose ioun stones, since IIRC 2E didn't specify stacking limits for those :smallbiggrin:

horseboy
2008-09-21, 02:47 PM
Alternatively, use a couple dozen of dusty rose ioun stones, since IIRC 2E didn't specify stacking limits for those :smallbiggrin:Don't forget your rings and cloak of protection for another -15 and getting the added benefit of never failing a save. :smallwink:

Matthew
2008-09-21, 03:12 PM
Better look after those Ioun Stones, as they are targetable (AC −4) and vulnerable (HP 10). As for Bark Skin: "This spell does not function in combination with normal armor or any magical protection." Rings and cloaks work together, but rarely with anything else.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-21, 03:36 PM
Better look after those Ioun Stones, as they are targetable (AC −4)

Sure they are. But every round you spend whacking at my ioun stones is one round in which you're not doing anything against me. Combat doesn't last that long, you'll die before my iouns are gone :smalltongue:

Matthew
2008-09-21, 04:00 PM
Sure they are. But every round you spend whacking at my ioun stones is one round in which you're not doing anything against me. Combat doesn't last that long, you'll die before my iouns are gone :smalltongue:

One little fireball, I reckon, and those Ioun Stones are gone. :smallbiggrin:

You are generally better off with a Ring of Protection +5, Full Plate Armour, Gauntlets of Dexterity, and a Large Shield +5. If you can get Ioun Stones on top of that you are already in Munchkin Land, so who cares? :smallwink:

Chronos
2008-09-21, 04:15 PM
As for Bark Skin: "This spell does not function in combination with normal armor or any magical protection."Ah, right, I knew that back in the day, but I've been in 3e for so long I'd forgotten. Still, there are enough things that do stack to get well below -10.

Thane of Fife
2008-09-21, 04:52 PM
You are generally better off with a Ring of Protection +5, Full Plate Armour, Gauntlets of Dexterity, and a Large Shield +5.

But then you're just asking for a Rust Monster or Xaren attack.

horseboy
2008-09-21, 07:20 PM
But then you're just asking for a Rust Monster or Xaren attack.You know, rust monsters were so common in our basic/first edition games that we carried around pungee sticks and a second quiver of flint headed arrows. Humans and dwarves had themselves a little war, and humans created and bred rust monsters, then teleported them randomly wherever they though a dwarf city was. So they were scattered in some of the darndest places.

LibraryOgre
2008-09-21, 07:21 PM
But then you're just asking for a Rust Monster or Xaren attack.

Xorn, don't you mean?

Thane of Fife
2008-09-21, 08:12 PM
Xorn ate precious metals - Xaren eat magically-enchanted metals.

They're creatures whose diet consists entirely of magic items. Who knows how they survive?

Ethdred
2008-09-22, 04:56 AM
Xorn ate precious metals - Xaren eat magically-enchanted metals.

They're creatures whose diet consists entirely of magic items. Who knows how they survive?

That explains why magic items were so much rarer in those old editions!

Glad to see I kicked off a good discussion (and some fun nostalgia) here.

I think the way we got around this 'problem' in the old days was that there were only a few of us in the group (and this was back before the 'four people is a party, five's a crowd' rule suddenly appeared - remember those modules that were for six to ten characters?) so we always ran multiple characters. So if your MU had run out of spells or your cleric was just a heal bot you didn't care, 'cos you had someone else to do something else. Since then my 1E/2E campaigns have tended to start higher than 1st level - though the last one I was in did start at 1st, but I was a cleric/mage, so didn't have a problem with spell shortage (I was also a centaur, so was pretty good at melee and had bonus HP).

Tormsskull
2008-09-22, 06:14 AM
I've little experience with 1e, but in OD&D and 2e, low levels were different than they are in 3e and 4e. As characters, you are nobodies. This was well-represented by the fact that you could be killed very easily.

Clerics are no problem, as others have already mentioned. They had their couple of spells and they were just fine.

Magic-users (in OD&D) were horrible at first level, no doubt. If your party had a magic-user in it, you definitely didn't want to run any combat-grinding sessions.

Mages (in 2e) could specialize, then they could throw 3 (I think 3) darts a round. Not as bad as OD&D, but still not great.

But, in both editions, low level spells were much more powerful than they are in 3e and 4e.

Narmoth
2008-09-22, 07:03 AM
Magicians are not much for combat contribution; if all your doing is fighting stuff, the player is probably going to be bored out of his mind, but at least he can run away faster than everybody else... On the other hand, they can be expected to have a greater knowledge of languages than other party members and should be able to provide lots of information on anything magical that is encountered (depending on the game master). Certainly, they are as useful as anybody else during the exploration and roleplaying phases of the game.

the wizard could use daggers. In 2nd ed you could throw 2 daggers each round. With a decent dex, the wizards 2nd most important stat, you could do well in missile combat at low levels. The ac and missile Thac0 (that's 20 - attack bonus) isn't the worst either with the dex bonus

Matthew
2008-09-22, 07:10 AM
the wizard could use daggers. In 2nd ed you could throw 2 daggers each round. With a decent dex, the wizards 2nd most important stat, you could do well in missile combat at low levels. The ac and missile Thac0 (that's 20 - attack bonus) isn't the worst either with the dex bonus.

Sure, but compared to the other fighting characters that is still pretty poor; the range of a dagger is a mighty 10/20/30. Even the slowest of enemies is going to close within one round, not to mention the penalties to hit beyond ten feet. If the magician is chucking daggers into the melee at ten feet, then he's as likely to hit his friends as his enemies, since targets are randomly determined. Besides, carrying around more than a couple of daggers is just silly. :smallwink:

Charity
2008-09-22, 07:38 AM
Sure, but compared to the other fighting characters that is still pretty poor; the range of a dagger is a mighty 10/20/30. Even the slowest of enemies is going to close within one round, not to mention the penalties to hit beyond ten feet. If the magician is chucking daggers into the melee at ten feet, then he's as likely to hit his friends as his enemies, since targets are randomly determined. Besides, carrying around more than a couple of daggers is just silly. :smallwink:

Tell that to him

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/8200/machete3vq1.jpg

Knaight
2008-09-22, 07:57 AM
Yes, but anyone who picks up a good long ranged weapon can take them out from far away. Give me one of these:
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo316/Knaighte/HeavyCarbineColored.jpg
and the knife issue goes away. Basically, buy a longbow already, and keep the dagger as a backup melee weapon/general knife.

Charity
2008-09-22, 08:03 AM
the wizard could use daggers. In 2nd ed you could throw 2 daggers each round. With a decent dex, the wizards 2nd most important stat, you could do well in missile combat at low levels. The ac and missile Thac0 (that's 20 - attack bonus) isn't the worst either with the dex bonus

Anyone whom knows how to cheese it up should really recomend the noble dart, no longer the exclusive province of drunk fat men in the pub, nor even for those weak armed pasty wizard types. The dart is the weapon specialisation of choice for all good military men, a deadly rapid fire engine of destruction,... you might need a mule as an ammo dump though.

Ethdred
2008-09-22, 09:48 AM
Sure, but compared to the other fighting characters that is still pretty poor; the range of a dagger is a mighty 10/20/30. Even the slowest of enemies is going to close within one round, not to mention the penalties to hit beyond ten feet. If the magician is chucking daggers into the melee at ten feet, then he's as likely to hit his friends as his enemies, since targets are randomly determined. Besides, carrying around more than a couple of daggers is just silly. :smallwink:

Ahem. Looks at character sheet with 'two bandoliers of 10 daggers each' written on it. Looks away sheepishly.

The throwing into melee thing wasn't really an issue, because in your standard 10' wide corridor (TM) there were always some critters hanging around behind the melee you could pick off. Even in a wider setting, you could normally get away with it. The joys of not having an actual map of the combat.

Matthew
2008-09-22, 01:26 PM
Tell that to him

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/8200/machete3vq1.jpg

Heh, heh. Those are clearly mainly darts, knives and machetes...

Anyway, shouldn't you be off reading my super cool new review instead of contradicting me with pop culture icons. :smallbiggrin:



and the knife issue goes away. Basically, buy a longbow already, and keep the dagger as a backup melee weapon/general knife.

I think there is a kit that allows magicians to take proficiency with the bow in 2e, and of course Skills & Powers certainly allows for it. Even in the default game, magicians could always use them without proficiency of course, but that might carry a huge experience penalty, depending on the game master.



Anyone whom knows how to cheese it up should really recomend the noble dart, no longer the exclusive province of drunk fat men in the pub, nor even for those weak armed pasty wizard types. The dart is the weapon specialisation of choice for all good military men, a deadly rapid fire engine of destruction,... you might need a mule as an ammo dump though.

Ha, ha. That darn dart.



Ahem. Looks at character sheet with 'two bandoliers of 10 daggers each' written on it. Looks away sheepishly.

Don't worry, I won't judge you. My magicians in the Baldur's Gate CRPG carried hundreds of darts and throwing daggers...



The throwing into melee thing wasn't really an issue, because in your standard 10' wide corridor (TM) there were always some critters hanging around behind the melee you could pick off. Even in a wider setting, you could normally get away with it. The joys of not having an actual map of the combat.

Ah, the joys of an entirely imagined reality!

Ethdred
2008-09-23, 07:43 AM
Don't worry, I won't judge you. My magicians in the Baldur's Gate CRPG carried hundreds of darts and throwing daggers...

Ah yes, the famous Baldur's Gate artillery!