What have 1st level wizards ever done for us?

[Yora]

I am doing are carefull reading through the whole Basic and Expert rules of D&D and 1st level wizards seem just outright unplayable.

One spell per day, one spell in the spellbook, which might be chosen by the GM. Only daggers as weapons. 1d4 hit points, no armor.
Scrolls can only be used if you cast the read magic spell on them, which you probably don't know at 1st level. 1 in 8 randomly rolled scroll will curse you as soon as you unroll them. One of the suggested curses is instant death, with several others being effectively instant death for 1st level wizards. You can not buy scrolls anywhere.

The only sensible way I can see to play a 1st level wizard is to get a henchmen, cast your spell, and then go home. Then play the rest of the adventure as the henchman.

Does it ever make any difference to a part to have a 1st or 3rd level wizard in the party? Or could you simply have the player play a talking cactus in a pot instead?

[The Glyphstone]

A talking cactus in a pot is way overpowered for a 1st level character. You get immunity to spells that target humanoids, resistance to dehydration, AND automatic retributive damage against anyone who hits you with a melee attack.

[Thrudd]

I don't know, but I think the difficulty of playing low level wizards is meant to be the balancing factor to the power they have at higher levels. It's the long game, not necessarily meant to be balanced at every level. If you want the power of a wizard, you need to suffer through those baby levels.

The extremely limited magic user of the original game is what started the creep toward the powerhouse that you end up with in pathfinder. People reasonably felt playing a wizard was too hard and not fun at low levels (myself included in those days). By changing the systemto give low level wizards more power, a little more in each edition, they ended up making high level wizards game breaking unbalanced.

[Yora]

Perhaps that might have been the intention. But if so, it works terribly. It is merely a deterrant to make players not want to play a wizard. But if a player decides to do it anyway and the characters reach 6th level or so, it's not balancing at all.

The problem with 3rd edition and Pathfinder is not that low-level wizards got better, but that high-level wizards got even more better.

The main question I have here is what people actually did do when they played 1st and 2nd level wizards. Did they do anything but being present in the room so that their character would get XP and eventually become relevant after 4 to 10 sessions?

[Morty]

Balancing things around wizards being weak on low levels and earth-shaking on high levels is a terrible idea, anyway. It just means that, by design, someone is always going to end up feeling useless and sidelined.

[Yora]

I found one use for a wizard who cast his spell. Since Encumbrance is not affected by the Strength score in B/X, wizards can still be good backup mules. Since they don't have armor, they can carry a lot of other stuff. Not nearly as good as an actual mule, but still something.

[Maglubiyet]

I believe the correct term is "magic-users". Yeah, I played several that started out with 1hp. I was stunned/surprised when later editions (2nd or 3rd? don't remember) gave you max hp at first level. Like, how did we never think of that before?

The payoff for wizards was kind of the same payoff you get when buying a lottery ticket -- you got to dream about "what if". Hours of flipping through the spell list in the PHB, imagining the carnage you could wreak with the whole collection of Bigby's and Power Word spells under your belt.

Of course, just like the lottery, more often than not your dreams were dashed. In the case of 1e magic-users, all it took was an errant flagstone falling off a roof or a rat hiding in a room you were searching. Yep, life was cheap back then...ah, the good old days!

[Thrudd]

Yes, low level wizards stood around and stabbed stuff with their dagger. It was not super fun and you're right, it is not a good way to balance anything. Playing a wizard takes a very special type of player with tons of patience and willing to die repeatedly. Most people pick fighters and clerics. I guess it balances the party overall, since it uses the meta-game to encourage a party composition that is mostly fighters and clerics (thieves also have a hard time of it with no armor, low hp and low attacks).

Much of my home brewing in early days of playing the game was experimenting with ways to make the magic user better at low levels. Toyed with spell points, at will spells, just straight up more spell slots at level one, more spells in the spell book, etc.

[Yora]

Thieves at least had skills. At low levels they have almost no hope at ever succeeding and using Stealth is pretty suicidal until 6th level, but there was no harm in trying to open a lock with a 15% chance or listening on a door with a 33% chance.

I think if I would run B/X by RAW(ish), I'd start everyone at 4th level.

[Digitalelf]

Perhaps that might have been the intention.

Playing the older editions was a different mindset than that of today. The classes were not supposed to be what today's games considers "balanced"; each class has its own strength, and had a role to play within the party, and were vastly under-equipped when they strayed too far from that role. Thieves for example were not designed to ever go toe-to-toe with the enemy.

A good book (and it's only 13 pages long), written primarily for Swords & Wizardry, you might want to check out (its free), is "Old School Gaming".

You can find it: HERE

The book is free, but you do have to create an account with Lulu.com however, and even though it was written with S&W in mind, it has advice for both DM's and players that is quite useful for these older editions of D&D.

[Yora]

And I very much agree with that approach. Once the party reaches 4th level. From that point on, I don't have any real objection about any class being better or worse than others.
But why do 1st and 2nd level have to be so incredibly terrible?

[Digitalelf]

why do 1st and 2nd level have to be so incredibly terrible?

I think it has to do with the fact that the characters in the older editions of D&D were never intended to be "heroes", or at the very least, start out as such.

I don't know how Basic D&D handled it, but Original D&D and 1st edition AD&D encouraged players to bypass encounters that tended not to carry much (or any) treasure, and focus on the big haul... Because it was not the monsters that garnered characters lots of XP; the true XP was to be had via the treasure that the characters found.

Also, both Original D&D (and thus, Basic D&D) as well as 1st edition AD&D focused on characters with very humble beginnings; starting characters out (to use a comic-book hero reference) as normal plain-old and boring Bruce Wayne, and then through hard adventuring, becoming Batman.

The trouble I see with the later editions of D&D, such as 3rd edition, and Pathfinder, is that characters start out (continuing the comic book hero analogy) already as Batman and then quite quickly becoming Superman...

[golentan]

The trouble I see with the later editions of D&D, such as 3rd edition, and Pathfinder, is that characters start out (continuing the comic book hero analogy) already as Batman and then quite quickly becoming Superman...

They don't though, not really.

A too-stiff breeze will still kill a level 1 wizard in 3.X, and they can blow through their spell allotment before any goblins even realize that that guy's a wizard. A fighter at 1st level is basically no better at hitting things with sticks than an equivalently strong peasant, and certainly can't afford decent armor. A roguish gentleman of wealth and taste will fail to open basic locks as often as not. Rangers haven't even figured out whether they're good with a bow yet.

Sure, by 3rd level you're playing a potential batman, but 1st level always sucks for everyone.

Of course, I don't like level based systems, so I'm biased a bit about 1st level anyway...

[Blackhawk748]

They don't though, not really.

A too-stiff breeze will still kill a level 1 wizard in 3.X, and they can blow through their spell allotment before any goblins even realize that that guy's a wizard. A fighter at 1st level is basically no better at hitting things with sticks than an equivalently strong peasant, and certainly can't afford decent armor. A roguish gentleman of wealth and taste will fail to open basic locks as often as not. Rangers haven't even figured out whether they're good with a bow yet.

Sure, by 3rd level you're playing a potential batman, but 1st level always sucks for everyone.

Of course, I don't like level based systems, so I'm biased a bit about 1st level anyway...

This is correct. 3.X and its equivalents can be rough at levels 1-3. One Orc with a Falchion can wipe a party. (its almost happened to my group) Now they arent as rough as 1E apparently because the "Magic User" (ie Sorc and Wizard) have proficiency with crossbows! *gasp*

So ya, you blow your handful of spells (the Sorc actually doesnt mind low levels as much starting with 3 first level slots to cast his 2 spells known) then stand behind the beatsticks and plink away with your light crossbow. It still sucks, but at least you can contribute after your handful of magic is gone. Actually i got pretty good at saving my spells for when i needed them especially because i usually grab Magic Missile and Grease.

[D+1]

I don't know, but I think the difficulty of playing low level wizards is meant to be the balancing factor to the power they have at higher levels.

This is the conventional wisdom - and it's a complete and utter crock, and always has been. The so-called "balance" of this ludicrous position can only come into effect IF all PC's continue through to higher levels and the simple fact is that just doesn't happen in many cases - perhaps even a majority. A class that starts powerful but is later limited is NOT balanced if the character or the campaign itself never makes it to the later levels. Similarly, a class that starts weak but only LATER becomes powerful is not balanced if the character/campaign do not last long enough for the payoff for the sacrifice to actually be made.

It's the long game, not necessarily meant to be balanced at every level.

THIS is the truth of it. The game is NOT designed to be balanced at any given level and is NOT designed to achieve a balance though outrageous shifts of power between low levels and high levels for only select classes. Even if that were the original intent it doesn't matter because it was a design goal that utterly failed to be achieved, or at best was so badly done as makes no difference.

If you want the power of a wizard, you need to suffer through those baby levels.

This is also, however, still true. Short of the DM actually making rules changes to the class at both low levels and high levels (and they're actually NOT that hard to make) it is simply the burden that a magic-user player must bear. The enjoyment of playing the class should then initially be derived from the greater challenge of simply getting the character to survive to where they start to really shine.

[Yora]

However, the best way to survive is to stand in the back doing nothing.
The alternative is standing in the front with a dagger, and that means certain death.

Anyone here actually played a 1st level wizard? What did you do?

[Digitalelf]

the best way to survive is to stand in the back doing nothing

In Basic, a dagger can be thrown, but I only have access to the "Rules Cyclopedia", which states that "only characters at the Expert or greater level of weapon mastery can throw this weapon in combat." This version of the game also lists 8 other possible weapons that a magic-user can use at the DM's discretion, with many of them being ranged weapons.

My experience with magic-users however, has only been with 1st edition and 2nd edition, and in those editions (well, at least 2nd edition anyway), magic-users can use a dagger, staff, darts, knives, and slings.

A dagger or knife can be thrown at a rate of 2 per round, a dart can be thrown at a rate of 3 per round, and a sling can only be used once per round; so the magic-user, after casting all of his spells, can stand in the back of the party and actually contribute something in combat instead of just standing there with his finger up his nose...

[Yora]

In Basic, a dagger can be thrown, but I only have access to the "Rules Cyclopedia", which states that "only characters at the Expert or greater level of weapon mastery can throw this weapon in combat." This version of the game also lists 8 other possible weapons that a magic-user can use at the DM's discretion, with many of them being ranged weapons.

And it's a funny selection: staff, blowgun, flaming oil, holy water, net, thrown rock, sling, whip.

[Algeh]

I seem to recall the 1st level wizard in our old campaign spent a lot of time wandering off to try to search rooms for neat stuff and triggering monsters we had to go save him from, kind of like a kid mascot in a pointy hat or an escort mission.

This probably made the game slightly more fun for that player than otherwise or he wouldn't have had his character do that stuff, but it was kind of annoying for the rest of us. The DM eventually took pity on him and let him find some kind of magical item with limited charges that would let him shoot some sort of damage at the enemy and keep him busy.

[Pluto!]

There's also the factor that everybody sucks at first level, so your Wizard's melee suckage usually doesn't stand out all that much, and your one spell per day can still win/circumvent fights.

And everyones' bad combat numbers are often mitigated by planning or other ways of "cheating" fights.

Most low-level combats I've played have heavily relied on one of the following:
1. Mooks to take hits, contribute damage, and get in monsters' way.
2. Prestaging battlegrounds with traps and bottlenecks.
3. Setting the entire dungeon on fire.
4. Running. A lot.

[kyoryu]

There's also the factor that everybody sucks at first level, so your Wizard's melee suckage usually doesn't stand out all that much, and your one spell per day can still win/circumvent fights.

And everyones' bad combat numbers are often mitigated by planning or other ways of "cheating" fights.

Most low-level combats I've played have heavily relied on one of the following:
1. Mooks to take hits, contribute damage, and get in monsters' way.
2. Prestaging battlegrounds with traps and bottlenecks.
3. Setting the entire dungeon on fire.
4. Running. A lot.

Yeah, all of this.

But there's two keys. First, the way to succeed in AD&D at low levels is to *avoid fights*. Go for treasure. And with several spells, even a 1st-level wizard can give easy access to treasure that would be otherwise unavailable.

The second thing is that the general assumption was that each player would have different characters, and might choose a different character to play per session. That's where all of the "training time" and whatnot rules come into play. Power disparities are much less of an issue when next week *you* might be the powerful one instead.

That's not saying that this is the ultimate design, but it works for what it's intended for. It works very very poorly for "the four-to-six destined heroes going through fight after fight." Because that's not what it was designed for.

[veti]

I am doing are carefull reading through the whole Basic and Expert rules of D&D and 1st level wizards seem just outright unplayable.

One spell per day, one spell in the spellbook, which might be chosen by the GM. Only daggers as weapons. 1d4 hit points, no armor.
Scrolls can only be used if you cast the read magic spell on them, which you probably don't know at 1st level. 1 in 8 randomly rolled scroll will curse you as soon as you unroll them. One of the suggested curses is instant death, with several others being effectively instant death for 1st level wizards. You can not buy scrolls anywhere.

The only sensible way I can see to play a 1st level wizard is to get a henchmen, cast your spell, and then go home. Then play the rest of the adventure as the henchman.

Does it ever make any difference to a part to have a 1st or 3rd level wizard in the party? Or could you simply have the player play a talking cactus in a pot instead?

I seem to recall that in 1e, a 1st level MU got Read Magic automatically. (In their spell book, that is. Of course they'd have to learn it to use it.) And you didn't have to use a dagger, staff was an option. And optionally, and I think every DM I knew applied this option, you could let the MU choose their own starting spells. (Hint: pick 'Sleep'.)

Yes, playing a 1st level single-class MU wasn't much fun. (I think that's why cantrips were introduced.) On the other hand, you can play a F/MU or MU/Th or F/MU/Cl or... and gain the benefits of multiple classes. That was fun. And contrary to what others seem to think, I think it does serve as a fairly convincing explanation of why there are very few high-level wizards in the world - which is something that 3.x frankly doesn't even attempt.

[Thrudd]

I seem to recall that in 1e, a 1st level MU got Read Magic automatically. (In their spell book, that is. Of course they'd have to learn it to use it.) And you didn't have to use a dagger, staff was an option. And optionally, and I think every DM I knew applied this option, you could let the MU choose their own starting spells. (Hint: pick 'Sleep'.)

Yes, playing a 1st level single-class MU wasn't much fun. (I think that's why cantrips were introduced.) On the other hand, you can play a F/MU or MU/Th or F/MU/Cl or... and gain the benefits of multiple classes. That was fun. And contrary to what others seem to think, I think it does serve as a fairly convincing explanation of why there are very few high-level wizards in the world - which is something that 3.x frankly doesn't even attempt.

That's AD&D. Basic doesn't have that stuff.

[Lvl45DM!]

However, the best way to survive is to stand in the back doing nothing.
The alternative is standing in the front with a dagger, and that means certain death.

Anyone here actually played a 1st level wizard? What did you do?

I played a first level wizard.
MARDUK THE FIRE MAGE!
for the first few sessions of casting 1 magic missile or light spells to blind I lobbed flaming oil. Cos yknow. Fire mage.
I burned down quite a few buildings and killed more monsters accidentally than the rest of the party did on purpose. I also saved the party from a Vampire, a 1E vampire, that drains 2 levels a hit, charms, summons swarms and was immune to all our weapons, with a light spell. He was blinded and we ran like bunnies.
We played the -10 rule which was a lifesaver when I got smacked by an ogre. And i occasionally walked behind a monster fighting a party member and bopped him with my staff.
Soon i got a 2nd 1st level spell and i scribed Burning Hands and Affect Normal Fires. So i would set someone on fire, use ANF to make the fire bigger and laugh maniacally.

So i played to my strengths, hid behind bigger musclier people and used ALOT of oil. I was also the only party memeber with an intelligence above 12 so I was the default problem solver, riddle answerer and code breaker until the thief hit 5th level.

But i can tell you. The first time i cast a FireBall and wiped out 5 orcs, their wargs and 2 carrion crawlers (and took out the dwarfs beard) it was worth it. It was worth only having 12 hit points and suffering.

I still play Marduk the Fire Wizard. He has a flying carpet, two fireball wands, a Ruby that grants immunity to fire and is 11th level. He has discovered Magma Elemental Summoning in-game and has burned down half a city (it was filled with bad guys!). His goddess Joramy, is now one of the most popular gods in the realms and he has converted half his party to join the Brothers In Fire! TM and has a charmed pet Fire Giant.

[Telok]

However, the best way to survive is to stand in the back doing nothing.
The alternative is standing in the front with a dagger, and that means certain death.

Anyone here actually played a 1st level wizard? What did you do?

I have.

You saved your Light spell or such for the chance to take out something really dangerous or change the way a fight was going.

Dragging unconsious allies out of the fight. Binding wounds. Throwing lanterns, oil, and torches. Setting a grapling hook while others held off the goblins. Hammering spikes as the strong guys held the door shut. Running back three rooms to the lever that controlled the drawbridge. Handing the ranger extra arrows so he didn't have to stop shooting. Rounding up the horses or the treasure mule. Training Sir Bacon, the trap finding pig, to fetch gold pieces (ok, that wasn't an in combat thing). Dropping the chandelier. Looting. Finishing off fallen enemies. Opening the door to the tiger cage. Getting in the tiger cage, after the tiger left, and closing the door. Firing the wheelbarrow mounted ballista. Handing the fighter more lances during a tourney. Stampeding the cattle through the goblin camp. Taunting the bugbear so it turned it's back on the thief.

Pretty much anything useful except engaging in melee.

One thing I found that the bad low levels did for wizards is that it made them rare. Part of the old settings was generally that wizards and arcane magic were pretty rare. There might be one low level wizard in a town or village, maybe a couple in a small city. In the U.S. about 2% of the population "elementary or middle school teacher" as an occupation. If 90% of people don't have class levels and 1 in 5 with class levels is a magic user then that population has as many magic users per capita as the USA has elementary and middle school teachers.

If you want your adventuring parties to reflect your world or society and that world or society tropes to 'few but powerful magic users' then you might want that hard start to the magic career. Successive editions of D&D have made magic easier and easier to play. The 3.5 DMG has city and town populations that can be 5% (or more) spellcasters. Once a world has that many casters you start getting things that look like Ebberon and Tippyverse and the adventuring parties reflect that. The 3.5 game I'm in right now reflects that, out of six adventurers we have no non-casters. In AD&D and OD&D being a caster was rough and you had to play smart and be a team player. In the old settings magic users were rare, powerful, and the first person you tried to kill. When magic got easier (lots of people thought wizards needed a boost early game) you ended up with more parties of magic users and multi/dual classed magic users. Which gave you this game where your setting has relatively few wizards but the player character party is all spellcasters with some hired muscle to form a shield wall and carry loot.

It's not a better/worse thing, it's just different. Like D&D/Ars Magica different.

[Yora]

There's also the factor that everybody sucks at first level, so your Wizard's melee suckage usually doesn't stand out all that much, and your one spell per day can still win/circumvent fights.

Okay, that's a very good point. Even a fighter with chain armor and shield and 1d8+1 hp would probably not be too keen about going face to face with a kobold that deals 1d6-1 damage on a 15 or higher.

The second thing is that the general assumption was that each player would have different characters, and might choose a different character to play per session. That's where all of the "training time" and whatnot rules come into play. Power disparities are much less of an issue when next week *you* might be the powerful one instead.

Where is that from? I only know that from Dark Sun. (Where everyone starts at 3rd level.)

So i played to my strengths, hid behind bigger musclier people and used ALOT of oil. I was also the only party memeber with an intelligence above 12 so I was the default problem solver, riddle answerer and code breaker until the thief hit 5th level.

That's a good idea. Doesn't work in B/X, because throwing flaming oil or holy water counts as a missile weapon (though Rules Cyclopedia has them as an option for wizards at the GM's discretion). But good idea.

If you want your adventuring parties to reflect your world or society and that world or society tropes to 'few but powerful magic users' then you might want that hard start to the magic career.

I am completely the opposite of that. As I see it, player characters are not average people but all exceptional. You wouldn't write a book or make a movie about an average person with an average life. By deciding to make the book or movie about this person, you already determined that this person is going to have an experience worth telling about. If you set up and play in a campaign, I think it should also be about people who are somehow extraordinary. Why bother playing a group of people who might be one of the 1% who accomplish something big, but also might not.
Though that's indeed just one of several valid default assumption of what a fantasy adventure RPG is.

[NichG]

I am doing are carefull reading through the whole Basic and Expert rules of D&D and 1st level wizards seem just outright unplayable.

One spell per day, one spell in the spellbook, which might be chosen by the GM. Only daggers as weapons. 1d4 hit points, no armor.
Scrolls can only be used if you cast the read magic spell on them, which you probably don't know at 1st level. 1 in 8 randomly rolled scroll will curse you as soon as you unroll them. One of the suggested curses is instant death, with several others being effectively instant death for 1st level wizards. You can not buy scrolls anywhere.

The only sensible way I can see to play a 1st level wizard is to get a henchmen, cast your spell, and then go home. Then play the rest of the adventure as the henchman.

Does it ever make any difference to a part to have a 1st or 3rd level wizard in the party? Or could you simply have the player play a talking cactus in a pot instead?

I don't know if this is in BD&D, but in AD&D the best thing for a 1st level wizard to do is to use the pummel chart.

The pummel chart is a table for unarmed combat, where you make a modified roll and look up the result. Many of the results include 'roll again', and so in the time the fighter gets to make a single attack you can sometimes end up making 3 or more strikes. On average, at low levels in particular, you can do a lot better with the pummel chart on average than you do attacking with actual weapons.

For a wizard, it might be an issue that Strength does modify the roll (though with 3d6 down the line, your Strength isn't particularly likely to be super-low). More importantly however, wearing armor grants very severe penalties to the roll. So your robed finger-waggler actually has a significantly better roll on the table than your average fighter wearing splint or chain.

[Digitalelf]

that's indeed just one of several valid default assumption of what a fantasy adventure RPG is.

You're absolutely right, that is very much a valid assumption and play-style.

However...

The rules of the earlier editions just do not reflect that approach, which is why almost everyone posting to this thread has echoed this statement in some form or another. And that is why, at least in IMO, that in the later editions, magic and particularly spell-casting, received such a large overhaul that made your preferred play-style easier to facilitate across the board.

[Lord Torath]

I don't know if this is in BD&D, but in AD&D the best thing for a 1st level wizard to do is to use the pummel chart.

Basic/Expert D&D didn't get unarmed combat rules until the Companion set. And it works very differently than in AD&D.

Probably the best thing to do is watch the rear, to keep anyone from sneaking up on you. That, and all the stuff Telok suggested.

I confess, I looked at Magic Users, and decided I'd rather play an elf. Same magic, but you can wield a sword or bow, and get to wear armor. Then I got the companion set and realized I'd never be able to cast higher level spells. At that point though, I was playing a hybrid D&D/AD&D game, so the specifics start getting hazy to me.

[Thrudd]

You can play as exceptional heroes in B/X D&D or AD&D, just start around level 4. The title for fighters at that level is literally "hero".

Level 1 represents kids/nobodies just having completed their apprenticeship and hoping to make a name for themselves as adventurers. Statistically, a good number of people who go into the dangerous profession of adventuring won't succeed or survive.