Are Magic-users in OD&D overpowered?

[Deleted]

One of the major themes in later versions of D&D was the attempt to limit the growth in power of the Magic-user.
I was wondering if any of the people here who have long running OD&D campaigns have felt the need to do this.
Specifically, do you still use the OD&D XP chart?

[Finarvyn]

I think the key is to look at the level of play in the campaign. Magic-users are very under-powered at early levels in that they have few spell options and almost no combat value. As they rise in levels, they tend to pick up a lot of spell power in a hurry and by the end are (in my opinion) the most powerful characters in the game.

Except that not all campaigns reach that point.

My games tend to top out around 10th level at the most, so the Magic-user only gets the first 5 of the 9 levels of spells. Powerful, yes, but not a game-balance upset. On the other hand those same M-Us get to spend a lot of time at low levels where they can't do a heck of a lot, so they get the early disadvantage but they may or may not reap the later rewards.

Just my two cents.

[angantyr]

M-U's have always struck me as poorly designed in pretty much any edition of D&D. At low levels they are weak; at high levels they wield nuclear power... there is no real balance.

Look at it this way, any other character class, at low level, can go on a solo quest and have a reasonable chance of success. Not so the M-U - one spell per day is not what I'd call staying power. And with no combat ability to speak of.... yes, I suppose one could go into the dungeon, zap your foes with your one spell, and then run away to go memorize your one spell, and come back the next day. That would be, however, rather *tedious*, to say the least.

This is in contrast with better designed systems such as Metagaming's Wizard that allowed you to cast as many spells as your stats allowed.

A suggestion I have seen here, and one which I support, is to give M-U's bonus spells for moderate to high Intelligence scores, though only for low level spells. Still not a tremendous amount of staying power, but better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

[calithena]

angantyr said:

Look at it this way, any other character class, at low level, can go on a solo quest and have a reasonable chance of success.

Maybe if you're fighting rats or something. With single-digit hit points, no first level D&D character can accomplish anything significant alone.

I agree that there are other games that give individual starting wizards more to do. There are pros and cons to all of these.

I actually like the huge power wizards get at high levels in D&D - it's genre appropriate IMO. (Also genre appropriate for a fighter or theif to find a way to sneak up on them and kill them quickly before they get their good spells off, which the low hit points help model.)

[Finarvyn]

Most classes advance in a somewhat linear manner.

Hit points progress uniformly through around 9 levels or so (different slope line for each dice type) and then tend to level off somewhat toward the end.

Combat ability also progresses at a pretty uniform rate, with fighters geting a +1 every 3 levels, clerics every 4 levels, MUs every 5 leveld.

Thief abilities progress upward around 5% each level for most of the things they attempt.

Spells progress in a mutated "double" manner, where the total number of spells goes up AND the spell levels go up as well.

I wonder if one could devise a system where a certain total number of spells would be availible, and that total number might not change although the spell level might. For example, say that MU characters can have 10 spells. At first level this would need to be 10 first level spells, but by 10th level that same MU could cast spells up to 5th level so could cast 10 spells up to 5th level. Something like this might make the progression more uniform.

[korgoth]

I think game balance is overrated. Magic-Users start off very limited (though Sleep is way more powerful than whatever other characters can accomplish at the same level) and become the least limited in terms of damage dealing, travel, etc.

The Magic-User is a class of extremes. If one doesn't want to endure those extremes, play a Fighting Man.

But the last thing magic should be, to me, is balanced. Then it's not magic! Wizards, from the point of view of any right-thinking warrior, are cheaters. That is as it should be: wizards wield powers that are simply not commensurate with what a normal person can do. A Magic-User who "pays his dues" and actually makes it to wizard level is a potent force, and the man who seeks to oppose him with the swordarm will also need wits and luck on his side.

In my opinion, that is just part of the craziness that gives the game its charm.

[Rhuvein]

korgoth said:

I think game balance is overrated. Magic-Users start off very limited (though Sleep is way more powerful than whatever other characters can accomplish at the same level) and become the least limited in terms of damage dealing, travel, etc.

The Magic-User is a class of extremes. If one doesn't want to endure those extremes, play a Fighting Man.

But the last thing magic should be, to me, is balanced. Then it's not magic! Wizards, from the point of view of any right-thinking warrior, are cheaters. That is as it should be: wizards wield powers that are simply not commensurate with what a normal person can do. A Magic-User who "pays his dues" and actually makes it to wizard level is a potent force, and the man who seeks to oppose him with the swordarm will also need wits and luck on his side.

In my opinion, that is just part of the craziness that gives the game its charm.

Well said, I agree. ;D

[philotomy]

korgoth said:

But the last thing magic should be, to me, is balanced. Then it's not magic! Wizards, from the point of view of any right-thinking warrior, are cheaters. That is as it should be: wizards wield powers that are simply not commensurate with what a normal person can do...In my opinion, that is just part of the craziness that gives the game its charm.

That's my view of the matter, too.

A Magic-User who "pays his dues" and actually makes it to wizard level is a potent force, and the man who seeks to oppose him with the swordarm will also need wits and luck on his side.

And initiative!

[pjork]

angantyr said:

Look at it this way, any other character class, at low level, can go on a solo quest and have a reasonable chance of success. Not so the M-U - one spell per day is not what I'd call staying power. And with no combat ability to speak of.... yes, I suppose one could go into the dungeon, zap your foes with your one spell, and then run away to go memorize your one spell, and come back the next day. That would be, however, rather *tedious*, to say the least.

A character can do more than what is on the character sheet. A solo quest with a magic-user is a great motivation to come up with solutions that do not involve wasting spells or risking combat.

[angantyr]

calithena said:

angantyr said:

Look at it this way, any other character class, at low level, can go on a solo quest and have a reasonable chance of success.

Maybe if you're fighting rats or something. With single-digit hit points, no first level D&D character can accomplish anything significant alone.

I agree that there are other games that give individual starting wizards more to do. There are pros and cons to all of these.

I actually like the huge power wizards get at high levels in D&D - it's genre appropriate IMO. (Also genre appropriate for a fighter or theif to find a way to sneak up on them and kill them quickly before they get their good spells off, which the low hit points help model.)

If you are playing to the letter of OD&D rules, then this point has some merit (though I don't wholly agree). If you're using some variation of Greyhawk, which amps up combat by using ST bonuses and variable weapon damage (so not everyone does a generic and paltry "d6") then this is not really true at all. In any case you are at least partially missing my point, which is this: while a fighting man can keep on fighting so long as hit points allow, and given his better armor class (and fighting capability, if using Greyhawk) could conceivably bull his way through a reasonable solo expedition (perhaps with a run back to "home" to heal up now and again). Ditto for a cleric, who can also heal himself. A thief could use stealth to avoid combat altogether, or alternatively to ambush and backstab. But what can an M-U do after he has shot his wad? Very, very little. He has no meaningful chance in combat, with such a poor armor class and hit point potential. Which is fine, but coupled with only a single spell means he has to run away to get his one spell back – even if he defeats or somehow overcomes through other non-combat means the encounter he is basically done for the day, which is completely untrue for any of the other character classes. And even as part of a group once he has contributed his one spell (or two or three, or whatever), he has nothing more to contribute until the next day (other than to help search for secret doors and so forth). Yes, I know that he can do other things “not listed on his character sheet” but that likely won’t amount to a hill of beans compared to what the rest of the group can do, since their main abilities will be more or less intact.

I agree with you regarding how different systems have different approaches and pros and cons. I hope no one construes my mention of MGC's WIZARD as a statement of preference, as such. It was merely an example. (That said, however, I think it's a pretty tightly designed game system)

I should also mentioned that I do not object, necessarily, to high level magic users being powerful. I was alluding to something a bit different, actually, when I mentioned that (which I'll address anon). I do think that the low level M-U is, well, too weak (or perhaps more accurately too limited, which is not quite the same thing).

[angantyr]

pjork said:

angantyr said:

Look at it this way, any other character class, at low level, can go on a solo quest and have a reasonable chance of success. Not so the M-U - one spell per day is not what I'd call staying power. And with no combat ability to speak of.... yes, I suppose one could go into the dungeon, zap your foes with your one spell, and then run away to go memorize your one spell, and come back the next day. That would be, however, rather *tedious*, to say the least.

A character can do more than what is on the character sheet. A solo quest with a magic-user is a great motivation to come up with solutions that do not involve wasting spells or risking combat.

While literally correct it is not terribly relevant to my point. In any case, would you not concede that a M-U who has to come up with non-spell and non-combat solutions is going to be at a disadvantage, since other classes can also come up with non-combat and non-thief ability solutions, but can fall back on their 100% "reusable" abilities, which the M-U lacks?

[angantyr]

admin said:

Most classes advance in a somewhat linear manner.

Hit points progress uniformly through around 9 levels or so (different slope line for each dice type) and then tend to level off somewhat toward the end.

Combat ability also progresses at a pretty uniform rate, with fighters geting a +1 every 3 levels, clerics every 4 levels, MUs every 5 leveld.

Thief abilities progress upward around 5% each level for most of the things they attempt.

Spells progress in a mutated "double" manner, where the total number of spells goes up AND the spell levels go up as well.

I wonder if one could devise a system where a certain total number of spells would be availible, and that total number might not change although the spell level might. For example, say that MU characters can have 10 spells. At first level this would need to be 10 first level spells, but by 10th level that same MU could cast spells up to 5th level so could cast 10 spells up to 5th level. Something like this might make the progression more uniform.

Good observation. I'm not sure that the extreme measure you suggest is advisible. Again, my main focus is at low levels, not so much high levels. Note that this is definately food for thought, however. Thanks for bringing this up!

[angantyr]

korgoth said:

I think game balance is overrated. Magic-Users start off very limited (though Sleep is way more powerful than whatever other characters can accomplish at the same level) and become the least limited in terms of damage dealing, travel, etc.

The Magic-User is a class of extremes. If one doesn't want to endure those extremes, play a Fighting Man.

But the last thing magic should be, to me, is balanced. Then it's not magic! Wizards, from the point of view of any right-thinking warrior, are cheaters. That is as it should be: wizards wield powers that are simply not commensurate with what a normal person can do. A Magic-User who "pays his dues" and actually makes it to wizard level is a potent force, and the man who seeks to oppose him with the swordarm will also need wits and luck on his side.

In my opinion, that is just part of the craziness that gives the game its charm.

Be kind, now. I was merely voicing some thoughts on the matter, not attempting to invite a duel.

For starters, I should point out that when I say "balance" I don't necessarily mean to the extent that you all are taking it out of context to mean. I certainly don't mean to imply "GURPS" balance, which is entirely too stable. The fact that D&D is not perfectly balanced is not really an issue. The fact that it is insanely unbalanced is more of a concern.

What I am really pointing to is a simply a design flaw in the system, which originated in its Chainmail mass combat origins, where one figure actually represented 20 individual men. Thus, the spells were initially designed around this scale, and don’t always scale down very well. Curiously, Metagaming’s Wizard has the precise opposite problem – namely that it was designed around a simulation of one on one duels, so that spells in that game do not scale up very well. Really, both systems could have used a little cross pollinating – D&D perhaps ought to have scaled down some of the low to middle level spell effects (while allowing somewhat more spell use by low level M-Us), while Wizard could have benefited from some of D&D’s more powerful and larger scope spells.

Does it matter? Well, no and yes. On the one hand D&D has been “like this” from its inception, and it certainly hasn’t prevented people from playing M-U’s nor hindered the immense popularity of the game. However, I have noticed over the years that house rules trying to address both the lack of spells at low levels and general lack of flexibility for M-Us (since spells have to be memorized and cannot be readily changed) are some of the most common to be found for any edition of D&D, right after combat modifications. In layman’s terms that is usually a good indication that something is fouled up…

Regarding your comment about the Sleep spell, I have always considered this a serious *flaw* in this particular spell. Not that I mind the fact that it can have this overall effect, I just wish it were graduated by level, so that a 1st level MU has only a limited effect, and that it gets better as he advances in levels (at least up to a point).

I do hear what you are saying about the niftyness of unbalanced magic systems, and I agree (to a point) that it contributes to D&D's charm. But from a strict standpoint of objective game design, it is a flaw. Not the world's worst by any stretch, but it could have been handled better.

Keep in mind that I am more interested in balancing "capableness" rather than power, as such. As noted previous, I don't object to high level M-Us being "powerful" (though, again, from a strict game mechanics standpoint I might opt to tone down some aspects of it. Just depends) but I object to low level M-U's being nearly useless.

[Stonegiant]

angantyr said:

pjork said:

A character can do more than what is on the character sheet. A solo quest with a magic-user is a great motivation to come up with solutions that do not involve wasting spells or risking combat.

While literally correct it is not terribly relevant to my point. In any case, would you not concede that a M-U who has to come up with non-spell and non-combat solutions is going to be at a disadvantage, since other classes can also come up with non-combat and non-thief ability solutions, but can fall back on their 100% "reusable" abilities, which the M-U lacks?

As EGG has said on countless other boards when the game was released without thieves characters were allowed to attempt thief like activities if not armored or lightly armored using a system of 1-2 on d6 or 1-3 on d6. EGG still does this in his home game were a character with a 15+ DEX receives a +1 to Stealth. With that being said I would allow the Magic-User to attempt such activities which would in turn boost his use beyond that of a one shot hero. I also feel that the MU is not underpowered at low levels but has accepted this earlier weakness in trade for his later power, such power does not come cheap.

[WSmith]

One factor that gets overlooked, and honestly, a fair DM should take into consideration, is placement of magic items. Remember, a 1st level magic-user that finds a fireball scroll can read magic on it can use it. Wands are also another factor. Other than the cleric with a scroll, no other class has the opportunity to limited use of their higher level powers at a lower level.

[pjork]

angantyr said:

pjork said:

A character can do more than what is on the character sheet. A solo quest with a magic-user is a great motivation to come up with solutions that do not involve wasting spells or risking combat.

While literally correct it is not terribly relevant to my point. In any case, would you not concede that a M-U who has to come up with non-spell and non-combat solutions is going to be at a disadvantage, since other classes can also come up with non-combat and non-thief ability solutions, but can fall back on their 100% "reusable" abilities, which the M-U lacks?

If your point is that magic-users are not mechanically balanced with the other classes in OD&D, I would concede that. My point would be that this is in no way inherently detrimental to the play of the game or the enjoyment of the players.

[crimhthanthegreat]

I have never thought that magic-users were overpowered at higher levels or felt a need to reign them in. I did beef them up a bit at the low end. IMC magic-users can always light small fires and the like.