Pondering the power of the magic-user

[Finarvyn]

Seems like the "best" magic user was in Chainmail. Since then, rules sets seem determined to limit the power of the magic-user. Supplement I Greyhawk took away most of their hit point value. If I recall corectly, AD&D or 2E introduced casting times that got longer as spells got stronger.

As a career DM with very little recent play time (I wa a player about 50% of the time in high school, but hardly ever as an adult), I have tended to shrug off these things. When magic-user players complained, I always told them that they could play a fighter if they don't like magic-users.

I'm starting to re-think this.

I actually got to play a magic-user in a D&D Next game that is being run at my local game store. I was so happy to blast some baddies with my 6d6 fireball, but then started to realize that 6d6 gives a typical damage of 21 points (less if they save) but some of the fighters in the group were dealing out 15-20 points of damage every round. And my fireballs were a lot more limited in quantity.

Then I thought, well it's just a Next thing. So I spent more time thinking about OD&D magic-users versus fighters. While OD&D fighers don't get to do quite so much damage as their Next counterpart, they still get to do their fighting thing every round forever until they die while the magic-user gets a couple of shots and then is done.

Has anyone else put much thought into this? I'm starting to think that I need to come up with a way to re-balance the game so that magic-users get more cool stuff to do.

Talk me into it, or out of it.

[Deleted]

My group got a similar impression with Pathfinder. Spellcasters' damage per spells don't devastate enemies at all, just "soft" them a litte. The real damage dealers are the melee classes. With the new core class features and basic feats, most Fighters and Barbarians can deal 30+ damage per hit at middle leves (at 12th level, where my campaign is right now, they're dealing almost 50 per strike).

Spellcasters are useful as support and "problem-solvers".

The last time I saw spellcasters rulling the day was during my AD&D 2nd (few hit points) and D&D 3rd (Spell DCs were high and there was a lot of "save-or-die" type of effects).

Just my two cents.

[Deleted]

I't probably not fair to balance a magic-users combat power with a fighters considering that most of the power of the magic-user is in non-combat situation; flying, teleporting, reading stuff, magic walls, etc.

Still, one of the goals in my personal campaign is to rewrite every spell so the players don't know what to expects. I've made many of the non-combat spell of unlimited duration with the caveat that if you have a spell active, you can't reuse that spell slot for another spell. So the Light spell, for example, lasts forever but the magic-user has to give up a spell slot to use it. Trading spell slots for permanent powers allows you to give what Next calls Cantrips (powers you can use at will) without actually changing the rules of the game.

[Deleted]

A thought-provoking post, Finn.

I've also pondered the CM MU versus the OD&D and succeeding editions version.

A quick thought: Fireball, lightning, and similar magic are given the chance to destroy magical armor, weapons, etc., each time the player fails his save. So, a magic-user who can cast fireball each round could seriously damage a party's magical items. I don't know how your players would react to this, but folks I've played with wouldn't like that one bit.

I'd have to think about this a bit more, but thought I would throw this out there in the hopes of stimulating the creative processes of others.

[Finarvyn]

An obvious tweak is introduction of some sort of at-will offensive spell for the magic-user. What I've done is to create a "zap" spell which does 1d6 damage just like a bow, costs zero spell slots to cast, but the magic-user has to roll to hit as if it wasn't a spell. Basically, allowing the MU to have a ranged attack called a spell but having the saem effect as a bow. That seems to help a little.

4E had some neat ideas with the whole "at will" thing, which I didn't really encounter until I played 13th Age. After all, fighters can swing a sword "at will".

[zeraser]

I've been thinking a bit about a magic system that does away with a fixed list of spells in favor of a general rule for spellcasting: player tells DM what her wizard wants to do, DM tells her which die to roll, spell backfires tragically (or comically) on a 1. I think this would only work in a high-trust table environment.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 18, 2013 16:55:04 GMT -6 zeraser said:

I've been thinking a bit about a magic system that does away with a fixed list of spells in favor of a general rule for spellcasting: player tells DM what her wizard wants to do, DM tells her which die to roll, spell backfires tragically (or comically) on a 1. I think this would only work in a high-trust table environment.

I've done something like this for an Amber Diceless campaign, and I agree that you really need to have a high level of trust between player and GM.

When you think of the kinds of things that players want to do, those things tend to sort themselves into a few key piles: attack, defend, and so on. Eventually as you play I suspect that you will discover those piles and start to build some sort of framework so that you are consistent with your rulings. Essentially, you would be building a spell system "on the fly" as the campaign evolves. What you could do is use a system similar to that in MERP (and, I assume Rolemaster) where each pile is a spell and the player puts more points (or mana or whatever) into the spell to achieve greater effects. I haven't played MERP in about 25-30 years, so I may have some of the details wrong.

None of this really fixes my problem, of course, but it's a neat topic to disucss anyway.

[waysoftheearth]

It's always going to be an uphill battle to justify the magic-user in terms of the fighter's purpose; doing damage. Fighters are meant to deal damage, yes. But magic-users are meant to do other stuff.

It's a real shame (IMHO) the later iterations of the game tend to be more and more combat oriented, and all the classes tend toward dealing damage in their class-specific way. In a game (like OD&D) where exploration is as important as combat, there's a need for PCs who can do stuff other than deal damage.

OD&D's magic-user is one such class.

Sure, anyone can fight a bit.

But magic-users can do impossible stuff. It's called "magic".

They can fly! They can become invisible! They can drop a pack of orcs with a click of their fingers. They can spy through solid rock, block off rooms, open new passages, and teleport instantly. Enemies "magically" become allies. Impassable doors spring open! This is the kind of stuff magic-users are really for.

Remember also that magic-users can cast spells of any spell level from scroll or books. Now imagine a 1st level magic-user who has pinched has master's 6th level spell book!


Personally, I don't think a magic-user needs anything extra -- they already get a 2,000gp spell book for free at 1st level.

But if you're looking for "more" for a magic-user, I'd encourage you to give them additional spell books instead of "at will fire power". Give your starting magic-users a book of the 2nd level spells, or even the 3rd level spells, as well. This will (hopefully) encourage them to do more of that impossible stuff that is unique to magic-users, rather than just acting like a second-rate fighter.

[machpants]

I agree with WOTE, being a Wizard in D&D has never been about blasting HP. You have dumb meat shields to do that, although you can make their job easier (haste, for example). In 4E terms MU's are about battlefield control, in 3E terms they are about save and die/suck! Best 1st level spells? Sleep and Charm Person, both encounter enders. Fireball is such an iconic 3rd level spell but I would often prefer to Haste the fighter, turn the party invisible or even hide in an interdimensional hole for guaranteed safe rest!
You could make a real glass cannon class, in 3E they had the warlock (I think) with at will battle spells. It would be fun for someone who wanted a blaster, but they would never have the amazing breadth of usefulness that a MU does.

[archersix]

Jun 18, 2013 16:55:04 GMT -6 zeraser said:

I've been thinking a bit about a magic system that does away with a fixed list of spells in favor of a general rule for spellcasting: player tells DM what her wizard wants to do, DM tells her which die to roll, spell backfires tragically (or comically) on a 1. I think this would only work in a high-trust table environment.

That could be fun. It's also how they handled majic in the TSRs Marvel Super Heroes game. It was good enough for Doctor Strange!

I never used to enjoy playing MUs much back in the day. When I did I was always trying to keep up with the fighters, even going as far as trying to waylay the baddies with my quarterstaff after my spells ran out(and they usually ran out quickly too).
For the last year and a half I've been playing a MU, and having the time of my life. The real fun is in coming up with creative ways to use the spells. Of course blowing stuff up is fun too.The fun just doesn't end there!

[Deleted]

I'm not a huge fan of at-will spells (except for the most minor, non-combat cantrips); they trivialize magic somewhat IMO. I'd much rather give M-Us the ability to use all weapons (LotFP-style) to increase their melee ability. I agree, though, that recent D&D has trivialized M-Us in the name of "balance". I love the image of an arcanist making his way up from a dangerous apprenticeship, continually facing death because he eschews armor, learning only a few paltry spells...and gradually becoming a man who can literally annihilate armies.

[llenlleawg]

Jun 18, 2013 10:35:40 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

A quick thought: Fireball, lightning, and similar magic are given the chance to destroy magical armor, weapons, etc., each time the player fails his save. So, a magic-user who can cast fireball each round could seriously damage a party's magical items. I don't know how your players would react to this, but folks I've played with wouldn't like that one bit.

Actually, this isn't quite right. As it states in Monsters & Treasure, "Magical items will, during the course of play, be struck by various forms of weapons. For the sake of simplicity it is generally easier to assume they survive unharmed if their wearer/user is not killed (exception, Helms)." It then goes on to say that a save is made for items if the wearer/bearer is killed as a result of the attack or if the items are left alone (e.g. part of a pile of treasure in a room into which the MU tosses a fireball). So, these spells are not supposed to threaten the party's magic items, although you are, of course, free to play that way if you like. The intent, I think, is rather the reverse, namely, that players will see the risk of lobbing fireballs and lightning bolts into every combat, since most treasure/items will be destroyed in this way, with only a few having a chance to survive.

[llenlleawg]

I hate to repeat what has been said, but I'll join the chorus of those who hold that the MU isn't for dealing damage to the enemy. In the original rules, after all, the first MU spells that actually cause any damage at all are the iconic Fire Ball and Lightning Bolt, both 3rd level spells, to which the MU has no access until he is at least 5th level (earlier, of course, as a wand or in a scroll), and, as I note above, these spells carry real risks of undermining the point of the adventure (i.e. they have a good chance of destroying the very treasure that the characters are seeking).

Having said that, MUs can do amazing things, and it is this capacity to do amazing things (fly, turn invisible, detect hidden things) as well as take out/deal with enemies in ways other than dealing damage (sleep, charm, web, polymorph, illusions, etc.) that should be the staple of what MUs do. They can't do it often, mind you, but then neither can (or, neither should) a fighter take on every monster with combat, since he will quickly run out of hit points.

In short, if you want to increase the MUs resources (with "at-will" spells, e.g.), that's great, but keep an eye on the whole "resource management" angle. An MU was never meant to have too much to do in every combat combat (although a well-placed spell might be decisive in any given combat), even as fighters (and clerics) tend not to shine when needing to overcome/bypass especially difficult or challenging obstacles to adventure/exploration/getting treasure, which is where the MU is meant to be on top.

[Porphyre]

"The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck and call, save the arms and armor of the fighters" (Men & magic, p6)
I think the answer lies in that sentence.
The MU is not just supposed to shine by his own spells, but also by his mastering of magic items. We don't exactly now where the CHAINMAIL wizard gets his "at will" fire balls/lightening bolts; but that could be from his magical paraphernalia.
M&T says "assume wands have 100 charges". The moment your lowly medium puts his frail dagger-wielding hands on a wand of fire alls or lightening bolts, he's gotten his "at will" attacks.
Not to mention scrolls , wich are one of the most frequently featured items on the Treasure tables

[mgtremaine]

AND the MU can make magic items, scrolls and even new spells. In all my long campaigns that has been what has put the MU on top of the food chain.

-Mike

[jacar]

Jun 18, 2013 9:42:41 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Has anyone else put much thought into this? I'm starting to think that I need to come up with a way to re-balance the game so that magic-users get more cool stuff to do.

Talk me into it, or out of it.

In any iteration of DnD, adding MORE power to a Caster of any type is a horribly BAD thing to do. The big pay-off of a caster is that once they reach mid level, they can do a good many things with there spells. By 10th level, Magic Users are the most powerful character in the game all things being equal. Fighters can and should do lots of damage. This is the ONLY thing they do. Casters of any type can do a good many MANY things through magic. They excel in combat and non-combat encounters. Fighters excel only in combat. I'll bet anyone who bellyaches about being a caster is below 5th level.

BTW, a good caster should be preserving his spells and use them in dangerous situations where he perceives that the party needs help. He should not be slinging spells in every encounter. They should not be armed to the teeth with fireballs/lightning bolts. They should have plenty of utility spells. You never know when knock or dispel magic will come in handy. Regardless, the magic user should be using physical missile weapons unless magic use is warranted.

If a player is complaining that casters are under-powered and they are constantly out of spells, you know why.

John

PS Remember, fireballs, lightening bolts and magic missiles always do damage (Unless resisted). Fighters don't.

[inkmeister]

Fin, I know you've been playing since forever, so that in itself may be a justification to tweak things just for your own entertainment. But I don't think there is a need to make the OD&D MU more powerful. Already, compared to later versions in classic D&D, the OD&D MU is much better;

1) As has been discussed, Men and Magic can be read to imply that magic users automatically know all the spells of levels that they are capable of casting. Compare this to B/X, where magic users only know a number of spells equal to what they can cast in a day (and at higher levels, they can cast fewer spells per day than in OD&D), or Holmes, where there is a chance to know based on intelligence.

2) They have a more favorable spell progression than would be found in later versions of classic. (at level 5, you get 4-2-1 vs 2-2-1 in B/X).

3) They have a more favorable XP progression than the other classes in OD&D once they hit mid level.

4) They have more favorable hitpoints compared to other editions once they reach mid/high level

5) The OD&D spells are often more powerful than later versions, with no saving throw specified, or more powerful effects (phantasmal forces being able to kill, for example).

6) Scrolls are relatively cheap to produce (retained in Holmes).

It seems that various authors of the game found the OD&D Magic User to be too powerful, nerfing all of the aspects in subsequent versions.

This just hints that some other folks must have thought the MU was too powerful early on. I think the OD&D MU is fine as is (and I'm largely ok with the MU presentation in later classic D&D, though I go back and forth on that Moldvay restriction on spells known).

[capheind]

Magic users can do something every combat round, after all they are allowed to use darts! Which I take to mean roman style plumbata that are flung from a sling. They also get to use (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqwTVD0aTKk) a Staff. Granted, these aren't much use in close combat without the use of armor, but thats why you keep the Squishes out of close combat. Its like the ancient greeks defending their villages, those who are combat trained face the enemy head on with spear and sling while the women, children, and untrained hide in the hills and whittle them down with belly bows (Gastraphetes).

[zeraser]

My feeling about the magic-user - I shudder just typing that unwieldy, unmusical name - is that its power relative to other classes is less at issue than the lameness of having to use darts when one runs out of spells to use in combat. (Darts!) Fin's "zap" spell is a good way around this issue, I think, because it basically "reskins" an unlimited supply of darts as a spell. No doubt an enterprising player could come up with variants on "zap" that would convey a bit more style, DM permitting.

Its like the ancient greeks defending their villages, those who are combat trained face the enemy head on with spear and sling while the women, children, and untrained hide in the hills and whittle them down with belly bows (Gastraphetes).

In some campaigns, a magic-user might be among the "women, children, and untrained" - but in others (including most campaigns with people under 30 playing in it, I've found) a magic-user is supposed to be an awesome wizard with eldritch powers that strike fear into the hearts of her foes. If I were going to play as a magic-user, I'd want to use magic, and I'd want to use it every round.

[Porphyre]

5) The OD&D spells are often more powerful than later versions, with no saving throw specified, or more powerful effects (phantasmal forces being able to kill, for example).

Actuelly, I interpreted the rules the other way around. Men & Magic says , p 20, just before intrducing the spells lists:
"Scoring the total indicated above (...) means the weapn has no effect (death ray, polymorph, paralization, stone , or spell) or one-half effect "
In other terms, I would assume that all spells listed are potentially negated or , in the case of damage inflicting ones, helved in effect by a succesfull ST. 

[ffilz]

Jun 22, 2013 7:24:05 GMT -6 capheind said:

Magic users can do something every combat round, after all they are allowed to use darts! Which I take to mean roman style plumbata that are flung from a sling. They also get to use (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqwTVD0aTKk) a Staff. Granted, these aren't much use in close combat without the use of armor, but thats why you keep the Squishes out of close combat. Its like the ancient greeks defending their villages, those who are combat trained face the enemy head on with spear and sling while the women, children, and untrained hide in the hills and whittle them down with belly bows (Gastraphetes).

Darts is AD&D...

In OD&D MUs are actually only allowed to use daggers (they don't actually even have staves on their list).

And thieve's don't have any missile weapon other than dagger...

Frank

[talysman]

Jun 23, 2013 16:41:37 GMT -6 ffilz said:

Jun 22, 2013 7:24:05 GMT -6 capheind said:

Magic users can do something every combat round, after all they are allowed to use darts! Which I take to mean roman style plumbata that are flung from a sling. They also get to use (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqwTVD0aTKk) a Staff. Granted, these aren't much use in close combat without the use of armor, but thats why you keep the Squishes out of close combat. Its like the ancient greeks defending their villages, those who are combat trained face the enemy head on with spear and sling while the women, children, and untrained hide in the hills and whittle them down with belly bows (Gastraphetes).

Darts is AD&D...

In OD&D MUs are actually only allowed to use daggers (they don't actually even have staves on their list).

And thieve's don't have any missile weapon other than dagger...

That's true, but then neither darts nor staves are listed on the standard equipment lists, so we have to make a ruling. I think darts are reasonable to add to both M-U and Thief because they are more or less dagger size and shape. The staff, on the other hand, has to be an omission, since the Staff of Striking is only usable by Magic-Users. It would be a bummer if they weren't allowed to use it because of their class...

[Porphyre]

I think it is stated in the Holmes Basic Set that MU are allowed to use their wands as weapons, but I cant' find the exact mention.

[blackbarn]

My own take on the weapon use situation...

I see the various magical staves as magic items, not weapons, even if they can be used as weapons. Thus, they are not subject to the magic-user restrictions on weapon use.

Also, it never sat right with me that fighting staves were given to magic-users in later rules, as they are a deadly martial-arts type weapon that requires combat skill (quarterstaves, etc.) and not in the same spirit as a wizard with a magic staff (like Gandalf, for instance.) Fighting staves should be for martial classes, and magic item staves for the magic-user, which is how the game already works in OD&D.

The mention of daggers, while they can be used for fighting, seems to be more in-line with real world based use as a tool in magical ritual rather than a serious weapon, which is why they are allowed for magic-users. Makes sense that way to me, at least.

[Porphyre]

If you look to the powers of staves in Monster & Treasure, they very closely match those of the "wizards swords" in theh First Fantasy Campaign.

[Deleted]

Wands. Crom's hairy nutsack, wands. Scrolls, potions. A first level magic user can make a first level scroll in one week for 100 GP with no chance of failure. Okay, wait two months and your magic user now has four SLEEP, 2 Charm Person, and 2 Magic Missile spells.

Magic Users are already so potentially over powered, I constantly wonder why people want to beef them up.

Also, when we played magic users we always bought half a dozen daggers and threw them.

[blackadder23]

Why are your magic-users throwing daggers and darts, when they could be throwing flaming oil, holy water, or acid? A 1st level magic-user might be stuck with cheap darts, but after he picks up a bit of gold I see no reason he shouldn't cram his pouches full of the good stuff.

I have to agree with those who say magic-users really don't need a boost (in any Old School version of D&D). They're not supposed to be any good at combat (melee or missile) so comparisons to fighters seem irrelevant to me. If your magic-users (and thieves, another oft maligned class) can't find enough to do, I respectfully suggest that your game may be weighted a bit heavily in the direction of combat compared to baseline D&D. Which is fine if your players prefer it, but then they maybe need to play fighters and clerics and stop bellyaching.

[zeraser]

An aside: If Fin's experience (and moreover as a player this time, not as a DM) suggests that he would enjoy the game more if M-U's had more versatility or power, then it seems to me that he should disregard our solemn admonitions to the contrary and just give his M-U's more versatility or power. That which holds true in a game of D&D holds true only to the extent that the people seated at the table agree to it.

My guess is that the evolution of rules to restrain the power of the M-U was probably sparked by players at home games and cons in the 1970s and 1980s whose inventive mischief began to disrupt their campaigns. The only "official" solution was for TSR to legislate against these problems in the rulebooks. But of course there's also an unofficial solution, one that inheres in the social plane of D&D: Work out a consensus at the table for how M-U's should be handled. Fin is taking steps toward precisely this solution, I think.

Aren't we the people who weren't supposed to care about game balance? Maybe that's a rather 2009 notion for the 2013 OSR community to embrace.

[inkmeister]

Zeraser, I enjoy your loose and creative approach to the game - refreshing compared to the very hard core types that try to justify every last detail of the rules as written. That said, I don't agree with you here, at least not completely.

Where I agree is that one should do whatever it takes to make the game enjoyable for themselves and those they play with.

But I also think that sometimes there is logic behind something that isn't automatically apparent, and that it can be worthwhile to explore and find that logic. I think the OSR has been at least as much about that as it has been about getting past any obsession with balance. So many ideas written down in OD&D and classic D&D have been thrown aside as unrealistic, nonsensical garbage, but the OSR has lifted many of these ideas up and exposed their logic, and shown us how these ideas can be fun in play.

Of course, Fin is probably the last person in need of anyone to explain some old game logic, but I still think for the sake of discussion, it is worth arguing for what is already in the books. I've found myself on both sides of those discussions and enjoyed it either way.

Last of all, I do find balance discussions interesting, as I am interested in the game aspect of the game, as well as the creative/roleplaying/world exploring stuff.

[zeraser]

Jul 9, 2013 14:26:43 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Last of all, I do find balance discussions interesting, as I am interested in the game aspect of the game, as well as the creative/roleplaying/world exploring stuff.

Me too. I was being a little provocative, but honestly - if we're all here on the OD&D Discussion boards to do anything, it's to discuss the rules. This is a great conversation, and there's nowhere I'd rather have it.

Edit: I guess some people are probably here to do PbP games rather than just to discuss the rules. That's cool too.