Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 22:52:03 GMT -6
I made a mistake, low level magic users can't make scrolls.
But scrolls, potions, and wands are very common treasure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jul 10, 2013 0:52:00 GMT -6
I made a mistake, low level magic users can't make scrolls. That's Holmes Basic Set |
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Jul 11, 2013 12:21:58 GMT -6
Yeah, Porphyre, and I really kind of like that rule. Why wait to 9th level to be able to create scrolls and the like? IT does seem like opening this up Holmes style would do a lot to help the magic user, while sucking some money out of their hands. Thoughts?
I know for my part, players don't usually make it past level one, let alone to level 9. I'm not sure I even want to run a level 9 game.
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzysaxophone on Jul 11, 2013 16:20:33 GMT -6
I let my magic-users start making scrolls at level 1. Gives them that extra 'firepower' and gives them something to spend their money and downtime on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 16:21:05 GMT -6
I agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 11, 2013 18:39:21 GMT -6
That's perhaps the most widely used rule innovation from the Holmes Set. And it could be based simply on a misreading of the original text! The original says "Wizards and above may manufacture..." and if you are not reading carefully one might assume "wizard" is any magic-user rather than a specific level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 12, 2013 5:46:47 GMT -6
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. 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. See, this is what I like best about this place. We can have civil discussions where we don't agree but respect each other's ideas. If our EXALT worked, I'd give you each one!  It's a tough issue, because I think that different folks have different styles of play. If a magic-suing kid playing 4E comes to my 0E table he may be really bored because he loses his "at will" powers and instead gets maybe a couple of spells per day. And "by the book" he needs to pick them in advance. And if you're playing pre-Greyhawk he doesn't even get a Magic Missile spell. These factors combine to make a very different experience for the kid, and one he might not want to repeat. Old timers "get it" more, that magic users are designed to be wussy early on but can dominate at high levels. They tend to think more about tactics and making use of unorthodox ways to use spells to gain advantage in subtle ways, and not just in combat. My wife is a tricky case to handle, because she's played D&D off-and-on for 25 years (since we met) and likes to read fiction where magic users do all sorts of wonderous non-combat things. But when it comes time for combat, she wants to blow stuff away with magic. Maybe that makes her a powergamer, but she has had the same complaints for decades. I haven't really seen the opposite side of things until I got the chance to play some newer editions. I'n in a Next game and got to play some sessions of 13th Age, and in both cases the magic user had all those "at will" powers or more spells than in OE or AD&D. Just got me thinking that maybe I needed to re-examine the way I thought about this stuff. That's what prompted my original post. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 12, 2013 5:49:10 GMT -6
I let my magic-users start making scrolls at level 1. Gives them that extra 'firepower' and gives them something to spend their money and downtime on. I've never done this, but combining this with my "zap" spell might just be the solution I was searching for. Of course, then I'll have to give out more treasure so the magic user can afford to make scrolls. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 12, 2013 6:30:47 GMT -6
And if you're playing pre-Greyhawk he doesn't even get a Magic Missile spell. The Greyhawk magic-missile doesn't "unerringly strike" as in later editions, so it's scarcely better than a thrown dagger at low levels. |
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Jul 12, 2013 8:45:49 GMT -6
Kind of an aside to the conversation at large, but: 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. Reason 1: Unless the DM runs a generous game, the price very well COULD be prohibitive. At 25 gp a pop, holy water costs the same as a heavy crossbow, a shortbow, or almost as much as a draft horse. Acid - I'm not even sure if "vial of acid" is actually on any "official" equipment list before WotC's editions, at least a quick search through some pdf-s didn't find it. But even if it's houseruled in, it's price is assumably comparable to holy water. And for single-shot items that may even miss altogether, that's EXPENSIVE. (And oil... many DM-s might rule that the cheap thing on the price list is lantern oil, which is NOT an effective weapon.) Reason 2: There's a good reason why he shouldn't cram his pouches full of the good stuff. Acid vials have a way of breaking upon hard impact, which is the sort of thing that tends to happen to dungeoneering adventurers;, and flammable things are, well... flammable. And fire- and explosion related mishaps also tend to happen to adventurers. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 12, 2013 19:31:15 GMT -6
I think you've internalized a bit of new school gripes about 0e that I think are debatable. Low level MU are not weak. Not compared to low level fighters and also not compared (comparatively) to high level wizards. Given a somewhat ruthless 0e world where the chances of bumping into something much more powerful at low levels is a small but real risk. charm person: 7th level bandit leader? Now the thrall of the parties 1st level wizard. detect magic: viola! Out of the 10 swords stocked in this room, the party is now 800xp richer because the magician found the +2 sword instantly. Light: ....ok, not incredibly strong... Protection from Evil: The party opens a door and there is floating an enraged Balrog that just got loose of it's summoner, the 1st level wizard steps into the doorway and casts protection from evil hedging the creature out while the rest of the party leaves. Read Languages: "This treasure map tells us there is gold and magic items buried under the flagstones of this room!" read magic: ditto Sleep: KO of a platoon of goblins. Even apprentices are extremely powerful individuals a 3e or 4e wizard cannot effect the game world with the same power a 0e wizard can, because the spells are spells that effect the world around them, mu in 0e can change the laws of the game world, and that is the most powerful ability there is, a power that puts magic-users 2nd only to the power of the DM. The DM says, "this door is locked". The player of a magic-user can say, "This door is open"...and it is. The DM says, "This man is your enemy" and the player of the magic-user says, "This man is my friend." and the game world changes to accommodate his wish. Now if it's more of a 4e type game (a skirmish war-game), then certainly, take a page from CHAINMAIL and give the wizard a fire/lightning spell that is free to cast in combat, or magic missile (a spell much weaker than any original 1st level spell, yes even weaker than light). With that said, I've been thinking about doing something along these lines. Because, what does it mean that a 12th level MU can cast eight 1st and 2nd level spells per day? If we were to think of that abstractly, for all intents and purposes, doesn't a 12th level magic user cast as many 1st and 2nd level spells during the day that he could ever possibly need? Is a game day going to be so long that he's going to burn through eight low level spells? Why not just "hand wave" them? Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
|
|
Post by librarylass on Jul 13, 2013 17:34:52 GMT -6
Cooper, your idea intrigues me and I wish to hear more. Particularly about how you handle rituals in this context.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2013 12:44:35 GMT -6
Old timers "get it" more, that magic users are designed to be wussy early on but can dominate at high levels. They tend to think more about tactics and making use of unorthodox ways to use spells to gain advantage in subtle ways, and not just in combat. I grew up watching those cheesy adventure movies from the 60s and 70s, Journey to the Center of the Earth, At the Earth Core, Land that Time Forgot, etc, etc. In those movies, it was inevitable that each expedition had the studly man of action as well as the old, learned professor. I try to treat the magic-users in my campaign as those professor-types. Sure, he isn't very useful in a fight, but he has seen what lies beyond the gate and knows things man was not meant to know. In a sense, the MUs are the expedition leaders. They are the ones that truly know what is going on in the deep dark places of the world. So I try to create situations in my adventures that are non-combat but require a magic-user's skill set: broken magical devices, strange magic-based puzzles, bizarre unnatural creatures, hints written in ancient languages etc. This will keep him engaged in the adventure without needed him to be blasting things apart all the time. Because, what does it mean that a 12th level MU can cast eight 1st and 2nd level spells per day? If we were to think of that abstractly, for all intents and purposes, doesn't a 12th level magic user cast as many 1st and 2nd level spells during the day that he could ever possibly need? Is a game day going to be so long that he's going to burn through eight low level spells? I don't see the need for MUs to cast every single spell. I look at that large collection of low levels spells and see it as a large number of situations that he'll be ready for. Light for when the torches blow out, Detect Magic for when you find treasure, Read Magic for finding scrolls, etc. He's ready for anything! |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Jul 15, 2013 11:28:43 GMT -6
Unless the DM runs a generous game, the price very well COULD be prohibitive. At 25 gp a pop, holy water costs the same as a heavy crossbow, a shortbow, or almost as much as a draft horse. Acid - I'm not even sure if "vial of acid" is actually on any "official" equipment list before WotC's editions, at least a quick search through some pdf-s didn't find it. But even if it's houseruled in, it's price is assumably comparable to holy water. And for single-shot items that may even miss altogether, that's EXPENSIVE. (And oil... many DM-s might rule that the cheap thing on the price list is lantern oil, which is NOT an effective weapon.) Yes, they are expensive, but what else is an MU supposed to spend money on? He can't wear armor and a crossbow or short bow is useless to him. Unless the DM allows scroll-writing from the start (which I personally always have - if you can write a spell book, why not a scroll?), the MU really has very little to do with his cash. So I repeat, he may as well toss oil and holy water instead of darts.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 16, 2013 8:23:35 GMT -6
if you can write a spell book, why not a scroll? Because the two are completely different things: a spell book is a magic-user's tool for memorizing spells; a scroll is a pre-cast spell that just needs a trigger, even if the spell is higher-level than you can normally cast. |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Jul 16, 2013 8:47:56 GMT -6
if you can write a spell book, why not a scroll? Because the two are completely different things: a spell book is a magic-user's tool for memorizing spells; a scroll is a pre-cast spell that just needs a trigger, even if the spell is higher-level than you can normally cast. The fact that you can copy a spell from a scroll into a spellbook makes me doubt that they are actually "completely different". Furthermore, in AD&D you can cast spells by reading them directly from a spellbook (albeit at some risk). So I have to believe the two cases are fundamentally somewhat similar. However, I certainly agree that you shouldn't be able to scribe scrolls of spell levels higher than you can cast. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 16, 2013 10:28:39 GMT -6
Because the two are completely different things: a spell book is a magic-user's tool for memorizing spells; a scroll is a pre-cast spell that just needs a trigger, even if the spell is higher-level than you can normally cast. The fact that you can copy a spell from a scroll into a spellbook makes me doubt that they are actually "completely different". Furthermore, in AD&D you can cast spells by reading them directly from a spellbook (albeit at some risk). So I have to believe the two cases are fundamentally somewhat similar. However, I certainly agree that you shouldn't be able to scribe scrolls of spell levels higher than you can cast. Those are both later additions, though. There's nothing in Men & Magic that suggests you can copy a spell from a scroll onto anything, or that you can cast spells directly from a spellbook. You can certainly house-rule it that way: I've changed it so that casting Read Magic on an unidentified scroll lets you immediately learn that spell, allowing you to add it to your spellbook (more like copying from memory than copying directly from a scroll, but same diff...) I also follow the Holmes rule about 1st level magic-users creating scrolls. But that's just my interpretation; that's not part of the main rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jul 16, 2013 10:38:32 GMT -6
I suppose that writing a spell from a scroll into your spellbook requires some kind of retro-engineering. Spells from spellbooks are the blueprints.
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Jul 19, 2013 7:21:12 GMT -6
Yes, they are expensive, but what else is an MU supposed to spend money on? He can't wear armor and a crossbow or short bow is useless to him. This really depends on the style of the campaign - and this is exactly my point of contention, you can't just make sweeping statements when there are so many different games out there. But just for example: - There's all that adventuring gear from ropes through mirrors, paper, chalk and charcoal to crowbars and tinderboxes that might mean the difference between life and death, and which the fighters and clerics can't afford exactly because they're saving every penny for their platemail. - On a similar note, horses, other beasts of burden, wagons - you're NOT going to carry a cubic yard's worth of copper and silver coins in your pocket. - Henchmen. The money you'd pay for a few single-use vials of holy water could be used to hire some local lads and equip them with spears - they would be MUCH more useful against pretty much anything other than undead, and would quite possibly last longer, too. - Miscellaneous expenses. Lodging in town, bribes to city guards and officials, bribes diplomatic concessions to nobility / clergy / local underworld. Of course you could just ignore or handwave all of that, but that only makes your game poorer. |
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 19, 2013 7:37:32 GMT -6
Of course you could just ignore or handwave all of that, but that only makes your game poorer. it makes one's game poorer, but maybe the aesthetic of one's game is defiantly anti-quotidian, leaving no room for purchasing mundane items. Maybe what the magic-user really needs money for is to buy fabulous robes, mantles, and cowls. Maybe there's no money in the campaign world. Maybe everything operates on the barter system. Maybe the PCs are kings and empresses, and everything they could ever need (except the things they need in order to complete the campaign) is made available to them. you can't just make sweeping statements when there are so many different games out there. On this we are agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Jul 19, 2013 11:56:23 GMT -6
This really depends on the style of the campaign - and this is exactly my point of contention, you can't just make sweeping statements when there are so many different games out there. Certainly, but then what's the point of "pondering the power of the magic-user" in the first place? That can also vary from campaign to campaign. Of course you could just ignore or handwave all of that, but that only makes your game poorer. Luckily you managed to avoid any sweeping statements.  |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 22, 2013 13:56:42 GMT -6
Looking at Vancian magic in 0e. Let's remove the word, "spells per day". That is a simulationist view, but D&D is a game and lets look at what the rules mean in the game. There are only two types of turns in a game. Rest turns and encounter turns. (for our purposes an encounter may include exploration; an encounter turn is simply the period of time between two rest turns).
An encounter can be short; a single wandering encounter with a goblin. An encounter can be quite long; Mazirian's lengthy chase of T'sain in Jack Vance's short story, "Mazirian the Magician". D&D wizards are limited in their number of spells per encounter. There is no such thing as a "day". Days do not actually exist. This is a game. My chart above is bad. 4E's version is bad for this very reason.
To improve the power of a lower level magic user, one needs to allow for shorter encounters. A 5th level mu can cast 3/2/1. This is 5 spells in an encounter. He can bring more to bear on a short encounter and has longevity for a lengthy encounter. This is the only balance necessary.
I think DM's err when they expect low level PC's to be able to handle long encounters. If you make your encounters shorter, 1-2 rooms in a dungeon and then a "rest turn" which in D&D speak is "resting for 8 or 24 hours in town", then the low level wizard even with his single encounter spell, feels more powerful because the DM isn't dragging him out on lengthy encounters designed for wizards with 5 or 6 memorized spells.
Basically what I'm saying, if that to describe Vancian magic in 4e terms. All wizard spells are encounter powers. Traditionally, DM's in 0e/1e force low level players through very long encounters, or punish players characters for taking quick rest turns. Which then leads to threads like this. But the problem isn't with Vancian magic. It's not fixed with "free-casting" nor with "at-will" spells. The problem is the encounter lengths and how painful taking a turn of rest is to the player's actions.
|
|
capheind
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by capheind on Jul 29, 2013 15:17:25 GMT -6
I think the biggest failing of the equipment lists is that they generally lack a pavise. Even if your game doesn't have crossbows the existence of Magic-Users would almost necessitate their invention, and then you'd have your living magical one-shot (six shooter, whatever number of spells they get at their level) tucked behind a standup shield throwing flaming oil, marbles, or whatever, until they find the key time to loose their one spell.
|
|
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.
