[1/2E] First level uselessness

[Ethdred]

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

[Matthew]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kami2awa]

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

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

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

[bosssmiley]

question - for 1st and 2nd editions only - how did you make the mage and cleric experience more interesting?

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

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

[nagora]

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

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

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

[Grey Paladin]

Fighters are as interesting as the GM lets them be- the less you improvise and stick to the rules as written, treating them as a system instead of a toolbox, the more bland this class becomes.

Clerics are just Fighters with more options.

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

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

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

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

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

[nagora]

Simply put, at level one you're not a hero yet.

Yes, that's fourth level!

Note that "their one spell" is false anyway, since wizards tend to specialize

That's 2e.

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

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

[Matthew]

That's 2e.

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

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

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

[RebelRogue]

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

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

[erikun]

Didn't magic users get bonus spells for high Int also? It's been awhile since I played 2nd AD&D.

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

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

[ken-do-nim]

As Nagora said, clerics (and druids) get bonus spells starting at only a 13 in wisdom, so they usually have 3 spells per day a piece.

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

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

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

So far this has worked out great.

[Matthew]

Didn't magic users get bonus spells for high Int also? It's been awhile since I played 2nd AD&D.

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

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

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

[ken-do-nim]

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

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

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

[Thane of Fife]

the fighters don't have the best armor money can buy yet

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

[LibraryOgre]

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

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

[nagora]

As Nagora said, clerics (and druids) get bonus spells starting at only a 13 in wisdom, so they usually have 3 spells per day a piece.

To balance this out, I give magic-users and illusionists bonus spells based on int as follows:

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

[RebelRogue]

I'm much more amenable to the "graduation scroll" for the simple reason that it eventually stops giving.

That sounds like a pretty good way to make the first level tolerable, actually!

[RagnaroksChosen]

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

[LibraryOgre]

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

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

[Tsotha-lanti]

2nd of all i believe both Mage's and priests gained bonus spells from wisdom. Which to me makes sense.

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

[ken-do-nim]

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

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

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

[RagnaroksChosen]

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

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

[Thane of Fife]

Says spell casters, not just priests... I don't have the books in front of me but I'm pritty sure. I could swear that our Mage/priest has gotten bonus spells, for both...

2e PHB says:

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

[RagnaroksChosen]

2e PHB says:

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

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

[Thane of Fife]

Well it's definately not the 1st edition one.

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

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

[RagnaroksChosen]

Well it's definately not the 1st edition one.

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

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

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

[Tsotha-lanti]

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

[AKA_Bait]

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

The one time that stands out in my memory of trying it was in a game where I was a first level wizard added to a 4th or 5th level party

Yeah, well, you shouldn't do that in any edition of D&D.

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

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