D&D 2E Now I have the hankering to play a 2E game...

[Retreater]

Seriously, how did TSR wizards get a reputation for being absurdly OP? Or is that more of a WotC D&D thing?

Because it wasn't about hit points. Or the number of spells. It was about casting light to blind your enemies. It was about hold person that lasted for an hour instead of a single round (save ends). It was about sleep that could end an entire combat against a dozen kobolds or goblins - instantly. It was about fireball and lightning bolt that could expand to fill their space or ricochet off walls. It was a charm spell that could potentially last for days or longer.
It was because magic was magic, not just something that could be shrugged off on the next turn.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Seriously, how did TSR wizards get a reputation for being absurdly OP? Or is that more of a WotC D&D thing?

I don't think people said they were ridiculously OP in the TSR days (especially the pre-2e days); instead, that they were balanced differently.

@Retreater is correct in what he wrote; in the TSR days, magic wasn't just magic, it was MAGIC.

You didn't have constant damage cantrips, but the spells you had were amazing. "Say hello to my boom stick." You suffered through four levels of "Oh, I get to cast a magic missile (or sleep! or hold person!)" once a day or so .. just for that grin on your face when you dropped that first fireball.

And the magic items? They were gated by class. So there were a lot of things that only the MU could use.

Yes, you needed the meatshields to keep you alive. But a well-played name-level magic user was a fearsome power in the TSR days.

 

[overgeeked]

2. But the Rules Cyclopedia had death saves like the ones in 5e: that is, you hit 0 HP, make a save of this sort. Fail 3 of them and you're dead.

Not quite. If the DM removed resurrection then the character who hits 0 hp starts making death saves. Fail one and you're dead.

 

[David Howery]

I'm reading the AD&D2E PHB and my jaw dropped when I hit the section on energy drains. Holy hell. That's nasty. No wonder players hated energy drain. Especially casters. Damn.

yes, I remember from my DM days that nothing could bring stark fear to a player's face more than 'You're facing a vampire". Or wight or spectre or any of the level drainers. Type VI demon? Meh. Ancient red dragon? yawn. Vampire? wide staring eyes...

 

[overgeeked]

Because it wasn't about hit points. Or the number of spells. It was about casting light to blind your enemies. It was about hold person that lasted for an hour instead of a single round (save ends). It was about sleep that could end an entire combat against a dozen kobolds or goblins - instantly. It was about fireball and lightning bolt that could expand to fill their space or ricochet off walls. It was a charm spell that could potentially last for days or longer.

It was because magic was magic, not just something that could be shrugged off on the next turn.

Blinded by the light was so much fun.

I don't think people said they were ridiculously OP in the TSR days (especially the pre-2e days); instead, that they were balanced differently.

@Retreater is correct in what he wrote; in the TSR days, magic wasn't just magic, it was MAGIC.

You didn't have constant damage cantrips, but the spells you had were amazing. "Say hello to my boom stick." You suffered through four levels of "Oh, I get to cast a magic missile (or sleep! or hold person!)" once a day or so .. just for that grin on your face when you dropped that first fireball.

And the magic items? They were gated by class. So there were a lot of things that only the MU could use.

Yes, you needed the meatshields to keep you alive. But a well-played name-level magic user was a fearsome power in the TSR days.

Right. But whatever spells the wizard got were down to DM fiat. So wizards were only as powerful as the DM let them be. They were glass cannons. And if the DM gave them crazy spells, they'd be crazy powerful. Combine that with the combat as war style so prevalent back then, it made for short-lived wizards at best. I only remember playing wizards if we started at higher level than 1st. It wasn't worth the headache otherwise.

 

[Marc_C]

Blinded by the light was so much fun.

Right. But whatever spells the wizard got were down to DM fiat. So wizards were only as powerful as the DM let them be. They were glass cannons. And if the DM gave them crazy spells, they'd be crazy powerful. Combine that with the combat as war style to prevalent back then, it made for short-lived wizards at best. I only remember playing wizards if we started at higher level than 1st. It wasn't worth the headache otherwise.

Indeed. You group had the habit of giving a wand of Magic Missile at level one so the poor Magic-User (usually me) could contribute a bit more.

My first M-U had 1 HP and no constitution! Died in the first room against a kobold. I thought D&D was a stupid game and almost never played again. it took me six months and the gift of the Moldvay Red Box to give it another try.

 

[Zardnaar]

With all the restrictions on magic-users in TSR editions of D&D, was there really a LFQW problem? Reading the AD&D2E PHB it's kinda glaring just how much control over MU and cleric spells the DM has. The MU has to find or be given any spells, so pure DM fiat. Then they have to roll to actually learn the spells they find. Then there's hit points. MU cap out at a laughable 10d4, so 40 max, +2 per level after 10th. On the off chance a MU gets to 50 hit points, there's the massive damage rules. CON decreasing with each return to life. Spell research is basically DM fiat. Spellcasting being spoiled. INT-based spell level limits. INT-based max number of spells. Having to have the spellbook to memorize spells each day. How long it takes to memorize spells each day. Seriously, how did TSR wizards get a reputation for being absurdly OP? Or is that more of a WotC D&D thing?

More of a 3E thing IMHO.

At the time they were proud of removing restrictions in 3E.

They didn't redo the spelks though and in some cases powered then up eg harm.

The only way of guaranteed spells was 2E specialist and you got one spell of your choice iirc.

 

[Stormonu]

How often do you get a new magic item?

If you fight one battle vs. a Dragon...let's say you have 15 rolls in 3e. That's 15 math calculations.

With THAC0...that's ONE calculation.

Get a magic item. Recalculate THAC0. That's ONE calculation.

Recalculate bonuses for 3e...that's ONE calculation.

Fight another battle vs. Dragon...that's another 15 rolls...that's 15 math calculations in 3e.

ONE calculation with THAC0.

3e has more math going on in that ratio...UNLESS...suddenly you don't have a problem with subtraction and treat it similarly to how you did with THAC0...

I think you’re beating a dead horse. If your opponent’s AC isn’t 0, you’re still doing math with every 2E roll too.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Right. But whatever spells the wizard got were down to DM fiat. So wizards were only as powerful as the DM let them be. They were glass cannons. And if the DM gave them crazy spells, they'd be crazy powerful. Combine that with the combat as war style so prevalent back then, it made for short-lived wizards at best. I only remember playing wizards if we started at higher level than 1st. It wasn't worth the headache otherwise.

No, not really. That's not correct.

Arguably, any class or anything was "only as powerful as the DM would let you be." The difference between a Paladin and a Paladin with a Holy Avenger (to use one example) was great- but no one says that a Paladin is only as powerful as the DM would let you be, because only the DM would let you have that.

You can play your character well, or poorly; that's on you, not the DM. shrug

 

[Stormonu]

No, not really. That's not correct.

Arguably, any class or anything was "only as powerful as the DM would let you be." The difference between a Paladin and a Paladin with a Holy Avenger (to use one example) was great- but no one says that a Paladin is only as powerful as the DM would let you be, because only the DM would let you have that.

You can play your character well, or poorly; that's on you, not the DM. shrug

I’m guilty of this. I wouldn’t let the Paladin back in my 2E days get a holy weapon because I was concerned he’d become unstoppable.

Of course, that was the same character that had a bronze dragon as a mount.