Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5798068" data-attributes="member: 53980">Okay, but my earlier point still stands. If fireball is a killer spell, then a single target spell of equal level has to be a more killer spell. If fireball is a killer spell, what role does the rest of the party play (they're preferably not just there to be cheerleaders for the mage)? Are they only there for encounters where the wizard chooses not to cast fireball? Is there not perhaps some middle ground for others to contribute as well? Additionally, mages had a lot of weaknesses in 1e. If you want spells like a 1e fireball, you should be willing to accept the 1e drawbacks that balanced them. These include:-Wizards had the highest xp requirements of any class.-Wizard saving throws, most notably against death magic, sucked.-Their "Thac0" was only 13 at level 20. (Their ability to hit sucked.)-Any damage would automatically waste the spell. Since actions were declared before initiative was rolled, and initiative was rolled every round, you never knew how many attacks you might take before finishing your spell.-Wizards had a measly average of 34.5 hp at level 20. Note that this means he could be killed by an average 20d6 fireball, regardless of whether he makes the saving throw or not. He can kill himself quite easily.-They had quite severe limits on the number of spells they could learn (from 6 to 18 spells, barring a 19 Int), and had only a percentage chance that they could ever learn a given spell (from 35% to 85%, barring a 19 Int). Since stats were rolled in those days, it wasn't unusual to see a 16 Int Wizard (can only learn 11 spells per spell level, and only has a 65% chance to learn that given spell, and can never cast 9th level spells). If you failed your check to learn the spell, you could never learn that spell (barring not meeting you minimum number of spells limit). Envision yourself as a fire mage but rolled a 89 for fireball? Sucks to be you; you'll never be able to cast fireball.-They couldn't wear armor at all. -They couldn't circumvent vocal, somatic, or material component requirements by any means (no Still Spell, etc.). -Many spells had significant drawbacks. Some had expensive material components (5,000 gp to cast shapechange), while other spells had serious drawbacks, such as polymorph other requiring a system shock roll just to survive it and another roll for the mind to remain intact (useful against enemies, but potentially disasterous if cast upon a party member).-Spell resistance was a flat percentage, unlike 3e. Many high level creatures were practically impervious to magical attack. And let's not forget that you were completely boned in an anti-magic field.Personally, I much prefer a toned down version of fireball and a mage with a few less restrictions. I like the idea that a mage can choose spells that conform to his concept. I like that some mages might learn to cast spells without somatic components (useful if you're bound). I like a wizard who can't be one-shot by his own fireball, regardless of whether he makes his save. I think an armored mage could be interesting. I don't think that mages should automatically waste their spell if they get hit (they ought to at least get a save or something). I don't think anti-magic fields should exist any more than anti-sword-swinging fields should exist. That's just me though.</blockquote>

Verification