CRGreathouse said:
I never saw this rule in 2E. Was it in the core books?
No, I don't think it was in the main core books. At least not that I remember of. Maybe it was in one of the magic books, about "wish" and similar.
CRGreathouse said:
You've got to be kidding me. A Maximized fireball is a 6th level spell, comparable then to the 2E disintegrate, chain lightning, and death spell. In addition, it takes a feat and has the save of a 3rd level spell. It's weak, only worth using if you're otherwise out of options or have special circumstances.
True, it's +3, my bad. Ok 6th level is better. I still do not like it at all, I must admit.
I don't know about 3ed, but spell creation in 2ed is very delicate and balanced about die of damages.
5th level magic damage is about Cone Of Cold (1d4+1 /Lvl). 6th level magic is Chain Lightning (1d6 per level, capped at 12d6 IIRC) which is just slightly higher than fireball, Otiluke's Freezing Sphere (1d4+2 / level, but if you save, with dex bonus, it's no damage,and it hits only 1 character), etc.
All in all,to get a limit of possible damage, you need 7th level magic: Delayed Blast Fireball: 10d6+10 max.
Far from a maximised Fireball in 3ed.
I understand that in 3ed you save easier vs a low spell level than vs a high one, which is imho a good rule, non existant in 2ed. In 2ed a save is still a save. (unless you take some high level campaign saves rules)
The higher the magic you can cast, the higher level you are, so the easiest you save (both in 2ed and 3ed).
Even though you're right about monsters hp, making a maximised fireball not so strong, I still don't like it vs. wizards. They still get killed by it, even with a save. at 12th level.
There are really a few magic in 2ed that can kill a wizard even with a ST (in a single blow), and those are Cone Of Cold (if not capped, and only from 20th lvl of casting, and it's not Cone Of Cold is a very versatile spell in battle), and another 8th levl spell (Azi Dabim Horrible something).
Overall, I guess 3ed couldn't do any different...
hp and damage, like in all successive editions of D&D, were increased (this is normal, to make things look better, you better the classes and possibilities to make them more appealing to customers. 2ed was no different than 3ed in that matter, of course
). However, they couldn't really boost damage of spells, since they didn't boost hp for wizards and classes, but at high levels.
Still, since monsters got more sturdy (indeed, it was time they did, since 2ed monsters are a little weak in that department), you needed something.
All in all, well, yes, I agree that +3 level and feat is enough to make it balanced, and I must admit also that if I were a mage I wouldn't take it, finding it "weak". Still, I don't like the concept...
CRGreathouse said:
I killed many creatures in 2E with fireball. In 3E it does much less damage, proportionately. An ogre had around 20 hit points in 2E, so a fireball would be likely enough to kill it; in 3E they have half again as many hit points. An owlbear's typical hit points have nearly doubled; other creatures are similar.
See above. Even though the ogre would likely not save (STs in 2ed of an ogre is about 16/17, so he would need a 16 or more to save on 1d20, without counting possibles malus to the ST) in 2ed, while in 3rd, I honestly don't know, but it can't be worse I guess, since it's about also characteristics, and not only levels.
I guess the ogre wouldn't save either, right ?
CRGreathouse said:
There are a lot of spells that don't age subjects in both editions, why not always cast all of them? It's a matter of time and resources, as always. 3.0 haste was strong, no doubt, but in 3.0 with wizards routinely casting haste my groups found less balance problems than in 2E. Chalk it up to different experiences, I guess.
I guess (even though I must say how could it be so: wizards are already very powerful, casting twice a round makes them even more). I always liked the fact that people could cast Haste, a very decisive spell (double attacks and initiative bonus), but had to pay the price. For 3rd level magic, there is no stronger spell. Paying 1 year seemed a fair and steeped price, in a campaign.
Haste is Alteration school, so if there were no age price, why play a specialist with Alteration barred ? No one would since you could cast Haste in any combat.
I know that barring schools mean you won't cast magic from that school, but Alteration has a lof of other interesting spells. Haste would become a staple like Stoneskin. However, while Stoneskin is defensive, Haste is both defensive and offensive, so it's worse.
Imho, an offensive spell is much more a serious threat, if powerful, to game balance, than a defensive spell.
CRGreathouse said:
Why would you have to min/max in 3E? I'm lost.
Feat combos, like monk/critical/multiple attacks/death attacks.
The fact that when you gain your point each 4 levels, you're bound to put it in your main characteristic (this is also min/max), leading to, imho, poor character sheets on a RPG point of view. (on the min aspect, I can't create a character with 5 in Str if I wish, which is a pity)
Spells combos (impossible in 2ed) also (i don't remember any specific, but I remember Time Stop in some of them, or something with Magic Missile ?)
CRGreathouse said:
I don't remember the mechanics precisely, but the first thing that springs to mind was a ranger kit (with much augmentation from various splatbooks -- this was a piece of work) that allowed some ungodly number of attacks per round, at a very high bonus to atk/dmg.
hmmm... The Ranger's Handbook, I don't have. Does it exist ?
The ranger was always chosen as first warrior class choice, but it allows you 3 attacks per round at highest levels. A specialized fighter has more.
hey, if you have it still, you can sell it to me by ebay.
It can't be worse than the Elf's Handbook, right ?
CRGreathouse said:
I remember that no characters were worthwhile *at all* unless you did some serious min/maxing. Throw together a 2E human figher using the more generous 3E rolling method (it was a 2E DMG variant) and make him a level higher than everyone else in my group and he would be weak to the point of contributing almost nothing. At least, that's as I recall it.
Well, fighters needed strength and constitution. Without they would be weaker than non maxed characters in those characteristics. Same with 3ed, also. A fighter without str and con is not very strong either.
I know however that no min/max was allowed in my campaign (albeit I allowed the 4d6 rolling method, scrap the lowest roll, which method is stronger than 3ed creation I guess), and my players won fighting tournaments (my group was divided in two teams, both made it to the finals), against 30 other players who max/min their characters.
Granted, they knew how to play. I think that if you min/max, you're bound to play your PC like a min/max, which narrows your mind about your possibilities (since the min/max gives you so many bonuses, you focus on those naturally), which leads to defeat against more balanced characters (if played right, which, average, does not happen very often in D&D, I agree).
Heck, one of characters that proved the strongest in the tournament was a 13th lvl Transmuter, with 31hp, 5 in Str, 9 in Con. (all characters were 13th lvl single class, or 12 multi class) And everyone thought it was one of the weakest.
Still, you're right about one thing: fighters at high level are weak, without some boosts in str and con, and even then, they're weaker than wizards, but this is nothing new.
As a DM, you need to help them a little during game play if you don't want that much of a gap to be created between them and the casters.
CRGreathouse said:
I don't know, I feel that I can throw together almost any character concept in 3E and have a viable character, while in 2E you were constrained to min/max the living daylights out of something just to be barely playable, radically restricting character choice.
I can understand your point. This is true. In 3ed you can have this feeling, while in 2ed average players would see their character doomed if not min/max.
However, I think that while any 3ed can seem worthwhile to play, it does not mean that in the end, this character is the ultimate killing machine and strongest berk out there.
The same is for 2ed: "looking weak at the start" is no guarantee, far from it, that it would still be weak after some 8-10 lvls.
(how long it was since he started btw ?)
