CRGreathouse said:
My first wizard was in 2nd edition and has 2 hp at level 1, and just 1 1st-level spell. I remember the effect pretty well.
That's a mage. A specialist wizard has 2 spells.
And any of those can have a signature spells (Spells & Magic) per level, which gives +2 casting level and 1 other casting for a particular spell.
For example, an Invoker with Magic Missile as Signature Spell would be able to cast 3 Magic Missile at 1st level, each one at 3rd lvl of ability (so there would be 2 missiles per spell)
All D&D editions had this 1d4 hp for wizards. with OD&D you were stuck that way with 1 spell. 2ed improved that, and 3ed some more.
CRGreathouse said:
It's been a while since I last played second edition (I stopped playing for a few years 'cause I didn't like the system), but 2E haste was quite a lot more powerful than 3E haste, and incomparable to 3.5 haste. Sure, it aged you, but if you were an elf (as most wizards were, in my experience) it wasn't as bad.
errr... sorry, but I don't remember Haste 3.0 aging anyone (I don't remember about 3.5, but I guess nothing changed), you know. I don't remember 2ed Haste giving ANOTHER casting to spellcasters either.
2ed Haste lasted 1 rd / Lvl and aged you one year each time, and was used in DIRE situations.
3.0 Haste (we can speak about Heal and Harm too) was simply put THE spell everyone would cast before combat.
About the 1 or 5 year aging, there are rules in 2ed to prevent elves and co. to ignore them: it becomes 1 year per 100 year life span, and 5 years per 100 years life span.
CRGreathouse said:
Hit points were lower across-the-board then, and fireball did the same or more damage -- it certainly seemed too strong to me.
Well, not really: Fireball did max 10d6, like 3ed. But you didn't had something, imho, worse: maximised Fireball and other spells.
A Fireball at 10th level would have done an average 35 damage. 17 with a succesful ST.
In 3ed, you can have it doing 60 damage, period. ok 30 with a ST. Granted, you need to take a higher spell slot, like 5th IIRC, and the talent.
Let me think about it, a 10th level mage (he can cast 5th lvl magic) can then do 30hp FOR SURE to anyone. How many hp has a mage, average, at 10th level ?
Fireball never killed anyone in my 17 years of campaign in 2ed. Unless the PC/NPC was already wounded.
Of course, you can fail you ST. However failing a ST vs 35 is way better than one vs 60 (by 2ed you have to do another save vs death for mass damage). And 60 is enough to kill anyone but a warrior at 10th level in 3ed. In 2ed, 35 kills a mage... and that's it. Well, to be honest a rogue has an average of 35 hp at 10th lvl, so he would drop inconscious.
Maximised spells are not so balanced because it's a thing that has different impacts depending on the spell. Maximising a Fireball (10d6) is different than maximising, let's say, Magic Missile. Dies of damage change, and the more you have, the more the spell is powerful. But the talent only increases the spell by 2 lvls.
This do mean that spell balance by spell lvl is "foggy" at best, imho.
And also, usually ST in 2ed, if you were not using the rule "1,2 and 3 means failed save on 1d20", were done more and more easily, failing only with a 1 after a while. So Fireball meant really "17 damage to everyone, with a critical threat of 35". Hardly a problem.
CRGreathouse said:
I wish I could remember some of the bad abuses of spells were back then, because I'd seen plenty.
I understand. Changing system does that.
Well, I know a lot of good players were thinking about some of those before playing with me.
Some thought Geas was too strong. It's not if you interpret it right.
Other abuses were proved wrong in an expert players campaign.
The newbie would say "hey, I have this invoker!! he is soooo strong!!!" and think that by casting a ton of Fireballs and Cone Of Colds, with +20hp at 10th level, he would be invicible.
Then he would understand that offense meant nothing if the kept being hit before casting (and Cone of Cold has ini +5 on 1d10. By 2ed rules you need the lower number, not the higher) or if he didn't know where to shoot (because of invisibility, just to give an example).
More veteran players would have some spell lists, quite strong, but still would miss the point that they could be hit before the opponent, and that "finding the opponent first without being found" is really the only key to victory. And to do this, you need balance spells, like Invisibility, Silence, True Seeing, etc etc..
All in all, everybody that went in my campaign thinking 2ed was unbalanced understood that they were just not thinking about everything yet.
I'm quite sure some of the problems of 3ed can be dealt the same way. Indeed, it's not that the core system is THAT different. Spells are more or less the same.
CRGreathouse said:
I haven't seen anything comparable in 3.x. I don't ban any of the core spells for balance reasons (I ban two out of flavor reasons, but one has an exact mechanical equivilent and the other is considered weak and wasn't really taken anyway.) I find the spells in 3.x much better balanced.
As long as you say 3.5, that's ok. Saying Haste 3.0 was balanced is however something hard to accept, and even HAste 3.5 is imho too strong. Not getting aged ? (IIRC) why would someone not cast it then at each battle ?
CRGreathouse said:
What are you saying, that as long as you house rule 2E it can be almost as interesting as 3.x? I mean, look at the combat actions in the 3.x PH.
No, like I said, I'm speaking about balance. Not "interesting". Combat rules in 3ed are better, no problems about it, but they are balanced for 3ed.
2ed basic rules were... basic. You could attack or... parry for the whole round.
The Fighter's Handbook added some options. Combat & Tactics some more too.
2ed and 3ed have both their ins and outs.
I've added attacks of opportunity (back attacks were already in 2ed anyway) in some way, since it's not a bad thing in some cases.
I'm the first to admit that there is good in 3ed. But I had no balance problem in combat (or anything) in 2ed. I would have with min/max in 3ed, with some spells, and some classes and feats.
All in all, I could say that maybe the best way would be a mix between 2ed and 3ed. Oh well.
CRGreathouse said:
I haven't seen any reasons for this, and have found the opposite to be true in practice. My 2E group was practically torn apart by min-maxing, and all of my (many) 3.x campaigns have been well-balanced*.
I'm curious, do you remember the examples of min/max in your 2ed group ?
I can figure out some, I guess, like Warriors putting all their points in Str/con/dex, but then, it worked only if you let them do it during creation, which depends on the DM policy. (while in 3rd everyone has more or less the same stats in a given class -which is dull imho- so they can min/max easily, albeit not to the same discrepancies as 2ed)
Oh yes, I've found another one in 2ed.
This one is VERY horrible, and indeed I stopped it in my campaign.
A warrior specialised in darts. He throws 5 a round, and with exceptional strenght this do mean 1d3+8 (With str 18/00) for each attack... While a warrior specialised in long sword would do 1d8+8 but with max 5/2 attacks per round at 13th level...
Ok, this is, IIRC, the only one I banned in 2ed.
All in all, I guess we can agree that most things that seem unbalanced are because we are not "used" to them...
I'm a lot more used to 2ed than 3ed, and if it's not broken, why fix it ? (at least for me)
I can only say for 3ed seeing my friend who DM with it, and still more than some of the rules banned for game balance and preventing min/max.
Most of this banning is "no, this does not exist where you live" or "you can't take this, it's not allowed for you race"...
ahh, I love D&D.
