Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 8751488" data-attributes="member: 53980">2e had a 20ish year run, iirc? That's around 240 issues of Dragon Magazine alone (not counting Dungeon or Polyhedron). Spells regularly appeared in those magazines, so if there were 10 spells on average between the three mags each month, that's already 2400. Now, I don't actually think it was that high. Probably more like half that, maybe even a third. But 2e was also the time of the great campaign supplement glut. There were an absurd number of supplements released. And a lot of them would each contain a few spells. Sure, three spells here and five spells there might not seem like a lot in seclusion, but when you realize that a great many dozens of these supplements were published...That said, keep in mind that all I claimed was that 2e and 3e had more spells than 5e. I said it wouldn't surprise me if it was by an order of magnitude more, but I'm perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong about that. I'm extremely confident that 2e and 3e each have significantly more spells than 5e by a significant margin, but if it's not by an order of magnitude then so be it. Doesn't really change the facts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 8751488, member: 53980"] 2e had a 20ish year run, iirc? That's around 240 issues of Dragon Magazine alone (not counting Dungeon or Polyhedron). Spells regularly appeared in those magazines, so if there were 10 spells on average between the three mags each month, that's already 2400. Now, I don't actually think it was that high. Probably more like half that, maybe even a third. But 2e was also the time of the great campaign supplement glut. There were an absurd number of supplements released. And a lot of them would each contain a few spells. Sure, three spells here and five spells there might not seem like a lot in seclusion, but when you realize that a great many dozens of these supplements were published... That said, keep in mind that all I claimed was that 2e and 3e had more spells than 5e. I said it wouldn't surprise me if it was by an order of magnitude more, but I'm perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong about that. I'm extremely confident that 2e and 3e each have significantly more spells than 5e by a significant margin, but if it's not by an order of magnitude then so be it. Doesn't really change the facts. [/QUOTE]

Verification