Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9210859" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Before people continue down the line of questioning whether others ever really played oD&amp;D/1E (given deliberately uncharitable reading of the others' points), please remember exactly how swayed you were/how much respect you had for the last person who deployed the same argument structure on you. Regardless, I don't have much of a dog in this fight*. I like both 5e and AD&amp;D, while recognizing the flaws and/or simple design-consequences each have. One thing to mention is that spell interruption -- if it be used as a balancing mechanism for spells -- creates issues for when spell interruption can't happen. The evil enemy wizard hidden in their fortress can cast devastating spells, as can the one in combat who is flying/invisible/behind 90% cover. Yes, in theory that means that the game then becomes an interesting strategic/tactical engagement where a party tries to keep their casters thus shielded while making the opponent casters no-longer shielded. However, where that breaks down you end up with scry&amp;fry, TPK from the unlocatable invisiboss, or heck just the really impactful Geass/Earthquake/Raise-army spell that wrecks havoc because the balancing factor was not applicable. Both versions of the games have strengths and weaknesses, but I'd be really hesitant to say one or the other had an overall net effect of casters being more 'kept in check' as the OP indicates.*other than saying that some spells and classes should really be re-thought-out if one were to do it, else you run into situations like Shardstone raises with Burning Hands </blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 9210859, member: 6799660"] Before people continue down the line of questioning whether others ever really played oD&D/1E (given deliberately uncharitable reading of the others' points), please remember exactly how swayed you were/how much respect you had for the last person who deployed the same argument structure on you. Regardless, I don't have much of a dog in this fight*. I like both 5e and AD&D, while recognizing the flaws and/or simple design-consequences each have. One thing to mention is that spell interruption -- if it be used as a balancing mechanism for spells -- creates issues for when spell interruption can't happen. The evil enemy wizard hidden in their fortress can cast devastating spells, as can the one in combat who is flying/invisible/behind 90% cover. Yes, in theory that means that the game then becomes an interesting strategic/tactical engagement where a party tries to keep their casters thus shielded while making the opponent casters no-longer shielded. However, where that breaks down you end up with scry&fry, TPK from the unlocatable invisiboss, or heck just the really impactful Geass/Earthquake/Raise-army spell that wrecks havoc because the balancing factor was not applicable. Both versions of the games have strengths and weaknesses, but I'd be really hesitant to say one or the other had an overall net effect of casters being more 'kept in check' as the OP indicates. [COLOR=rgb(209, 213, 216)]*other than saying that some spells and classes should really be re-thought-out if one were to do it, else you run into situations like Shardstone raises with [/COLOR][I][COLOR=rgb(209, 213, 216)]Burning Hands[/COLOR] [/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification