Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5285616" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think I generally agree with you but don't feel that your examples are particularly strong.  The general nerfing of fireball and the rise of save or suck and buffing spells as a consequence that others have mentioned is probably the best example.  This is all to some extent true depending on what the house rules were at your table; 1d4 damage could indeed kill many lower creatures.  It however wasn't a particularly significant amount of damage and its contribution to success relative to just about anything was small.  It would be a long time before a M-U could take on an ogre or even a bugbear with a lowly dagger, and generally speaking, if that was the M-U's only combat option he'd be better off fleeing.  You tried to hit a target with darts not because it was significant but because you had nothing better to do.What I think you are missing is the effect of magic items on this calculation.  Even a dagger +2 can triple or more the expected damage output and transform your M-U into something that can if necessary toe-to-toe orcs and hobgoblins.  It wouldn't be your first option, but sometime between 3rd and 6th level it became reasonable.At low levels, I don't really think that 3e inflated the hitpoints that much.  Hobgobins are still going to have 1d8+1 hit points.  Kobolds still have 1d4.  At the levels we are comparing, the effectiveness of a dagger is still pretty high and the 3e Wizard has a better 'to hit' progression than the 1e M-U as well.  The low level Wizard with a magic staff or dagger is comparable in effectiveness to his low level 1e ancestor.  It's not until you start seeing big Con bonuses that the Wizards melee damage is nerfed, but not significantly more than M-U melee damage at higher level relative to the foes.  You don't try to take on a 12HD hydra with a dagger.Magic missile has never been a good low level spell in the since of being 'optimal'.  In 1e AD&D it did 1d4+1 damage, usually not enough to kill a hobgoblin or even an orc.  Compare 'Sleep' which would and did frequently take down whole parties of orcs and goblins.  I don't ever recall Spiritual Hammer being anything but a way for the cleric to be less bored in between uses as a hit point battery.And the lowly shield has always had poor utility compared to a halbred, glaive-guisarme, or two-handed sword (especially factoring in the weapon vs. AC tables).  D&D has always modeled the shield poorly.  The only reason then and now to wield as shield was and is magic.  A starting shield was +1 to AC and reduced expected damage by about 5%.  You were always better with a two-handed weapon.   But a +5 shield was +6 to AC, reducing expected damage by a huge percent and importantly getting your AC into the region where almost everything regardless of HD needed a 20 to hit you.  It's also worth noting that in 1e, a shield did under certain conditions give you a bonus to 'reflex saves' (like vs. breath weapons).  Third 3e's 'large shield' with its +2 bonus actually has alot more utility than 1e's shields ever did outside of obscure house rules.There are I think artifacts and I'm suffering through the '1d6 is no longer a large amount of damage' problem with the current version of my house rules myself, but I think that you overstate the change over time here.  My house rules have this problem only because I'm inflating starting hit points relative to 3e.  I never encountered it in stock 3e.</blockquote>

Verification