Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dirigible" data-source="post: 2920039" data-attributes="member: 12631">I was reading the recent <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060630a" target="_blank">Save my Game</a> article, and a thought occured to me. Back in 2nd Ed, the rate of hit point acquisition tended to drop drastically at 9th level or so - you stopped rolling your class's hit die, and got a flat one, two or three HP/level (depending on class), plus Con bonus (which was both capped at +2 for non-fighters, and kicked in at a higher ability score level).That means that low level spells were much more deadly against high level characters in previous editions. Fireball might have been a viable weapon against an enemy 15th-level fighter with, say, 9d10+33 HP. Nowadays, that 10d6 of arcane napalm doesn't looks so great against that same character that has 15d10+45 HP or so.Seems to me the ramping up of HP in high-level characters means that you tend to require more high-level spells to deal with them quickly. Fireballs and such become the equivalent of pulling out your pistol once you've used up all your rockets and plasma bolts in an FPS. In a sense, I miss the fragility of 2nd Ed characters in situations like this: When iconic spells like Fireball and Lightning bolt become secondary threats, even nuisances, and squads of lower-level enemies lose their threat becasue you're so damn resilient you can easily take them, it changes the flavour a bit.So, what do you think?</blockquote>

Verification