Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 4872129" data-attributes="member: 15999">No, he was saying that PCs would be careful about choosing when to enter combat.&nbsp; That didn't mean &quot;Nova, rest, come back and nova again.&quot;&nbsp; It often meant &quot;Be sneaky and think up other solutions to overcome the foes.&quot; Picking Clairvoyance over Fireball was often a very good choice -- it lasted a very long time and could let you avoid many pointless fights altogether. [I'm talking B/X rather than 1E because I'm more familiar with the former, but I think they're quite similar.]With the much smaller selection and impact of buffing spells in B/X, it wasn't even possible to nova the way you could in 3E.&nbsp; Not even close.&nbsp; 3E's love of buffing spells encouraged going nova (especially for clerics).And a low-level MU's fallback option wasn't bad in B/X; the thrown dagger did 1 point less than the fighter's arrow, and the hit rolls were the same through level 3.&nbsp; Relative to 3E, he didn't lose as much by refraining from casting.&nbsp; Whether you like the dagger-throwing wizard or not, it was widely accepted (IME) that a low-level MU would cast spells only when necessary to win the fight.&nbsp; This also meant that the DM wouldn't make every battle so tough as to require the big guns.&nbsp; I never knew any 1st-level MUs to blow their spell at the first encounter of every day and then insist that the party rest; nor do I know any parties that would have consented.Was it less fun the way the game was actually played, compared to going nova on the first fight of every day?&nbsp; I don't think so, but YMMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brother MacLaren, post: 4872129, member: 15999"] No, he was saying that PCs would be careful about choosing when to enter combat. That didn't mean "Nova, rest, come back and nova again." It often meant "Be sneaky and think up other solutions to overcome the foes." Picking Clairvoyance over Fireball was often a very good choice -- it lasted a very long time and could let you avoid many pointless fights altogether. [I'm talking B/X rather than 1E because I'm more familiar with the former, but I think they're quite similar.] With the much smaller selection and impact of buffing spells in B/X, it wasn't even possible to nova the way you could in 3E. Not even close. 3E's love of buffing spells encouraged going nova (especially for clerics). And a low-level MU's fallback option wasn't bad in B/X; the thrown dagger did 1 point less than the fighter's arrow, and the hit rolls were the same through level 3. Relative to 3E, he didn't lose as much by refraining from casting. Whether you like the dagger-throwing wizard or not, it was widely accepted (IME) that a low-level MU would cast spells only when necessary to win the fight. This also meant that the DM wouldn't make every battle so tough as to require the big guns. I never knew any 1st-level MUs to blow their spell at the first encounter of every day and then insist that the party rest; nor do I know any parties that would have consented. Was it less fun the way the game was actually played, compared to going nova on the first fight of every day? I don't think so, but YMMV. [/QUOTE]

Verification