Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5511642" data-attributes="member: 18280">[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]:You forget that, in 1e at least, you had a maximum # of spells per level, and had only a % chance of learning any spell that you attempted to write in your book.  On top of that, if the DM decided he had been overgenerous, a single fire (magical or not) or the lowly bookworm could restore the balance.In 2e, they had magical maladies that could also be used to balance casters if needed.But, both of these are only part of how those editions sought to achieve the desired balance in play (which is a far different desired balance than that sought by, say, 4e).  Balance by scarcity (in 1e at least) is also reinforced by a high rate of turnover for low-level magic-users and illusionists.Also, as a point of fact, in 1e, clerics and druids do not "automatically get all their spells", as it is explicit in the rules that the DM (acting as agent of the deity) may swap out any spells he likes for those he feels are more appropriate/will be needed more.  This sounds very heavy-handed, and might not be to the tastes of all, but it usually works to the cleric's favour.  If the DM (and hence the cleric's deity) knows that the party is heading to the Forest of Many Troll Encounters, the deity may very well swap out a few chosen spells for fire-based ones, and the cleric ought to take it as a sign that fire will be needed.(As with any other system, a well-run campaign is a different beast from a poorly-run, or even mediocre, one!)A lot of the best spells were also balanced by long casting times, casting requirements, expensive components, and real risks (including some that may well result in the death of the caster).RC</blockquote>

Verification