Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Milieu" data-source="post: 9048023" data-attributes="member: 7041560">Yeah, AD&amp;D magic-users were intentionally designed to suck at low levels and be the most powerful at high levels. The 1e PHB explicitly saysIn 1e, 1st level magic-users had 1d4 HP (probably no Con bonus) and could cast 1 1st-level spell a day. So in a sense, it was &quot;fair&quot; that they got to be the most powerful eventually. And even then they were pretty much glass cannons, and had a lot of limitations that kept them at least somewhat in check. 2e reduced some of the restrictions a little, but 3e really let them loose, fixing the issue of them being really weak at low levels, but also removing most of the limits that kept high-level casters from running away with it. 5e classes are higher-powered in general, but they managed to remove even more of the limits on wizards. I think it's totally reasonable to add a few back in, though maybe not necessarily the same ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Milieu, post: 9048023, member: 7041560"] Yeah, AD&D magic-users were intentionally designed to suck at low levels and be the most powerful at high levels. The 1e PHB explicitly says In 1e, 1st level magic-users had 1d4 HP (probably no Con bonus) and could cast 1 1st-level spell a day. So in a sense, it was "fair" that they got to be the most powerful eventually. And even then they were pretty much glass cannons, and had a lot of limitations that kept them at least somewhat in check. 2e reduced some of the restrictions a little, but 3e really let them loose, fixing the issue of them being really weak at low levels, but also removing most of the limits that kept high-level casters from running away with it. 5e classes are higher-powered in general, but they managed to remove even more of the limits on wizards. I think it's totally reasonable to add a few back in, though maybe not necessarily the same ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification