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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuindordm" data-source="post: 9769168" data-attributes="member: 5435">This was one of the biggests shifts in the game experience between 1e/2e and later editions.When spellcasters no longer needed to fear getting disrupted, they had to nerf many iconic spells to keep some kind of parity. So from 3rd edition on, spells gradually weakened and became more like standard attacks. Until we reach 5th edition where sometimes I feel like a wizard is just a fighter who uses pretty lights instead of weapons. The sentiment is exaggerated and a little unfair, but the gradual convergence of the classes to a common standard is very real.This is one of the big reasons I recently went back to running 1st edition. Yes, the PH is rife with save-or-suck spells, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Players love it when they can take 2 or 3 opponents out of combat with a single spell. But if they don't want to risk getting hit with hold person, then they need to keep a watchful eye out for the enemy cleric and not give them a chance to cast if they can possibly help it!  In 1st edition spells are more powerful but also harder to cast successfully, and the difficulties are tactical in nature rather than an abstract limitation like a skill roll. Being a spellcaster means something far more than "I buff" or "I have some AOE abilities". Every class has its own distinct challenges and incentives that change the player's way of interacting with the game world.</blockquote>

Verification