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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8110003" data-attributes="member: 8461">Well, this is why this conversation might be better if we pinned down which edition of the game we're talking about. In OD&D (1974), spells originally stopped at 6th level (even if they went up to 9th very quickly thereafter).Leaving aside that I'm only somewhat certain that you're talking about AD&D 1E (where level limits were already starting to become porous, if I recall correctly, due to allowances for an extra level or two if they had high-enough ability scores), the number of spells cast per day isn't the best way to look at this. The long periods of time needed to regain spells, combined with how easy they were to disrupt when casting (and how hard it could be to locate and learn new ones, the hard caps on how many spells of each level wizards could know, etc.), meant that total spell ability typically wasn't ever an issue in a given adventure. I believe Gary outlines in the DMG (apologies for not being able to pull a quote) that most wizards would use a few spells and then rely on a magic item, such as a wand of frost, which didn't take their level into account anyway.Taking the above into account, I think so. 3E and beyond have colored a lot of our perceptions regarding how notable spellcasting ability is.Being slightly behind another character isn't what I'd call "sucking." Yes, they weren't going to be as good as a high-level fighter, but they weren't useless. They just weren't optimal.I disagree. I've seen plenty of campaigns that were all-human, and they were none the poorer for it. While Tolkien has captured popular imagination for what "classic high fantasy" feels like, it's not the ne plus ultra of it, and I feel confident that a game of D&D would still feel like a game of D&D without it.</blockquote>

Verification