Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fuindordm" data-source="post: 3041736" data-attributes="member: 5435">Yeah, but if you scale back the number of spells you have to scale up their power again.&nbsp; This is why wizards worked in 1st edition even with so few spells--even the first level spells, used judiciously, could end an encounter.&nbsp; Sleep being the most famous, of course, but there were other examples.Now all the spells with multiple uses have been split into individual spells, their effects scaled back, saving throws added where previously there were none...I too would appreciate a movement back towards fewer but more powerful spells, especially if the 'best' spells had balancing factors other than gold and xp (e.g. side effects, fatigue, etc.) and the potential for risky casting (like the 1e fireball).&nbsp; Magic in 3rd edition is too ubiquitious, and too safe, for my taste.I think Monte's idea could work really well.Ben</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fuindordm, post: 3041736, member: 5435"] Yeah, but if you scale back the number of spells you have to scale up their power again. This is why wizards worked in 1st edition even with so few spells--even the first level spells, used judiciously, could end an encounter. Sleep being the most famous, of course, but there were other examples. Now all the spells with multiple uses have been split into individual spells, their effects scaled back, saving throws added where previously there were none... I too would appreciate a movement back towards fewer but more powerful spells, especially if the 'best' spells had balancing factors other than gold and xp (e.g. side effects, fatigue, etc.) and the potential for risky casting (like the 1e fireball). Magic in 3rd edition is too ubiquitious, and too safe, for my taste. I think Monte's idea could work really well. Ben [/QUOTE]

Verification