Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kamosa" data-source="post: 1397089" data-attributes="member: 1037">Spell Casters were better. I think in general Spell Casters where better in 2E vs 3E.  The spell selection for 2E was much wider, so mages and priests had a much wider variation in 2E.  The priest spheres in 2E had more interesting stuff then the spheres in 3E.  Things like Numbers, Law, Chaos, and Travel all enhanced the priest and ment you could have more then one priest in the party without feeling like you were stepping on eachothers toes.Mages had a much better spell selection as well.  The lists of spells available seems very small to me and is very restrictive.  All wizards now feel like carbon copies to me.  In 2E, the mages had lots of variation and their scope of abilities was wide.  I never felt bad in 2E when someone failed Magic Missle or Fireball.  I knew they had lots of other cool spells to choose from and they would use this as a launching point to create an interesting character.    I think the durations of spells in 3E has had a negative impact on the usefullness of wizards.  In 3E wizards spend more time casting defensive spells in combat then acting to solve the situation.  Round 1, I cast mage armor.  Round 2, I cast shield.  Round 3, I cast invis.   Round 4, oh it's over, I guess I pass.   In 2E, the mages would launch into an offensive barrage on round 1, knowing that they had already cast armor and stoneskin, and would be fine for a round or two if a biggie closed with them.  It also meant that I never flinched on casting spells into the party as a surprise action.  Now, the party needs to be warned with a storm trooper like shot so the know action has started and they can get prepared.  I know that is a flavor difference and a lot of GM's like to watch their mages scramble at the beginning of combat.  But, you asked what people liked, and I liked have mages that were active and dangerous from round 1.The durations of spells in 3.5E is also totally off putting.  They WAY over compensated for the use of some spells.   Invisibility, a staple of D&D since it's inception is practically useless.  The stat bump spells don't last nearly long enough.  The assault on durations can stop any time now.  Really.  My players now joke that any usefull spell will be reduced to 1 second or less per level for 4E.  If as a GM you are challenged by the power of Magic Missle, hang up your dice today!  Wait, getting on to a different rant.Multiclassing worked way better in 2E.  In 3E the multiclass spell caster is so much less powerful then the straight caster that feels like you are a second class character.  In 2E there was a nice payoff of being a behind, but not too far behind.  In 2E I always had a nice mix of multiclass casters and single class casters.  In 3E I get a constant stream of players that want to play multiclass fighters/rogue/ranger, but won't multiclass into any of the major spell casting classes (Priest, Bard, Druid, Sorcer, or Wizard).  When I do get this to happen, that player suffers in comparison to their straight class caster companions and the multiclass fighters.I guess in the end analysis, in 2E I never had trouble getting power players to play a mix of spell casters and fighting types.  In 3E, all the power gamers are fighters or fighters that use the class priest to be more powerful.   The variation in the party is gone and I just get cookie cutter casters.</blockquote>

Verification