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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silveras" data-source="post: 2523777" data-attributes="member: 6271">Well, I can't agree there. 1st and 2nd Edition rules had some very different assumptions about the world. Primarily, that began with the notion that "classed" PCs were, at 1st level, already exceptional among the populace. The populace was all "0-level" creatures, with at most 6 hp + Con bonus (based on the type of job they performed), THACO of 21, and those things would never get better. Classed PCs were supposed to be about 1% of the population. Magic-users/Wizards were a small sub-set of that, with Fighters and Thieves/Rogues being vastly more common than all other classes. For the PCs to make their own magic items was a much more difficult process, one whose failure rate made it also very expensive. Each spell, each effect, required a dice roll, and any failure meant starting over at the beginning. Magic items were handed out like candy in dungeons, but the rules also presumed that a lot of them would be destroyed, and that you had to figure out how to get them back home with you. Weapons were common, but portable holes and bags of holding showed up much less often. Ever try to carry a 2-ton solid gold door out of a dungeon ? That type of problem was pretty common in 1st Edition; more treasure than you could actually take with you. D&D 3.5 makes vastly different assumptions. All of the populace has classes and levels, and their combat abilities and resilience increase proportionally. PC classes are still better, in that regard, but not in the "nigh-infinite" way they were before. Now, every village is almost guaranteed of having at least 1 each of Sorcerer and Wizard (and, theoretically, more if you use more classes, like Warlock, Hexblade, and Warmage). PCs and NPCs can now reliably make their own items, and are *expected* to have at least X amount of wealth (much of it in magic items) at level Y. No, I don't think you can legitimately point at older material and say "It was the same".</blockquote>

Verification