Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="trancejeremy" data-source="post: 5773965" data-attributes="member: 924">The idea of a magic user being able to constantly zap someone seems too video-gameish for me, even if it is mechanically the same as using a crossbow.Really though I think part of the problem is exactly what someone brought up in the To Vance thread - Vancian MUs (in the books) were probably more akin to the 3E bard than traditional D&amp;D MU. They only knew a relatively few spells but were generally very capable people beyond their magical ability.Of course, part of this is mostly due to AD&amp;D. In BECMI, there were basically only 3 tiers of combat ability, but in AD&amp;D there were 4.Like a Fighter had a d10 hit point in AD&amp;D, Cleric d8, Thief d6, MU d4But in BECMI, it was d8 for Fighter, d6 for Cleric, and d4 for Thief/MUsSimilarly, there were only 3 charts, not 4. A 10th level fighter, in AD&amp;D had a THAC0 of 12, and an MU had one of 19.By contrast, in BECMI, a 10th level fighter had a THAC0 of 13, and an MU had one of 17.Still a noticeable difference, but the BECMI MU was not nearly as hopeless at low levels than the AD&amp;D one (and to compensate, he had a slower spell progression)3.x pretty much split the difference.But I guess to answer the question, I'd like to see the 5E MU more like the BECMI one or 3e bard - not hopeless in combat (or other situations) but the spell progress dialed back a bit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="trancejeremy, post: 5773965, member: 924"] The idea of a magic user being able to constantly zap someone seems too video-gameish for me, even if it is mechanically the same as using a crossbow. Really though I think part of the problem is exactly what someone brought up in the To Vance thread - Vancian MUs (in the books) were probably more akin to the 3E bard than traditional D&D MU. They only knew a relatively few spells but were generally very capable people beyond their magical ability. Of course, part of this is mostly due to AD&D. In BECMI, there were basically only 3 tiers of combat ability, but in AD&D there were 4. Like a Fighter had a d10 hit point in AD&D, Cleric d8, Thief d6, MU d4 But in BECMI, it was d8 for Fighter, d6 for Cleric, and d4 for Thief/MUs Similarly, there were only 3 charts, not 4. A 10th level fighter, in AD&D had a THAC0 of 12, and an MU had one of 19. By contrast, in BECMI, a 10th level fighter had a THAC0 of 13, and an MU had one of 17. Still a noticeable difference, but the BECMI MU was not nearly as hopeless at low levels than the AD&D one (and to compensate, he had a slower spell progression) 3.x pretty much split the difference. But I guess to answer the question, I'd like to see the 5E MU more like the BECMI one or 3e bard - not hopeless in combat (or other situations) but the spell progress dialed back a bit. [/QUOTE]

Verification