Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chiaroscuro23" data-source="post: 3105908" data-attributes="member: 15371">Okay, that's a more reasonable question. I think the answer is yes, 3e is more tightly integrated and better balanced, so changes will ripple more, and the change in balance will be more noticeable.First example off the top of my head: requiring an attack roll for Magic Missile.In 2e this would make the iconic spell less valuable, because the THAC0 of wizards was crappy, and, IIRC, there was no distinction between touch attacks and regular. Low overall impact--just stick to spells with saves unless you're a fighter/mage.In 3e this changes the effect of magic missile quite a bit more. Since it has an attack roll, it can be critted with, and can do sneak attack damage. For thief/mages it makes the spell *more* powerful. Because force damage is treated differently than other types of damage (IIRC, again, this was not the case in 2e) it... well, I don't know what, but that's the point--does that make a difference? Do I have to comb through every supplement to be sure?Also, perhaps more importantly, the value of first level attack spells is balanced a bit better in 3e. How it compares to Burning Hands and Shocking Grasp, MM is probably better, but it doesn't blow them out of the water in every situation. Requiring an attack roll knocks it down a power level, but since someone actually bothered to balance the spells it the first place, that matters more.Hmmm, on consideration, it seems to me that a lot of the connected rules in 3e weren't available in 2e, were they? If you want to change how armor check penalties work... well, used to be armor didn't slow you down, and anyway there wasn't a skill system on which to take checks. Thieves had armor penalties, but then no one else could try to use theif skills. Presumably anytime there are more rules for things there's more chance for unexpected interactions.</blockquote>

Verification