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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 8865248" data-attributes="member: 15700">The flaw in those arguments, especially in early D&D, was that it assumes the caster:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">has the spell in the spellbook</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">has it prepared</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">was able to learn it in the first place</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">isn't interrupted</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">has the proper spell components</li> </ul>All things that aren't nearly as problematic in modern editions.  Not directed at you personally, but a lot of folks I see make that argument either never played AD&D, or forgot/didn't use those rules.  A 3rd level MU has only 2 first level and 1 second level spell.  The odds of going into a dungeon only with spells that overlap a thieves' ability is almost nil*.  For example, knock (open locks) is a 2nd level spell.  Congrats, you burned your 2nd level spell on it, now what are you doing for the rest of the adventure?The bottom line is that a MU isn't going to have the spell slots or spell availability (in the their spellbook) to be able to dedicate more than just a few spells until they are at name level or above.  When the thief (who will be a higher level due to xp charts) will have a reliable chance of success at nearly everything and can do it over and over.  It's important to have those spells, but you only have the ability to use a few of them.  Thus the importance of a class like the thief. I wouldn't call someone who can open one lock a day a "skill monkey". *in my OP in this thread, I guessed 50% were utility based on anecdotal experience from 40+ years of paying 1e.</blockquote>

Verification