• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Uniting the Editions, Part 2 Up!


log in or register to remove this ad

I think the gap between fighters and magic-users in "classic" D&D is overstated. A lot of spells had drawbacks or aspects that were mitigated in 3x.

For instance, Teleport basically had a 1% of outright killing the caster.

And things like spell components and magical aging (like how some spells age the caster) were handwaved or ignored. But those things were meant to keep the more powerful spells from being used too much.

Not to mention of course, the 15 minute day didn't exist then, either. It was an endurance race, and MUs were sprinters.

And by the book, it took MUs a long, long time to re-learn their spells. 4-12 hours of rest, then another 15 minutes per spell level for each spell, so it would take days, if not a week, for a MU to be at full capacity from zero.

That often also got ignored, which yes, made them more powerful.

Should the realization that those things would be ignored have been factored into the game? Probably, but D&D was played differently then. But the balance was there, even if the balancing factors were ignored.

I think it's more worthwhile to discuss the game as played than the game as written. First edition had plenty of rules that didn't get used, which folks here aren't bothering to discuss.
 

I think it's more worthwhile to discuss the game as played than the game as written. First edition had plenty of rules that didn't get used, which folks here aren't bothering to discuss.

Depends on the topic. If you are discussing what was fun or worked well, you have to base it on how you played. If you argue that the rules weren't balanced, you can't base the argument on house rules. Since you broke it, you get to keep the pieces.
 




Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top