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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Griffith Dragonlake" data-source="post: 3268347" data-attributes="member: 40379">Historical Campaign SupplementsMy all-time favourite edition is AD&D 2nd Ed. Player's & DM's Options with the Historical Campaign Supplements. However I choose to now play 3.5 for the availability of players and the option to publish via the OGL & d20 Licenses.To-date, I have been unable to effectively recreate my customised spellcasters in 3.5. Back then all spellcasters were multiclassed and specialised. For example, a necromancer was a Wizard/Cleric with specialisation in necromancy. They used the wizard hit dice and combat tables and the best wizard/cleric saves.  Spells per day were wizard + cleric. Spell list was highly customised and reflected the flavour of the class. Unlike 3.5, a 10th level necromancer was not 5/5 but somewhere around 7th or 8th in both. Scholarly spellcasting required casting from an open book, longer casting times but also longer durations. I also granted a lot of the metamagic spells as feats so that the scholarly spells were also more powerful as well as longer in duration. End result is that spellcasters did a ton of prep but not much in combat. Most players had their henchmen fight in combat. All in all, there was an Ars Magica feel to the campaign which worked out well and was appreciated.I suppose I might be able to modify the Mystic Theurge and I should really make an effort. But man, it was sure a lot easier to play the kind of D&D I liked back then.</blockquote>

Verification