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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6075353" data-attributes="member: 6681948">It doesn't need to burn through all your spells.  It needs to leave you with sub-optimal spells for CR appropriate challenges.  With 1 bonus spell (generous at higher levels) plus 1 specialist spell (restricting your choices and versatility, but not enough that we see many generalist wizards), that's 3 or 4 of the highest level spell, and 4 or 5 of the next level down.  Typically, spells below that are used for riff raff and/or less significant effects.This depends on definitions.  Many, if not most, felt OD&D's balance was largely on the assumption of a wide range of levels.  The Wizard was much weaker than the Fighter at low levels and much more powerful at high levels, and we assumed "balance" because of the shift over time.A more blatant example was non-humans.  You can multiclass, and here's a bunch of other advantages.  But you stop advancing, so you have a limited shelf life.I find most editions now start with less spells for the casters to choose from, but splatbooks quickly increase those numbers.  They also increase other options, but the casters have greater freedom to swap between options (ie once you pick a feat, you can't change it out, but Wizard and Cleric can get a different spell selection every day).But OD&D and 1e had no cap on "per level" increases to spell power (magic missile, fireball, etc.). Those came in 2e, and became more structured in 3e.  3e codified gaining new spells - I don't think too many groups assumed Wizards achieved 3rd level but - too bad - you never found any L2 spells as loot, so you don't have any to memorize.  They did get bonus spells for INT, but there was also some drop in power for some spells.  Sleep, for example, got reduced targets and a save it previously lacked.  3e also replaced the uncommonly usable Backstab with the much better codified, and more commonly useful, Sneak Attack.  To me, OD&D, 1e and 2e were variations on the same game.  3e was much more a new game, as was 4e, but that's another story!Balancing Fighters with Rangers and Paladins was an issue for some parts of that history, though.  Not sure CLW was a cleric advantage - it was typically used as a party resource, often to the extent the Cleric got dirty looks if he took non-healing spells.So, once again, show me the party with no fighters and no rogues.  Haven't seen one yet.  That's not to say the balance is perfect, but it's not nearly as out of whack in my play experience as others claim.  That may be having a group that avoids optimization wars, but I don't think that's the whole of it.  A large part is that our group looks more to the team than to individual characters - synergies are harder to attribute to one specific character.  Wizard is protected by Fighter; Wizard buffing Fighter means Wizard is better protected.  Fighter protects Wizard, which allows Wizard to cast spells making Fighter's job easier.But the history makes for an interesting read.  In my experience, OD&D and 1e saw a bias towards fighters and wizards, and away from clerics and rogues.  Some of that balance has shifted, with the cleric moving beyond "MEDIC!" and the rogue being able to inflict damage more consistently.</blockquote>

Verification