Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 6833318" data-attributes="member: 53980">In fairness, while they weren't spellcasters at low levels, both the 1e Paladin and Monk had plenty of magical abilities so they should be considered magical classes in my opinion. That only leaves the fighter, low-level ranger, thief, and assassin as non-magical options. As such, 1e had more magic using classes than non-magical (3:2).I don't think it's all that different for reasons of proliferation. I think that some might dislike it because magic has been brought down a few pegs over the course of editions. Sleep, the low-level &quot;I win&quot; button of 1e and 2e now grants a saving throw. Polymorphing an enemy into a toad isn't an invitation to a beatdown, since it will break on the first serious injury. I appreciate the nod to balance. Magic doesn't have to be &quot;I win&quot; to be magical in my book. Granted, anyone who expects it to be so may be disappointed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 6833318, member: 53980"] In fairness, while they weren't spellcasters at low levels, both the 1e Paladin and Monk had plenty of magical abilities so they should be considered magical classes in my opinion. That only leaves the fighter, low-level ranger, thief, and assassin as non-magical options. As such, 1e had more magic using classes than non-magical (3:2). I don't think it's all that different for reasons of proliferation. I think that some might dislike it because magic has been brought down a few pegs over the course of editions. Sleep, the low-level "I win" button of 1e and 2e now grants a saving throw. Polymorphing an enemy into a toad isn't an invitation to a beatdown, since it will break on the first serious injury. I appreciate the nod to balance. Magic doesn't have to be "I win" to be magical in my book. Granted, anyone who expects it to be so may be disappointed. [/QUOTE]

Verification