Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AllisterH" data-source="post: 4976651" data-attributes="member: 51325">You might be surprised. I personally think the 3e wizard was WAY more effective than the 2e wizard anyday and your assumptions don't actually hold true.Take for example the spell list.An AD&D non-specialist wizard only gained 1 spell every SPELL level (thus, 1 every other character level). Every other spell had to be either found or researched by the spellcaster. The 1e/2e wizard is NOT going to have the same number of spells as the equivalent levelled 3e wizard IMO and almost as importantly, what the 1e/2e wizard actually does have would be totally random compared to the best spells of that level which the 3e wizard would have.Similarly, with the shall we say draconian method of item creation, the 1e/2e wizard has to depend on mostly finding magic items so even at 10th level, a wizard would have an AC that even a kobold could still hit on a 15+There's anorher factor that made spells more effective in 3.x. The creation of the weak save.  A 20th level wizard targetting the weak save of a 20th level creature/enemy has a much higher chance of success than when he tried it at 1st level in 3e. This is in direct contrast with the 1e/2e wizard where a 20th level enemy can laugh in the face of magic since their saves scale upwards but spell effectiveness remains constant.</blockquote>