Differences between first and third edition D&D

[Fortuna]

What made fighters lose even more in third edition than in first? What factors caused that?

[Narazil]

What made fighters lose even more in third edition than in first? What factors caused that?
Versatility of Wizards (and casters) is one of the big ones, most likely. In first edition, you couldn't create your own plane, chaingate solars or cast Time Stop.

[erikun]

This thread covers the change between 2nd and 3rd editions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135880) and answers your question better than I could.

[Roland St. Jude]

In my actual play experience:

AD&D 1e: Players just said what kind of moves they wanted their fighters to do and DMs adjudicated it on the fly.

D&D 3x: Players don't even try some things because they lack feats for them, skills for them, or what they would try doesn't fit in with the rules. Or, if players do say what they want to do, DMs tell them they can't because that doesn't work because of one of the issues mentioned above.

That's probably not the game design answer you're looking for, but I'm sure folks'll be along soon with some of that.

[Shadowbane]

I actually think Roland nailed it. In my experience, that seems to be it right there.

[Edge of Dreams]

I think 1st and 2nd ed. games were much more likely to start out at level 1, where wizards and clerics had 1 spell a day, 2 or 3 if you were LUCKY, and fighters had way better HP, AC, and THACO. 3rd increased the number of spells per day at first level (and, I think, all levels), and the wealth by level tables and presence of awesome prestige classes and other such high-level stuff in the books encouraged playing games that start at much higher levels, where having 50 spells a day, some of which are auto-win buttons, means wizards have much more potential to dominate.

[Eldariel]

Pretty much everything I wrote in the 2nd Ed vs. 3rd Ed thread applies here too. 1st Ed and 2nd Ed really didn't contain that fundamental changes in these particular dynamics. Still the same XP tables, BAB, defenses, etc.

Some more spells, non-Illusion specialization and such were added, but nothing major with regards to this discussion. 3.X was the major departure in this regard and as such, liable to have issues.

[Fortuna]

Huh. I see. I was just arguing with a friend who felt that fighters became more meaningful, not less, in the course of that transition, and was hoping to find evidence to support my case. His argument was, among other things, that Polymorph Other was a save-or-suck, that fireball did not cap in damage, and that meteor swarm killed anything.

[Eldariel]

Huh. I see. I was just arguing with a friend who felt that fighters became more meaningful, not less, in the course of that transition, and was hoping to find evidence to support my case. His argument was, among other things, that Polymorph Other was a save-or-suck, that fireball did not cap in damage, and that meteor swarm killed anything.

So try the linked thread. I mean, I made a pretty concise, comprehensive post on the subject and others touch on even more points. There's pretty much NOTHING that improved for the Fighter and EVERYTHING that got worse for them.

Sure, Fireball got worse so Wizards stopped using Fireball. That didn't weaken Wizards, it just changed how they played. And Baleful Polymorph is still a save-or-suck; I don't get his point. If he's arguing that Wizards no longer have access to save-or-sucks, he needs to get his head outta his arse. And Polymorph Other still existed as before in 3.0, btw. That was 3.0 - 3.5 change.


For the record, the post I keep referring to:


Indeed, the biggest changes that hurt the Fighter:

- They lost their unique class feature in extra attacks.
- They can't move while dealing full damage anymore.
- They can't block enemies by just...being there; due to turn structure, they can just be...passed.
- 5' steps mean they can't even threaten anyone reliably without work.
- Everyone gets high HP from high Con
- Armor was made worse (max Dex, heavy movement speed penalties, etc.) meaning they aren't really ahead of less-armored colleagues come mid-levels defense-wise.
- Everyone gets more HP; Fighters are the class that can only deal damage (this is why the few ways to optimize and really twink out the Fighter damage output or debuff enemies are so strongly suggested for optimized Fighters; they're really the only ways to counteract this).


The biggest things that helped the Wizard (and to lesser extent, other casters):

- Combined XP tables without alterations to on what levels they get stuff; 3.5 Wizards just grow in power VASTLY faster than their AD&D counterparts.
- Defensive Casting: Being next to someone is no longer any kind of a problem for casting spells
- Concentration-skill: Even being hit doesn't automatically cause you to lose your spell.
- Drawbackless Magic: AD&D had a ton of drawbacks for all the more powerful spells in the books. D&D 3.X just threw those drawbacks away without replacing them with anything.
- Fast casting: In AD&D, you spent your turn casting a spell. In 3.5, you spend one Standard Action casting, another moving and there are very few spells that can be interrupted outside readied actions.
- Bonus spells from high ability score: In AD&D, there was no way of getting more spell slots than listed. In 3.5, they took the old tables, but gave casters an automatic means of increasing their spell capacity.
- Spell DCs incorporate caster's key ability score. This change single-handedly made Save-or-X effects usable on mid-levels (though a bit weaker on low levels).
- Ability scores were uncapped and made to grow linearly and expected to grow a lot: This helps casters since casters gain much more from their key ability score than Fighters.


It really should be no surprise to anyone that if they were relatively even over their entire career in AD&D (the curve was similar, but more balanced; casters actually WERE weak on low levels back then), and everything changed in the favor of the caster with all of Fighter's unique class features being spread around evenly for every other class (while being weakened by auxillary changes) while casters' abilities weren't socialized at all, but had all their limitations removed...well, let's just say from this perspective, the source of 3.5's balance issues is pretty fcking obvious.

[Fortuna]

So everything hurt the Fighter in general, and the specific spell nerfs just mean that you pick different, equally effective spells? That right? Because that gels with my experience, at least.

[Eldariel]

So everything hurt the Fighter in general, and the specific spell nerfs just mean that you pick different, equally effective spells? That right? Because that gels with my experience, at least.

3.5 buffed Save-or-X effects on higher levels (due to saves being derived from caster's stat which also skyrockets in 3.5 allowing for very high save DCs), so while direct damage got debuffed, Save-or-X effects got buffed.

So yeah, you just switch to those along with no-save utility and the occasional damage spell for when it's appropriate. One part of your arsenal got weaker, one stronger, one remained the same. Zero-sum for Wizards. Fighters? Their stuff got weaker. They don't have anything to fallback on. Their damage dealing got weaker, but they still gotta do it since it's all they do.

[jmbrown]

The biggest irony is how tactical combat hurt the fighter whom you expect to excel at tactical combat. In AD&D a creature could block the path of another creature simply by posing a threat. 3E introduced attacks of opportunity, tumbling, bull rushing and overrunning. It's pretty difficult to do your job as a defender when every creature can simply walk around you and only superior reach will do you any good.

[Snails]

IMO the only substantial point offered is that save or die has gotten nastier, which is true.

I would counter that combat has gotten a lot more violent, which means every spell cast is implicitly more expensive because Actions are valuable. I would also note that under favorable circumstances it is plausible to kill a Wizard in a single round.

I would also note that in my 1e/2e experience, I recall fighters getting raked by Hold Person over and over and over. Because the spell could affect 3 targets, it was an even better spell in 1e/2e than in 3e. And low level casters always had it. My Fighter save may have been better in 1e/2e, but I was getting hit by many more spells.

3e tactical combat offers a lot of positive options for the Fighter. Somehow this is a negative for the King of Feats? Baloney!

And for every DM who said "I have no rules for this...cool, I let you do it", I would bet there were five DMs who said "I have no rules for this...roll a Dex check...now roll Str check...now you get +1 to hit!"

[Snails]

The biggest irony is how tactical combat hurt the fighter whom you expect to excel at tactical combat. In AD&D a creature could block the path of another creature simply by posing a threat. 3E introduced attacks of opportunity, tumbling, bull rushing and overrunning. It's pretty difficult to do your job as a defender when every creature can simply walk around you and only superior reach will do you any good.

If that is actually problem, then it only means that spellcasters are getting the short end of the stick. A permeable battle line does not really hurt the Fighter himself, as the Fighter expects attacks to come at him -- it hurts those who were hoping to be in a safe cocoon.

Good.

[Fortuna]

Wrong. Dead wrong. That applies to non-party play, but in the standard group the fighter's job is to be in the way. If they can't do that effectively, then they aren't pulling their weight, and might as well not be there.

[Andras]

If that is actually problem, then it only means that spellcasters are getting the short end of the stick. A permeable battle line does not really hurt the Fighter himself, as the Fighter expects attacks to come at him -- it hurts those who were hoping to be in a safe cocoon.

Good.

That's a nice thought, except that it means that the fighter is basically pointless in the equation. The caster and whatever's attacking the caster are the only relevant factors, which is decidedly opposite to the point.

[jmbrown]

IMO the only substantial point offered is that save or die has gotten nastier, which is true.

I would counter that combat has gotten a lot more violent, which means every spell cast is implicitly more expensive because Actions are valuable. I would also note that under favorable circumstances it is plausible to kill a Wizard in a single round.

Once you hit around level 5, the favorable circumstances become rarer and rarer. Spells like mirror image, dimension door, blur, and invisibility make the wizard harder to hit through sheer improbabilities than actual numbers (the concept of miss chance is a 3E invention). Actions might be more expensive but it balances itself out because wizards have more spells. Scrolls are cheaper, wands can be bought with reduced charges at cheaper prices, items cheaply exist to increase your casting per day (pearl of power), and metamagic feats like quicken and divine metamagic push him from a cannon to a bomb.

AD&D's wizard is like James Bond; he's usually armed with a small gun and a couple of handy gadgets for most situations. 3E's wizard is literally Batman who can pull an infinite number of gadgets out of his utility belt and prepare for any possible situation in a single hour.


I would also note that in my 1e/2e experience, I recall fighters getting raked by Hold Person over and over and over. Because the spell could affect 3 targets, it was an even better spell in 1e/2e than in 3e. And low level casters always had it. My Fighter save may have been better in 1e/2e, but I was getting hit by many more spells.


Hold person was a good spell because battlefield control is important. Since anyone could block your path, the only way to the back lines was by halting the front.



3e tactical combat offers a lot of positive options for the Fighter. Somehow this is a negative for the King of Feats? Baloney!

The positive options are completely negated by a gross increase in abilities across the board (except dedicated melee fighters!). Freedom of movement makes you automatically succeed on grapple. Trip uses a flat strength check and given that most monsters are A) stronger than you B) larger than you or C) have more legs than you, you're not going to have much luck against non-humanoids without multiple boosts. Disarming your opponent inconveniences them for the time it takes to take a 5' step back and pick up the weapon plus most high level enemies don't even rely on weapons in the first place.

The fighter may have been given more options but nearly every option is negated except when fighting other fighters. A fighter should be able to trip a wizard and hold him at sword point or knock the wand out of his hand but it doesn't matter because the wizard can just concentrate, usually instantly succeed at it, and go invisible or teleport somewhere else.


And for every DM who said "I have no rules for this...cool, I let you do it", I would bet there were five DMs who said "I have no rules for this...roll a Dex check...now roll Str check...now you get +1 to hit!"

Well, this is the basic mechanic of D&D. If you want to do something not covered in the rules that could potentially fail then you roll 1d20 +/- modifiers. Swing on a chandelier? Roll 1d20 against your dexterity. Navigate your home while blinded? 1d20 against your wisdom with a -2 penalty.

The way I run things, anyone can disarm a trap or move silently simply by making a dexterity check. A trained thief, however, is better at it 99% of the time. Fighter tries to sneak past the orcs while wearing plate mail? He suffers a penalty equal to the difference between his current movement rate and his unencumbered movement rate. Wizard tries to pick a lock? He suffers twice the penalty for not having tools and the standard penalty if he does have them simply because he's not a thief.

Meanwhile the party's thief focused on traps and hide so he can climb smooth walls 85% of the time, find/disarm traps 75% of the time, and hide in shadows while wearing studded leather 80% of the time. No one else can claim the same.

[Fortuna]

One thing occurs to me: 3rd edition introduced the magic mart. I wonder what sort of effect that had on gameplay? I have yet to see it in action, so I have no idea.

[Kurald Galain]

The biggest irony is how tactical combat hurt the fighter whom you expect to excel at tactical combat.

This is, indeed, the biggest problem. In the 2E mentality, you play combat by the DM's description, and everything in one turn happens more-or-less simultaneously. This means that the fighter can say he will stay between the troll and the wizard, and he can protect his caster friend.

In 3E, you take turns one by one, and combat with grids and minis became more prevalent. That means that the troll will get a move action during which the fighter can do nothing (except if provoked) so he will be unable to block the troll from getting to the wizard.

Increasingly convoluted mechanics have been designed to counteract this.

[Dixieboy]

This is, indeed, the biggest problem. In the 2E mentality, you play combat by the DM's description, and everything in one turn happens more-or-less simultaneously. This means that the fighter can say he will stay between the troll and the wizard, and he can protect his caster friend.

In 3E, you take turns one by one, and combat with grids and minis became more prevalent. That means that the troll will get a move action during which the fighter can do nothing (except if provoked) so he will be unable to block the troll from getting to the wizard.

Increasingly convoluted mechanics have been designed to counteract this.

Wouldn't preparing an action to "Hit anyone who tries to move past me" be possible? :smallconfused:

I wouldn't know as I often play casters and thus have no need for no stinking readied actions.

One thing occurs to me: 3rd edition introduced the magic mart. I wonder what sort of effect that had on gameplay? I have yet to see it in action, so I have no idea.

I believe there was a literal magic mart in an older edition somewhere, not completely sure.

[Fortuna]

I was referring to the magic mart mentality, not to mention WBL. In first edition, magic items depended entirely on individual DMs and random dice rolls.

[jmbrown]

Wouldn't preparing an action to "Hit anyone who tries to move past me" be possible? :smallconfused:

I wouldn't know as I often play casters and thus have no need for no stinking readied actions.

You still have to be in reach to hit them and you can only take a 5' step as part of a readied action if you didn't move before preparing it. This works in close quarters but in an open field the enemy can just take an extra 5' to avoid the guy with the sword.

Besides, readied actions like that are a gamble. You could ready an action to hit someone who walks past you but what if they attack you instead? You're now stuck at the bottom of the initiative order with only your standard action.

4E did a better job with the action economy by introducing minor actions. Controllers and defenders exist to keep enemies from moving around so a fighter can actually do his job without worrying about the enemy walking around him.

[lesser_minion]

I was referring to the magic mart mentality, not to mention WBL. In first edition, magic items depended entirely on individual DMs and random dice rolls.

I'm not sure how different that really is in 3.0, 3.5, or 4.1 though.

In all three, you get slapped with at least something of a penalty if you don't like the magic items you're dealt, even if it's just having to go through the hassle of gathering components and performing a ritual to make a new magic item in 3.x.

Of course, everyone is assumed to have the same amount of equipment available (as opposed to everyone having the same amount of surplus equipment available), which favours wizards even more in 3.x (in 4.0 they tried to ensure that everyone had the same amount of equipment dependency).

Players certainly feel more entitled though - 4.0 even suggests letting players write out 'wish lists' of magic items.

[Kurald Galain]

Wouldn't preparing an action to "Hit anyone who tries to move past me" be possible? :smallconfused:
Not really. The best you can do is ready a move action to interpose yourself, and then whack the troll with an OA as he moves past you anyway.


4E did a better job with the action economy by introducing minor actions. Controllers and defenders exist to keep enemies from moving around so a fighter can actually do his job without worrying about the enemy walking around him.
That's part of how "Increasingly convoluted mechanics have been designed to counteract this."

The comparison still holds: in 2E, you could say you interpose yourself, and that's that. In 4E, still, the best most defenders can do is punish the enemy after he's hit the caster, and tack on a minor defense bonus. Even fighters can't stop an enemy from shifting then charging.

[Oslecamo]

The comparison still holds: in 2E, you could say you interpose yourself, and that's that. In 4E, still, the best most defenders can do is punish the enemy after he's hit the caster, and tack on a minor defense bonus. Even fighters can't stop an enemy from shifting then charging.

And to add insult to the injury there's plenty of monsters with extra shift powers.

But the wizard doesn't care, because he can add int to AC and HP out of the bat, making him tougher than the fighter.

[Kurald Galain]

But the wizard doesn't care, because he can add int to AC and HP out of the bat, making him tougher than the fighter.
Well, yeah. I've had several DMs find out to their dismay that Shield + Staff of Defense + Wizard's Escape + Leather Armor means that the 4E wizard really isn't squishy :smallbiggrin:

[bosssmiley]

1E: "I'll allow it"
3E: permission-based character builds

The two editions have completely antithetical philosophies on how the game should be played. That said, they're both still recognizably D&D. Go figure. :smallconfused:

[Eldariel]

Wouldn't preparing an action to "Hit anyone who tries to move past me" be possible? :smallconfused:

I wouldn't know as I often play casters and thus have no need for no stinking readied actions.

Actually, this is yet another problem for Fighters: If you ready an action, you give up most of your damage potential. It's the same problem as moving and dealing damage; due to full attacks, you miss out on your iteratives+bonus attacks and thus most of your damage every turn you do anything but full attack.


IMO the only substantial point offered is that save or die has gotten nastier, which is true.

I would counter that combat has gotten a lot more violent, which means every spell cast is implicitly more expensive because Actions are valuable. I would also note that under favorable circumstances it is plausible to kill a Wizard in a single round.

That was always the case. Now it is harder for the party members supposed to stop that to pull their weight. Also, Wizards really are quite adept at protecting themselves between Mirror Images, Displacements, Invisibilities, Contingencies and company.


I would also note that in my 1e/2e experience, I recall fighters getting raked by Hold Person over and over and over. Because the spell could affect 3 targets, it was an even better spell in 1e/2e than in 3e. And low level casters always had it. My Fighter save may have been better in 1e/2e, but I was getting hit by many more spells.

*Shrug* In 3.X, every caster should have Will-targeting Save-or-X on every level. What was your Fighter's poor save again? I don't see this changing one bit; Fighters still suck at saving vs. the best spells.


3e tactical combat offers a lot of positive options for the Fighter. Somehow this is a negative for the King of Feats? Baloney!

There are no new options. You could do whatever the hell you wanted in the older versions, given the DM's approval. Now? Not unless you have a feat. And just about all the default options (other than Tripping) given through feats suck to boot.

The big change in tactical combat is that the Fighter cannot stop enemies from ignoring him. Of course, this is also aided by the fact that Fighter lost his unique damage output and HP; a Cleric does just as well nowadays, and actually better with sufficient buffs. Which just happens to be the heart of the issue here.


And for every DM who said "I have no rules for this...cool, I let you do it", I would bet there were five DMs who said "I have no rules for this...roll a Dex check...now roll Str check...now you get +1 to hit!"

Meh, I haven't met a close-minded AD&D DM yet.


As for the whole Magic Mart-mentality; well, it doesn't really matter for anyone as magic items are sorta zero-sum. Fighters try to become a real class with them, casters get better at casting with them.

What does matter that with Crafting feats, casters suddenly have access to any items they want, and can get twice the gear Fighters can. Crafting means casters aren't restricted by what's available since they can pretty damn well MAKE whatever the hell they want. So meh.

[Grommen]

As for the whole Magic Mart-mentality; well, it doesn't really matter for anyone as magic items are sorta zero-sum. Fighters try to become a real class with them, casters get better at casting with them.

What does matter that with Crafting feats, casters suddenly have access to any items they want, and can get twice the gear Fighters can. Crafting means casters aren't restricted by what's available since they can pretty damn well MAKE whatever the hell they want. So meh.

That's why we ignore the experience points used up when making magic items and the party members regularly pays for their equipment to be enchanted by the casters. That way the hole party benefits from the casters making magic items.

People seem to forget that if you toss the same buffs on the fighter that you were about to put on yourself, they become far better than the caster would be. A stoneskined, Bull's Strength, Mind Blanked, Heroism, Flying, Hasted fighter would do a lot of damage. Item slots and stacking rules are a fighters best friend as well. Belts of Giant Strength, Amulet of Mind Blank, Rings of Protections and resistance, Non Detection, Ring of Flying, etc. Pretty much with the item creation rules and enough gold you can put just about any buff on something and wear it.

We also never had battle field control in any edition I've played, so in actuality 3ed being played on grid has made our combat more tactical and all that stuff. Now; running past the fighter to get to the squishies in the back. Why would you put yourself between two opponents. Epically when that opens you up to being flanked and wherever their are fighters, their are rogues with that nasty sneak attack.

[John Campbell]

*Shrug* In 3.X, every caster should have Will-targeting Save-or-X on every level. What was your Fighter's poor save again? I don't see this changing one bit; Fighters still suck at saving vs. the best spells.
Isn't any "still" to it. Fighers being unable to save against enchantments and the like is a 3.x invention. In AD&D, fighters started out with fairly weak saves, but they improved faster than anyone else's, and, by the mid-levels, they had the best across-the-board saves in the game. Other classes would typically have one save (out of six) that was slightly better than the fighter's, and the rest would be worse. Fighters were best or second-best at every save.

AD&D also didn't have anywhere near as much of the rock-paper-scissors game of picking a spell that targeted a weak save, because it didn't have the tremendous differentiation between "good" and "poor" saves, where you're practically guaranteed to make the former and fail the latter, that 3.x does, and because most spells were simply Save vs. Spells... the options that overrode that for a more specific save type were slim.

Save DCs were also based entirely on the target's class and level, with the caster and even the spell, beyond any effect type that might push it into a save category other than the generic "Spells", being irrelevant. No way to pump save DCs through the roof, or really manipulate them at all. That meant that everyone was pretty likely to save against those save-or-foo spells, at least once you started getting up in level. This made save-or-foos less useful, and spells that did damage even on a successful save - like good old-fashioned fireball - more useful... especially since everything had half as many hit points. And the fighter, with his d10 HD and as the only class that could get more than a +2 hp Con bonus, was more resistant to those than anyone else, too.

[Eldariel]

Isn't any "still" to it. Fighers being unable to save against enchantments and the like is a 3.x invention. In AD&D, fighters started out with fairly weak saves, but they improved faster than anyone else's, and, by the mid-levels, they had the best across-the-board saves in the game. Other classes would typically have one save (out of six) that was slightly better than the fighter's, and the rest would be worse. Fighters were best or second-best at every save.

I was responding to the post of low-level Fighters getting constantly Held (and Sleeped and Color Sprayed and whatever), which admittedly did happen (though it was by no means Fighter-exclusive).


AD&D also didn't have anywhere near as much of the rock-paper-scissors game of picking a spell that targeted a weak save, because it didn't have the tremendous differentiation between "good" and "poor" saves, where you're practically guaranteed to make the former and fail the latter, that 3.x does, and because most spells were simply Save vs. Spells... the options that overrode that for a more specific save type were slim.

Save DCs were also based entirely on the target's class and level, with the caster and even the spell, beyond any effect type that might push it into a save category other than the generic "Spells", being irrelevant. No way to pump save DCs through the roof, or really manipulate them at all. That meant that everyone was pretty likely to save against those save-or-foo spells, at least once you started getting up in level. This made save-or-foos less useful, and spells that did damage even on a successful save - like good old-fashioned fireball - more useful... especially since everything had half as many hit points. And the fighter, with his d10 HD and as the only class that could get more than a +2 hp Con bonus, was more resistant to those than anyone else, too.

This is all true, other than spell being irrelevant; many higher level spells applied penalty to the save (think Chaos had -4, for example) meaning they stayed useful slightly longer. But yeah, all the saves are pretty close for everyone (other than Thieves, at least? I recall thief table had horrible Breath Save among others) so the difference isn't emphasized that much.

[Tiktakkat]

I was referring to the magic mart mentality, not to mention WBL. In first edition, magic items depended entirely on individual DMs and random dice rolls.

The magic mart has had two general effects, one a wash, the other destructively unbalancing.

There are positive effects in choosing exactly what items you want in that you can enhance your specific abilities without having to deal with less than useful items taking up space. The downside to this is those random items often had a very high improvisational factor, being more useful than would be thought simply because they did not improve what you already did. Between those two ends, selecting items does not do all that much to game balance or power level.

The absolutely destructive aspect of selecting items is the lack of a strongly enforced item level limit. This was somewhat addressed in the Magic Item Compendium, where item levels were made more prominent, and turned into a mandated rule in 4E. Without item levels, players will often pump high amounts of their WBL into specific stat bump items and weapons, plus a few "special" other items such as boots of speed. The effect of this is to push relevant combat modifiers higher much sooner than intended, making characters of 4th-15th level significantly more powerful than they would otherwise be.

[valadil]

Here are a few minor differences I haven't seen mentioned yet.

Point buy as opposed to rolling. This may just be coincidence, but around the time of 3rd ed, all the groups I knew lost interest in rolling for stats. Instead we did point buy. This benefited single attribute dependant characters. I never saw a game with PB low enough that casters couldn't get a starting 18 in their casting stat.

The internet. Players use it. I play a more effective caster because of some threads I've read here. I'd probably be even more effective if I read threads on the CharOps board. Before I started using the internet as a resource for D&D, my wizards all cast fireball, cone of cold, or whatever other dice/level reflex save spells I could find. Reading up on Batman wizards changed that. Because of how the internet spreads knowledge around to all participants, all characters are played closer to Batman style than as fireballers. Casters have more potential in 3rd ed. That potential is realized because the internet tells everyone how to do so.

[erikun]

So everything hurt the Fighter in general, and the specific spell nerfs just mean that you pick different, equally effective spells? That right? Because that gels with my experience, at least.
In 2e (and probably 1e) your standard wizard could end an encouter with one fireball, or at least damage everything enough that finishing them off wasn't a problem. The fighter might take 2-3 rounds to do the same, and take a little damage, but could pretty much clear out an encounter himself. The end result was mostly the same, although the resources spent were different - one wizard spell or 3 rounds and some healing.

3e ran into a problem of HP bloat. Specifically from high Constitution, everything had more HP. 18 CON at level 5 is an additional 20 HP; compared to the average 10 damage from a sword or 17 damage from a fireball, an extra spell/attack per round couldn't even make up the difference. Wizards had the option of switching to non-damaging magic (Sleep, Charm Monster) to remain just as effective, while fighters were stuck trying to chew through the massive HP bump.


One thing occurs to me: 3rd edition introduced the magic mart. I wonder what sort of effect that had on gameplay? I have yet to see it in action, so I have no idea.
There was MagiMart in earlier editions, to an extent. However, two big factors made it more prevalent in 3e.

First, early crafting. In 2e, you couldn't even make the most basic magical items - such as scrolls and potions - until level 9, at least. A potion of healing was a rare and valuable item, not something to be used at the earliest possible convenience. By contrast, any spellcaster in 3e can create scrolls at level 1. By level 6, you can create weapons, armor, potions, wands, and various other magical items. Even if the players didn't make it themselves, there was the assumption that someone, somewhere, was producing items at such a low level, and that they were available somehow.

The second problem was, ironically enough, CR. Older editions just had monsters and experience values, at it was expected for the DM to eyeball what would be appropriate to throw against the party. Standardized challange ratings did help the DM with organizing encounters, but the system also ended up saying "You must be THIS strong to survive at level X." If everything at CR 5 had magical damage reduction and regeneration stopped by acid, then the party needed to be outfitted with magical weaponry and ways to deal acid damage. If they weren't, then the encounter was vastly harder and not actually a CR 5 encounter.

But that was the problem. If the DM doesn't follow the WBL guidelines and hand out "appropriate" magical equipment, then the CR guidelines don't apply anymore. But if the CR isn't appropriate, then it isn't any use for building encounters. :smallfrown: On the other hand, if the DM wants to follow the CR guidelines, then they basically needed to hand out magical goodies as per WBL, not however they'd want to on their own.

[Eldariel]

The second problem was, ironically enough, CR. Older editions just had monsters and experience values, at it was expected for the DM to eyeball what would be appropriate to throw against the party. Standardized challange ratings did help the DM with organizing encounters, but the system also ended up saying "You must be THIS strong to survive at level X." If everything at CR 5 had magical damage reduction and regeneration stopped by acid, then the party needed to be outfitted with magical weaponry and ways to deal acid damage. If they weren't, then the encounter was vastly harder and not actually a CR 5 encounter.

But that was the problem. If the DM doesn't follow the WBL guidelines and hand out "appropriate" magical equipment, then the CR guidelines don't apply anymore. But if the CR isn't appropriate, then it isn't any use for building encounters. :smallfrown: On the other hand, if the DM wants to follow the CR guidelines, then they basically needed to hand out magical goodies as per WBL, not however they'd want to on their own.

This particular problem though, mostly solves itself as CR seems to be applied by methods that makes the DCI (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=9771&type=card) look accurate, so it's generally a good idea to either use it as an extremely rough guideline, or ignore it altogether when making encounters.

[Matthew]

One difference between first edition and second edition AD&D fighters is that multiple attacks in the former version also meant automatic winning of initiative, whilst in the latter edition that advantage was dispensed with. Obviously, automatically getting the first attack against a magician was all kinds of useful. The optional weapon speeds of second edition (if used, and they really should not have been) could really be a disadvantage for a fighter, and were happily dispensed with for D20/3e.