[2nd Edition/3.5] Wizards

[Chrizzt]

Hello!

I have been thinking about the differences of Wizards in 2nd and 3rd Edition, but as my experience in 2nd edition is quite few, I would like your opinions on this topic.

How has the style of play changed between these two editions, and are wizards in 3.5 more powerful than in 2nd edition?

A few points of thought so far:

1. In 2nd Edition, Classes had their own XP-Table which ruled their advancement, in 3.5 each class progresses with the same table. Do you think in 2nd Edition this difference in tables was effective in balancing class strengths? You could be a much higher level rogue with the same XP, or a lower level mage (which possibly reflects the higher difficulties in learning magic).

2. I'm not sure about this, but was there any way in 2nd edition by which a mage could cast more spells than one per round? in 3.5 there are various ways to fire off more spells than one.

3. In 3.5 the risk for a wizard of being hit while casting a spell is neglectable. He could either cast spells defensively, or just make his concentration check. If I recall correctly, even one point of damage in 2nd edition meant break of concentration. Am I right on this topic? So there had to be tanks to protect the mages, oh, and fighters where able to dish out decently on their own, if I recall correctly...

What do you say to these points? Which others aspects do come into your mind?

Thanks for responding, folks!

[dsmiles]

1. Yes, it was like a built-in LA to keep things even between the fighters, rogues, priests and wizards.

2. No. Unless you count haste.

3. True, taking damage completely disrupted a spell. Yes, fighters were WAY more useful than they were with the unbalanced 3.5 classes.

[WinWin]

1) experience was more relevant than level when determining power.

2) already covered

3) stoneskin blocked attacks rather than provide DR. At lower levels, Mirror Image was relyable for preventing spell disruption. Probably other methods exist.

Polymorph was more manageable in 2e. The new form was clumsy, most of the powers inaccessable and the transformation had a percentile chance of death from shock depending on constitution.

Illusions worked differently and could deal 'illusory damage.'

Minion creation and summons were less effective overall, but when accessable at higher level were game breaking. Nothing prevented a demon from summoning more demons every day for example.

[potatocubed]

Spell preparation time: an AD&D wizard took 10 minutes per spell level per spell to commit them to memory. A high-level wizard could take days memorising their full allotment of spells, which created a natural tendency to conserve resources where possible.

A 3.x wizard takes 1 hour after a decent night's sleep. Cue the 15-minute adventuring day.

EDIT: Also, WAY fewer spells per day. A 1st-level AD&D wizard can memorise one 1st-level spell. No bonuses for high Int - rather, unless you had a high Int score you just couldn't cast higher-level magic, but unlike 3.x getting bonuses to your starting Int was very difficult.

[Kurald Galain]

How has the style of play changed between these two editions, and are wizards in 3.5 more powerful than in 2nd edition?

There are a few fundamental changes.

• Overall hit points have gone up, but the damage from blast spells hasn't. This is why Fireball is a good spell in 2E, but not in 3E.
• In 2E, the chance for a monster or character to make a saving throw goes way up with level; in 3E, this chance goes down (because cranking up the DC is rather easy). This is why save-or-lose spells are much better in 3E than in 2E.
• Spell disruption. Basically, in 2E, when you were hit by an attack, you lost the spell you were casting. 3E instead gives you a concentration check, which is pretty easy to pass.
• Side effects. Many spells in 2E have negative or potentially dangerous side effects, such as rebounding lightning bolts, deafening yourself with shout, and so forth. 3E has eliminated most of these, which substantially increases the usefulness of those spells.
• Better defenses. Generally, wizards in 3E have an easier time protecting themselves from, well, anything. This starts by the fact that they have a much easier time adding Con to hit points and Dex to armor class.
• Spell choice. In 2E, the default is that the DM decides which spells you get, by making them available as treasure. In 3E, the default is that the player decides which spells he gets, by taking them for free at level-up.

(edit) also, as Potato said, memorization time (which was ten minutes times its level for every single spell, although I've never met a DM who actually enforced this). And slightly fewer spells per day, in that you don't get +1 for your intelligence but most wizards did become specialist if they had at least two scores of 15+.

[BobVosh]

1. Worked fairly well, imo

2. Yes. A couple of spell matrix type spells, haste, and...thats it as far as I know.

3. Fairly similar to 3.5 a fighter with a mage as a dedicated buff bot is fairly dangerous.

[Eldariel]

Note that 2e AD&D Time Stop allowed multiple spells a turn just fine and there were some Spell Matrix-tricks to trigger serieses of spells at will. BG2: ToB actually pretty much force-introduces you to those if you play through it. But of course, AD&D nova meant you'd be spending a few days repreparing your spells.

[Caliphbubba]

I don't recall if this is a houserule or not, but in my 2nd ed game you only lost your spell if you were hit during the time you were actually Casting it.

as in you roll initiative of a 3,

you start casting your spell on 3

it has a casting time of 4

so your spell actually resolves on 7. if you get hit with damge on initiative count of 3, 4, 5, or 6 you lost the spell.

so he easy way to get around this is to just elect to go last in the round.

on the subject of Stoneskin in 2nd ed, yes it did stop attacks instead of DR, but the attacks didn't actually have to HIT you to 'drain a charge' from the stoneskin, which really nerfed the spell IMHO.

In my experiance save or lose spells in 2nd ed were almost always completely useless as by the time you get them the baddies probably had pretty good saves vs spells, and as someone else said there were very few ways to hamper their ability to just ignore it. So straight up damage spells were often preferable.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't recall if this is a houserule or not, but in my 2nd ed game you only lost your spell if you were hit during the time you were actually Casting it.

That is correct. However, I do not believe the rules allowed you to elect to go last.

on the subject of Stoneskin in 2nd ed, yes it did stop attacks instead of DR, but the attacks didn't actually have to HIT you to 'drain a charge' from the stoneskin, which really nerfed the spell IMHO.

It's a decent spell, but not uber. A decent archer (or dart thrower) or the Magic Missile spell quickly strips all stoneskins from a character - magical attacks fully hit you in addition to stripping a charge.

The only cheese part of it is if the DM allows it to stack with itself: in the Eye of the Beholder computer game, each casting adds its charges to the ones you already have. That's pretty nasty.

[hamlet]

[*]Spell choice. In 2E, the default is that the DM decides which spells you get, by making them available as treasure. In 3E, the default is that the player decides which spells he gets, by taking them for free at level-up.[/list]

That right there is almost as big when held against all the others, at times. With the DM in total control of not only what spells are in the campaign, but what spells the player can have (via treasure distribution and so on), it can greatly affect the power level of spell casters. Imagine a game in which not every single 1st level magic user capable of casting the spell actually has Magic Missile in their spell books, and doesn't until at least 5th level.

Or, AD&D can just as easily as 3.x turn into a magic grab bag for all players, but this is an easy "throttle" for the DM to control spell casters and, in extension, most other classes as well.

A curious effect that I've noticed is that clerics gain comparitively more power and versatility as they do not have this immediate control and gain access to all spells in the PHB (barring specific DM action) according to the ruiles. Interestingly, priests therefore seem to "level out" at around 5th or 6th level while most of the other classes pass them by. For a player of the cleric character, it can be just a little frustrating after those first few, quick levels.

[Caliphbubba]

That is correct. However, I do not believe the rules allowed you to elect to go last.

then the I hold my action trick doesn't work I guess.

regarding Stoneskin it just annoys me that a gang of mooks that have no hope of hitting my AC automatically drain a charge of my stoneskin if they even think about trying to hit me.

[Matthew]

I don't recall if this is a houserule or not, but in my 2nd ed game you only lost your spell if you were hit during the time you were actually Casting it.

As in you roll initiative of a 3, you start casting your spell on 3, it has a casting time of 4, so your spell actually resolves on 7. if you get hit with damage on initiative count of 3, 4, 5, or 6 you lost the spell.

so he easy way to get around this is to just elect to go last in the round.

That is correct. However, I do not believe the rules allowed you to elect to go last.

Basically, that is one of the interpretations of the first edition rules for initiative (which are not very clear). In second edition, the default rule is that if Side A goes before Side B, then any spells Side B are casting are interrupted. If you use the casting time rules (which are optional) there is a much higher chance of interrupting spells.

On the subject of Stoneskin in 2nd ed, yes it did stop attacks instead of DR, but the attacks didn't actually have to HIT you to 'drain a charge' from the stoneskin, which really nerfed the spell IMHO.

In my experience save or lose spells in 2nd ed were almost always completely useless as by the time you get them the baddies probably had pretty good saves vs spells, and as someone else said there were very few ways to hamper their ability to just ignore it. So straight up damage spells were often preferable.

It's a decent spell, but not uber. A decent archer (or dart thrower) or the Magic Missile spell quickly strips all stoneskins from a character - magical attacks fully hit you in addition to stripping a charge.

The only cheese part of it is if the DM allows it to stack with itself: in the Eye of the Beholder computer game, each casting adds its charges to the ones you already have. That's pretty nasty.

As with many aspects of second edition, interpretation by individual game masters plays a large part. There was an "official" ruling that turned up in Sage Advice, which I think had to do with somebody throwing a handful of pebbles at the magician.

[Kurald Galain]

A curious effect that I've noticed is that clerics gain comparitively more power and versatility as they do not have this immediate control and gain access to all spells in the PHB (barring specific DM action) according to the ruiles.

As I recall, cleric spells are divided into spheres, and clerics get most but not all of them (some of the best spells are in the druidic spheres). Also, if your DM was using the rules for a custom pantheon, then your deity would strongly impact which spheres you got. This rule is optional but I don't think I've met a DM who didn't use it.

[hamlet]

As I recall, cleric spells are divided into spheres, and clerics get most but not all of them (some of the best spells are in the druidic spheres). Also, if your DM was using the rules for a custom pantheon, then your deity would strongly impact which spheres you got. This rule is optional but I don't think I've met a DM who didn't use it.

You've met a DM who doesn't use it now.

Yes, I understand what you say, but my point was about general clerics (i.e., yer vanilla divine spell caster not of a specific mythos with the typically permitted spheres).

Clerics (and all priests) do not have to locate their spells via research or treasure hoards, but have access to all spells they are permitted to cast and need only choose which to memorize/pray for. It's a leg up on the magic user who is struggling to fill out his spell book and who might not actually even have a spell of a certain level because he just hasn't found one yet.

[Ossian]

Hello!

I have been thinking about the differences of Wizards in 2nd and 3rd Edition, but as my experience in 2nd edition is quite few, I would like your opinions on this topic.

How has the style of play changed between these two editions, and are wizards in 3.5 more powerful than in 2nd edition?

A few points of thought so far:

1. In 2nd Edition, Classes had their own XP-Table which ruled their advancement, in 3.5 each class progresses with the same table. Do you think in 2nd Edition this difference in tables was effective in balancing class strengths? You could be a much higher level rogue with the same XP, or a lower level mage (which possibly reflects the higher difficulties in learning magic).

2. I'm not sure about this, but was there any way in 2nd edition by which a mage could cast more spells than one per round? in 3.5 there are various ways to fire off more spells than one.

3. In 3.5 the risk for a wizard of being hit while casting a spell is neglectable. He could either cast spells defensively, or just make his concentration check. If I recall correctly, even one point of damage in 2nd edition meant break of concentration. Am I right on this topic? So there had to be tanks to protect the mages, oh, and fighters where able to dish out decently on their own, if I recall correctly...

What do you say to these points? Which others aspects do come into your mind?

Thanks for responding, folks!

Wizards were still manageable in the old D&D. I take it that you mean the Red/Blue/Green/Black boxed sets, and not AD&D, as I know precious little about the latter. On the former, yeah, some 20 years of gaming.

1) The XP edge decreased slowly over time. Sure, a rogue could get into a relatively safe zone (HPs, saves) faster than the wizard, but eventually the Wiz was still the most powerful class.

2) More than one spell per round? Not AFAIK.

3) You don t need to take damage to lose the spell, just to be hit in that round. Some went as far as "if you suffer from an attack, whether it hits or not". Essentially, you could never keep your concentration under attack.

Movement was also a lot less important than it is now. You either attacked and moved, or moved and attacked, or run, or attacked. Iterative attacks were possible only to certain classes and only at high levels (12 on) and only if the previous attack would have hit on a natural two.
Say you are a level 36 fighter, you have "4 attacks per round". You still get to do only 1, if your target has an AC of -25 (which is like AC 45 in 3.5). In a way, it was like merging cleave and multiple attacks, but you did not have to down your foe to get the extra attacks, only to hit on a natural 2

[Sinfonian]

How has the style of play changed between these two editions, and are wizards in 3.5 more powerful than in 2nd edition?

First, I want to say that most everything said about the mechanical changes to magic and wizards are probably more of a factor than what I'm saying here. This is just a slightly different thought on the matter, which in all probability could be wrong. I think the single most important change was probably the change in spell memorization time and the accompanying shift in psychology.

This may be beyond the scope of the question you asked, but I think part of the issue is the change in the philosophy of magical items. I remember in 2E a party could still be in awe of finding a +1 sword at level 5 or 6. In 3.5, that campaign would be considered horribly underwealth. The WBL "guidelines" (they're held by many to be as much or more a part of the Core rules as anything else, and are an integral part of the design of the edition) mean that magic items are much more commonplace in 3.5 than in previous editions. Easy (easier, at least) access to magical items is expected by both the rules and the players. I can't really say for certain, but I recall this being because it brought a level of standardization to games, rather than treasure being so heavily up to the DM to decide (making printed monsters and campaigns vary drastically in effectiveness from group to group).

To bring that back to the issue of a wizard, it allows wizards to be able to much more easily make up for any gaps in their own personal spellcasting ability (or to make them more effective at what they do).

For example, if a wizard doesn't happen to want to use his spellslots to cast Freedom of Movement, he can simply pay a set price at a Magic Mart (which I don't mind) or half that if there's a party crafter, either way with little fuss. For a similar wizard in 2E, that wizard would likely have to make it a stated quest brought to the DM's attention to get something of the sort and work it out with him (I'm aware that 2E Magic Marts existed, but they seemed less universal in inventory). I recall a 2E rulebook advising something like a 3 part questline for a player that wanted to simply make a wand that shot Fireballs.

Wizards in 3.5 have a much easier time either augmenting themselves with magic items that fill in capabilities they might otherwise lack, or easily finding items that make their jobs easier.

[potatocubed]

I was thinking something similar, actually, although it does diverge a bit from the questions of the OP.

The Christmas tree effect means that even if a 10th-level (for example) 3.x wizard has burned all their spells, they're still pretty handy. They've got scrolls a-plenty and wands of whatever, plus a robe of exploding and a hat of awesome. All of this, as you mention, is tailored to cover any gaps in their normal spellcasting range. A couple of 2nd-level fighters might be a threat, but not a huge one.

A 10th-level AD&D wizard in the same situation has a few random (literally random) scrolls, a folding boat, three magic beans and a bag of tricks (grey). Perhaps he's got some bracers of AC and a +1 dagger. A couple of 2nd-level fighters is now a serious danger, since his AC is going to suck and he's got the damage output of a treestump.

AD&D encouraged getting creative with what you had, rather than just selling it on and buying something you actually wanted.

[Diarmuid]

Where are any of you getting the impression that Haste allowed for casting more than one spell in a given round?

When this spell is cast, each affected creature functions at double its normal movement rate and attack rates....Spellcasting and spell effects are not sped up. The number of creaturs affected....

Honestly having played both systems quite a bit, by the books a 3E wizard is much more likely to survive at lower levels and make it to higher levels.

Strictly by the book, 3E wizards are much more powerful...but most peoples' memories of 2E involve their own houserules that made things better/cleaner (IE: My group gave wizards similar bonus spells for Int as clerics got for Wis).

The Skills & Powers/Spells & Magic books added a lot for the wizard and at times skewed them way over the edge, but the simple fact that doing a single point of damage to a wizard in a given round kept them from doing any spellcasting for the rest of the round is a huge difference between the spell interruption/concentration rules in 3E.

[Cyrion]

Also, there has been an explosion of spells for the wizard in 3.5, both in variety available and known by an individual wizard.

It made a big difference when there was a limit on the number of spells per level that your wizard could know (based on Int). You were much choosier about what went into your spellbook, and you were less likely to be the Swiss Army Knife For All Occasions.

[Tyndmyr]

Where are any of you getting the impression that Haste allowed for casting more than one spell in a given round?

I believe he's thinking of the 3.0 haste, in which you gained another standard action, IIRC.

[Zombimode]

Where are any of you getting the impression that Haste allowed for casting more than one spell in a given round.

This is one of the fun things about 2e threads:
Someone asks how X was handled in 2e and you get 10 different answers, some of them completely contradicting eachother and make you wonder if they are actualy talking about the same game

[Kurald Galain]

Also, there has been an explosion of spells for the wizard in 3.5,

2E had the Spell Compedium, though.

[hamlet]

This is one of the fun things about 2e threads:
Someone asks how X was handled in 2e and you get 10 different answers, some of them completely contradicting eachother and make you wonder if they are actualy talking about the same game

Sometimes they are, and sometimes they are still both "correct."

AD&D's fun like that.

[Diarmuid]

I believe he's thinking of the 3.0 haste, in which you gained another standard action, IIRC.

Possibly, but then now I have to wonder how many people in this thread are really comparing 3.0 to 3.5 as opposed to 2E vs 3E.

/sigh

Basically, I think 3E is way more viable at lower levels, but in both systems...at higher levels the casters shine...the priest spells in 2E pretty much blew and no spontaneous casting made playing clerics tedious at best.

[Starbuck_II]

A few points of thought so far:

1. In 2nd Edition, Classes had their own XP-Table which ruled their advancement, in 3.5 each class progresses with the same table. Do you think in 2nd Edition this difference in tables was effective in balancing class strengths? You could be a much higher level rogue with the same XP, or a lower level mage (which possibly reflects the higher difficulties in learning magic).

Yes and no. Depends on the class.
The Paladin being better than the Fighter and having a code was balanced (unlike 3.5 Code but not better).

2. I'm not sure about this, but was there any way in 2nd edition by which a mage could cast more spells than one per round? in 3.5 there are various ways to fire off more spells than one.

Yes, Haste, Timestop, etc.

3. In 3.5 the risk for a wizard of being hit while casting a spell is neglectable. He could either cast spells defensively, or just make his concentration check. If I recall correctly, even one point of damage in 2nd edition meant break of concentration. Am I right on this topic? So there had to be tanks to protect the mages, oh, and fighters where able to dish out decently on their own, if I recall correctly...

Stoneskin, Mirror Image, Reflective image (level 1 Mirror Image), etc. Magic was more powerful than 3rd edition but yes had limitations that aren't in 2nd edition.
Create water could kill in 2nd Edition.

Magic Missile was more viable as it had the fastest attack speed and auto hit.
Everyone had lower HP maximums so damage was the best killer.

[Tyndmyr]

Possibly, but then now I have to wonder how many people in this thread are really comparing 3.0 to 3.5 as opposed to 2E vs 3E.

Who knows? I played 2nd ed, but I played fighter back then, so my memory of spells is sketchy at best. Mostly, I just remember illusions annoying the crap out of me.

I wouldn't trust my memory with regards to the actual details of any rules from back then.

I do recall feeling squishier in general then, though. In 3.x, squishiness goes away rapidly at higher levels unless you take on much higher leveled challenges.

[Diarmuid]

Feeling squishier makes sense as in 2E you stop rolling HP as a wizard at 10th lvl and the most HP you could gain from Con was 2/lvl.

And I'm amused that even after pointing out why earlier posters were wrong, Starbuck jumped right on the Haste being able to allow for multi castings in 2E.

Too funny.

[Aroka]

Note that 2e AD&D Time Stop allowed multiple spells a turn just fine and there were some Spell Matrix-tricks to trigger serieses of spells at will. BG2: ToB actually pretty much force-introduces you to those if you play through it. But of course, AD&D nova meant you'd be spending a few days repreparing your spells.

Actually, regular Baldur's Gate 2 is already full of enemy wizards and liches with contingency spells that usually trigger a set of overlapping protective spells that you have to unravel in the right order using the right spells (because some of the magic-removing spells are negated by some of the protections).

[Mongoose87]

Actually, regular Baldur's Gate 2 is already full of enemy wizards and liches with contingency spells that usually trigger a set of overlapping protective spells that you have to unravel in the right order using the right spells (because some of the magic-removing spells are negated by some of the protections).

That's why I always tried to get Minsc in their face, or cast Insect Swarm on them. Such a pain to get through all the protections.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually, regular Baldur's Gate 2 is already full of enemy wizards and liches with contingency spells that usually trigger a set of overlapping protective spells

Sure, but that doesn't mean the RAW contingency spell lets you do that. IIRC, the 6th-level Contingency lets you do one spell on one condition, the 9th-level Chain Contingency throws out three spells on one condition, and the also-9th-level Laeral's Disrobement throws out one spell on half a dozen conditions.