What was originally thought to be the function of each class?

[Thane of Fife]

I don't think most of the classes had much vision beyond "Update the 2e class," but we can look at what changed with 3e, and what they say in the Hero Builder's Guidebook (sold almost as a strategy guide) to get some idea.

Barbarian: There is no core barbarian class in 2e (though there was a fighter kit that didn't change much relative to the base fighter, and a supplement book that I'm not familiar with that probably had a class), but 1e's Unearthed Arcana had a barbarian that looks pretty similar to the 3e one. D12 hit die, fast movement, back protection - that's all there. That barbarian's skills have been converted to above average skill points with 3e (nearly every AD&D class without thief skills gets 2 points per level in 3e). They've taken out that barbarian's inability to use magic items or work with spell casters, removed an armor class bonus, added rage, and added damage reduction. Not surprising they ditched the mistrust of magic, which would have made barbarians hard to play with, and I think the AC for DR trade was probably just intended to make the barbarian feel different from other martial characters. The rage is probably part of a general attack boost to martial characters (feats for fighters, smite for paladins, rage for barbarians). In as much as there is an intent beyond converting the earlier class, I would suggest that the class is intended to be a bit more mobile and maybe slightly harder hitting, but also slightly squishier (relative to the fighter). The HBG points to human bonus feats like Alertness, Track, and Power Attack, which I don't think tell us much beyond re-emphasizing skills a bit.

Bard: The bard is interesting in that 1e and 2e both had bards that were already pretty different, and this one is another shift still. I think the main changes are the bard now has a unique spell list, that they are now spontaneous casters, and that bardic music has been reworked. I think the spontaneous casting thing is easy - they wanted them based on charisma, so they gave them sorcerer-like casting. Bardic music is easier to use but more limited in how often you can use it. I think the spell list is most interesting; the 1e bard casts like a druid, the 2e bard like a mage, and the 3e bard like a wizard/cleric hybrid. Most notably, the bard has a lot of important healing spells, like remove curse and remove disease, in addition to the cure wounds line. My guess would be that they had two purposes with the 3e bard:
1. Make it actually use charisma, and
2. Make it actually stand in for a class, rather than serve as a fifth wheel jack-of-all-trades.
Specifically, I think that the idea with the bard was probably that if you replaced a wizard/sorcerer, cleric, or rogue with it, you wouldn't be obviously missing anything important.

Cleric: The cleric looks a lot like the 2e cleric, but with spontaneous curing and domains. I think domains are just a way to make clerics feel more distinct by deity, so spontaneous curing is probably the main change. Some people have said that they thought the intent was for the cleric to just heal everyone, but I think that spontaneous curing suggests the opposite - the designers wanted to ensure that the cleric could prepare and cast other spells without needing to so carefully balance their ability to heal. I would suggest that the cleric is supposed to be generally fighting on the front line, casting only as necessary, with most buffing or healing done between fights. I think the HBG backs me up here by recommending Martial Weapon Proficiency, Power Attack, and Combat Casting as good bonus feats for a human cleric.

Druid: The 3e druid honestly looks a lot like the 2e druid. Some are mocking the playtest druid for fighting with a scimitar, but core 3e doesn't have natural spell, and I'm pretty sure the expectation is that you weren't supposed to be using magic items in animal form, so I think it's fairly reasonable that a druid would often be better off in human, spellcasting form, with their items, rather than shaped into an animal without them. This puts the druid in kind of an awkward spot. They don't have a cleric's armor proficiency to fight on the front lines or a wizard's offensive combat power. Animal Friendship is set up more for a bunch of small friends rather than one beefy companion, and as said, I don't think wildshape was really intended to be especially powerful in combat. What we can say is that the druid is the only class with no thief skills in AD&D that gets more than 2 skill points per level. So my reading is that the expectation was for it to be kind of bard-like - you may not have any great abilities, but you will probably always have some useful ability given that you have so many. We can also see some of that in the sample builds near the back of the HBG: the two that mention druids (the Sneak and the Friar) both refer to using their special abilities in a skill-like sense rather than for combat.

Fighter: This is basically the AD&D fighter + bonus feats. I think the intent here is that it's a customizable combatant class. Even apart from the obvious armored warrior, the HBG uses it to build an archer and a swashbuckler.

Monk: Again, this is basically an update to the 1e monk class. I'm not sure that there's really much point beyond cramming as many martial arts tropes into one character as possible. The character's attack power looks significantly reduced (the 1e monk has a chance to stun, or even kill, on every attack, for example). That said, the AD&D monk is required to have high ability scores, but is largely prohibited from benefiting from them, whereas the 3e monk can. The 3e monk also gets some new abilities, like Timeless Body, Ki Strike, and Abundant Step, but I'm not sure I see much pattern to them. The HBG points us to some two-weapon fighting feats, as well as dodge and mobility. I might speculate that the vision of the monk here is a character who would be pretty good if you rolled up really fantastic ability scores (as you would have needed to play one in AD&D at all).

Paladin: The 3e paladin gains smite evil and aura of courage relative to the 2e paladin, but loses their aura of protection. They also gain divine grace and earlier casting. I would guess that the smite is the paladin's version of the barbarian's rage or the fighter's bonus feats, intended to give them a bit of a combat boost. The divine grace is probably just there to give them another reason to boost charisma. HBG recommends both mounted and normal combat feats. I would say they tried to make the paladin into a bit more of a gish rather than just a fighter with some passive bonuses.

Ranger: The ranger gets spells sooner and gains multiple favored enemies, but loses heavy armor proficiency. Other than that, mostly unchanged. The HBG recommends mostly ranged combat feats. Interestingly no new combat ability (unless you count getting more and broader favored enemies), so I'd guess they felt that the two-weapon stuff and favored enemies were enough. I'm thinking they expected the ranger to use stealth skills, a bow, and spells, and then follow up with two weapons once it comes to melee fighting.

Rogue: Main difference in the rogue, besides the name change, is that sneak attack became much easier to use. Now it's more of an every round thing rather than a maybe one per fight thing. Evasion, uncanny dodge, and the rogue special abilities are also new. HBG points to two-weapon fighting feats, dodge, mobility, and expertise (I assume they left out weapon finesse because they're recommending human bonus feats and a rogue wouldn't qualify). I think the intent here was pretty obviously to take the skill-based AD&D character and make them more flexible and more competent in a fight. Rogues definitely needed the boost because they were pretty bad in AD&D.

Sorcerer: Sorcerer is the new class in 3e, so we can't compare back. The feats recommended by HBG are pretty generic (improve initiative, toughness, etc), so that doesn't help too much either. But at the end of the day, this is clearly supposed to be pretty much an alternate wizard.

Wizard: The wizard gets bonus feats now, and can learn any number of spells rather than the limited number permitted in AD&D. The bonus feats are presumably there to replace the automatic ability to create magic items gained in previous editions. They also get bonus spells for high intelligence, though they also get fewer low level spells at high level, so the intent might be to balance things out with more spells at low level but not as big of a difference at high level. Though they do get lots more high level spells at high levels, so who knows. HBG recommends weapon focus (rays) or combat casting. Of the builds in the back that involve wizard, most recommend spell focus, spell penetration, and spell mastery, so I think we can assume that there was an expectation that many of their important spells would be cast directly at enemies. If we compare the bard and wizard spell lists, we might say that the bard gets a lot of the buff and debuff spells, but comparatively few of the direct damage or more esoteric spells (e.g. water breathing, teleport, or rope trick). So we might speculate that buffs and debuffs were considered part of the wizard's "role" (and thus would be potentially replaceable by a bard), but the direct damage and such was more linked to the wizard (and sorcerer) as a class.

[vasilidor]

As far as I can tell, this was the intent behind each PHB class.
Snip
Paladin: You want to play Sir Galahad. Key tactics: "Axe to the face, for justice!"
SNIP

I read that in the voice of Minsc.

[Akal Saris]

That 'Tactics and Tips' article was fascinating - there's this really bizarre mix of 'strong' decisions (greater spell immunity was the I-win button for the team, and revivify and fortunate fate seem like wise picks), and mystifying ones, like the archer wizard - even though he seems to have been about half the party damage!

I also appreciate how, reading between the lines, the party was like 'elocator/fighter, you kind of suck, one of us doesn't get spell immunity and it's you'.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Idk about original function, but the base Paladin is so atrocious... the spells are barely functional. Honestly since the Cleric gets armor the entire design of Paladin could've just been a prestige class for Clerics that changes flavor slightly. More meleeish less spell ish.

As much **** as I'd get.. I'd probably delete a ton of classes or just turn them into PrCs and trim the base class list down a ton. I think the broad design of some of the classes takes on to much while others got nothing. **** even WoWs monk is better designed than D&Ds at least they have some variety to their capability rather than. "Me stick who punch that it."

The utility design of Spells is just to varied to have a functional game where 1 guy can have a book of options and the other players option is Me smash, or me smash or me smash. Wow that's some variety there bud go whack it with your Sword or Axe. ToB resolved this slightly.. So honestly any surviving non casters should be ToB characters so they have an option beyond I hit with sword. I enjoy when playing, or DMing seeing players think and play tactically. I personally feel like I have to play monsters as dumb as crap vs a mostly martial party because if I don't it's just an RNG simulator on dice with vary little effecting it otherwise.

VS instead seeing ToB/Caster groups I have to step my game up the players have more options than i can keep track of sometimes.

You have to wonder atrociously their test of the classes was. To think Monk, Fighter, Ranger etc functioned "ok". **** even Barbarian is mostly function right now due to splat not OG release.

[Gavinfoxx]

You have to wonder atrociously their test of the classes was. To think Monk, Fighter, Ranger etc functioned "ok". **** even Barbarian is mostly function right now due to splat not OG release.

It wasn't atrocious. It was non existent. They hadn't conceived of the idea that classes should be especially functional in the rules they created or the idea that they should be balanced against one another as a concept, especially. They didn't playtest in the way we think of running simulations of abilities or running through scenarios to test for effectiveness or anything like that at all.

[Scots Dragon]

*snip*

Is there a name for the fallacy where there’s an assumption of weird hyper-optimisation that seems to dominate most 3.5e spaces?

[Seward]

Is there a name for the fallacy consisting the assumption of weird hyper-optimisation that seems to dominate most 3.5e spaces?

I don't know a name but I just as an excercise to re-familiarize myself with 3.5 after much Pathfinder, I just did a basic party with very basic gear from 1-15. I did do noncore stuff, but nothing fancy or especially unusual.

cleric, wizard, paladin, monk, all LG Most WBL was spent on attribue +2-6 items and resist 1-5 items, plus spellbook/boccob's book for Wizard, boots speed for monk and basic golfbag of weapons, none enhanced past +1, armor also only at +1, wizard's mithril buckler did get pushed to +5 but that's about it.

Cleric was built as a decent buffer, medeocre fighter and ok Healer, was party face using high int, human and Able Learer to cover bases.

Wizard was a conjurer with banned enchantment and necromancy that did long duration buffs and area zaps, plus teleportation-style tricks, and was party know-it-all. Both did summon monster primarily for utility actions, not in combat.

Monk was built with high strength but without power attack and with good hide and spot (backed by cloak of elvenkind and eyes of eagle, serving as party scout and paladin was a boring old spirited charge dude who added improved shield bash at L6 and power attack at L12 and no out of combat utilty other than detect evil and handle animal.

This party had no trouble with any of the content. System mastery and working as a team more than copensated for basic choices that are hardly considered optimal. (eg, cleric and wizard worked together to get GMW, magic vestment and/or greater mage armor up 24x7 on anybody who it helped. All 4 bought a lsr rod of extend to help with that, wizard added extend and chain spell to help with buffing in higher levels.)

Searching for loot was done with detect spells or interrogation backed by detect thoughts. Traps were just healed through if not ignored by Monk or sprung by summons sent ahead to scout. This was not a subtle party. All but Monk ran Daylight 24x7, considered a silence spell "being stealthy" and were mildly lawful stupid as they shared a religion that included "inflexibility" in the portfolio.

Turns out not too many challenges can't be beaten with a tank that does solid full attack damage or charge damage, a monk who does solid flurry damage and can stick a stun half the time vs appropriate targets, a wizard who copes with long range challenges or obstacles by either blasting it or bypassing it via teleport type spells putting a monk or paladin in position to whomp the opposition...and a cleric who plays utility outfielder, doing nothing well but able to help out in almost any situation, filling nearly any role adequately till the primary party member gets around to helping. I did almost no battlefield control, but this party was quite good at bypassing battlefield control of others and it had no "squishies" - all had solid hitpoints, armor class, saves ranging from decent to exellent. That was to some extent a consequence of picking two martial classes that were unusually good at saves and mobility most of the time, with wizard who was laser focused on undoing attempts to interfere with them.

Where parties fail is when the players fail to find effective uses for their actions, or are locked out of their best action because the party member who should be setting them up for success does something useless instead (eg, a bard who shoots his bow instead of using his bardsong or a spell in first round of combat, in a situation where his max expected damage won't do meaningful damage. extra annoying when that guy also blocks charge lanes for his more dangerous allies or draws fire he can't handle after drawing attention to himself with that action)

(edit...I am not saying core Monk or Paladin are well designed classes, or that in campaigns where PCs are normally active picking time to fight rather than reactive that prep casters aren't stupidly flexible and strong. I am saying that the core classes can form 4 person parties that beat normal content from 1-20 without needing to go nuts on optimization. Just put a strong score in offense attribute (always strength for a martial who isn't relying mostly on sneak attack, yes even archers although they also need dex to hit, and for casters, their casting stat), don't dump con and keep up with your attribute boost items, saving throw items and for frontliners, armor class. Don't pick useless spells as a spont caster or prep them as a vancian caster. That's it. If you have 4 players that don't waste their actions they'll do fine)

[Darg]

Well said. As a party game that is designed for party members to be party members, some of the actions done by some party members may be overweighted to an extreme is in full purview of the DM to keep in line. It isn't even all that hard to do so as well if you can spot the handful of trouble spells or adjust the reward for trivial encounters. The DMG suggests that only 20% of encounters should ever be "easy if handled properly." If it turns out 50+% of encounters aren't burning enough resources, there is generally a common theme causing the issue. Many times it is caused by dysfunctional encounter design, liberal interpretation, or meta knowledge and familiarity. I personally find the last one the most common in my circles so putting a healthy check on that from the outset resolves many of the issues before the game starts. How does some one know to use fire resistance against a red dragon? They encountered one, gathered information, recalled a random bit of information, or have a good excuse that their character believes that red means fire.

[Seward]

I did most of my 3.5 in Living Greyhawk, an environment where 3ish el+3 encounters were the norm and 1-2 are initiated by bad guys barring party scout types or similar noticing them coming. Parties were randomly mustered so class balance was rare and party members might vary from average level by +/-2 levels. Any combat encounter that wasn't just flavor fluff was serious business. This style was comfortable to me as it was similar to a lot of Hero System games I played with college buddies in 80s-90s where we were never sure who would show up.

That was pretty different from dungeon crawls with a steady group (my 3.0 experience was in a campaign where about 2/3 of it was published mega-modules) where we had the initiative and could plan the action but were screwed if the bad guys found our home base or we pushed farther than we should have on a given day. Most fights were easy till the opposition got its act together, then the goal was to do as much damage that couldn't be fixed as possible while disengaging cleanly. That was how back in the day we did AD&D tournament modules of the GDQ type.

The former required more self-sufficient characters (and everybody bought a wand of CLW at minimum to help with party healing, and most had consumables to cover their own buffs in a pinch if no caster slots could be spared. Martials with pearls of power or rods of lesser extend to lend to buffers got their money's worth). The latter you got to know your team really really well and buffs and teamwork got highly evolved (I did 3.0 to about L13 in a party with nobody that had an AC higher than 20, but we were very mobile and were really good at interfering with monster offense, and with setting up ambushes)

[Zanos]

Definitely agree with Seward that the big thing that keeps parties from succeeding is people that don't know what they're doing and refuse to learn, rather than optimization. I've played a lot of roll20 games now and I can say most groups will have 1 or 2 people with builds I pretty clearly recognize as copied from a CharOp thread but have no idea how to play. I'll take a fighter with good tactics that plays to his strengths over a perfectly built daggerspell mage that never casts his spells and full attacks with two weapon fighting every round for +10 to hit at level 12 against enemies with 27-30 AC.

[Fizban]

Definitely agree with Seward that the big thing that keeps parties from succeeding is people that don't know what they're doing and refuse to learn, rather than optimization.

Which, as you note-

I've played a lot of roll20 games now and I can say most groups will have 1 or 2 people with builds I pretty clearly recognize as copied from a CharOp thread but have no idea how to play.

Can often include the "optimizers" themselves. Even someone who's played their build can still fail on this account because they're too focused on playing their build to work with the party, or force playing a certain build that specifically clashes with the party.

I'll talk a fighter with good tactics that plays to his strengths over a perfectly built daggerspell mage that never casts his spells and full attacks with two weapon fighting every round for +10 to hit at level 12 against enemies with 27-30 AC.

Ah, how my Red Hand of Doom campaign ended: the new Battle Sorc refused to cast spells until it looked like they were going to lose- and they were paranoid about being taken alive, so they Scintillating Sphere'd on self enough times to almost kill all the enemies. Almost like doing that on the enemies before they were losing would have been a good idea.

I don't think most of the classes had much vision beyond "Update the 2e class," but we can look at what changed with 3e,

A better way of phrasing it, and a better starting point if one is properly familiar with 2e.

Bard: The bard is interesting in that 1e and 2e both had bards that were already pretty different, and this one is another shift still. I think the main changes are the bard now has a unique spell list, that they are now spontaneous casters, and that bardic music has been reworked. . . Bardic music is easier to use but more limited in how often you can use it.

How did bardic music work in 2e?

I think the spell list is most interesting; the 1e bard casts like a druid, the 2e bard like a mage, and the 3e bard like a wizard/cleric hybrid. Most notably, the bard has a lot of important healing spells, like remove curse and remove disease, in addition to the cure wounds line. . .
2. Make it actually stand in for a class, rather than serve as a fifth wheel jack-of-all-trades.

The even weirder part is that a bunch of those healing and wizard spells disappeared for 3.5, as they apparently changed their idea of what Bard was supposed to be again, with a mid-edition change, and making it even less capable of standing in for anything.

Specifically, I think that the idea with the bard was probably that if you replaced a wizard/sorcerer, cleric, or rogue with it, you wouldn't be obviously missing anything important.

This is where I really wish we had more context on those playtest character sheets, since we have no idea how they actually used the alternate classes. Was the bard actually used as a 5th wheel, or as a stand-in, and if so then what for? Did they use them with an otherwise standard party, or did they actually run out something like Monk/Bard/Ranger, and how did they run it if they did?

Cleric: . . . Some people have said that they thought the intent was for the cleric to just heal everyone, but I think that spontaneous curing suggests the opposite - the designers wanted to ensure that the cleric could prepare and cast other spells without needing to so carefully balance their ability to heal.

Indeed. I'm certain it's on record somewhere that the changes/buffs to the Cleric were specifically so people wouldn't have to feel like heal-bots, and IIRC one of the most common pieces of advice even in the 3.0 books is to *use* that ability to prepare anything you want without worrying about being unable to rescue someone.

Druid: . . . I'm pretty sure the expectation is that you weren't supposed to be using magic items in animal form,

No doubts about it, the 3.0 version of Polymorph (and thus Wild Shape) was very clear about what happens to magic items, transforming them if the form taken uses items (which one can tell by reading the monster entry), and merging them if it doesn't, while further providing a list of expectations for each creature type.

Monk: . . . I might speculate that the vision of the monk here is a character who would be pretty good if you rolled up really fantastic ability scores (as you would have needed to play one in AD&D at all).

This is something I've noticed/seen mentioned before, and it rings pretty true. For all that the Elite Array exists and is used for all NPCs and the playtest characters, rolled scores are still presented first, and all the "MAD" core classes are fine if you just. . . only use them when you roll ridiculous ability scores. It's bad design as far as I'm concerned (since random ability scores are bad design), but it does make sense in the transition.

Paladin: . . . I would say they tried to make the paladin into a bit more of a gish rather than just a fighter with some passive bonuses.

On the one hand, they have very, very few spell slots. On the other hand, those spell slots can still be filled with Cures if nothing else, which in addition to Lay on Hands means the Paladin has way more hit points per day than any other character with full BAB. And having a tough horse that pops in an out of existence also gives them a situational damage ability, which by Alhandra's sheet we can see she's definitely supposed to be using.

Ranger: . . .The HBG recommends mostly ranged combat feats. Interestingly no new combat ability (unless you count getting more and broader favored enemies), so I'd guess they felt that the two-weapon stuff and favored enemies were enough.

Ahhhh, found it. Apparently you are correct, the 3.0 Ranger did have TWF stuff. It's just not on the table or the text, instead being hidden in the proficiency section. So the big 3.5 change there was being able to trade that for ranged feats instead, and not needing to spend a feat for ITWF.

Rogue: Main difference in the rogue, besides the name change, is that sneak attack became much easier to use. Now it's more of an every round thing rather than a maybe one per fight thing.

And I will note that's supported by basic skill use, not wacky feats or magic or even requiring flanking (let alone TWF flanking). Normal-to-full attacks from combat characters compare to a single sneak per round just fine.

HBG points to two-weapon fighting feats, dodge, mobility, and expertise (I assume they left out weapon finesse because they're recommending human bonus feats and a rogue wouldn't qualify).

I will note that while TWF is suggested there, Lidda goes Improved Init into Precise Shot and then into Spring Attack.

Wizard: The wizard gets bonus feats now, and can learn any number of spells rather than the limited number permitted in AD&D.

I've never heard of this limit, care to elaborate? Is it similar to their base (and thus only actually guaranteed) spells?

They also get bonus spells for high intelligence, though they also get fewer low level spells at high level, so the intent might be to balance things out with more spells at low level but not as big of a difference at high level. Though they do get lots more high level spells at high levels, so who knows.

This is notable in 5e, where you get only base slots and the high levels are very clearly and obviously cut down- but is also more noticable than you'd think in 3.x: If you build an Elite Array PHB wizard NPC from 1st, you'll find that you can't keep those high level bonus slots going for your highest level of spells, and PC WBL just barely allows it if you've got a Headband as strong as possible under the 1/2 max WBL limit (and are later allowed to buy at least +2 in ability score tomes).

[Scots Dragon]

Definitely agree with Seward that the big thing that keeps parties from succeeding is people that don't know what they're doing and refuse to learn, rather than optimization. I've played a lot of roll20 games now and I can say most groups will have 1 or 2 people with builds I pretty clearly recognize as copied from a CharOp thread but have no idea how to play. I'll take a fighter with good tactics that plays to his strengths over a perfectly built daggerspell mage that never casts his spells and full attacks with two weapon fighting every round for +10 to hit at level 12 against enemies with 27-30 AC.

It's interesting how few of the old CharOp guides actually talk about playing a class, and instead they're almost exclusively about how to create an 'optimal' build.

[Kurald Galain]

I've never heard of this limit, care to elaborate? Is it similar to their base (and thus only actually guaranteed) spells?

I can answer that. A 1E/2E wizard has no base or guaranteed spells. They get whatever they can find (usually from defeating enemy wizards and taking their spellbooks) and have to make a check to learn each spell. In addition to this, they have a strict maximum of spells (per level) that they can know.

Like, with 16 int a wizard has 70% chance to successfully learn a spell (no retries until you level up, but specialists get a bonus to their own school), can know a total of 11 spells of each spell level, and cannot learn 9th level spells at all (unless he increases his int somehow, but the headband of vast intelligence doesn't exist in 2E).

[Darg]

Ahhhh, found it. Apparently you are correct, the 3.0 Ranger did have TWF stuff. It's just not on the table or the text, instead being hidden in the proficiency section. So the big 3.5 change there was being able to trade that for ranged feats instead, and not needing to spend a feat for ITWF.

Interesting to note is that rangers got medium armor proficiency even though they lose their TWF capabilities if they wear it. I think the end goal was that ranger would get mithril medium armor and not suffer non-proficiency. 3.0 vs 3.5 2h weapons weren't so vastly superior so it was a worthy trade (power attack was just a straight up 1:1 trade; like if they removed the special section on the feat).

I can answer that. A 1E/2E wizard has no base or guaranteed spells. They get whatever they can find (usually from defeating enemy wizards and taking their spellbooks) and have to make a check to learn each spell. In addition to this, they have a strict maximum of spells (per level) that they can know.

Like, with 16 int a wizard has 70% chance to successfully learn a spell (no retries until you level up, but specialists get a bonus to their own school), can know a total of 11 spells of each spell level, and cannot learn 9th level spells at all (unless he increases his int somehow, but the headband of vast intelligence doesn't exist in 2E).

I believe there are books to increase ability scores, at least that is what Baldur's Gate has led me to believe.

[Particle_Man]

About the wizard’s (well, magic-user back then) spell limit in 1st edition, it was keyed to intelligence. You had a maximum number of spells per spell level that you could have in your spell book. With the exception of the few randomly determined starting spells known at first level, you had a percentage chance to learn (copy into your spell book) a spell you came across (usually in a dead enemy’s spell book) and if you failed you had to wait to try again until you gained intelligence (harder to do in 1st edition) or somehow came across and tried to copy *all* magic-user spells of that spell level and failed enough of the spells per level that you could try failed spells again because your spells known now fell below your minimum spells known per level limit. So if you were a wizard of intelligence 9, I think it went minimum 6, maximum 9, percentage 35%, while at intelligence 18 you had something awesome like minimum 11, maximum 18, chance to know 85%. Oh and since illusionists needed intelligence 15, and their spell lists were shorter, it was easier to know most of the illusionist spells if one could only find them to copy.

[Zanos]

I don't recall wizards in previous editions needing a certain amount of intelligence to cast higher level spells.

Maybe I failed an int check.

[Kurald Galain]

I believe there are books to increase ability scores, at least that is what Baldur's Gate has led me to believe.

That's correct. As far as I recall, those books and Wish spells are the only way to increase your int score, in 1E/2E.

[Seward]

.
Like, with 16 int a wizard has 70% chance to successfully learn a spell (no retries until you level up, but specialists get a bonus to their own school), can know a total of 11 spells of each spell level, and cannot learn 9th level spells at all (unless he increases his int somehow, but the headband of vast intelligence doesn't exist in 2E).

Indeed. Burne, the NPC wizard in Village of Homlett didn't have "sleep" on his spell list and we made that the reason for his name (we imagined he used burning hand and oil in baby levels instead of sleep like every other AD&D magic user).

As in 3rd edition, statbumps happened in late teens as the statbump books became available/affordable or you just cast Wish on your own if you were a wizard. For most classes you didn't need them unless you had something like 15 con and lucked into a Con book. Several stats had no purpose for many classes, those that did had identical effects between about 8 and 14 and the most important martial stat, strength, was always boosted by str replacement items, not str buff items (or spells in lower levels, most set str to a value or capped it at 18/00, 18 for non-fighter types)

[noob]

I don't recall wizards in previous editions needing a certain amount of intelligence to cast higher level spells.

Maybe I failed an int check.

It is not required but really high int could(was random) give bonus spells for your spellbook on level up in some older dnd edition.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Is there a name for the fallacy where there’s an assumption of weird hyper-optimisation that seems to dominate most 3.5e spaces?

It's not hyper optimization to create a generic human wizard and pick a half dozen decent spells. But by doing so you're more useful and better to have in a party than a generic fighter or Barb with power attack which is the equally assumed optimization level. Whats the fallacy for assuming that players have to not optimize to properly play the game? There's a difference between a tippy hyper optimization universe and people who just play and build smart. Your problem is you aren't realizing that the games function starts to erode at either level.

[Thane of Fife]

How did bardic music work in 2e?

A 2e bard has three effects comparable to 3e's bardic music:
1. An ability mostly equivalent to counter-song (but save rather than skill-based),
2. Inspiration. If the bard knows the exact nature of an upcoming threat, then they can sing or orate or whatever for three rounds to give nearby people a small buff for 1 round/level (comparable to 3e's Inspire Courage). It can't be used during combat - only before it (or if somewhat leaves combat, they can get it again),
3. The bard can try to shift a group's attitude by one level (kind of like a 3.5e diplomacy check), but only out of combat.

On the one hand, they have very, very few spell slots. On the other hand, those spell slots can still be filled with Cures if nothing else, which in addition to Lay on Hands means the Paladin has way more hit points per day than any other character with full BAB. And having a tough horse that pops in an out of existence also gives them a situational damage ability, which by Alhandra's sheet we can see she's definitely supposed to be using.

The 3e paladin has the same number of slots as the 2e paladin (plus bonus for wisdom, I guess - 2e paladins don't get that), but they start getting them 3-5 levels earlier. Also, I don't think the 3e paladin's mount pops in and out - that's a 3.5 thing.

I've never heard of this limit, care to elaborate? Is it similar to their base (and thus only actually guaranteed) spells?

Numerous other people have already answered this, but to say it my way: AD&D wizards have a maximum number of spells known per spell level. It ranges from 6 spells at intelligence 9 to all the spells if you manage to get a 19. This is the maximum number you can know. 1e also has a minimum number of spells known per level, but I think 2e took that out (note that minimum meant that, if you attempted to learn every spell of level 1, say, you were guaranteed at least that many, not that you immediately gained that many spells).

In terms of guaranteed spells, 1e magic-users gain one spell every time they gain an experience level. 2e mages do not, and must find or research all of their spells. 2e specialist wizards get one spell of their specialty school every time they gain access to a new spell level. Core 2e may have deliberately made it very difficult to gain new spells. I think later 2e books rolled that back.

I believe there are books to increase ability scores, at least that is what Baldur's Gate has led me to believe.

There are, but you can only benefit from each one once.

[Darg]

The 3e paladin has the same number of slots as the 2e paladin (plus bonus for wisdom, I guess - 2e paladins don't get that), but they start getting them 3-5 levels earlier. Also, I don't think the 3e paladin's mount pops in and out - that's a 3.5 thing.

3.0 it's basically like any other mount, but with special abilities. In 3.5 it becomes a calling SLA that can be dismissed as free action.

[Particle_Man]

I don't recall wizards in previous editions needing a certain amount of intelligence to cast higher level spells.

Maybe I failed an int check.

For first edition, you needed int 10 to cast 5th level magic-user spells, 12 for 6th, 14 for 7th, 16 for 8th and 18 for 9th (for illusionists the point was moot as they needed int 15 to be illusionists and there were no 8th or 9th level illusionist spells).. For clerics and druids you needed wis 17 for 6th level spells and 18 for 7th level spells (there were no 8th or 9th level cleric or druid spells). Oh and a wisdom below 13 gave a percentage chance failure on cleric/druid spells.

To be fair the ability score requirement to cast spells of a certain level carries over into 3rd edition, but given most chargen methods is less punitive (barring significant ability score damage or drain to one’s casting stat). And metamagic could be used in 3rd edition as a workaround to use those high level spell slots with some extra oomph.

[Darg]

And metamagic could be used in 3rd edition as a workaround to use those high level spell slots with some extra oomph.

Not true. Metamagic spells are still "prepared and cast as a higher-level spell."

[Particle_Man]

Not true. Metamagic spells are still "prepared and cast as a higher-level spell."

From the description of metamagic feats: “ Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.”


A fireball in a third level spell slot is saved against as a third level spell. A maximized fireball in a sixth level spell slot is also a third level spell and is saved against as a third level spell. Heightened spell is the only core metamagic feat that explicitly raises the spell level of a spell.

Not that this is optimal as usually a higher level base spell is better than a metamagic-laden lower level spell in a higher level spell slot. But if you are stuck with a low casting stat, you can at least make do with what you have.

[Aquillion]

I do think that people overestimate the extent to which the wizard was intended to be a blaster. They obviously overestimated how strong the blaster would be, and underestimated other builds; and some of this was probably due to blasters being over-represented in playtests.

But the wizard had eight schools of magic, not just evocation, and was intended to be able to choose one of them; enchanters and illusionists were 100% part of the core design of the class. I think that they honestly, genuinely recognized that wizards were going to be overpowered at high levels and were fine with it - this was not some new or strange thing; it had been true in every prior edition and (given what happened the one time they took a stab at changing it) will probably be true to some extent or another in every future edition.

I think that "wizards start weak and get strong" was not some sort of accident - they knew. It was inherent to the spells they inherited, and they didn't change things in any way that really suggested they were trying to get away with it.

People on optimization-focused boards tend to discuss the game in terms of balance, and to see design primarily through the lens of balance - hence, the explanation that wizards were primarily supposed to be blasters came to be accepted as the reason for why they're imbalanced (it is not totally untrue, just an exaggeration.)

But I don't think that that was at the top of the minds of the designers. Their goal was to make wizards that felt like wizards, not to balance wizards against fighters - as long as the overall game was fun, that was enough. And while we have plenty of horror stories about games with severe tier differences, for the most part, they succeeded - 3.5e was one of the most successful versions of the most successful tabletop game of all time, balance issues or not.

Anyway I got a bit off-track. My point is that I think that feeling powerful at higher levels was actually part of the wizard's function; related to this, wizards were intended to be immensely varied. I think the only thing they were really not intended to be able to do was heal others.

Obviously, another central part of the Wizard's design and theme was that you get to be really powerful, but only a limited number of times a day, vs. classes that get to be powerful all day long.

[Darg]

From the description of metamagic feats: “ Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.”


A fireball in a third level spell slot is saved against as a third level spell. A maximized fireball in a sixth level spell slot is also a third level spell and is saved against as a third level spell. Heightened spell is the only core metamagic feat that explicitly raises the spell level of a spell.

Not that this is optimal as usually a higher level base spell is better than a metamagic-laden lower level spell in a higher level spell slot. But if you are stuck with a low casting stat, you can at least make do with what you have.

There are several references that spell is prepared and cast as a higher level spell with all that entails. It doesn't mean the spell operates as a higher level spell once cast however.

Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher level spell.

Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spell caster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative.

Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat).

Just because a spell is a lower level spell, doesn't mean that the effort to cast it doesn't increase. We'll just have to agree to disagree if this isn't convincing.

Obviously, another central part of the Wizard's design and theme was that you get to be really powerful, but only a limited number of times a day, vs. classes that get to be powerful all day long.

All day long classes are balanced so that they are capable all day long, but they are only powerful when backed up by that almighty wizard who has the power to turn the tide when you "look to the east." When you don't oblige and condone players playing shocktrooper reckless, all martials need a boost from magic to perform adequately and feel powerful.

[Seward]

I do think that people overestimate the extent to which the wizard was intended to be a blaster. They obviously overestimated how strong the blaster would be, and underestimated other builds; and some of this was probably due to blasters being over-represented in playtests.

I think actually it was more that wizards were expected to be the party member with spells to deal with large numbers of weaker enemies (and swarms) most often. They expected it to pack routinely a few such spells at as high a power level as they could manage, just as they (and druids) are the go-to for battlefield control. Cleric options come later and are less flexible. They are a backup. Martials are stuck with splash weapons if they want to help out.

The idea that a wizard would sneer at blasting spells didn't occur to them. Honestly, no primary caster should have zero direct damage spells if they are actually optimized, barring actually being good at melee or ranged combat routinely, such as a druid in a combat oriented and prebuffed wildshape form 24x7.

Dead is the best "condition" and a zap to reliably finish off a badly wounded enemy is almost always the best action possible (which is why magic missile is still prepped by most wizards, sometimes quickened for just that role and finds its way into many sorceror lists, and why most clerics fit in a flame strike somewhere. At minimum wand or scroll options in this area are carried). It just isn't always the best approach to STARTING a fight, unless you are so optimized for blasting that you can kill some of the opposition outright with that first action (as my Pathfinder wizard who called herself an "arcane archer" could do. With scorching ray cheese she could reliably simulate in-tier archer full attack performance for a few rounds, enough to almost always kill something on her first action unless the encounter was only 1 or maybe 2 tough opponents). For most primary casters some form of battlefield control, partywide buff or perhaps area debuff significant enough to remove some enemy actions in early rounds is usually a better call.

When you don't oblige and condone players playing shocktrooper reckless, all martials need a boost from magic to perform adequately and feel powerful.

Otherwise known as Teamwork.

At L15+ it is almost always more effective from action economy standpoint to prebuff a party, the whole party, including weapon and armor basic buffs like GMW and Magic Vestment that last all day, then have a caster use their action to move a martial into full attack range (via teleport maybe, or a wind blast, or just clearing obstacles to vision from an archer) then to take any direct action with a std action spell. Whatever you set up to be a victim in that way will be too dead to bother you. If your party has a rogue or similar, getting them from no meaningful damage to a sneak attack full attack is usually even better use of your time, if your opposition can be attacked in that fashion.

The only action that really competes (other than move ALL party martials into position with one action, possible with dim door, whirlwind air elemental, certain chained spells) is high tier battlefield control which chops the el+3 encounter into two or more easy el+0-1 actions.

[Darg]

Otherwise known as Teamwork.

Be careful with that word around here. People have gotten offended because using such a thing makes casters comparitively less overwhelmingly powerful at high levels and they believe that supporting a team is less efficient than handling everything yourself by burning spell allotment on drum solos.

On another note, throwing an empowered maximized fireball into a group softens them up. Disabling spells are quite powerful, but they also generally have a good chance to do nothing. Damage spells most of the time still do some damage even on a save. Say you surprised a clutch of juvenile black dragons, an empowered maximized fireball on average would take out 70% of their HP, or 35% on a successful save. If you did the elite array adding your levels and have +4 bonus the fireballs on average have a 50% chance of doing full damage which would take out a total 50% of their entire HP pool. Quicken it with a rod and you likely ended the encounter single handedly. If not, your party can easily mop up without much threat.

[Zanos]

All day long classes are balanced so that they are capable all day long, but they are only powerful when backed up by that almighty wizard who has the power to turn the tide when you "look to the east." When you don't oblige and condone players playing shocktrooper reckless, all martials need a boost from magic to perform adequately and feel powerful.

I don't think balance comes into the equation, but I do think if you're the kind of wizard player that polymorphs into a war troll to kill people with your big strength score when there's a fighter standing right next to you that you could cast polymorph on, and let him go kill people with a big strength score, and his full BAB, and his better hit dice, and his magical armor and weapons, and his combat feats, then you're not roleplaying your intelligence score. And, OOC, you're being a jerk.