Spell v.s. Spell

Another gaming related post, but this one is just a general little insight into the game.

So, I've been picking apart spells lately, as i always do when introduced or re-introduced to games with some form of magic system. 2nd edition spells are potent, and open to alot of interpretation. They often gain new abilities as casters gain levels, and there defeated by the opponent making a saving throw. Now, recently a good friend of mine started playing the Online D&D game, and he made a comment about 3rd edition spells being powerful. That got me thinking.

So, which is more balanced, more fun, and all around better. 2nd edition, or 3rd edition spells. Well, the first thing I decided to look at was...

Saving Throws! Now, as you gain levels in 2nd edition an enemy's saving throws are based on his hit die, much the same way that 3rd edition modifies there saves. The thing is, in second, the saving throw is a target the creature rolls. for example, a 10h.d. monster would have to roll an 11 or better to save v.s. a wizards spell. A third edition spell sets its dc based on the casters level. So a 1oth level caster casting at 1st level spell (assuming 18 int) would have a dc of 15, modified by the monsters adjustment, which would be around a +8 or so at that level. so the creature would have to roll a five or better to beat the spell. Also, higher level spells increase dc based on there level, and feats adjust the save dc as well. In all honesty, a wizard casting a 7-9th level spell while maxed out in stats and feats in third would have a slightly better chance at getting spells through, but his lower level spells will have just about no effect, seeing as the monsters adjustments to saves later on can get pretty ridiculous, espec. among dragons. So the saving throw thing is really a tie. I'll give 2nd a bit of a boost here, because its alot easier to get through the saving throw than it is in third. Theres just a roll, matching a number, and done. Not that i have anything against math and circumstantial bonuses, it just takes more time.

Spell resistance. Bane to all spellcasters! Which effects spells more often? 2nd or 3rd. Well, again, it is about the same. 2nd edition creatures have a fixed perc. stat. If the creature rolls the stat, it absorbs or negates the spell. Now in 3rd, the caster rolls a caster level check, adding in feat and other circumstantial bonuses, and the target is set by the monster. If he rolls over the monsters number, the spell goes through, otherwise, it fizzles. I'd have to say it seemed to be easier to beat out SR in 3rd, but most creatures had a meager stat in it, or had an outlandish stat in it. there was usually not a middle ground. 2nd was all over the place, from 5% SR to 90% SR. level was also never a factor. Again, 2nd edition was faster, and more easily decided.

Spell Balance - Which is more balanced. 2nd or 3rd. now, this is highly debatable, and the following is just my opinion on it. I'd have to say 3rd has more balance, simply because balance was added to 3rd edition spells. 2nd edition spells were scaleable based on the wizards level. For example, Chromatic orb is a 1st level spell that creates a small globe of light around the target after it deals its meager damage (d4 I believe)/ A 12th level wizard casting the same spell would force a saving throw v.s. the target or it would die. 1st level spell. Now in 3rd edition certain effects were allowed at certain levels. Death never really factored into a spell until 4th. (phantasmal killer) and even then it was difficult. Save or Die no nonsense spells came at 7th level. Damage stayed pretty much the same in both editions. Damage spells were based on the level of the spell caster, and scaled up as the casters level went up. In the end, it was easier to know where a spell went in 3rd edition. If you were creating one, it was easy to discern a level for it. 2nd edition wasnt so cut and dry, though i dont think that really took away from it. Spells were meant to be mystical after all.

Learning complications - Which was more complicated to learn, 3rd or 2nd. hands down, 2nd. You had a perc. chance to learn a spell, and if you screwed the roll you had to wait a level. Not only that, finding scrolls and enemy spell books was no easy task, so ending up with spells that you wanted to style your guy after was really hard. 3rd, spells were pretty much hand picked level by level, and adding captured scrolls or spells from spell books required the casting of a read magic spell. Easy. I think although harder to collect spells, it seemed like it was more realistic in 2nd. I loved the ease of third, but in 2nd, you had to research or search spells that you wanted to obtain, or just get lucky. That was half the fun. It was always nice in third getting that spell list that complimented your character, but it was always fun in second capturing scrolls and books, like finding a whole new kind of treasure.

Spells per day! - Wizards have always gotten there spells slowly, so who got more? Well, you're all going to say 3rd, and in a way, you are right. adding cantrips, a generalist wizard would end up with 40 spells a day he could memorize and cast. A 2nd edition generalist wizard could memorize and cast 37. Now, theres one big difference, the 2nd edition would actually probably cast most of his spells, while the 3rd, would not. Charm person cast from a 2nd edition wizard could get a level 20 fighter on your side for 3 days to 3 weeks depending on his int. A charm person cast from a 3rd edition wizard would never get so lucky on that high level of a character. The saving throw thing really kills 3rd here, and most of the cantrip to 2nd level spells will be overlooked unless there automatic. Even abjurations at that level tend to overlap with higher level abjurations.

Other - 3rd edition spells get some fun options, such as scribe scrolls, brew potions, and craft magic wands that really let the wizard get creative with his allotment of spells. A 2nd edition wizard is more piece meal. Theres more grit. Getting spells is harder, but they tend to be more powerful on many levels, and most never really lose there function. I can see a 20th level 2nd edition wizard being ok with going into a dragon fight with only 1st to 3rd level spells left. Thats suicide for a 3rd edition wizard.

Ending - I have to say that both are fun and have some really good points. I like 2nd edition spells better, because of the scaleable nature of magic to level. But third edition was alot of fun when mixed with a smart selection of feats. 2nd edition spells, like alot of things in 2nd, seemed to be faster to use and less complicated, and that always tends to add fun. 3rd got tangled in alot of rolls, and low level spells lost there umph as you made way for your high level spells.

Better in 2nd or 3rd
Abjuration - 3rd (I think theres eight abjuration spells in 2nd edition)
Conjuration - 2nd (Power words and Summon monster spells won the day for 2nd)
Divination - Tie (most of the spells are the same)
Enchantment/Charm - 2nd (hands down, charm is too hard to use in 3rd edition)
Evocation - Tie (3rd almost won, but 2nd had alot of clouds and walls, plus lim wish and wish)
Illusion - 1st!! (nothing beats the 1st level illusionist!)
Necromancy - 3rd (hands down, Necromancy magic never got on its feet until third)
Transmutation - 2nd (Yeah, with about a bazillion spells it won pretty easily)

(Feel free to comment! =)