1st ed AD&D was better than 2nd; 2nd is better than 3rd, IMO. 3rd ed has attempted to kill off all creative use of spellcasting, which is unforgivable as it takes most of the fun out of being a mage. The alignment definitions are also the worst of the three systems, and should have been dropped as it's pretty obvious the writers didn't really have any idea of what guidelines to give. 3rd ed has die rolls for everything, and it is a lot harder to play fast and loose with the system, which ruins a lot of the fun for DMs and players alike.
1: Are we still talking cRPGS?
2: What did 1st edition look like?
And what do you mean about spellcasting?
Übereil
I'm talking the actual systems, not the computer versions <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
A creative player can find all sorts of ways to use spells that can disrupt an enemy attack or otherwise do nasty things that weren't thought of by the game designers, but nonetheless do not destroy game balance.
Magic Missile, for example, in the case of a low level mage does very little damage to a person, but could be used to cut bow strings. When the spell was defined as 'single target' rather than 'living target'.
Unseen Servant can be used to gently comb an enemy spell caster's hair, or anything else that does no actual damage but will certainly stop him casting spells until the distraction is dealt with.
Shrink, used on a helmet or chain mail can seriously damage and possibly kill an enemy.
Just three examples of unconventional uses of first level spells that made a low level mage a whole lot more than a one-shot tag-along. All completely proscribed by third ed. I think you get the idea, right? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Computer uses of spells have to be limited because the programs will always be limited. Human DMs have no limits. This SHOULD give a pen & paper system huge advantages. Unless they are stuck using third ed...
