1E magic vs. 2E magic.....is 1E too powerful?

[Natasha]

I'd say the spells per day keep them under control.

[Entiago]

well, you have to remember too that in 1e there was only 2-3 attacks per melee to start (there still is unless you add in the "2 att for living rule). Also in 1e there was no SDC on anybody- so it was a bit easier to die...but now we gots SDC to help keep us alive a bit longer.

the spells are a bit nerfed IIRC, as Charm is now a level 5 spell and the "charmed" person will not do anyhting against their alignment.

[Reagren Wright]

In some regards yes, spell magic was lethal as was psionics. How many times a day
kept the mages in check and so did the low amount of I.S.P. There was no ley line or nexus
points. While I miss the lethal nature of magic and some of the spells, I'm glad S.D.C. and
P.P.E. came into being. Again my old argument for the lethal nature of 1st edition. A 4th level
warlock chooses the spell mini-fireballs. 1 mini-fireball per level of experience. each does 1D4
per level of experience. So at 4th level 4 mini-fireballs each doing 4D4. No imagine a
major elemental that's 10 mini-fireballs each doing 10D4. Now take a look at River of Lava it
did 4D6+10 per melee. Then when you got pulled out you took 3D6 for three melees until it
cooled. So if you fell into molten rock you took a minimum of 11 points of damage, the
equivilent of being hit with a claymore . Yes sometimes it didn't make sense but we
loved it anyway.

[maasenstodt]

I actually like 1st ed. magic better than 2nd ed., in large part because of the style of fantasy literature that I most enjoy (Vance, Alexander, etc.). I really dig a world where magic can be very powerful but is something relatively rare. Also, from a gamist standpoint, I like how 1st ed. mages (and men-at-arms, for that matter) increase dramatically in power as they level up. 2nd ed. really puts the breaks on advancement.