Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
EN Publishing
A couple rhetorical questions about spellcasting
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sniperfox47" data-source="post: 6293628" data-attributes="member: 6776026"><p>To be perfectly honest with you I like the current system better, and if this replaces it in the full book I'd have to do some serious humming and hawing with my players to see if we should homerule it back. </p><p></p><p>It doesn't sit right with me for a few reasons that I've listed below. Keep in mind these are just my personal opinion on the topic; I don't pretend to speak for any of the other players.</p><p></p><p>A) By removing the requirement for a MAGIC stat of at least 1 to cast spells you're essentially saying that there's no special spark to magic. It's not a special essence that gives it power, but rather the actions you do. That bugs me on a personal level primarily because it doesn't fit well with my primary setting, although to be fair I'm sure there are some settings that it suits much better than the current system does.</p><p></p><p>B) You're essentially splintering your spellcaster rules. Instead of having all of your casters (mages, clerics, loremasters, druids, ect.) based off the same rules with each specializing in different areas, you're basically saying "People who have magic and want to use it do A. People who don't have magic but want to use it anyways do B." If you added a tradition focused around it then that's one thing , but if you start splintering the mechanics that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. I could easily see a tradition for these new rules. Have them use the same rules as any spellcaster and just give them an effective magic attribute for the purposes of casting spells from spellbooks, and let them take HEALTH damage in place of MP "damage" if they don't have an MP pool.</p><p></p><p>C) You're essentially taking a spellcasting option, taking it away from spellcasting people, and giving it to non-spellcasting people... That just seems off to me. I like the versatility spellcasters have in the current version of the playtest where they can use memorization or casting from a spellbook to let them cast more powerful spells and spells they wouldn't normally know.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Like I said these are just my opinions on the new system after discussing it with my players, I don't mean to say it's bad or wrong or anything like that, simply that it strays from my tastes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sniperfox47, post: 6293628, member: 6776026"] To be perfectly honest with you I like the current system better, and if this replaces it in the full book I'd have to do some serious humming and hawing with my players to see if we should homerule it back. It doesn't sit right with me for a few reasons that I've listed below. Keep in mind these are just my personal opinion on the topic; I don't pretend to speak for any of the other players. A) By removing the requirement for a MAGIC stat of at least 1 to cast spells you're essentially saying that there's no special spark to magic. It's not a special essence that gives it power, but rather the actions you do. That bugs me on a personal level primarily because it doesn't fit well with my primary setting, although to be fair I'm sure there are some settings that it suits much better than the current system does. B) You're essentially splintering your spellcaster rules. Instead of having all of your casters (mages, clerics, loremasters, druids, ect.) based off the same rules with each specializing in different areas, you're basically saying "People who have magic and want to use it do A. People who don't have magic but want to use it anyways do B." If you added a tradition focused around it then that's one thing , but if you start splintering the mechanics that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. I could easily see a tradition for these new rules. Have them use the same rules as any spellcaster and just give them an effective magic attribute for the purposes of casting spells from spellbooks, and let them take HEALTH damage in place of MP "damage" if they don't have an MP pool. C) You're essentially taking a spellcasting option, taking it away from spellcasting people, and giving it to non-spellcasting people... That just seems off to me. I like the versatility spellcasters have in the current version of the playtest where they can use memorization or casting from a spellbook to let them cast more powerful spells and spells they wouldn't normally know. Like I said these are just my opinions on the new system after discussing it with my players, I don't mean to say it's bad or wrong or anything like that, simply that it strays from my tastes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
EN Publishing
A couple rhetorical questions about spellcasting
Top