Cackling Manaically at the 13 Aug Legends and Lore

[Neonchameleon]

I happen to disagree. A 3rd level Daily is *not* worth a daily slot when you are 20th level.

That doesn't mean that it isn't worth a daily slot when you are 7th level (i.e. you can cast 4th level spells) - or that turning some spells into at wills doesn't fundamentally change their use. For instance Wall of Iron At Will could do some ... interesting things. An "All lower level spells become encounters" is a bad blanket rule even if some can happily.

 

[triqui]

That doesn't mean that it isn't worth a daily slot when you are 7th level (i.e. you can cast 4th level spells) - or that turning some spells into at wills doesn't fundamentally change their use. For instance Wall of Iron At Will could do some ... interesting things. An "All lower level spells become encounters" is a bad blanket rule even if some can happily.

At 7th, I don't think burning hands make for such a great daily slot.

Wall of iron 1x10 minutes is not the same that wall of iron at-will, specially if you put a gp cost on it. Of course you can't go and use 3.5 spells per encounter as they are now, but that doesn't mean you can't design them in 5e to work per encounter.

Making spells encounter when they are left behind in level also have the benefit to make signature spells last longer.

 

[The Choice]

I wish there was a roll-eyes smiley on this forum.

Nice defence, there.

Throwing out the fundamentals of a D&D wizard isn't the way to 'fix' anything. This is no different than the crap that was 4e with their 20 levels of spells. Sorry, I don't want any of it and if it starts heading that way I just won't purchase 5e.

The "fundamentals" of D&D wizards is "cast spells", not "has a spell selection of 4/3/2 at level 6". You are confusing mechanics with the fiction they are meant to support, and, even in D&D fiction, the arbitrary restrictions of the vancian system are rarely ever present. The fundamentals of the spellcaster lies there, not in the mechanics meant to express that.

What I ultimately mean is this: D&D spellcasters would still be recognizable by long-time players if their spell list went on for 20 levels or if they had some access to a recharge mechanic. This would have the added bonus of being easier to approach for new players (which, let's not kid ourselves, this game desperately needs).

 

[Dausuul]

Meh. I'm not fond of Vancian casting. I have a number of reasons for that, one of which is that the bookkeeping is a nuisance. Now we're going to have to track which spells are daily and which are per-encounter, on top of the usual Vancian crap? No thanks.

That said, please keep in mind Mearls said they are thinking about such a mechanic. He did not say that they have engraved this mechanic on stone tablets and sworn a blood oath to incorporate it in 5E and every subsequent edition forever and ever.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Spell level is a fairly decent measure of spell power. There are minor problems, sometimes because a spell is off by a level, other times because the spell is so situational that it is hard to peg cleanly for a given campaign (that is, it moves depending on the playstyle).

Spell level is a lousy measure of complexity of the spell, even though they have somewhat tried to shoehorn complexity into the equation over the years. There are many reasons for this, but the main relevant one to this discussion is that trying to measure spell power and complexity with one value is like trying to measure area of a wall by adding the height and width.

Three dimensions gives a game system sufficient flexibility to neatly express a wide range of behavior, if you keep the dimensions clean. I again suggest:

• Spell level - raw power and effectiveness
• Spell complexity - the simple, complex, and exotic labels from Arcana Evolved, but unlike AE focused exactly on complexity with more mechanical differences in handling, not merely access
• Spell focus - the Next cantrip, spell, and ritual distinctions, with primarily an emphasis on the time and materials needed

It is not necessary to "fill out the grid" in all 81 or 90 combinations (9 or 10 spell levels, 3 each of the other dimensions), and certainly not in a given caster. If there are no high level, simple rituals, no big deal. Still, if the dimensions are kept reasonably clean, and someone comes up with an offbeat effect that fits high level, simple ritual, then you've got the conceptual and mechanical spot for it to go.

 

[Herschel]

Because a spell component of the spell is the spell itself. That is why spell scrolls can only be used once. It's apart of the lore of D&D, always has been until 4e ****** it up.

That's a sacred cow groups I've played in have been trying to kill, grind up, run through a Vitamix and strain through their kidneys since the 80s. It never made any sense and still doesn't. All these geniuses sitting in their towers researching for centuries have never come up with a way to not give themselves selective Alzheimers every day? Heck, as a Wizard it makes no sense at all they'd ever practice anything that would diminish their mental faculties.

 

[MarkB]

Worse is that he has a poor judgment on feather fall. I will point out that feather fall isn't exactly lower power in certain situations such as trying to figure out how to get to the bottom of a canyon quickly with no risk of dying. I can see major abuses if all he has to do is spend 5 minutes to get it back.

So, I take it you ban Rings of Feather Falling in your campaigns?

 

[Underman]

Spell level is a lousy measure of complexity of the spell, even though they have somewhat tried to shoehorn complexity into the equation over the years. There are many reasons for this, but the main relevant one to this discussion is that trying to measure spell power and complexity with one value is like trying to measure area of a wall by adding the height and width.

Three dimensions gives a game system sufficient flexibility to neatly express a wide range of behavior, if you keep the dimensions clean. I again suggest:

• Spell level - raw power and effectiveness
• Spell complexity - the simple, complex, and exotic labels from Arcana Evolved, but unlike AE focused exactly on complexity with more mechanical differences in handling, not merely access

Fair enough, but variant has a point: spell complexity was the assumed in-game reason that a wizard could cast level 1 spells but level 2 spells runes were still too obfuscated to understand/memorize/cast. If spell level is a reflection of raw power, and not complexity, then in-game, a 1st level wizard could feasibly cast a 3rd level spell, but it would be like swinging a giant axe or a child trying to aim a machine gun; the wizard doesn't have the mental capacity to tame higher arcane energies.

I'm just "translating" what you wrote into what I suspect was variant's concerns.

On that note, I don't know that spell complexity or spell power is the big issue. The real elephant in the room is: why does entering the Caves of Chaos teach you about attainting higher spell levels? Presumably, you could cast launch spells in your backyard and train yourself that way to learn higher spells.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

[/LIST]Fair enough, but variant has a point: spell complexity was the assumed in-game reason that a wizard could cast level 1 spells but level 2 spells runes were still too obfuscated to understand/memorize/cast. If spell level is a reflection of raw power, and not complexity, then in-game, a 1st level wizard could feasibly cast a 3rd level spell, but it would be like swinging a giant axe or a child trying to aim a machine gun; the wizard doesn't have the mental capacity to tame higher arcane energies.

I'm just "translating" what you wrote into what I suspect was variant's concerns.

On that note, I don't know that spell complexity or spell power is the big issue. The real elephant in the room is: why does entering the Caves of Chaos teach you about attainting higher spell levels? Presumably, you could cast launch spells in your backyard and train yourself that way to learn higher spells.

Well, part of what we run into here is why they've kind of gotten away with squashing the categories over the years. There is certainly "technique" required to handle lots of power, and it is easy to start thinking about "technique" as "complexity"--if you don't look at it too hard.

Think of it in sports as throwing a ball a long distance or fast versus putting it exactly where you want versus making the ball behave in a certain way (e.g. a particular spin on the ball). It's not like "power" is just raw strength that doesn't spring from proper technique. There's a correct way to throw or hit a baseball, throw a football, hit a tennis ball, etc. for speed and/or distance. You can learn that somewhat independent of placement. And then you can certainly add the particular behaviors on later. But we tend to mush them together, because in sports you typically need at least some of each thing to succeed.

It's plausible to have a game that mirrors that, where no one ever really learns this stuff independently. In that game, there's no way to get to 3rd or 5th or whatever spells without developing more ability to handle complex magic. And of course the D&D wizard flavor has nearly always assumed as certain minimum floor on wrestling with the arcane. Yet, in the fiction it's not at all uncommon to have the "powerful wizard with poor control" or any number of such variations.

In the scheme I proposed, I would expect that each class would use a subset of the grid provided by those three dimensions. So you could certainly have classes that only got more powerful by learning more complex things. But you wouldn't be stuck with those by the collapsing of the dimensions into a single scale. If a warlock class does nothing but simple spells that increase in level, that would certainly make it stand out from the wizard.

 

[ferratus]

I'm against encounter powers for spells simply because that means I'd see the same spells show up over and over again at the start of the encounter. If we need spells that can be used frequently, just make scrolls cheaper to inscribe for these lower level and lower power spells, or allow them to research how to make a particular wand whenever they want to.

The variant that I want is to get rid of "spell levels" altogether, and simply have all spells be allowed to scale up and down as needed. Likewise, I would probably mash up several spells to make a single spell. For example, feather fall, levitate, overland flight, and hover/fly in combat could all be a single spell at various character levels.

But that (and the encounter refreshing) can wait for an optional module. We have to have the traditional Vancian caster for posters like Variant, who simply don't like variant classes. The basic book has to be very basic and traditional, so that some just complain about the advanced player's handbook, rather than 5e itself.