Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

I get this, but the solutions are twofold: get the wizard some better spells (there's so many good ones, he can't possibly fail them all!), or run him out and hire another one.

Back in the day, it was entirely possible to at least fail all the low level ones. And the latter is tantamount to "Get a new character," which, as I noted some people seemed to be really aggravated by.

Swordbushing? New term for the day, for me anyway.

Sorry. It was a reference to Metamorphosis Alpha/Gamma World: swordbushes were singularly deadly plants. So the term that came up for generating a character who seemed so crappy you didn't want to deal with it was "They threw themselves on a swordbush."

 

[pemerton]

It is the GM's responsibility to frame situations that will engage the PCs the players have created.

 

[Reynard]

It is the GM's responsibility to frame situations that will engage the PCs the players have created.

Only if the players created PCs that are appropriate for the game at the table. The GM is under no obligation to cater to the player who brings an inappropriate character or a character without motivations.

 

[Reynard]

Being adamant does not contribute to being correct.

 

[Emberashh]

The obsession with modular design and open source rigmarole has been a net detriment to the hobby.

 

[Faolyn]

The brain-bucket, as quantified by one's Int score, is only so big and can only hold so much.

But you aren't holding all your spells in your brain. You're writing them in a book. You're Intelligence in AD&D has no bearing on the number of spells you can memorize at a time--i.e., have in your brain--so why should it affect how many you can write in a book? (Unless it's in Unearthed Arcana, which I haven't read.) It'd be like saying you can only own 9 books, and if you try to buy a 10th, it's gibberish and you can't read it until you get rid of a book you currently own and delete its contents from your memories, at which point you can understand it. And you can't claim that you don't have enough shelf space for that 10th book, because you can always buy another bookcase (that is, make another spellbook).

In 5e, your Intelligence does determine how many spells you can prepare (level + Int mod), which makes far more sense. A smarter wizard can memorize more spells at a time than a less intelligent one.

 

[Velderan]

But you aren't holding all your spells in your brain. You're writing them in a book. You're Intelligence in AD&D has no bearing on the number of spells you can memorize at a time--i.e., have in your brain--so why should it affect how many you can write in a book? (Unless it's in Unearthed Arcana, which I haven't read.) It'd be like saying you can only own 9 books, and if you try to buy a 10th, it's gibberish and you can't read it until you get rid of a book you currently own and delete its contents from your memories, at which point you can understand it. And you can't claim that you don't have enough shelf space for that 10th book, because you can always buy another bookcase (that is, make another spellbook).

In 5e, your Intelligence does determine how many spells you can prepare (level + Int mod), which makes far more sense. A smarter wizard can memorize more spells at a time than a less intelligent one.

Definitely one of those 2e rules my group looked at, decided it made no sense for the exact reason you stated, and proceeded to ignore.

 

[Aldarc]

Games are meant to be played. That’s what they’re for. Not playing a game is like leaving a children’s toy in the box.

So it makes the game worth more?

 

[Scribe]

The obsession with modular design and open source rigmarole has been a net detriment to the hobby.

Spicy one. Not sure I agree, but something to consider.

 

[Cadence]

But you aren't holding all your spells in your brain. You're writing them in a book. You're Intelligence in AD&D has no bearing on the number of spells you can memorize at a time--i.e., have in your brain--so why should it affect how many you can write in a book? (Unless it's in Unearthed Arcana, which I haven't read.) It'd be like saying you can only own 9 books, and if you try to buy a 10th, it's gibberish and you can't read it until you get rid of a book you currently own and delete its contents from your memories, at which point you can understand it. And you can't claim that you don't have enough shelf space for that 10th book, because you can always buy another bookcase (that is, make another spellbook).

Is being able to put a spell in a spell book so you can cast it like copying over a recipe? Or is it like making sure you have a solid understanding of a complicated mathematical proof including all the prerequisite knowledge to get there? Does studying it from your book require you to get that knowledge in your head again and ready to go quickly (like prepping to teach a lecture on it)?

It feels like very few mathmeticians go really deep into several sub-disciplines, and most stick to one of them and where it might overlaps the others. I wonder how much studying it would take most senior algebraists to pass the analysis qual (or vice-versa with analysts and algebra qual) that they all did decades ago, or to get ready for a more advanced comprehensive in another field that they maybe had a single intro course in.