Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Avenger" data-source="post: 8093734" data-attributes="member: 779">Thinking on the design of spells and their writeup entries and the latest complaints about &quot;psionic magic&quot;, I don't think there's any relevance to components and school anymore compared to spell levels, range, casting time, duration and so on. Unless the material component is costly, most are going ignore the M. And very rarely does V or S come up such as in the case of Silence or Grappling.&nbsp; Schools are often arbitrary as it could be argued whether one spell belongs to a school or not. I know those exist for legacy reasons and for the Wizard subclasses mainly. Removing schools from arcane spells left a lot of uninspired powers in their place during 4e because of the strict adherence to AEDU, the utility / attack divide and level filling for powers. It left no room for creative choices or spells that rely on player creativity like a lot of the illusion school spells.&nbsp; But going back to the 9 levels plus cantrips model, I feel in some cases the school could really just be keywords like: Evocation, Fire for fireball, or Psychic for something like Mind Blast. But design based on keywords though easy for those with system mastery to read, but it seems like it might go against the tendency to use natural language in 5e. Also I'm guessing that keyword soup could potentially be a problem if certain spells have too many keywords (maybe limit them to 3 or 5).As for components themselves, I feel it should be which components used should be primarily a function of the class or subclass. Wizards and Druids must use V,S and M or focus for all spells, and that Bards must use V, and Artificers must use M, and Psions don't use those 3 at least but might use something else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Avenger, post: 8093734, member: 779"] Thinking on the design of spells and their writeup entries and the latest complaints about "psionic magic", I don't think there's any relevance to components and school anymore compared to spell levels, range, casting time, duration and so on. Unless the material component is costly, most are going ignore the M. And very rarely does V or S come up such as in the case of Silence or Grappling. Schools are often arbitrary as it could be argued whether one spell belongs to a school or not. I know those exist for legacy reasons and for the Wizard subclasses mainly. Removing schools from arcane spells left a lot of uninspired powers in their place during 4e because of the strict adherence to AEDU, the utility / attack divide and level filling for powers. It left no room for creative choices or spells that rely on player creativity like a lot of the illusion school spells. But going back to the 9 levels plus cantrips model, I feel in some cases the school could really just be keywords like: Evocation, Fire for fireball, or Psychic for something like Mind Blast. But design based on keywords though easy for those with system mastery to read, but it seems like it might go against the tendency to use natural language in 5e. Also I'm guessing that keyword soup could potentially be a problem if certain spells have too many keywords (maybe limit them to 3 or 5). As for components themselves, I feel it should be which components used should be primarily a function of the class or subclass. Wizards and Druids must use V,S and M or focus for all spells, and that Bards must use V, and Artificers must use M, and Psions don't use those 3 at least but might use something else. [/QUOTE]

Verification