My first impulse when I look at a new DnD version is to look up burning hands and tensers floating disk. sooo needless to say when certain pdf's hit certain computers there was some pretty insistent messages asking things like "is burning hands in there? whats it do? whats it .. wait look up tensers floating disk! see if wizards still get that! there are wizards in there right??"
Anyway, I haven't SEEN the whole wizards spells or powers or what not, but my friend did tell me that yea, burning hands is in there, but he didn't see tensers floating disk.. or maybe it was named something else (he got distracted trying to figure out what a warlord was).
Anyway, I guess burning hands sucks though... not from a technical standpoint, I bet it kills things dead just like any other spell, but if I heard it correctly from my friend the description for it is "You shoot fire from out of your hands and burn nearby enemies." (Note the Period) Thats it.. my friend said that was the whole spell description, jee golly doesn't that sound exciting... fire from your hands, that burns enemies? Ok that wasn't quite everything he said there was some numbers in a stat block, but nothing specific or unique (or fun), just that it was a 5'blast attack or something.
I vividly remember knowing that burning hands was a 120 degree horizontal fan of flames made by cocking your hands just so with thumbs together and fingers splayed out. I remember demonstrating to our dm that when my friend crouched to about dwarf height if I were a mage I'd be able to unleash it right over his helmeted head into an ogre face without so much as singing a hair.. and I'm pretty sure I remember another friend trying to demonstrate how his character could jump over burning hands aimed at kobolds and hitting his head on the basement ceiling.
Absolutely brilliant spell design: its easily visualized and highly unique, and you can even pantomime it a little bit in the real world... it really helped get us into the game when we were younger and just starting to try to play... the complexity of its own description was completely nullified by the fact that it was so awesome that we all knew exactly how it worked. sure there were some arguments once in a while but thats why we had a dm. Anyway... its gotten simpler every version, I'm pretty sure by 3rd ed it was just a cone... though text described it a little differently... then it was just a 180 semicircle in 3.5.. and I think they even stopped referring to it as a "fan"... and now its just some fire some dude shoots out of his hands; no room for creative application, no room for basement injuries or spectacular imaginary effects. I tried to do the whole aim it over something small and the DM (one I wasn't friends with since childhood) made it take fire damage too, and we dragged out the rulebooks cause I knew that spell, and sure enough... nothing about being anything but a full on aoe spell. I feel like its turning further and further around and is almost the opposite of the philosophy that got me playing.
Reading spell descriptions in the old versions it felt like every spell was the authors desperate attempt to describe and codify in game terms the way he saw an amazing and unique spell function (at least a lot of them). now its like someone figures up some damage "types" or "roles" or something, and cut/pastes the effect type with an element type +/- damage based on level, then churns out a little flavor text to make sure its not just 10d6Blast(Fir)20' or something similar.
From what my friend is telling me the whole thing'd run just fine as one of those roguelike ascii games. Probably he's exaggerating, but he also said he didn't see tensers floating disk in there so I'm suddenly a little suspicious. Is this why my friends dad refuses to play 2nd ed.. and won't even aknowledge 3rd? Its just got me worried, could I just replace the word wizard with xman and the game would still seem completely plausible?
I'm guessing I'm just getting worked up becuase I'd sort of been quietly optimistic/unconcerned with the new edition and now I'm really wondering. I should probably just wait till I get my hands on the books, but since some of you have lots of access to the books and didn't hit your head on the basement trying to explain a spell effect, I wouldn't mind hearing I'm WAY off here.
oh and wow, long post and first post at the same time.
Anyway, I haven't SEEN the whole wizards spells or powers or what not, but my friend did tell me that yea, burning hands is in there, but he didn't see tensers floating disk.. or maybe it was named something else (he got distracted trying to figure out what a warlord was).
Anyway, I guess burning hands sucks though... not from a technical standpoint, I bet it kills things dead just like any other spell, but if I heard it correctly from my friend the description for it is "You shoot fire from out of your hands and burn nearby enemies." (Note the Period) Thats it.. my friend said that was the whole spell description, jee golly doesn't that sound exciting... fire from your hands, that burns enemies? Ok that wasn't quite everything he said there was some numbers in a stat block, but nothing specific or unique (or fun), just that it was a 5'blast attack or something.
I vividly remember knowing that burning hands was a 120 degree horizontal fan of flames made by cocking your hands just so with thumbs together and fingers splayed out. I remember demonstrating to our dm that when my friend crouched to about dwarf height if I were a mage I'd be able to unleash it right over his helmeted head into an ogre face without so much as singing a hair.. and I'm pretty sure I remember another friend trying to demonstrate how his character could jump over burning hands aimed at kobolds and hitting his head on the basement ceiling.
Absolutely brilliant spell design: its easily visualized and highly unique, and you can even pantomime it a little bit in the real world... it really helped get us into the game when we were younger and just starting to try to play... the complexity of its own description was completely nullified by the fact that it was so awesome that we all knew exactly how it worked. sure there were some arguments once in a while but thats why we had a dm. Anyway... its gotten simpler every version, I'm pretty sure by 3rd ed it was just a cone... though text described it a little differently... then it was just a 180 semicircle in 3.5.. and I think they even stopped referring to it as a "fan"... and now its just some fire some dude shoots out of his hands; no room for creative application, no room for basement injuries or spectacular imaginary effects. I tried to do the whole aim it over something small and the DM (one I wasn't friends with since childhood) made it take fire damage too, and we dragged out the rulebooks cause I knew that spell, and sure enough... nothing about being anything but a full on aoe spell. I feel like its turning further and further around and is almost the opposite of the philosophy that got me playing.
Reading spell descriptions in the old versions it felt like every spell was the authors desperate attempt to describe and codify in game terms the way he saw an amazing and unique spell function (at least a lot of them). now its like someone figures up some damage "types" or "roles" or something, and cut/pastes the effect type with an element type +/- damage based on level, then churns out a little flavor text to make sure its not just 10d6Blast(Fir)20' or something similar.
From what my friend is telling me the whole thing'd run just fine as one of those roguelike ascii games. Probably he's exaggerating, but he also said he didn't see tensers floating disk in there so I'm suddenly a little suspicious. Is this why my friends dad refuses to play 2nd ed.. and won't even aknowledge 3rd? Its just got me worried, could I just replace the word wizard with xman and the game would still seem completely plausible?
I'm guessing I'm just getting worked up becuase I'd sort of been quietly optimistic/unconcerned with the new edition and now I'm really wondering. I should probably just wait till I get my hands on the books, but since some of you have lots of access to the books and didn't hit your head on the basement trying to explain a spell effect, I wouldn't mind hearing I'm WAY off here.
oh and wow, long post and first post at the same time.
YMMV.
