Cackling Manaically at the 13 Aug Legends and Lore

[the Jester]

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.

Well, the problem is that that fails to satisfy the "no easy item creation" crowd completely.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, the problem is that that fails to satisfy the "no easy item creation" crowd completely.

No one ever likes my solution to that. Have a kind of relatively cheap scroll that doesn't allowing casting the spell directly, but does allow it to recharge for someone who knows it. So an "encounter" spell in that scheme is one that isn't so easy that you can do it over and over with no effort, but doesn't require the full night's rest and spell book to get back, either. It requires a little rest and an enchanted scroll that gots part of the spell already prepped for recharging. The scroll burns itself up in the recharging, which is why it is so cheap.

(I'd also like to see some daily scrolls working the same way, but that's neither here nor there. Then scrolls that actually let someone cast the spell right off the scroll directly can be more expensive and limited.)

Over the course of a career, that will work out to be a lot of "encounter" ability, but it is certainly one where several intense days away from a secure location can leave the wizard drained of resources. It also leaves room for optional flavor, where a staff or gem or wand or whatever can be the "cheap but consumable" recharge item. In the off-time, the wizard can charge up his staff to be able to restore certain spells, but it eventually runs out.

 

[mlund]

They phrased it wrong, and floated it in discussion too early. They just should have started printing spells like this:

Forceweb Armor
2nd-level Enchantment, Abjuration
Effect: You weave an invisible web of pure force around a target's clothing or light armor. This effect persists for 8 hours or until you dismiss the effect. The next time the wearer takes damage, the web reduce the damage taken by 5 and the web is broken. If the spell's duration has not expired the web will re-knit after 5 minutes.

Basically you have a Vancian Daily spell that produces a long-duration effect (but not permanent) that itself discharges and recharges due to the nature of the enchantment. You could do something similar to make a level 1 version of Flame Arrow.

- Marty Lund

 

[pemerton]

Powers of spells is determined by level. A level 3 spell is a level 3 spell.

<snip>

Plus, a level 3 spell takes no more rest to obtain than a level 9 spell. Just as it takes no less time for a level 20 wizard to regain a single level 3 spell he used than if he used his entire spell repertoire.

As [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] already posted, this isn't true in 1st ed AD&D (not sure about 2nd ed). Not only do higher level spells require more rest, but a spell requires 15 minutes per level to memorise following rest.

So not only does a 20th level wizard have to rest longer to regain his/her whole repertoire (which includes 9th level spells) than to regain a single 3rd level spell, but s/he will have to study his/her spellbooks for much longer also (about 50 hours, I think: from memory, a 20th level wizard has around 5 spells of each level, a little fewer perhaps at the very highest levels).

I already hate at-will spell casting, I am certainly not going to be well pleased with some ill disguised per encounter spell casting scheme.

I'm more inclined to like reducing the amount of magic a caster can muster during a day not more.

There is a paradox lurking in the neighbourhood here: by making all the wizard's abilities dailies, and by restricting the number available, you can tend to increase the incidence of nova-ing, and its potential impact on game play (wizards setting the pacing, 15-minute days, etc). So reducing the power of wizards in the fiction can actually increase the power of wizard players (ie their overall degree of influence over the game) at the table.

Conversely, one consequence of at-will and encounter spells is that dailies become a lesser proportion of wizards' overall power, thereby reducing the incentive to nova, and the significance of any nova.

 

[howandwhy99]

I get folks would like to go gonzo with the number and frequency of spells, but doing so has made them very weak and completely without mystery over the past dozen years. That's a major failure IMO.

The big deal regarding the OP's point is whether or not Time actually matters, is being accounted for, outside of combat. If it is, then weak spells that are easier to prep in a day may actually have consequences beyond combat and be a feasible option for those who prefer them to less frequent, yet more powerful spells.

For those who would drop such things, I'd suggest trading 2-3 for 1 daily prepped spell or longer.

 

[howandwhy99]

Weekly, Monthly, and Yearly spells

How long would it take to prepare these?
What kind of materia cost are we talking?
How powerful would these be in terms of duration, range, effectiveness?
How many spell slots would be lost given over to their prep?

 

[avin]

It makes sense, it's tied to fluff, I'm ok with this.

As long there's no non magical encounter stuff DDN will be fine.

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.

D&D has some lore stuff that should rest in peace, as long it's tied to solid and decent fluff.

Erasing spells from mind was a poor try to adequate mechanics to fluff in D&D.

 

[Dannager]

I hated 4e encounter powers and the idea that they are going to stick them on the wizard is downright repulsive. If they want encounter powers, they need to stick them on a class that makes sense.

Yeah, man, wouldn't that be ridiculous? For a totally made up, fantasy magical system? I mean, everyone knows that magic works a certain way, and that anyone who imagines magic to work another way is just out of their mind! Regaining spells after five minutes just doesn't make sense! That's just not how magic works!

That's what this argument sounds like.

First, repulsive? If you are so attached to a certain implementation of a made up fantasy system that a deviation from that causes you to bust out the word "repulsive," take a step back. Consider that maybe there are better things to be repulsed by, and that this probably isn't worth registering more than a "mild distaste" on your hate-o-meter.

Second, magic doesn't make sense. It's magic. It doesn't exist. Someone made it up. Along with everything that it entails. The idea of resting a day to recover spells? Someone made that up. There's no "sense" to it. The guy thought, "Hey, I want to make magic exhausting, so I'll require a night's rest to get it back." He could just as easily have said, "Hey, I want to make magic exhausting, so I'll require a short rest to recover it." Attacking encounter-based powers on an "It doesn't make sense!" level doesn't make sense. Ultimately, it's just aesthetics.

 

[ferratus]

Well, the problem is that that fails to satisfy the "no easy item creation" crowd completely.

I thought that was items that allowed characters that do extraordinary things that bothered people, rather than scrolls and potions.

Maybe I should do a poll about it.

 

[Sammael]

Scrolls and potions are fine. Wands and rods are the problem.