Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6716646" data-attributes="member: 996">The magic system has received a lot of criticism, and often perplexes new players, but, even so, I'll agree that it makes sense to leverage it.  Just look at 5e:  one list of spells serves 13 classes and over 30 sub-classes, letting them share many of the exact same abilities, and thus saving a lot of design work. Depends on the campaign.  It's barely enough magic for a Harry Potter campaign or one inspired by the Myth Adventures dimension of Perv, for instance.  Tolkien or 'low fantasy,' or pulp S&S, sure, it's too much.  In terms of game balance, better squeeze in all 6-8 encounters between long rests.  Wherever you peg magic level in the game, the DM's going to have to adapt it to his campaign, or adapt his campaign to it.  It'd take really robust balance to avoid that. You could re-introduce a lot of things like that without rendering casters non-viable.  It might lessen their appeal for more casual players, but you just wouldn't do it if you had such players interested in playing casters - heck, you'd probably try to further simplify casting.Technically you didn't need an implement (I thought someone might bring that up), but without the enhancement bonus you weren't going to do well out of the higher levels if you did.  You needed the free hand, though, you couldn't cast tied-up, for instance.  No Still Spell meta-magic or anything.That's a danger of the neo-Vancian system most 5e casters use, yes.I see your point, but that actually sounds kinda genre-faithful, to me.  Maybe in a movie it'd be a little more dramatic - the offensive spell would get to manifest in a menacing way before being countered.  One example.  That one also reminded me of old-school psionic combat.</blockquote>

Verification