Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Edgar Ironpelt" data-source="post: 9388846" data-attributes="member: 32075">I started back in 1978, and (A)D&amp;D always had magic too powerful for my tastes. Not magic that was too common, but magic that was too powerful. &quot;D&amp;D doesn't have wizards. Instead it has artillery pieces disguised as wizards.&quot; The attempted balancing factor of sharply limiting the number of shells - er, spells - available, didn't work. Not for me, at any rate, and not for many others, judging by the long-running complaints over Vancian magic.My preference is for a system where (to put it in HERO system terms) wizardly magic is &quot;martial arts, usable at range&quot; rather than artillery - with more spells but with each spell being of much lower power. I don't see D&amp;D providing this, except maybe - maybe - with e6 or some variant thereof. But I have other reasons for disliking e6.3.5e is still my D&amp;D of choice when I play or run D&amp;D, preferably with the rules heavily curated. Skills and feats are, for me, critical, need to have elements, and I'm not too bothered by the 'Monty Haul' aspects. (What does bug me is the way the mechanics push the Christmas Tree effect, instead of &quot;A few cool items&quot; and &quot;A bunch of lesser items&quot; both being viable choices for a PC.)When 4e came out, I took one look and said &quot;Nope!&quot; Pathfinder 1e was &quot;Eh, no&quot; although it did have a few elements I'd want to retrofit (or that I'd already developed independently as 3.5 house rules). Pathfinder 2e and D&amp;D 5e and beyond are likewise &quot;Nope!&quot; More generally I've become resigned to the fact that no one else is going to produce a D&amp;D-style game that I'd like better than 3.5e, despite its annoyances, and that I'm going to have to fix those annoyances myself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Edgar Ironpelt, post: 9388846, member: 32075"] I started back in 1978, and (A)D&D always had magic too powerful for my tastes. Not magic that was too common, but magic that was too powerful. "D&D doesn't have wizards. Instead it has artillery pieces [I]disguised[/I] as wizards." The attempted balancing factor of sharply limiting the number of shells - er, spells - available, didn't work. Not for me, at any rate, and not for many others, judging by the long-running complaints over Vancian magic. My preference is for a system where (to put it in HERO system terms) wizardly magic is "martial arts, usable at range" rather than artillery - with more spells but with each spell being of much lower power. I don't see D&D providing this, except maybe - maybe - with e6 or some variant thereof. But I have other reasons for disliking e6. 3.5e is still my D&D of choice when I play or run D&D, preferably with the rules heavily curated. Skills and feats are, for me, critical, need to have elements, and I'm not too bothered by the 'Monty Haul' aspects. (What does bug me is the way the mechanics push the Christmas Tree effect, instead of "A few cool items" and "A bunch of lesser items" both being viable choices for a PC.) When 4e came out, I took one look and said "Nope!" Pathfinder 1e was "Eh, no" although it did have a few elements I'd want to retrofit (or that I'd already developed independently as 3.5 house rules). Pathfinder 2e and D&D 5e and beyond are likewise "Nope!" More generally I've become resigned to the fact that no one else is going to produce a D&D-style game that I'd like better than 3.5e, despite its annoyances, and that I'm going to have to fix those annoyances myself. [/QUOTE]

Verification