Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 9552008" data-attributes="member: 7031982">One new consideration I learned in this thread is the point that strong attack cantrips reduce the need to &quot;load out&quot; spell slots with nukes.&nbsp; I've never liked the infinite offensive cantrips, but I hadn't really considered this aspect of it.&nbsp; (Then again, I don't like spell slots, either.)Combined with the sheer variety of utility spells, and their specificity*, I've long thought that utility spells and attack spells should somehow be treated differently, for exactly this reason.&nbsp; I don't think the choice between the two is an interesting one to have to make.&nbsp; Making utility spells rituals (in D&amp;D) would be one solution, but that would also make casters even more useful outside of combat, which some people would hate.I like how Shadowdark does it (surprise, surprise): instead of spell slots, you make a casting check, and if you fail you can't use that spell for the rest of the day.&nbsp; So different types of spells don't compete with each other, except in the sense that you pick which new ones you learn at when you level up.&nbsp; But Wizards (not Clerics) can still learn new spells from scrolls.&nbsp; E.g., if a Wizard finds a utility scroll, they have the option to learn it (consuming the scroll), and then from then on that spell is available.*By &quot;specificity&quot; I meant this: even if an attack spell isn't the perfect one for the situation, it still has a high probability of being somewhat useful (unless the target has immunity).&nbsp; But a Knock spell, say, is of no use unless the problem to be solved is very specific.&nbsp; So the choice between Lightning Bolt and Fireball is not the same as a choice between, say, Knock and Alter Self.&nbsp; You just need a LOT more utility spells to be fully prepared.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bill Zebub, post: 9552008, member: 7031982"] One new consideration I learned in this thread is the point that strong attack cantrips reduce the need to "load out" spell slots with nukes. I've never liked the infinite offensive cantrips, but I hadn't really considered this aspect of it. (Then again, I don't like spell slots, either.) Combined with the sheer variety of utility spells, and their specificity*, I've long thought that utility spells and attack spells should somehow be treated differently, for exactly this reason. I don't think the choice between the two is an interesting one to have to make. Making utility spells rituals (in D&D) would be one solution, but that would also make casters even [I]more[/I] useful outside of combat, which some people would hate. I like how Shadowdark does it (surprise, surprise): instead of spell slots, you make a casting check, and if you fail you can't use that spell for the rest of the day. So different types of spells don't compete with each other, except in the sense that you pick which new ones you learn at when you level up. But Wizards (not Clerics) can still learn new spells from scrolls. E.g., if a Wizard finds a utility scroll, they have the option to learn it (consuming the scroll), and then from then on that spell is available. *By "specificity" I meant this: even if an attack spell isn't the perfect one for the situation, it still has a high probability of being somewhat useful (unless the target has immunity). But a Knock spell, say, is of no use unless the problem to be solved is very specific. So the choice between Lightning Bolt and Fireball is not the same as a choice between, say, Knock and Alter Self. You just need a LOT more utility spells to be fully prepared. [/QUOTE]

Verification