Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ouini" data-source="post: 1535793" data-attributes="member: 3506">I looked it over some more last night. I actually do like the system. It solves a lot of, well, not *problems* per se, but messiness. It definitely inspired me to drop Wizards/Sorcs altogether, and run with the "prepare" & "slots" idea in AU. (But, is there any way in AU for 1st and 2nd level casters to heal directly, or must they transfer wounds, instead?)My problems with using a modified AU system with my players, then, are that:- The system can't be explained on a single side of a sheet of paper. The players would have to buy and read AU, or I'd have to photocopy the spell lists and get the players to the point of being comfortable with the new spells. That's unlikely to happen, and so is really too bad.- Ironically, the explanation at the link you provided for spellcasters, combined with the AU book tables, again just seemed too complex to foist onto players. Well, my players, anyway. If I'm going to change systems on them, I wouldn't feel right about having them reference multiple spell level vs. level tables (esp. in books they don't necessarily want to own). (Comment: I think the Witch/Blade Mage tables are more like 3/4 caster, btw)Of course, I'm glad you found a system that you like. I'm even a little envious of your group's attitude towards new games. It'd be cool to play with a group willing to put a bit more effort into reading and playing. Through nobody's fault, I think we may well have to part ways on the magic system. At least for now....First, thanks (SSquirrel) for explaining the free-cantrip system. I now get that your cantrips listed on an advancement chart add mana to your pool, but take no mana to cast.Next, I'm going to pre-empt DrSpunj's reply again, and go out on a limb to say that this probably wouldn't be acceptable for either of us. Good if it works for you, but it seems very counter-intuitive, and seems to use some math that would be convoluted to the uninitiated or not math-savvy. I do agree in principle, though, that a mana system can be much easier to use, and can clean up much of the ugliness of gain-a-level, do-some-math-to-know-which-charts-to-consult.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As far as "caster level is caster level period", I'd still love to agree. But 3.5 says, "Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level." DrSpunj is okay with that (and I'm not set against it, but will avoid it if I can). You and I agree that there are probably preferable ways to do it, and found them.</blockquote>

Verification