Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4717170" data-attributes="member: 40961">Lets assume that even works in theory.  Its a big assumption, but lets go with it. That assumes that the game can always, or at least usually, compel the players to face (or at least fear facing) enough encounters over the course of a day to deplete their spell pool.  This will be particularly difficult in a game with a high degree of player freedom, particularly when the players have a built in incentive to avoid encountering enough situations to deplete their spells.  This is EXCEPTIONALLY difficult when they can use the spells themselves to avoid encountering enough encounters to deplete their spells.  This is almost flat out impossible if you have a game where money can be transformed into ways to not run out of spells. I'm not convinced that these herculean efforts in pursuit of a goal that's dubious in the first place are worthwhile.  At the very least, if this is the theory, I think we can safely declare 3e and every other version of D&D before 4e to be an absolute mess.  The idea that spells will break rules completely, that you will have enough encounters over the course of the day to deplete your spell pool, that you will have similar numbers of encounters per day at level 1 as at level 20, and that spellcasters will gain more spells per day as they go up in level, is simply incoherent.  The fact that spells break rules completely instead of just adjust numbers means that many lower level spells will not actually decrease in power as you go up in level. ...Actually, now that I think about it, it could be done if the average number of rounds per combat were to increase dramatically as level increases.  But with spells that rewrite rules instead of work within them, creating that effect is probably going to be impossible. ...And don't get me started on the idea that spells that create bonuses to d20 rolls need to grow in the size of the bonus as players increase in levels.  That undermines the alleged balancing system of 3e, and is flat out mathematically illiterate unless the express intention is for the power to grow objectively more powerful.  A +3 to hit that isn't calculated as part of the underlying expected attack bonus, that is, an additional +3 that's not figured into monster defenses, is equally useful at level 1 as it is at level 20.  4e has mostly, though not completely, avoided that error.  Its something that irks me to no end, because there's just no reason for it.</blockquote>

Verification