NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stormonu" data-source="post: 5898808" data-attributes="member: 52734">Yeah, the bonus spells for high Int was probably a bad idea.  Not sure about reducing the slots, but it does lead to..Boo.  Hiss.  This is a game of creativity and imagination, and by taking away PCs ability to create things, I think that's just a bad idea.I think it simply would be better to increase the opportunity cost of supplemental magic such as scrolls and wands.  They were simply too cheap for their usefulness.  Likewise, it might be wise to limit their use based on spell slots - for ex., if the wizard can memorize two 2nd level spells, he can't likewise keep on tap more than two 2nd level scrolls (effectively doubling his firepower/usefulness).This was not a problem; I'd rather not see the DM dictating what spells the player can have.This was never a problem if you kept in place the cost of scribing new spells into the wizard's spellbook - including captured spells (having the wizard have to "recipher" them for his own use).No class should be sidelined by the wizard, whether fighter, rogue or whatever.  However, there's nothing wrong with the wizard possessing some spells that augment abilities (such as Bull's Strength or Invisibility) or fill in for missing party members (such as the knock spell).   Spells that augment an ability should never replace that ability (such as Invisibility being superior to the Rogue'sattempt to hide in shadows), nor should they provide absolute success.  There should always be some mundane way to overcome or subvert magical effects - even if it requires heroic effort on other's part.In the latter case, it should always be easier, faster and cheaper to approach the problem from a non-magical means (the rogue being able to pick a lock quicker or the fighter breaking the locked door down faster and without an expenditure of gold for the equivalent knock spell).3E did make spellcasting too reliable in combat, 4E tried to somewhat fix this by evening out the damage between magic and the mundane.  I'd like to see a mixed approach in 5E - as easy to get a low-damage spell off that deals about equivalent to a mundane attack or allowing the wizard to take a risk to get off a (slightly) more powerful spell at the cost of it possibly being disrupted.One of the things I'd like to see come back is roll-each-round initiative, and disengaging from melee should be more difficult.  And if you're going to make the wizard roll for spell failure, make it dramatic - make the chance of failure significant.</blockquote>

Verification