Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8210056" data-attributes="member: 12731">Here it becomes really important to reflect on a given rule's aim - what does the rule try to accomplish?I would argue the goal of limiting magic use (i.e. provide an alternative to spell slots) is different from the goal of making sorcery unpredictable or dangerous.I'm saying this because again I feel steadily increasing penalties isn't central to the S&S genre. Obviously there must be some kind of check to magic use or every spell becomes a free cantrip. My point is that switching from spell slots to a "death spiral" is something you'd do to make a game grimmer and grittier, and that's just a separate goal from sword-and-sorcifying it.Instead I maintain the important aspect of standard D&D spellcasting that needs to change is it's clean uncontroversial use. Since it's still D&D this should ideally be accomplished without actually nerfing the casting classes relative to the fighter classes.Therefore I'm arguing that the emphasis on sacrifice or side-effects is more central to a product like Xoth. Keeping standard spell slots is fine.Again, I appreciate you wanting your S&S games to be grimmer or grittier and I have no problem with that. Cheers!</blockquote>