Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5536039" data-attributes="member: 42582">On this point I tend to agree with MrMyth and Nemesis Destiny.Part of the issue is the way the the D&D rules are presented. Because it is the gateway game, the rulebooks tend to have very little "meta"/"toolkit" discussions - quite unlike Rolemaster rules, for example, which are notorious for being presented as a tookit for building a game, rather than as a game.If the D&D rulebooks said "OK, if you want to play a game in which high level non-spontaneous spell casters dominate, then put spells XYZ on the spell list; otherwise, keep them off" it might be a different kettle of fish. But the rulebooks are written as if there is nothing problematic about playing (for example) a cleric who uses Holy Word at the first opportunity. Whereas in fact there might be (as the anecdote upthread illustrated).I don't agree with this. I think the idea is not that you would deliberately play your character weakly, but that at the metagame level the player and GM would "edit" the PCs spell list/spell selection, and then at the ingame level the PC would do the best with that edited suite of abilities.(Ingame, you could rationalise it however you like - "the wizard library was shut the day I went there to learn Knock", "the stars aren't properly aligned for me to memorise Passwall today", etc etc. Or maybe these spells don't exist in the gameworld at all.)I think this is a good post, and a reason why the toning down of the non-spontaneous casters probably has to happen at the metagame level, and not as an element of actual play.I find this interesting, because the issue of wizard dominance tends only to arise in higher level play. So this may explain why you haven't had the experience.It also links back to the question of players vs designers. My view is that 3E is the first time high level spells saw any serious playtime over a wide number of groups. They were introduced into earlier editions, and AD&D, (i) to fill gaps that existed in the theoretical framework of PC-buidling, and (ii) to be abilities for high-level spell-using NPCs (especially evil wizards, liches and high priests). In practice, they weren't used by players for their PCs.3E copied most of them over holus bolus, removed the AD&D-era constraints on their use (which in my view were in any event not quite as strong as some on this thread have suggested), and it was then that people discovered that in fact, in many cases, they're broken. Look at how every major revision to 3E (Pathfinder, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, etc) has handled them. Always by powering down.I don't have any particular interest in playing 3E, either as player or GM. But 3E is not the only game with the problem - Rolemaster has it also, for example, and that's a game that I am interested in. So for me, discussing the issue and possible solutions isn't merely idle speculation. It has relevance for how I idle away my hours by RPGing!</blockquote>

Verification