Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5985382" data-attributes="member: 996">Yeah, the definition of magic is arbitrary.  Vancian magic is as legitimate as non-Vancian, and vice-versa.  There's no more need to explain /why/ Vancian is daily than there would be a need to explain why it's being dropped in favor of something that works better.  In 4e, the game successfully balanced the Fighter and the Wizard by giving them each a mix of at-will, encounter, and daily powers.  It worked.  There was no explanation as to why the wizard's encounter powers worked 1/encounter or his at-wills worked all the time, in spite of the long-standing Vancian rationale for D&D magic-users.  There was no explanation as to why the fighter had 1/encounter and 1/day powers.  Explanations are flavor text, and 4e left flavor to the individual player.  But, the explanation for magic is always easy:  "It's maaaaagic!"What 4e did 'wrong,' if anything, was to leave the wizard dailies, thus necessitating the fighter dailies.  That is, it balanced the abilities of the martial classes around those of the casters, when the abilities of casters can be changed arbitrarily by virtue of being 'magic,' while those of the fighter arguably could have some grounding in reality.5e, not surprisingly, is making the exact same mistake:   First they decided Vancian was in, then they try to balance the fighter with the vancian casters.  Problematic without fighter dailies (it forced them to dictate the length of the adventuring day), and fighter dailies have that percieved problem with verisimilitude.  Simply ganking Vancian and defining magic differently would not have that same problem, since there's no 'realistic' baseline for magic.  (It would have a different, equally insurmountable problem of "not being D&D," but any change, refinement, or improvement to the game faces that problem.)</blockquote>

Verification