Interesting Article From Mr Cook.

[TerraDave]

The 20 levels of spells and "non-per-day" spells are both things he has mentioned on his site before.

I am sure with some searching you can find the links (and I think both have been mentioned in some of these many 4 ed threads).

Still, its a bit odd with the timing. 4ed, his way?

 

[Felon]

:\

The best he can do for a new campaign is about drow?! *yawn*

Yeah ywah yeah....anybody else need to get a hole punched on their drow-bashers membership card before we continue? I"d like to get that out of the way.

 

[Piratecat]

(geek moment: and he yoinked a bunch of my underdark maps for it!)

So. Cool.

 

[Felon]

The 20 levels of spells and "non-per-day" spells are both things he has mentioned on his site before.

Sure, even before reserve feats saw print in Complete Mage he pointed out that mages could be made more accessable by giving them a few tricks they could do at will. He cited mage armor as a good example. If mages are going to depend on it for defense, it might as well be up all the time anyway.

And having twenty spell levels to correspond with each (non-epic) character level was mentioned as being the original design for 3e spells.

 

[Scribble]

Sure, even before reserve feats saw print in Complete Mage he pointed out that mages could be made more accessable by giving them a few tricks they could do at will. He cited mage armor as a good example. If mages are going to depend on it for defense, it might as well be up all the time anyway.

And having twenty spell levels to correspond with each (non-epic) character level was mentioned as being the original design for 3e spells.

It's interesting though that he said all this in his Just One More Thing articles, and it's almost exactly what they're doing in 4e... Almost to a T.

 

[Samnell]

It's interesting though that he said all this in his Just One More Thing articles, and it's almost exactly what they're doing in 4e... Almost to a T.

Leaving aside that Monte's surely still got friends at WotC, didn't Monte tell us in his post on 3.5 that the 3e team built up a large list of things they would like to do but either seemed too far out (considering the huge 2e->3e changes already) or like they weren't quite ready for prime time yet, but might be suitable for future editions of the game?

Any such list could very well still be at WotC and have played a role in the design of 3e. Certainly the guys who were there then and are still there now would remember some of it, and some of the rest would pass down through office chitchat to newer guys, even in the absence of Tweet's, Cook's, and Williams's notes being present as hardcopy.

 

[Glyfair]

Leaving aside that Monte's surely still got friends at WotC, didn't Monte tell us in his post on 3.5 that the 3e team built up a large list of things they would like to do but either seemed too far out (considering the huge 2e->3e changes already) or like they weren't quite ready for prime time yet, but might be suitable for future editions of the game?

Any such list could very well still be at WotC and have played a role in the design of 3e. Certainly the guys who were there then and are still there now would remember some of it, and some of the rest would pass down through office chitchat to newer guys, even in the absence of Tweet's, Cook's, and Williams's notes being present as hardcopy.

Indeed, both changes he's doing to magic are changes that he's suggested before in articles in his website.

 

[Khairn]

A number of 4E elements that have appeared to date seem very familiar to some of the rules that Monte created for AE and Mearls created for IH.