Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6800850" data-attributes="member: 996">I played AD&amp;D from 1980 on and ran it from 1984 through 1995.&nbsp; I think I know what it was like.&nbsp; Magic-users started with fewer spells/day than 5e wizards, but had more at higher level.&nbsp; The relative 'power' of individual spells between the two is muddy, though, and I've already gone into some of the diverse factors pulling the comparison in opposite directions.&nbsp; I wouldn't definitively say spells are 'less powerful' in 5e across the board.&nbsp; Spell slots, though, are less likely to be wasted in 5e (because of the hyper-flexibility of neo-Vancian casting), and can be conserved more easily because there are cantrips to fall back on, so are a lot more likely to be used optimally.&nbsp; Those factors both argue towards the risk of loosing slots to spell interruption being quite a bit more manageable in 5e than back in 1e.One of the more appalling trends in D&amp;D history has been the way magic has become less and less limited with each edition.&nbsp; In 1e, casting in melee was all but unheard of, the rules (if you could even decipher them) were usually interpreted quite unfavorably for the caster, any interruption ruined the spell and you lost memory of it.&nbsp; 2e may have softened them a bit.&nbsp; 3e dailed it back a lot, the rules were simpler, so you knew whether an AoO would be involved or not.&nbsp; You could avoid an AoO by making a concentration check or often simply by taking a 5' step.&nbsp; Even if you were hit while casting, you could make a concentration check, and concentration was a skill you could max to the stratosphere.&nbsp; If all circumstances and checks went against you, your spell didn't go off, but you didn't lose it.&nbsp; 4e made it even easier.&nbsp; Spells were exactly like attacks.&nbsp; Close/Touch (and, hypothetically, melee) spells didn't provoke, Ranged/Area ones did - but they couldn't be interrupted other than by death or a debilitating rider, you took your lumps and finished your spell.&nbsp; It seemed inconceivable that 5e could make it any easier on casters, but it did it's actually easier to cast a spell in melee than to use a bow.&nbsp; Neither provoke anymore, but the ranged weapon attack gets disadvantage, while the spell faces no consequences, at all for being cast in melee.Going back to spells being interruptible - and slots lost when interrupted - would be a small step back in the direction of 'less magic.'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6800850, member: 996"] I played AD&D from 1980 on and ran it from 1984 through 1995. I think I know what it was like. Magic-users started with fewer spells/day than 5e wizards, but had more at higher level. The relative 'power' of individual spells between the two is muddy, though, and I've already gone into some of the diverse factors pulling the comparison in opposite directions. I wouldn't definitively say spells are 'less powerful' in 5e across the board. Spell slots, though, are less likely to be wasted in 5e (because of the hyper-flexibility of neo-Vancian casting), and can be conserved more easily because there are cantrips to fall back on, so are a lot more likely to be used optimally. Those factors both argue towards the risk of loosing slots to spell interruption being quite a bit more manageable in 5e than back in 1e. One of the more appalling trends in D&D history has been the way magic has become less and less limited with each edition. In 1e, casting in melee was all but unheard of, the rules (if you could even decipher them) were usually interpreted quite unfavorably for the caster, any interruption ruined the spell and you lost memory of it. 2e may have softened them a bit. 3e dailed it back a lot, the rules were simpler, so you knew whether an AoO would be involved or not. You could avoid an AoO by making a concentration check or often simply by taking a 5' step. Even if you were hit while casting, you could make a concentration check, and concentration was a skill you could max to the stratosphere. If all circumstances and checks went against you, your spell didn't go off, but you didn't lose it. 4e made it even easier. Spells were exactly like attacks. Close/Touch (and, hypothetically, melee) spells didn't provoke, Ranged/Area ones did - but they couldn't be interrupted other than by death or a debilitating rider, you took your lumps and finished your spell. It seemed inconceivable that 5e could make it any easier on casters, [i]but it did[/i] it's actually easier to cast a spell in melee than to use a bow. Neither provoke anymore, but the ranged weapon attack gets disadvantage, while the spell faces no consequences, at all for being cast in melee. Going back to spells being interruptible - and slots lost when interrupted - would be a small step back in the direction of 'less magic.' [/QUOTE]

Verification