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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5909674" data-attributes="member: 2067">There's a few problems with this.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Assuming that at-will magic is a good thing is a problem. It may be a good thing for some individual groups, but it's certainly not a classic D&D wizard, and you can't rely on that as a balancing mechanism and keep folks wanting classic D&D wizard gameplay happy. You need to have the option to turn it off, and the game can't assume that it happens. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Spells being "interruptable" isn't bad, and I'm fond of their mechanic for it, but it does apply a rather hard limit for any combat-focused spellcasters out there. It's not an unsolvable problem, but it is a little eyebrow-raising.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Only certain spells will be wand-able? What? Are we going back to 4e's days of "only one daily item power because NUMBERS?" Rather than bake-in artificial distinctions, what is lost by, say, making wands have the at-will cantrips?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Scrolls costing slots is similarly weird. Though it's a good instinct to let a spellcaster gain some versatility, it's very odd to bake it into magic items like that.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Related to the two above points: whatever the heck happened to the idea that magic items were pure reward and you shouldn't EXPECT to gain any and if you do then bully for you, but there's no guarantee they're going to be useful? If you really want to have wands cast spells, let them cast a million of 'em, and just warn DMs. Or whatever. </li> </ul>These aren't exactly positive signs. And mearls still doesn't seem to quite understand a basic principle of adventure-based design: individual encounters are more disposable. In 5e, it shouldn't be a problem if you grease-glitterdust handicap an iron golem, because the iron golem isn't the only thing you need to kill, and mages only get a handful of spells anyway. (not that grease and glitterdust need to do so much -- in 4e, that balance DC is a lot more reasonable given always-increasing bonuses. But there are ways to solve the problem that don't mandate changing how a wizard plays)I'm not encouraged by this. There's a few good points (very limited spells/day, and damage disruption, for instance), but about equal quantities of troubling statements. I've been pretty gung-ho about 5e so far, but I'm not so sure about this one. There's some conceptual problems, here.</blockquote>

Verification