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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janaxstrus" data-source="post: 5885368" data-attributes="member: 3201">Which is just like memorizing.Hey, a battle is looming, better memorize attack spells.Ok, battle is over, there is a door, better memorize knock now instead.Well, we got through that room, better memorize more attack spells instead.That sounds to me more like having everything you want to do at any time, only 5 minutes away.  Not managing your resources, planning ahead etc. 34 of the 38 years D&D has existed points to you being wrong.Not really.  I wouldn't care for that at all.  I also wouldn't like a fighter who could trip someone for 5 levels, but at level 6 he forgets how to trip people and can only trip AND stun them at the same time.  Changing how spells increase in power is enough (requiring a higher level slot to increase the power of the spell).  Removing lower level spell slots isn't a good fix in my opinion.Yes, it does, and I disagree with it.  Memorize once, cast once is my preference.  Encounter powers being reskinned, is not something I want to see.  Incorrect, it worked the exact same way.  The wizard/cleric/druid/bard had the spells imprinted on their mind, and when the spell was cast, it was lost for the day (or for spontaneous caster, that slot was lost).  You can say the fluff changed, but how it worked did not change at all.How long to cast a spell doesn't mean the definition of "cast" changed.  It means the time it took to cast a spell changed.  The time to swing a sword changed too, does that mean that the definition of "swinging a sword" changed?  No, it merely changed the time involved.This part we are in agreement on.</blockquote>

Verification