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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5889323" data-attributes="member: 87792">But limited per day isn't expensive.  It's just slow.  And not even slow where the rubber meets the road.  I have nothing against cheap magic per se.  I just see there to be two distinct magical paradigms, and D&D to be for all practical purposes already in the cheap magic paradigm. In a cheap magic paradigm (textbook example: Harry Potter), there are people whose main focus and main contribution is the magic they can use.  The costs for both recharging and casting spells are very low, and wizards reach for the right tool for the job, which is normally magic.  There are limits to magical power in a cheap magical paradigm - and mages need not be that powerful.  What they are is safe and reliable.In an expensive magic paradigm (for example the Lord of the Rings), even the most skilled of loremasters don't like casting spells as they are likely to make the situation bad with their cost or their backlash.  For normal combat they prefer swords - at least if you lose with a sword you will only end up dead and there are worse fates.  Far worse fates.  Wizards are normally loremasters first, and spellcasters only when they are already up <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> creek - at least magic can provide a paddle.  (The 3.5 Bard is arguably a viable expensive magic class (sage who uses sword before magic) but even there it's still too cheap). Both paradigms work.  But the existance of a wizard class that gets free spells to cast, and very little other than spellcasting, makes D&D magic cheap.  As does handing wizards some pretty powerful spells they can use regularly.  But as things stand, by the pretense that magic is expensive for wizards makes for problems in all directions.  It doesn't actually do anything to make them more quadratic either.  Ultimately what it does is if wizards exist in a cheap magic paradigm (as I think they do in D&D) colours in this paradigm and allows them to be masters of magic, able to create minor effects without serious effort.</blockquote>

Verification