Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 6222960" data-attributes="member: 6688277">How can this be baffling? An endless supply of at-will damage-dealing cantrips implies a certain magical level within the world. Can you seriously not understand that not every group/DM prefers that kind of setting? Magic like technology are two very important factors to consider when starting a new campaign - and clearly from these and other forums not every D&amp;D group adheres to the rule that &quot;zapping&quot; wizards exist. As I have stated before both variations should exists within the players handbook with clearly marked &quot;High-Level Magic Setting&quot; spells which would make it easy for the DM to exclude such spells from the setting. Or perhaps it a write-up could be included within the DMG stating as such in the form of advice or problematic spell list for &quot;Low-Level Magic Settings&quot;. What I'm suggesting is similar to the &quot;inherent system&quot; in 4E where magical items did not have a &quot;+&quot; instead at certain levels the characters received an inherent +1 to hit and AC to negate the requirement of +magical items for the math to work. It was a good system leaning in the direction of a &quot;Low-Level Magic Setting.&quot; A system within a system which pleases both camps.&nbsp; There are many systems/mechanics one can adopt before jumping to that extreme scenario you reflected above. Also DMs create many different type of adventures which do not all adopt the approach that 10 encounters of continual combat = fun adventure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sadras, post: 6222960, member: 6688277"] How can this be baffling? An endless supply of at-will damage-dealing cantrips implies a certain magical level within the world. Can you seriously not understand that not every group/DM prefers that kind of setting? Magic like technology are two very important factors to consider when starting a new campaign - and clearly from these and other forums not every D&D group adheres to the rule that "zapping" wizards exist. As I have stated before both variations should exists within the players handbook with clearly marked "High-Level Magic Setting" spells which would make it easy for the DM to exclude such spells from the setting. Or perhaps it a write-up could be included within the DMG stating as such in the form of advice or problematic spell list for "Low-Level Magic Settings". What I'm suggesting is similar to the "inherent system" in 4E where magical items did not have a "+" instead at certain levels the characters received an inherent +1 to hit and AC to negate the requirement of +magical items for the math to work. It was a good system leaning in the direction of a "Low-Level Magic Setting." A system within a system which pleases both camps. There are many systems/mechanics one can adopt before jumping to that extreme scenario you reflected above. Also DMs create many different type of adventures which do not all adopt the approach that 10 encounters of continual combat = fun adventure. [/QUOTE]

Verification