Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6327241" data-attributes="member: 92511">I'm aware of that. And that's fine. You seem to have missed my point. Yes, it does make sense for Spare the Dying. If that's necromancy, then make the spells dealing with &quot;the energies of life and death&quot; necromancy spells. Not some evocation...and some conjuration...and whatever else. (I don't have it in front of me, but I think I saw Restoration -or some other &quot;healing&quot; spell- was listed as a transmutation?) PICK one!It's &quot;unfair&quot; that I like what they've done? That I think appealing to both groups is a good thing? That's unfair to you? The cleric holy symbol has always been a D&amp;D trope. Cleric's need their symbol )in many/most games) to cast their spells. Always have. I didn't say anything about that. The wizards with staffs and wands...yeah, it's a fantasy trope. But they were never something in the game of D&amp;D as something you could use in spellcasting until the &quot;implement&quot; rules of recent times...which was obviously an attempt to invite fans [jump on the wagon] of Harry Potter world/series/books/movies/magic. I have no qualms about it. D&amp;D has always (and usually obviously) borrowed from current/popular cultural fantasy sources of its edition's era. But I'm not going to pretend it isn't a &quot;thing&quot;/doesn't exist/the introduction of casting implements just occurred in a vacuum.Again, I think you're [somehow] missing my point. This seems to indicate you believe that the addition of MORE spellcasters and MORE spells, inserted into a single rambling alphabetical list is going to somehow be clearer/easier to use? I'll just disagree and leave it at that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6327241, member: 92511"] I'm aware of that. And that's fine. You seem to have missed my point. Yes, it does make sense for [I]Spare the Dying.[/I] If that's necromancy, then make the[I] spells [/I]dealing with "the energies of life and death" [I]necromancy [/I]spells. Not some evocation...and some conjuration...and whatever else. (I don't have it in front of me, but I think I saw Restoration -or some other "healing" spell- was listed as a transmutation?) PICK one! It's "unfair" that I like what they've done? That I think appealing to both groups is a[I] good[/I] thing? That's unfair to you? The cleric holy symbol has always been a D&D trope. Cleric's need their symbol )in many/most games) to cast their spells. Always have. I didn't say anything about that. The wizards with staffs and wands...yeah, it's a fantasy trope. But they were never something in the game of D&D as something you could use in spellcasting until the "implement" rules of recent times...which was obviously an attempt to invite fans [jump on the wagon] of Harry Potter world/series/books/movies/magic. I have no qualms about it. D&D has always (and usually obviously) borrowed from current/popular cultural fantasy sources of its edition's era. But I'm not going to pretend it isn't a "thing"/doesn't exist/the introduction of casting implements just occurred in a vacuum. Again, I think you're [somehow] missing my point. This seems to indicate you believe that the addition of MORE spellcasters and MORE spells, inserted into a single rambling alphabetical list is going to somehow be clearer/easier to use? I'll just disagree and leave it at that. [/QUOTE]

Verification