[Peeve]There is no memorization!

[Psion]

I am used to third party publishers using the term "memorization" despite the fact that no such mechanic is used in 3e; it's "preparation."

But now the A&E Guide comes out, and I see they have magic items that use the term "memorization." Aargh! WotC should be above this sort of simple mistake!

Some may think this a minor nitpick, but I personally find it to be a step back and a major inconsistancy with the way that the rules system stands now. The term "memorization" didn't sit well with a lot of folks who couldn't wrap their head around the idea of "forgetting" a spell upon casting it; now with magic defined as some abstract energy, it is a lot easier for people to grasp. Further, the shift to preparation helps explain things like why you can't cast spells from a spellbook, why you don't use XP to scribe to a spellbook, and so forth. Further, "preparation" dovetails much better with 3e item creation.

 

[Monte At Home]

Part of the problem may be that when the SRD was distilled from the core books, somehow the word memorization got put back in.

But yeah, it is disappointing to see it, since we worked so hard to get rid of it.

 

[Airwolf]

Hear Hear!

I agree, I never liked the idea of memorizing a spell and then forgetting it. I understood why the mechanic was there I just didn't like it.

I was glad they went to preparation. I hope this does not signal a change back to memorizing spells.

You would think that WotC could get one or two peolpe to proof read their books that actually know the game.

 

[Mercule]

Agreed. Memorization is a bad idea.

Even in 1E & 2E, I used the term "hanging" spells from Zelazny's Amber books.

Making anything "X times per day" raises my hackles big time (and is my only major systems issue with 3E) regardless of whether it's spell slots or Barbarian Rage. "Memorizing" spells twice or more only makes it worse.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

New word, same mechanic. What's the diff?

 

[Henry]

It's still called preparation in the current Magic Overview and Arcane Spell chapters of the SRD; I'm curious to know where the term "memorize" creeped in.


In a nutshell, I can understand the trouble of switching terms. I used the term "memorize" for nearly 20 years, and still catch myself using it. However, in formal writing, I can't imagine not catching such a mistake, unless the proofreader wasn't up on all the SRD changes from Advanced D&D.

 

[HellHound]

I'm right with you, Psion.

I just did the mechanics editing for a book of spells (Arcane Strife, coming soon from E.N.Publishing) and had to go through and change all instances of memorization to preparation. It is just so ingrained in many old gamers that they don't even realize they are doing it sometimes.

 

[Psion]

New word, same mechanic. What's the diff?

I thought I explained this, but to expound on it.

First off, some people just don't dig/comprehend the idea of a "memory" of a spell disappearing, or words disappearing off of a page when a spell is cast. Not to mention, there is about one setting/author that actually used memorization, but a great many that prepared spells, creating a stronger consistency with literature.

Second, if your spells are in your spell books, if you assume that it is the words that hold the energy and if a spell disappears off of a scroll when cast, then why does a spell not disappear when cast? Under the memorization description, this sort of required some doublethink and handwaving.

Under the 3e description, the explanation is really simple. The words in the spellbook are not the totality of the spell; when you prepare a spell, you are actually spending the time to cast a majority of the spell. Scrolls store this energy; spellbooks do not. This is why scrolls are different than books. Finally, it makes sense.

It makes sense in the context of 3e item creation. A spell book does not store spells, only the method to casting them. A spellcaster stores spells, it takes something EXTRA that spellbooks don't have to give items this ability.

Finally, the term is meaningless to new players. If you never learned assuming that the act of preparing a spell is memorization, then you aren't going to understand what it means when some author carelessly invokes this term.

That is the difference.

 

[Zappo]

You tell me. I'm still trying to get my players to understand the major paradigm shift 3E caused. D&D wizardly magic now is no longer a short formula that you cast in a matter of seconds and then forget.

It's a long and complex procedure which takes several minutes to complete and which you basically can't even memorize perfectly unless you spend a feat. Luckily for wizards, they can keep the spells unfinished so that completing them only takes a round at most.

Magic makes a lot more sense now.

 

[Quinn]

It's tough to unlearn a term that's been in the D&D vocabulary for so long. Furthermore, whether you call it preparation or memorization, it's just a rationalization for the same fire and forget system. Mind you, I have no problem with either terminology. Trying to think too hard about the rationale behind fire and forget magic, hit points, and armor class is...well, as someone put it in another thread, "That way lies madness".