Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7405617" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Sure, wherever it’s from. Its age isn’t my issue with it, my issue is that “preparing spells” serves no purpose in that variant. If you don’t have to manage how many times you cast a particular spell, only how many spells of each level you’ve cast, then the “preparation” is an unnecessary step. Just tell me how many spells from my spell list I’m allowed to prepare and I’ll prepare the same ones every day. Boom, now I’m a spontaneous caster. Might as well go full Vancian if you want that extra layer of resource management, or full spontaneous if you don’t want that extra layer of complexity. The style 5e uses, wherever it originally showed up, is dumb because it retains the added complexity of Vancian but does away with the added resource management. It’s sacrificing the depth to keep the complexity, which is the opposite of what good game mechanics should strive to do.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7405617, member: 6779196"] Sure, wherever it’s from. Its age isn’t my issue with it, my issue is that “preparing spells” serves no purpose in that variant. If you don’t have to manage how many times you cast a particular spell, only how many spells of each level you’ve cast, then the “preparation” is an unnecessary step. Just tell me how many spells from my spell list I’m allowed to prepare and I’ll prepare the same ones every day. Boom, now I’m a spontaneous caster. Might as well go full Vancian if you want that extra layer of resource management, or full spontaneous if you don’t want that extra layer of complexity. The style 5e uses, wherever it originally showed up, is dumb because it retains the added complexity of Vancian but does away with the added resource management. It’s sacrificing the depth to keep the complexity, which is the opposite of what good game mechanics should strive to do. [/QUOTE]

Verification