Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bagpuss" data-source="post: 6140800" data-attributes="member: 3987">You know there was a reason they got rid of it. And yes in some ways it is worse, at least in pre-4th D&D it happened on one occasion, in this system the caster could be holding up the party several times a day. Also there is the introduction of "DM may I?" In that an encounter occurs and it is really up to the DM how much MP points you've gained back so what spells you can cast, the player doesn't know what they can and can't do, and make decisions around that.Well apart from the fat most swords didn't go all the way through, a pierced lung from a dagger is just as lethal as pierced lung from a sword. Also you don't see many illustrations of armoured mages but your system seems to want to encourage that.True, but it is the a flawed action economy. If the mage can offset most of that damage through protection, then he is doing 5 times more "stuff" every action than the fighter. And in most fights that will be what it important, it doesn't matter if the caster takes a bit of MP damage, since once the enemy is dead, he can just make everyone wait for him to regain them over several hours.</blockquote>