Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="poilbrun" data-source="post: 2147636" data-attributes="member: 532">Of course not, but I still think adding to the power of spells while lowering their number is not always a fair trade-off.  My 17th level party (only 3 players - 1 fighter/sorcerer/spellsword, 1 rogue/duelist and 1 wizard/cleric/mystic theurge) and their 3 15th level cohorts (1 fighter/wizard/spellsword, 1 ranger/arcane archer, 1 cleric/wizard/mystic theurge) encountered an orc horde. Even though individually they were low-level, they still had problems, simply because they had to keep their high-level spells for the time when they would fight the higher-level NPC who were behind the orc attack. Put that into perspective for a 60th level wizard. He needs to go down in Hell to retrieve an agent of good from the clutches of an Archduke. On the way there, he will encounter tons of lower CR devils. Should he burn 24th level spells to fight against Bearded Devils or keep them when he will face Pit Fiends or the Archduke himself? Furthermore, I'm afraid that you would only get to see a couple of spells. Why would anyone bother with lower-level spells when using less metamagic on higher-level spells give you the same result with an higher spell DC? And if you only use the same spells again and again with different level of metamagic, where's the fun? I completely agree that your system is more elegant than having to select spell lists and memorize 300 hundred spells (which also brings the problem of the same spells being selected over and over again - what sane player would have a different spell selection each day?), but I really think that some of the issues it raises are bad. Sorry <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /></blockquote>

Verification