Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 5862809" data-attributes="member: 2656">The OPs first two points are what I have trust in working to create a system I would like.I want spellcasters who can constantly  and reliably cast magic, not ration it out like misers, or juggle with unreliable casting methods (whether from failure chances, skill checks, disruption chances, whatever).The price for constant access to magic is weaker magic, magic that is never a simple "I win" button.  That's a price I for one accept gladly. I also want more restricted access to magic for casters. Generalists if they exist should have weaker magic than specialists. Specialists should have limted access to magic outside their speciality.The most evocative feature of the 4e wizard class was constant access to cantrips like prestidigitation. These are framed to be useless for combat, but are very evocative for roleplaying purposes, and for me make the wizard feel like a wizard. I thought at-will attack magic was a great advance for spellcasters in 4e as well, but I will insert at-will cantrips into the next edition for wizards, regardless of the design WotC end up producing. Rituals are the best way devised so far within 4e of describing plot device type spells, the sort of spells that can ruin adventures unless access to them is restricted somehow. I hope that the ritual concept is retained and improved.I have a number of issues I have with the other potential limitations on spellcasters listed with the OP. Fundamentally, I don'tl like catastrophic balance measures which result in all or nothing scenarios. These are difficult for referees to deal with at the best of times, and are a nightmare for new referees. They invite all sorts of fudging on both ends of the table, either in a desparate attempt to rein in out of control spellcasters, or evade potentially fatal drawbacks to spellcasting. When these balance measures existed in earlier editions of D&D every referee and group houseruled them differently. In some groups playing a wizard was futile, their spells never worked properly and the monsters attacked them preferentially. In others, spellcasters ruled everything and their drawbacks were never applied. The variance in their treatment was much higher than for fighters, makiing it one of the issues to learn in new groups before choosing to play a spellcaster in them.Oh, and personally I hate random casting features like wild magic. Hate, hate, hate, something reinforced in me by the gawdaful Avatar trilogy adventure converting 1e Forgotten Realms to 2e. It really sucked playing a wizard in those adventures, risking a TPK with every spellcasting, and getting the wonderful opportunity to be shown up at every turn by the NPC avatar of the goddess of magic. Phew.</blockquote>

Verification