Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jbear" data-source="post: 5780705" data-attributes="member: 75065">I don't like the Vancian System of magic per se, but I could live with something that resembled it as long as several issues were included in the magic system design:1) When wizards aren't using their "Vancian" spells they aren't shooting crossbows.Does anyone who enjoys the vancian system of spells also think that a wizard with a crossbow is a good look, or something any self respecting wizard would honestly do? I'm curious to know, though if you say yes, I'm going to go with House on this one. All people lie.So, if this issue was to be addressed, I think it needs to go beyond cantrips. Pathfinders specialist school powers approach this with 7/day use of Flame Jet or whatever. At Will Powers: Why not? Depending on your school of magic you get a low level "Signature Spell". Eg Evocation: Magic Missile etc.Really, how its done, I dont care. The slicker and more elegant the better. Just NO XBOWS!2) Option Overload: The quanity of spells is just too much. It doesn't make for a "Alright guys, let's whip up some characters" type situation. I really believe they are going to be aiming for that in the game design, so I think they will naturally look at this. I don't think their is a need for a detect _________ fill in the gap with anything you can thin of type situation where each is a seperate spell. Why not just have the spell: Detect? You choose what it is you are looking for. Why have Protection from _____ as a seperate spell? Just choose what you want protection from when you cast it. etc etc. I advocate less options but good options. 3) No outwaiting the suck to be reborn as a god:I don't want to start crap and wait out four levels to suddenly become the most powerful member of the group. I don't want my fellow players to do that either. I love wizards, but I still want the classes to be balanced. Make them differnt, flavorsome, varied as you like. That won't bother me. But why shouldn't a monk, a bard or a fighter be equally as good, just in different ways? They were right to address this issue in 4e, in my opinion. And it should be taken into consideration when they design 5e. 4) Spells that break the game and make it impossible to DMAs a DM I don't want spells to be a constant ruling nightmare. 4e went a long way to making a DMs job easier, which in my experience, was more enjoyable. So however it is done, this issue needs to be taken into account when magic is designed, Vancian or not.I don't want to get a headache everytime my wizard says the words "I cast..." And I don't want the campaign to collapse under the weight of his god-like arcane might.*minor issue: Memorising spells twice: that makes no sense whatsoever. How do you do that? Memorise something twice. Use the memorised  spell, which is wiped from your memory but still remember it because you have another identical copy memorised ...? What??? I don't think you should be able to memorise the same spell twice.I'll be interested to see what the playtest looks like. If they are going for modernised old school, I have a hunch the system will resemble vancian magic, but will take into account the lessons learnt thorughout the 4 editions and most if not all the above issues will be addressed from the outset (in a far better way than I could come up with). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification