Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 3755052" data-attributes="member: 15999">If I really didn't like Vancian magic and the strategic and dramatic potential of limited spells per day, I wouldn't have played a spellcaster in the D&amp;D system.&nbsp; I'd have gone to another system.If I really didn't like alignment having mechanical effects, I wouldn't have played D&amp;D.&nbsp; I'd have gone to another system.If I felt that I needed to be able to make a significant contribution in every round of combat or every roleplaying situation, I wouldn't have played D&amp;D (which allows for specialists as well as generalists).&nbsp; I'd have gone to another system.&nbsp; If I thought that &quot;dead levels&quot; were a bad thing, I wouldn't have played D&amp;D (and certainly I wouldn't have played Basic/Expert), I'd have gone to another system. Given that I've stuck with the D&amp;D system in preference to all others for 20+ years, why would want such a dramatic change to the feel of the game?&nbsp; YES, &quot;other systems&quot; went away from Vancian casting.&nbsp; I CHOSE to play D&amp;D and not those &quot;other systems.&quot;I like the changes to skills and the apparent removal of iterative attacks.&nbsp; A pair of 3E innovations that slow down prep time and game time and could have been done better.&nbsp; And I like the idead of rolling spell DCs rather than saves in some cases (such as with hordes of mooks), though that option was in 3E.&nbsp; I liked 3E's solution for players who don't want to run out of spells -- the warlock class -- but I was really looking forward to playing a low-level wizard in an upcoming campaign.&nbsp; Now I'm not.&nbsp; A wizard with unlimited magic is just not as appealing as one who starts off really weak and has to be strategic and judicious.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brother MacLaren, post: 3755052, member: 15999"] If I really didn't like Vancian magic and the strategic and dramatic potential of limited spells per day, I wouldn't have played a spellcaster in the D&D system. I'd have gone to another system. If I really didn't like alignment having mechanical effects, I wouldn't have played D&D. I'd have gone to another system. If I felt that I needed to be able to make a significant contribution in every round of combat or every roleplaying situation, I wouldn't have played D&D (which allows for specialists as well as generalists). I'd have gone to another system. If I thought that "dead levels" were a bad thing, I wouldn't have played D&D (and certainly I wouldn't have played Basic/Expert), I'd have gone to another system. Given that I've stuck with the D&D system in preference to all others for 20+ years, why would want such a dramatic change to the feel of the game? YES, "other systems" went away from Vancian casting. I CHOSE to play D&D and not those "other systems." I like the changes to skills and the apparent removal of iterative attacks. A pair of 3E innovations that slow down prep time and game time and could have been done better. And I like the idead of rolling spell DCs rather than saves in some cases (such as with hordes of mooks), though that option was in 3E. I liked 3E's solution for players who don't want to run out of spells -- the warlock class -- but I was really looking forward to playing a low-level wizard in an upcoming campaign. Now I'm not. A wizard with unlimited magic is just not as appealing as one who starts off really weak and has to be strategic and judicious. [/QUOTE]

Verification