Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1978449" data-attributes="member: 10201">I disagree. (1) is purely semantic. It's a change in terminology, not functionality. (3) and (5) are minor tweaks--you still get spells the same way, and cast them the same way, but neither is any more significant of a change than is altering the chart that determines how many spells you can cast per day. (4) is a noticable change, but the concept of metamagic goes back to at least the AD&amp;D2 PH spelllist, all D&amp;D3E does is clean it up a bit, and move the effects into a mechanism other than other spells. Now, (2) *is* a significant change.However, several of the AU changes are *more* significant. Creating diminished and heightened versions for every spell is a huge change--for the first time, D&amp;D spells are scalable, and for the first time learning a spell actually gets you 3 spells. Similarly, templates are at least a significant of a change to metamagic as moving the metamagic abilities from spells to feats was in the first place. When you then combine these two ideas with divorcing the spells prepared from the spells cast, you have done something that D&amp;D has never had in spellcasting: provided flexibility. Even with metamagic feats, all you really get is effectively an expanded spelllist--you still have to choose the spells ahead of time, cast those you have prepared, and suffer if you prepare the wrong ones. In AU, you are much more likely to have spells of every flavor prepared, but you can still use just, say, the combat spells, and not be crippled. The weaving of spellslots is, likewise, a huge change, because it's pretty much the first time (other than some spell-point optional systems) that D&amp;D has let you have flexibility in what spells you cast, level-wise. Eliminating the distinction between arcane and divine magic is a similarly significant change to the feel of D&amp;D magic--especially since D&amp;D is just about the only RPG with that particular distinction.About the only change that AU introduces to magic that *isn't* significant is the unified list, divided into simple, complex, exotic. It's still a nice change, but the frequencies were suggested as far back as AD&amp;D1, and all it would take to create a &quot;unified&quot; spelllist in D&amp;D3E would be to assign one more set of descriptors to the spells: &quot;divine&quot;, &quot;arcane&quot;, &quot;druidic&quot;, etc., and give various classes access to them. Or be slightly subtler, and assign access with the existing descriptors.Or, to restate this in completely subjective terms: the feel of spellcasting in D&amp;D3E is pretty much identical to AD&amp;D1/2, other than sorcerers, while AU feels like a whole new system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="woodelf, post: 1978449, member: 10201"] I disagree. (1) is purely semantic. It's a change in terminology, not functionality. (3) and (5) are minor tweaks--you still get spells the same way, and cast them the same way, but neither is any more significant of a change than is altering the chart that determines how many spells you can cast per day. (4) is a noticable change, but the concept of metamagic goes back to at least the AD&D2 PH spelllist, all D&D3E does is clean it up a bit, and move the effects into a mechanism other than other spells. Now, (2) *is* a significant change. However, several of the AU changes are *more* significant. Creating diminished and heightened versions for every spell is a huge change--for the first time, D&D spells are scalable, and for the first time learning a spell actually gets you 3 spells. Similarly, templates are at least a significant of a change to metamagic as moving the metamagic abilities from spells to feats was in the first place. When you then combine these two ideas with divorcing the spells prepared from the spells cast, you have done something that D&D has never had in spellcasting: provided flexibility. Even with metamagic feats, all you really get is effectively an expanded spelllist--you still have to choose the spells ahead of time, cast those you have prepared, and suffer if you prepare the wrong ones. In AU, you are much more likely to have spells of every flavor prepared, but you can still use just, say, the combat spells, and not be crippled. The weaving of spellslots is, likewise, a huge change, because it's pretty much the first time (other than some spell-point optional systems) that D&D has let you have flexibility in what spells you cast, level-wise. Eliminating the distinction between arcane and divine magic is a similarly significant change to the feel of D&D magic--especially since D&D is just about the only RPG with that particular distinction. About the only change that AU introduces to magic that *isn't* significant is the unified list, divided into simple, complex, exotic. It's still a nice change, but the frequencies were suggested as far back as AD&D1, and all it would take to create a "unified" spelllist in D&D3E would be to assign one more set of descriptors to the spells: "divine", "arcane", "druidic", etc., and give various classes access to them. Or be slightly subtler, and assign access with the existing descriptors. Or, to restate this in completely subjective terms: the feel of spellcasting in D&D3E is pretty much identical to AD&D1/2, other than sorcerers, while AU feels like a whole new system. [/QUOTE]

Verification