Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9487436" data-attributes="member: 7006">Whether it was coherent or not I would suppose would be determined on the kind of "system" a person was expecting or looking for.  So I'm sure everyone has their own determinations, based upon what they feel is important in these things.  So I wouldn't disagree with your feelings on the matter at all.For instance, I would say that for myself that the "magical power sources" were more coherent back in AD&D when there was only really two classes that had power sources really defined-- the Cleric and the Magic-User-- both of whom had a very clear demarcation between the spells that appeared in one list versus the other.  And the other classes that had spells it was never really worried about what their "source" was per se.  So the coherency was clear... but it also didn't really matter.Whereas an edition like 4E was very much about the power sources and why some classes fell into the ones they did, plus there being narrative definitions regarding what was what.  I still disagreed with their choices-- I will always believe that Clerics and Warlocks being different power sources makes no sense-- but at least they made their choices clear.  But now in 5E they've gone back to not being all that concerned, just treating magic as magic, and less about power sources at all.  Which of course is part of the reason why I found the initial OneD&D playtest when they tried to introduce the three power source spell lists to be a "Really?  Why are we bothering with this now?" situation.  But I also know that some other people actually liked having those lists, so everyone's feelings on this are different.</blockquote>

Verification