Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5589651" data-attributes="member: 19675">I stand by my assertion.  The fundamental resource management of the Vancian spell system is virtually unchanged from the release of AD&D to the end of 3.5's publication run.  The only major change to that would be the Reserve Feats (something I wished 4Ed would have retained and expanded, FWIW).I've been in a campaign that has been active since about 1986, with the PCs being translated from 1Ed to 2Ed to 3Ed to 3.5.: while certain details have changed over time, the way the caster players assess whether they should or should not cast spells- their economy of spell-casting, if you will- is virtually unchanged.Sorry- I was really unclear.  What I meant was that this playstyle isn't unfun for everyone,  therefore, not "necessarily crossing with fun".  The evidence of which is that I (and others) have been playing our spellcasters that way for decades.  If we were not having fun, we would change our playstyle.  We would go nova more often.  Or something.  But we don't.Even a MC mage in D&D probably wouldn't start off fighting a Balrog with his sword, though.  There is probably something about J.R.R.T.'s Balrog that means throwing spells at it would have been a bad idea.  Perhaps he didn't have the right spells prepared...  Or perhaps he was husbanding his magic for something else, like ensuring he survived the encounter (as opposed to killing/banishing/ the Balrog).Most of those I've seen are a lot like 3Ed Sorcerers.  They have a small repertoire of spells that they use all the time.Which takes us back to Gandalf & the Balrog.  There is no real mention of him using magic to attack it.  Not his personal "spells" at least.Lythande and others from Thieves' World tend not to use magic first.That was my point, along with the assertion that- in D&D, at least- I think it should remain a DM's fix, not a systemic one.Again, see that thread I linked to: many don't agree because they've seen the same 15MWD in 4Ed they saw in 3.X.I was thinking of the transition from 3Ed to 4Ed.There are an infinite amount of numbers between the integers 1 and 2.  There is a bigger infinity found between the integers of 1 and 1,000,000 (since it includes integers excluded by the earlier set).By definition, the latter infinite set is bigger.While 4Ed has a huge amount of flexibility, it doesn't have the same breadth as 3Ed, since some of the elements that contributed to 3Ed's flexibility were excised by 4Ed in an effort to improve game balance and "remove traps" from PC design (and so forth).</blockquote>

Verification