Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What's your opinion on the standardization of Spellcasters?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Benjamin Olson" data-source="post: 8795133" data-attributes="member: 6988941"><p>You prepare the niche spells on the days when you have a particular scheme in mind for them. I don't see much difference.</p><p></p><p>And I'm not opining on what made sense in a pre-5e system or the relative merits of 5e by comparison. OneD&D so far is keeping the same lower number of slots, and just weirdly fixing the spells prepared to it for no particular reason. I don't see how that repairs anything. Now if a prepared caster decides they need a paricular obscure level 3 spell for a paricular scheme, say Feign Death, that is one of their 3 level 3 spells for the day (exclusive of special class or subclass bonus options), and level 3 is brimming with amazing spells. This is much more restrictive on using an obscure spell than 5e where a prepared caster could boot a prepared spell of any level. 5e is still more restrictive than prior editions where there were more slots, but this doesn't fix that (to the extent it's a problem) except to the extent that if your list had a real dud level of spells you'd be obligated to prepare 1-3 of them anyway.</p><p></p><p>Of course it's hard to gauge because so far we've only seen it in the context of memorized casters who are being turned into prepared casters, which makes them much less restricted under this scheme on the whole. In overall power level this is an upgrade, even if an unnecessarily complex limitation.</p><p></p><p>Upon further reflection I also have to ask WotC what ludonarrative they are actually telling with the weird retro-vancian rework of neo-vancian casting. The spell slot and preparation system has always been a metagame conceit, but having spells prepared proportionate to spell slots but not actually tied to them seems like a whole additional level of gamey abstraction, telling no game narrative, but rather just preferring a slightly simpler progression grid over actual balance or actual meaningful simplicity or accessibility.</p><p></p><p>Playtest what a good, balanced number of spells for each class to have prepared at each character level is, and give them that number in a column on the character progression chart. That's all they've got to do.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Benjamin Olson, post: 8795133, member: 6988941"] You prepare the niche spells on the days when you have a particular scheme in mind for them. I don't see much difference. And I'm not opining on what made sense in a pre-5e system or the relative merits of 5e by comparison. OneD&D so far is keeping the same lower number of slots, and just weirdly fixing the spells prepared to it for no particular reason. I don't see how that repairs anything. Now if a prepared caster decides they need a paricular obscure level 3 spell for a paricular scheme, say Feign Death, that is one of their 3 level 3 spells for the day (exclusive of special class or subclass bonus options), and level 3 is brimming with amazing spells. This is much more restrictive on using an obscure spell than 5e where a prepared caster could boot a prepared spell of any level. 5e is still more restrictive than prior editions where there were more slots, but this doesn't fix that (to the extent it's a problem) except to the extent that if your list had a real dud level of spells you'd be obligated to prepare 1-3 of them anyway. Of course it's hard to gauge because so far we've only seen it in the context of memorized casters who are being turned into prepared casters, which makes them much less restricted under this scheme on the whole. In overall power level this is an upgrade, even if an unnecessarily complex limitation. Upon further reflection I also have to ask WotC what ludonarrative they are actually telling with the weird retro-vancian rework of neo-vancian casting. The spell slot and preparation system has always been a metagame conceit, but having spells prepared proportionate to spell slots but not actually tied to them seems like a whole additional level of gamey abstraction, telling no game narrative, but rather just preferring a slightly simpler progression grid over actual balance or actual meaningful simplicity or accessibility. Playtest what a good, balanced number of spells for each class to have prepared at each character level is, and give them that number in a column on the character progression chart. That's all they've got to do. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What's your opinion on the standardization of Spellcasters?
Top