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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9092443" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The point is that the strictly old-school way of doing things, where you only get a tiny quantity of spells, no reliable fallback options, and high risk of simply wasting the few things you do get, discourages any use of the quirky and quixotic spells of the past. The only thing that pushes in that direction is the fact that you have no choice--if you get stuck with weird quirky spells, you have to hope and pray you can find some way to make them useful.Conversely, when you have solid at-wills and reliable always-on options (like the substitution stuff from the Heritage feats), suddenly all those weird and quirky spells cease to be an "oh no...hope I can figure out a way to make bubble bath do...literally anything...." and instead become, "Hey, I've got some spell slots I don't need. Bubble bath sounds fun."4e doesn't do slot-based stuff anyway, so it's working on a different paradigm to begin with; I was simply saying that at-wills (which, IMO lamentably,( got restricted to casters only) and 5e cantrips clearly derive from a source you have said is good...and all three are clearly in defiance of the old-school hyper-limited model.*Not really sure why you think it's a bad thing that non-casters got at-wills. They represent solid fallbacks. That's the whole point. They provide a floor. Powers can thus always be designed with that floor in mind--they should always be better than at-wills. This is, of course, not always perfectly uniform--Ranger's twin strike being the prime outlier--but as a general rule it holds true pretty well.</blockquote>

Verification