Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WayneLigon" data-source="post: 2367973" data-attributes="member: 3649">My reasonings for the below.</blockquote>I don't remember. I do know that beforehand, creating a new spell was a very, very timeconsuming expeience and also extremely expensive. ie, a way to soak up so much time and cash so that very few players would ever bother with it so the status quo could remain intact. The SRD just says 'it's possible' but as far as I know that's all up to the GM. I can't remember ever seeing any rules on it, but then it's never something I've had to deal with.   You could use the 'Energy Substitution' feat from Tome and Blood to do that. Otherwise, probably space considerations since they'd all work just about the same.   Because that would be stupid. And because first level spells are suppossed to be very weak.    Because it's easier to have them listed together. They used to be duplicated on either side of the arcane/divine barrier and some actually had some different effects. I'd assume in the game world, because some spells are going to be more commonly duplicated than others. Wizards would see a cleric casting Hold Person and think 'I gotta get me some of that', and so researched it.   Some things are easier for the gods to do, some harder. Usually the easier ones are the ones that fit the cleric mode of 'protect, defend, or buff'; that fits the cleric role better, so they are lower level. Like how Illusionists used to get illusion spells at lower levels than general mages, or how now you can cast a spell from your specialty. Those spells fall withint the broader arcane/divine specializations.   I have no idea.   Because it's just simpler to do it that way. Re-doing the D&D magic system to something that makes even basic logical sense instead of a cobbled-together mass of 'spells useful only to people who go out and kill things for a living' would be such a massive undertaking that would then have to be rebalanced with all the other aspects that would have to be changed or reconsidered so that someone couldn't come up with an unbeatable  'nuclear weapon' combination that it's just not worth it. I don't have the time or the design sense to come up with something like that. If I wanted such a thing badly enough, I'd just play another system. OTOH, 'basic logical sense' to me would also mean that there would be a lot - I mean, a lot - of spells that no-one would ever use 'in game'. Things like 'bless crops' or 'midwife' or 'mass continental climate control' would, in any sort of realistic approach to a fantasy world, far outweigh things like 'Spider Climb' and 'enlarge'. You don't need things like that for the basic, cnematic, high-action sword-and-sorcery type adventures that are the meat and potatoes of D&D. The fact that the spell lists as they are serve that basic premise is pretty much all the answer you need.[/QUOTE]

Verification