Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3753884" data-attributes="member: 18280">No, but then again that's not an adequate description of Conan magic, where in many cases recovery doesn't require years of hibernation either.  You are using the specifics of example characters, then extrapolating their problems as weaknesses as being part of the overall usage of magic in the Hyborian age.  However, if you read the Howard stories, you will know that this is simply not so.  Instead, some sorcerers gain additional powers through extraordinary means, which exact prices.  This is actually something that can be modelled fairly easily with the 3.X Vancian magic and feat system, if you just write a few extra feats.  You can do it under earlier editions by making special rulings to represent the "deal with demons" required (and, if you look at the Gygaxian demon lore, one gets the impression that this was part of his campaigns).  Of course, earlier editions included spells that imposed far greater penalties on the caster as well.  Let us, for example, discuss how Haste has changed through the editions......  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" /> Yes.  Yes, I would.  My house rules for magic borrow heavily from Cthulhu d20.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   The UA incantations seem to me to be a step in that direction as well, and I think they're a brilliant addition to the game.You miss the point, and thus your confusion.  I don't appeal to authority to place my preferences "on a higher plane"; I am attempting to create a world that feels as though it could be a fictional world, and thus desire rules that aid me in doing so.By accusing me (and others?) of attempting to "appeal to authority" you are dismissing the actual reasoning behind my (our?) statements.  A system that rewards players for using their characters in such a way as to more closely resemble their classical fictional counterparts is better, IMHO, than one in which they are rewarded for more closely resembling their Hogwarts counterparts, because (and only because) I am interested in a game that emulates classical fiction rather than Harry Potter (or whathaveyou).I know, from long experience, that I can make the game fun.  Hence, my question is no longer "What will make the game fun?"  The question for me is only, what system does this better?It is also a tangential concern of mine that any system that focuses primarily on what you can do during combat (i.e., all your cool class powers are combat powers), is going to, per force, reward players for engaging in more combat.  Older editions (including 3.x, especially if you include 3rd party sources) included many powers whose primary use occurred outside of combat, meaning that an adventure designed to allow everyone to "shine" had to include a wider variety of activities.  I do not want this to disappear because every class is optomized for combat.In my home campaign, I run a sandbox, which means that each player is allowed to seek out whatever it is that he or she optomized his or her character for.  If every character is combat-oriented, then, as the players realize this, the depth of game play would shrink to the size of a battlefield.Of course, I know that we don't know enough about 4e yet to know whether or not such speculation is even close to the mark.  What I also know, however, is that the 4e design staff reads these boards, and that by airing my concerns before 4e is launched I stand the best chance of seeing those concerned addressed within the released system itself.Hence, my posting on this topic.RC</blockquote>

Verification