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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 3759638" data-attributes="member: 10397">Sigh. The magic of a novel isnt usually going to map exactly to game mechanics, no. But you seem to have diverged off into things other than what I was talking about with that anyway. You also seem to have trouble seperating conceptual from mechanical.  You said, or I thought you said, that I was basically expecting to much of a game system to depict the nature of magic in novels etc because magic in literature is always too vague. I was giving you examples of how in many novels, the way magic works is anything but vague.   In most fiction, if a mage knows how to perform a given "magical action" can do so whenever he wants, up to whatever limits are placed on using a lot of magic, wether it be physical fatigue or just a depletion of "magical energy" or whatever.  In the D&D Vancian system, however, even if a mage knows a given spell, he can only cast it as many times as he has it prepared. If I am an 18th level wizard and prepare only one Fireball spell, I can only cast Fireball once, even though once I cast the Fireball I still have a great many other powerful effects at my command.  These are the sorts of differences and the type of thing I am talking about.   Slightly, but not really. Much more organic and flexible than Wish. Examples of specific things people did in the books include changing into animals, levitation, transformation/transmutation of various types, short range translocation, projecting energy, basically all the usual stuff.    See, I was never talking about it as a specific game element. I was talking about it as an example of details given to the reader and known to those in the story about the way magic works, thus contributing to it not being "vague"   There are other reasons for which I probably would have very mixed feelings about playing pure 4e or any pure version of D&D, mostly the contiued existence of the Cleric and overemphasis on "divine" stuff. My point is that I doubt that everything your saying is going to be true, and I dont see how you can come to that conclusion either based on what little we know. Even if what your saying about "per encounter" ends up being so, it does not mean as you seem to think, that the same philosophy will be applied to everything, or that there wont be factors to keep the style of play you prefer fully viable.</blockquote>

Verification