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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 5882479" data-attributes="member: 59057">The split is metagamey: why can´t I do a ritual that makes something explode? Why can´t I do a spell that opens a door in some seconds if well prepared. Of course, a fireball cast as a ritual is not as useful. Beeing able to open a door as a prepared spell is also often not needed. So why is there a split between rituals and attack spells?You could as well have a universal mechanic that allows spells to be cast as rituals...usually not. You do it between sessions. Building a character is often making choices between sessions. And you are stuck with them if they fit the actual session or not.If the wizard knows 10 at-wills, but can prepare only two, you still have only two choices. And if you knew what you would face, you could prepare 2 good choices. Often the wizard paralyzes, not because he has too many choices, but all choices he has are equally bad. If my wizard knows he is facing lots of fire resistant creatures, his scorching burst is as bad as a single target spell. The necromancer who has a spell that is very well vs undead but only mediocre vs living targets and only an area spell, he needs to decide, which bad option he uses... those are the cases where the game needs unnecessarily long to resolve. If there is a clearuseful spell, you use it.In ADnD or 3e i never had to think about much which spell is used. Usually only IF using a spell is really needed.</blockquote>

Verification