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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5883864" data-attributes="member: 22779">Last time I played 3e, no one in the group had any interest in standard casters.  I saw lots of things like Favoured Souls and warlocks and whatnot, but, (again, other than me, the horrid munchkin powergamer that I am) no one wanted straight up casters.When I asked, the answer was, "We don't want to piss about trying to figure out what to memorize".  Sorcerer style casters, where you pick your spells at level up, was fine.  But, having a list as long as your leg of spells to choose from, just wasn't fun for them.I think Vancian casting  works best in earlier editions where your spell list was maybe a few dozen spells.  Makes it a lot more accessible.But, it's funny people bring up the idea of versatility.  That's largely the problem.  It's also a much larger problem in organized play.  I've always maintained that 4e is the RPGA edition.  I'd append that to say it's the organized play edition.  It's the first edition to do organized play out of the box with few, if any, modifications.  Which, IMO, is one of the big issues that people have with it with their home games.  Overpowered versatility can be a social contract issue and can be solved fairly easily (usually) by reasonable players and DM's.  At an organized play event though, you have no social contract and thus these issues become very exacerbated.Sure, it's great to have these funky spells in your home game.  It isn't that hard for a moderately competent DM to keep them in check.  Although, some of the more egregious spells really should be rewritten.  But, I think the main problem is in trying to make the rules so fixed that you don't need a social contract agreement.That works great in organized play or when playing with new strangers, but is WAYYYY too restrictive in a home game.</blockquote>

Verification