Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5942227" data-attributes="member: 2067">When I clicked on the thread, I thought it was going to be about treating spells as treasure, which is an interesting idea with some deep history in D&amp;D.Turns out it's mostly about horizontal vs. vertical advancement.To which I'd say: sure. Your idea about adding effects to spells is a fine way to limit vertical advancement (it's metamagic feats without adding spell levels!). It's not D&amp;D, and it doesn't interest me personally that much, so it's not The Solution, but it's a broadly functional concept.I think the premise you start from might be a little flawed, though. Spellcasters didn't &quot;become a problem&quot; for some in 3e because they had vertically powerful spells (usually, they weren't THAT vertically powerful), but because they had (a) spells that could replace other party members, (b) spells that would functionally never run out (even if they theoretically could), and (c) spells that do things that no other party member is capable of doing.You don't need to limit vertical advancement to limit spellcaster power. You need to <a href="http://daedaluswing.wikidot.com/how-to-balance-vancian-casting" target="_blank">strictly limit and account for what a given spell can do, and account for longer-term resource use</a>. Which is a bit of a more complex problem.Also: personally disappointed about the lack of eating babies in this thread. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5942227, member: 2067"] When I clicked on the thread, I thought it was going to be about treating spells as treasure, which is an interesting idea with some deep history in D&D. Turns out it's mostly about horizontal vs. vertical advancement. To which I'd say: sure. Your idea about adding effects to spells is a fine way to limit vertical advancement (it's metamagic feats without adding spell levels!). It's not [I]D&D[/I], and it doesn't interest me personally that much, so it's not The Solution, but it's a broadly functional concept. I think the premise you start from might be a little flawed, though. Spellcasters didn't "become a problem" for some in 3e because they had vertically powerful spells (usually, they weren't THAT vertically powerful), but because they had (a) spells that could replace other party members, (b) spells that would functionally never run out (even if they theoretically could), and (c) spells that do things that no other party member is capable of doing. You don't need to limit vertical advancement to limit spellcaster power. You need to [URL="http://daedaluswing.wikidot.com/how-to-balance-vancian-casting"]strictly limit and account for what a given spell can do, and account for longer-term resource use[/URL]. Which is a bit of a more complex problem. Also: personally disappointed about the lack of eating babies in this thread. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification