So, the section of the DMG you are quoting sounds like Gygax is making a in universe explanation for how magic works, which is fine.

Whereas when the rule book describes something as At Will, I would imagine it is using a defined game term that means a certain thing.

This is extremely common in rulebooks for wargames. Terms are defined by their mechanics and how they affect the game, while the in universe explanations can be completely different.

Hell most writing does that. "When I say X in Y context, I'm referring to Z."

I'm happy to give WotC benefit of the doubt that when they defined what an At-Will ability was in D&D, they meant something that is wholly divorced from the way it works in game. Where this wasn't really done as much in the older editions of the game (if at all.)

Anyone who wanted to define At-will in the game as a means to exploit the system is just being willfully obtuse in my opinion. I wouldn't let someone like that game with me.

As for the explanation quoted from the DMG, I'm sure that could be expanded upon for Cantrips, i.e. that they are trivially easy for the mage to cast and require little to no preparation or concentration.

Quote from: S'mon;754341If arrows are being tracked, I reckon cantrip expenditure ought to be tracked too, at the same sort of scale; maybe around your total INT in castings per encounter, recoverable with a short rest of 5-10 minutes, the same amount of time it would take the archer to gather up his arrows and straighten any dented heads (real arrows rarely got damaged to the extent of being unuseable; picking up enemy arrows and firing them back was routine).

That shouldn't impact game balance, but with ca 18 castings per 5-10 minutes, no using attack cantrips to drill through rocks. Conversely if a battle runs for more than 18 rounds you're generally in a lot of trouble anyway.

This is an excellent rule, and in fact you could apply it to fatigue in general.  E.g.

'Any action that is fueled by an ability can be safely done a number of times equal to that ability in a short amount of time without risking strain.'

So it could cover cantrips, Bluff checks, and sword swings.

It's also all of maybe fifty words in one of two 300+ page books.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;754374Haven't been following it enough to know, just waiting to see it when it comes out and make my judgement then.

In terms of resource management, I do think it is a feature of the game that is important. But the whole game doesn't have to revolve around it and giving Wizards a few 0 level cantrips they can keep casting isn't going to wreck resource management at the higher end (I am not terribly into the whole "pew pew" wizard thing, it just isn't this huge thing that destroys the game for me). So as long as your still managing resources for things like fireball, then it should be fine.

Honestly the biggest concern I have about spell casting after 4E is that it goes back to back to the feel it use to have in the previous editions (including 3E) and includes a lot of the fun non-combat stuff. Was never a big fan of rituals in 4E, so hope those are gone as well.

1a: Yeah. I like the aspect of keeping track of my expendables like darts. But as a DM I do not force it on players as I am aware to some it is not an aspect they want. So far those have been rare.
1b: I dont think the at wills are disruptive in context of the other increases. But it still feels just a little overtorqued for free. Yeah, you've only got three of them. Personally Read Magic is more a priority cantrip.

2: Ritual spells seems vastly limited now. I only noted a handfull that were castable as rituals.

X: One observation. Some of the cantrips have material components needed to cast. Message for example needs a small length of copper wire and Minor Illusion needs a bit of fleece. Perhaps they all will have components needed.

Or you could say the shocking grasp etc needs something as well. A length of silver wire each cast for example.

Though honestly I'd prefer components relegated to optional or generic component bag costs XYZ coin and holds ABC uses if it came to that.

Quote from: S'mon;754379While I would agree that 4e doesn't feel like D&D - it does feel like 'four color fantasy heroes', which is fine by me - the Pathfinder casters get some weak at-will attack spells, and that doesn't detract from the D&D feel. As you indicate, though, this is because they do not have equal utility in combat; they are significantly weaker than a fighter's attacks. The PF wizards do get a large number of magic-missile type attacks at 1st level that compare to fighter attacks (actually a bit weaker IME) - but these are limited to around 7/day.

Well 5e has this many slots at 20th level no bonus slots ever...4/4/3/2/2/1/1/1/1 to be used with 21 prepared spells and 1 time a day you can recover 10 spell levels not slots only usable on spells 5th or lower. That's a pittance compared to 2/3e, PF and even FantasyCraft. It's a reason why cantrips are unlimited because the resource management is happening big time with the 1-9 spells. Sorcerers and Warlocks have different resource management schemes.

Quote from: Warthur;754183Except this only implies what you suggest it implies about the setting if you assume that the rules directly map to the physics of the setting, rather than being a loose approximation of them.

yeah, but the closer the approximation, the better.  The larger the divergence, the worse the modeling is.

"Many Shubs and Zulls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you."

You tell 'em, Vinz Clortho.  If they have hats, they'll be eating them once the DMG arrives on the scene. Of that we can all be sure.

Quote from: Marleycat;754155It's going to be funny when you see your concerns answered in the DMG.

I guess we'll have to see how things look post-playtest, or at least the playtest material was the last I've seen of the spells.  So I can't say how I feel about the spells themselves yet, but I can tell you that FR is too "high magic" for me in general, and I get the impression that will be the 5e baseline.

Easy enough to dial backup/up the setting, but some baseline assumptions are hard to weed out of the material with simple house rules.

Quote from: RPGPundit;754008What do you think about the power level of spells in the new D&D? Too powerful? Not powerful enough? Just right?

S

Quote from: Natty Bodak;754546I guess we'll have to see how things look post-playtest, or at least the playtest material was the last I've seen of the spells.  So I can't say how I feel about the spells themselves yet, but I can tell you that FR is too "high magic" for me in general, and I get the impression that will be the 5e baseline.

Easy enough to dial backup/up the setting, but some baseline assumptions are hard to weed out of the material with simple house rules.

Fair enough.

Anyone here remember Classic Traveller?  Where you could only throw a number of full strength melee attacks equal to your Endurance during a combat.  If I was going to limit at-will spells, then I'd limit normal attacks similarly.  After all, if infinite spells are a problem then infinite normal attacks are even worse, since anyone can do it.

I'm not a huge fan of 5e, but even way back when I started playing D&D (30+ years ago), nearly every group I played with got rid of full Vancian magic and came up with a way for spellcasters to actually spellcast instead of throw darts or daggers all session.  A few at-will spells seems to make "official" what was a very common house-rule among gamers.

So we have a 21 page thread debating rules to a game that isn't published yet?

As for the At-Will spells in 4e, I have not found them to be a big issue in actual play. In 4e, its pretty cool to have Wizards use spells in Skill Challenges in interesting ways, such as smashing through locks with barrages of Magic Missles or hacking a trail through thick undergrowth with a churning Wall of Daggers.

Pathfinder has their 4 + Int bonus Spell-Like Attack for the various Schools of Magic and if you play a Wizard, you notice that you rarely have enough turns in combats to burn through all your "freebie spells", especially once you hit 3rd level where you have enough cash to buy wands, make scrolls, etc where you almost always can use spells better than your freebies.

I can't take it TWO sane posts and in  a row? Even though the 4e examples are pure snark and stupid. Like any magic user would ever use magic like a landscaper get real. The world is ending where's Jesus?

Quote from: Natty Bodak;754546I guess we'll have to see how things look post-playtest, or at least the playtest material was the last I've seen of the spells.  So I can't say how I feel about the spells themselves yet, but I can tell you that FR is too "high magic" for me in general, and I get the impression that will be the 5e baseline.

A quote you may be interested in from Wolfgang Baur, one of the two authors of Tyranny of Dragons.

'Related to that, the power curve for magic is changing as well. I'm used to thinking of the Forgotten Realms as a very high-magic, high fantasy sort of place, but the new edition of the rules dials things back a bit from the 3rd edition and Pathfinder tradition of "PC Christmas trees", or the characters with a magic item to fill every slot.'

Full interview here, warning it contains some mild spoilers for the adventure.

Quote from: jadrax;754602A quote you may be interested in from Wolfgang Baur, one of the two authors of Tyranny of Dragons.

'Related to that, the power curve for magic is changing as well. I'm used to thinking of the Forgotten Realms as a very high-magic, high fantasy sort of place, but the new edition of the rules dials things back a bit from the 3rd edition and Pathfinder tradition of "PC Christmas trees", or the characters with a magic item to fill every slot.'

Full interview here, warning it contains some mild spoilers for the adventure.

I hope they achieved that, I hated the way magic items ended up in 3rd edition onwards. Felt way too much like Diablo or WoW and not at all like a tabletop game.

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;754607I hope they achieved that, I hated the way magic items ended up in 3rd edition onwards. Felt way too much like Diablo or WoW and not at all like a tabletop game.

Everything in the L&L articles so far has indicated that the inclusion of any magic items at all will be an optional component and that such items were not assumed and baked into the math of the system.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754252Interesting, I'd like to hear why it's your favorite by far, if you can put it into words.

Wolfgang Baur and Steve Winter, from Kobold Press, I think put it best just recently.  These are experienced well-liked adventure authors for Pathfinder (and also 13th Age), who were recruited to write the first two official 5e adventures by WOTC:

Quoteio9: To the extent that it's possible to describe an entire RPG rule set in a few sentences, how would you describe this new edition of D&D?

Steve: I'd call it streamlined, at least compared to the previous two editions. Every new edition of the game veers toward expanding the rules, formalizing and codifying more and more of the experience. But an enormous part of the magic of D&D is that it's wide open. That's what makes it different from any other type of game. Every time you narrow that window, you lose something. The new edition of D&D seems to be veering in the opposite direction, toward more open-endedness and greater freedom for DMs and players.

I think that RPG designers have learned some critical lessons during the last two decades of ever-increasing structure. It's not that structure is bad, because it isn't, but there are ways to have structure and still have flexibility. The D&D designers seem to have put a lot of effort into building with flexible material rather than just setting everything in stone.

Wolfgang: I agree entirely that the looser structure makes it easy for the new edition to accommodate some playstyles that we haven't seen as often recently, focused on player smarts rather than character power. Related to that, the power curve for magic is changing as well. I'm used to thinking of the Forgotten Realms as a very high-magic, high fantasy sort of place, but the new edition of the rules dials things back a bit from the 3rd edition and Pathfinder tradition of "PC Christmas trees", or the characters with a magic item to fill every slot.

Magic is more wondrous and more difficult to find in the new edition—but I think that makes players value it a little more than the days of "oh, a +1 sword, toss it on the pile." The emphasis is squarely on what characters can do, not what their items do.

io9: Did the new rules open up some adventure writing possibilities that Pathfinder or 4th edition made difficult?

Steve: Absolutely. Because you're not overwhelmed by the minutiae of the rules, you can put your energy into devising a complex, fascinating plot and villains whose appeal comes from their motivation (or their psychosis) instead from a menu of intricate combat abilities. We didn't choreograph any of the major combat encounters of Tyranny of Dragons the way they would have been in 3rd or 4th edition.

Instead, we just laid out the situation, described what the villain hoped to accomplish, probably included some variables or conditions under which he'd run away, and then left it in the DM's hands to conduct that battle as he or she thinks best. DMs are smart, and they know their players better than we ever could.

Wolfgang: I enjoyed having the extra wordcount that we got back by removing the need for 500-word stat blocks every few pages. Tyranny of Dragons has a lot more encounters per chapter, because the emphasis is on the adventure flow, not on presenting stats.