Quote from: Emperor Norton;755344After reading this thread and the beginning of the 4e Ideas that 5e Might Rehabilitate for you thread, I'm starting to think that some old school people just think D&D is a bean counting resource game.

For some it is and that's why Vancian magic was/is one of the most divcisive things about Dnd. Some love that little battle of the wits with the DM minigame some don't.

Quote from: Marleycat;755346For some it is and that's why Vancian magic was/is one of the most divcisive things about Dnd. Some love that little battle of the wits with the DM minigame some don't.

I like Vancian magic because to me that's what D&D feels like.  It's not really about bean counting.  That being said, I'm not super hung up on it either because even back in AD&D1e you could do the same thing as many at-wills do now (see access to wands and scrolls).  But for the medium to high level spells?  Those I prefer to be managed as a resource ala Vancian magic, and not per daily/encounter that 4e does.  If I have the ability to cast two level 6 powerful spells before I need rest/time to rememorize, I should be able to cast both in the same encounter if I want, and not be forced to split between encounters.  After all, in both scenarios they are happening before I need to rememorize the spell/need to rest.

I want the choice of how I manage my resources, I guess is what I'm saying.  Then again, I'm not a fan of "per encounter" anyway, because the way I play, a series of skirmishes and battles may all be part of the single flowing encounter because there's no real chance to rest, or they may not.  It entirely depends on the flow of the game.

I like Vancian as well, I just prefer it beside weak at wills so that all the magic users don't have to fall back to darts and crossbows, which never seemed very thematic to me for a wizard.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;755347I like Vancian magic because to me that's what D&D feels like.  It's not really about bean counting.  That being said, I'm not super hung up on it either because even back in AD&D1e you could do the same thing as many at-wills do now (see access to wands and scrolls).  But for the medium to high level spells?  Those I prefer to be managed as a resource ala Vancian magic, and not per daily/encounter that 4e does.  If I have the ability to cast two level 6 powerful spells before I need rest/time to rememorize, I should be able to cast both in the same encounter if I want, and not be forced to split between encounters.  After all, in both scenarios they are happening before I need to rememorize the spell/need to rest.

I want the choice of how I manage my resources, I guess is what I'm saying.  Then again, I'm not a fan of "per encounter" anyway, because the way I play, a series of skirmishes and battles may all be part of the single flowing encounter because there's no real chance to rest, or they may not.  It entirely depends on the flow of the game.

Well when I first looked at the 5e spell slot chart it immediately reminded me of 4e (pretty much the same number of total slots and 4 dailies). But I didn't factor in magic items (working like 1/2/3e not 4e) and things like possible feats on top of the fact that the system itself is very flexible and fast.

So it ends up that I understand the tight restrictions of 6-9 level spells and even agree with it and I love the attunement thing like earlier said it's very much like Earthdawn and that isn't a bad thing especially when working with a slot system much like Arcana Evolved.

You get to use alot of low level stuff all the time and your mid level stuff quite often and pick you shots with your high level stuff. It keeps the wizard involved but she doesn't trump the fighter and doesn't have to do the crossbow thing. What wizard ever uses a crossbow anyway?

Quote from: Marleycat;755349Well when I first looked at the 5e spell slot chart it immediately reminded me of 4e (pretty much the same number of total slots and 4 dailies). But I didn't factor in magic items (working like 1/2/3e not 4e) and things like possible feats on top of the fact that the system itself is very flexible and fast.

So it ends up that I understand the tight restrictions of 6-9 level spells and even agree with it and I love the attunement thing like earlier said it's very much like Earthdawn and that isn't a bad thing especially when working with a slot system much like Arcana Evolved.

You get to use alot of low level stuff all the time and your mid level stuff quite often and pick you shots with your high level stuff.

One thing I like about 5e is that you can choose a lower level spell and use it in one of your high level slots for a much greater effect.

That's one of the Arcana Evolved influences. It also is one of the reasons a multiclassed F/M or multiclassed Bard is going to be dangerous (lots of spell slots but low level spells means a bunch of powering up what you do have). Or just a Bard single classed is a hand full as it's set up currently.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;755334I love all the derogatory comments towards the idea of playing wizards who actually cast spells regularly.

Especially when they don't even make sense. Seriously, a wand with 50 charges always feels way more pewpew to me than one with a few charges that reset each day.

By the time I use up 50 charges on a wand of fireballs, I'm probably high enough level that a wand of fireballs isn't really as useful anyway (especially since its going to be a min level one).

Honestly, wands were something in earlier editions I DID change to x/day instead of x charges specifically BECAUSE with crafting they broke resources so badly.

I absolutely detest the 'sack of wands' 3X phenomenon. Players churning out buckets of magic items does not really fit my playstyle.

Quote from: Bill;755352I absolutely detest the 'sack of wands' 3X phenomenon. Players churning out buckets of magic items does not really fit my playstyle.

It was done in 1/2e also 3e just made it stupid easy.

Quote from: Marleycat;755353It was done in 1/2e also 3e just made it stupid easy.

True.

Huge difference when the players can make the stuff themselves.

I actually don't mind players crafting stuff in theory; I think it's when you end up with tons of low level spells like candy and Christmas tree magic items it starts to change the flavor of the game for me.

Quote from: Marleycat;755353It was done in 1/2e also 3e just made it stupid easy.

In 1e, you had to be 11th or 12th level before you could scribe scrolls and whatnot.  But once that happened?

"I've spend the past 6 months of our non adventuring time scribing all of these scrolls...."

since there wasn't any cost to them other than time

Quote from: Sacrosanct;755364In 1e, you had to be 11th or 12th level before you could scribe scrolls and whatnot.  But once that happened?

"I've spend the past 6 months of our non adventuring time scribing all of these scrolls...."

since there wasn't any cost to them other than time

Of course, in 1E, a wizard that fails a save vs say, burning hands or hell hound breath has to make item saves of magic fire vs paper for each scroll! bwa ha ha ha!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;755364In 1e, you had to be 11th or 12th level before you could scribe scrolls and whatnot.  But once that happened?

"I've spend the past 6 months of our non adventuring time scribing all of these scrolls...."

since there wasn't any cost to them other than time

Hehe....I know.

But seriously it was a risky business you just didn't do it automatically like some factory drone.

Quote from: Bill;755368Of course, in 1E, a wizard that fails a save vs say, burning hands or hell hound breath has to make item saves of magic fire vs paper for each scroll! bwa ha ha ha!

Yep. Scribing scrolls is easy in B/X. The only limit is money. But there's a limit to how many scrolls you can carry around in any easily accessible fashion, and paper burns reeeeeeal good. And I don't have a problem with PCs brewing potions at mid to high levels. But churning out permanent items like wands is rank cheese.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;755348I like Vancian as well, I just prefer it beside weak at wills so that all the magic users don't have to fall back to darts and crossbows, which never seemed very thematic to me for a wizard.

Crossbow proficiency was a terrible idea. A wizard out of magic should throw daggers and think about spending power more wisely.

A magic user sucking big donkey cock in a lot of combat means that the game is functioning as intended.

The problem is in believing that a wizard needs to be a consistent combat contributor. That is buttfuck stupid and the design leaning ever more in this direction is the reason we have the poor widdle fighter syndrome.

Of course the fighter sucks if you take away the one area where he rules and give it to the damn wizard.

Thus endeth D&D 101 for morons.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755418The problem is in believing that a wizard needs to be a consistent combat contributor.

I guess this is what has to happen when the game comes to be all about combat.

For my money I'll take the wizard as wrangler of mysteries and bender of realities over the sixgun spellshooter or full contact magic wannabe any day of the week.