Quote from: mcbobbo;754214Isn't this the game that hasn't yet been released?  Can anyone speak with authority about it based on just a playtest?

I think it's pretty safe to assume that the playtest is a pretty strong representation of how the game will be played.  Especially since when they announced the ending of the playtest, they said the only thing they were doing was the boring minor tweaks, and didn't need people to playtest that part.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754201This whole argument is just the falling damage argument all over again.

Because the rules say I can fall infinitely and never take more than 10d6 damage, if I have over 60 HP I can't die from falling, so I might as well jump off this cliff!

Sorry, that kind of bullshit only works when the DM is an automaton playing out the rules rather than actually being a working force in his campaign.

Like others said about Spelljammer, the more important point is what such a world would actually be like.

The point isn't that it can't be fixed.  It's that the default setting assumes that it does not need fixing, when with even a small amount of imagination it clearly does.

You can picture the difference between a world where water is valuable and rare vs one where any acolyte with average Wisdom can summon it from thin air, right?  Isn't that different?

Doesn't matter, dude! It's balanced in combat between the classes!

Quote from: Bobloblah;754203I get that, and it's a laudable goal. At will cantrips seem to be at odds with that.

I said this before slot them like 3e/PF but understand that you would have to up the 1-9 slots more than a little. Or remove damage cantrips. Do whatever it takes to achieve your preferred style of Dnd.

Quote from: Marleycat;754219I said this before slot them like 3e/PF but understand that you would have to up the 1-9 slots more than a little. Or remove damage cantrips. Do whatever it takes to achieve your preferred style of Dnd.

Just houserule it is a fairly useless response to most criticism. Otherwise, as CRKrueger pointed out, every game would be just fine, because you can always houserule it. I know I can houserule it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754208Tell that to Exploderwizard.  Hell, tell that to yourself.  Or are you on a hypocrisy roll today or something?  If it has nothing to do with math, then why are you arguing about the math?

Umm, just so you know, main point of contention pretty much guarantees other points of contention.  English, ya know?  The game mechanics contention was that it assumes fundamental MMOGisms in that Wizards are assumed to do damage without spells in the same range as other classes can do without special abilities.  In other words, repeating, to a certain extent, the mistakes of 3e and 4e.  The math, if you remember was started by you.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754208You're right, I don't care.  And that seems to be a point you can't grasp.  How you "feel" about it doesn't mean shit to anyone but you.  It certainly isn't a reason to say at will is a bad thing, or shouldn't be included.  That argument has even less credibility when you're applying your "logic" inconsistently between editions.

...and your opinion means nothing to anyone but you, you do realize that, right?  Because you like it doesn't mean it's a good decision or should have been included.  It means less than shit.

What you're incapable of grasping I guess is that people on the intarwebz sometimes post stuff you don't agree with.

I assume the little rimshot with "logic" there means you're contending that at-will spells for mages don't make fundamental changes to the baseline assumptions of the game world?  Try to keep in mind that whether you like it or not doesn't change the facts.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754208You don't like how it feels?  Good for you.  I got it the first time.  However, I have I hard time taking you seriously about the feel of the game when obviously you haven't even played it.

That makes you a pure theorycrafter.

and of course you know when I playtested, what versions I playtested and what classes I played, whether or not I ran anything, right?  Because if I did, then I would obviously think just like you.

Think you could maybe avoid one cliché in this thread?

Quote from: CRKrueger;754221and of course you know when I playtested, what versions I playtested and what classes I played, whether or not I ran anything, right?  Because if I did, then I would obviously think just like you.

No, but if you did, then at least you'd know what the fuck you were talking about, instead of repeating blatantly false information.  It's not about thinking like me, it's about not spouting things that are blatantly false and easily disproven.  I don't give a shit if you agree with me.  But I do give a shit if you're just making up bullshit that isn't true.  Earlier you accused me of a strawman and asked me if I knew what one was?  Well, what you just said is a perfect example of one.

Once again, here's you not having a fucking clue as to what you're talking about.  Not about how the game actually plays, and not about how basic math works.

You must be proud.

Quote from: mcbobbo;754217Like others said about Spelljammer, the more important point is what such a world would actually be like.

The point isn't that it can't be fixed.  It's that the default setting assumes that it does not need fixing, when with even a small amount of imagination it clearly does.

You can picture the difference between a world where water is valuable and rare vs one where any acolyte with average Wisdom can summon it from thin air, right?  Isn't that different?

So because there are no explicit rules for magical fatigue it doesn't exist? So there is also no fatigue from manual labor for hours and hours and hours on end? It must not exist because it isn't in the rules.

The rules are an approximation. Taking them to their literal extreme is always going to break something, and pretending that rulings don't exist is a good way to break every game in existence.

There is a reason a game has a GM. That reason is to make the calls when people either want to do things the rules don't cover, or when people are taking the rules to their absurd extremes.

I'm absolutely flabbergasted at this having to be spelled out on this board. Whatever the fuck happened to rulings not rules? I thought this was this place was the posterchild for that kind of thinking.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754181Stop being such a hypocrite.  You're lambasting the existence of at-will spells based only on reasoning that you're perfectly willing to accept with your own preferred edition of D&D.

Ah, here you are again, pretending that a demon having at-will darkness or even a paladin having at-will Detect Evil is the same thing as a mage having a whole list of at-will cantrips, some of which are meant to be baseline damage output.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754181I'm pretty safe in saying that I'm sure you don't play your preferred edition exactly RAW with no houseruling or omission of rules.  And your hyperbolic analogies don't help your case.  In most campaign settings of D&D I have ever played in, spells are pretty much part of the core game.  Borg are not.  

I houserule every game, I've never played RAW in my life.  That doesn't make the Rule Zero Fallacy valid.

You keep skipping around it, almost afraid to address it head on, so let's try one more time...

Do you disagree that Mages having at-will cantrips alters the fundamental baseline assumptions about how magic works in D&D settings?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754224No, but if you did, then at least you'd know what the fuck you were talking about, instead of repeating blatantly false information.

Ok tough guy, what false information?  What fact did I say about 5e that is wrong?

Please don't do the "it's so obvious I can't tell you".  Have a fucking spine.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754228So because there are no explicit rules for magical fatigue it doesn't exist?

There are actually very explicit rules for magical fatigue in most versions of the game. It's called Spells/Day.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754230Ah, here you are again, pretending that a demon having at-will darkness or even a paladin having at-will Detect Evil is the same thing as a mage having a whole list of at-will cantrips, some of which are meant to be baseline damage output.

That statement wasn't referring only to at will demons, otherwise I would have specified it in that statement.  It was more directed towards your view of at will magic in 5e and your distaste for the ways to mitigate it, when you don't have problems mitigating other rules in other games you play.

QuoteI houserule every game, I've never played RAW in my life.  That doesn't make the Rule Zero Fallacy valid.

You keep skipping around it, almost afraid to address it head on, so let's try one more time...

Do you disagree that Mages having at-will cantrips alters the fundamental baseline assumptions about how magic works in D&D settings?

In 5e, mages having at will cantrips does not alter the fundamental baseline assumption about how magic works in D&D settings (for one, what setting?  What edition?  AD&D isn't the only version of D&D out there).  

I thought it might at first when I first heard about it (because I'm generally against at will), but after playing it for a long time, it was never an issue, nor did it alter the "AD&D" feel of the game that I prefer.  Not one bit.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754232There are actually very explicit rules for magical fatigue in most versions of the game. It's called Spells/Day.

That's not fatigue.  That's intelligence based memorization which is clearly called out in 1e at least. Different animals.  One person of high intelligence might be able to memorize 15 Japanese words off a list, while a person of lower intelligence might only be able to memorize 5.  Neither is getting tired after reciting what they know.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754228I'm absolutely flabbergasted at this having to be spelled out on this board. Whatever the fuck happened to rulings not rules? I thought this was this place was the posterchild for that kind of thinking.

You wouldn't be flabbergasted if you actually read what people wrote instead of assuming what faction they belong to, otherwise you might not have jumped in the thread doing the old "antigrog", not realizing that your preferred whipping boys aren't here.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754228So because there are no explicit rules for magical fatigue it doesn't exist?  So there is also no fatigue from manual labor for hours and hours and hours on end? It must not exist because it isn't in the rules.

We're not communicating very well, because I never said that it had to be reflected in the RULES.  I am explicitly calling it out as not being reflected in the SETTING.

Rules are not setting, but they should make sense together.  Hopefully that's clearer.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754228The rules are an approximation. Taking them to their literal extreme is always going to break something, and pretending that rulings don't exist is a good way to break every game in existence.

You're right, lets stop short of the extreme.  Why aren't wizards the primary source of ice in D&D?  That's not a game-is-broken extreme is it?  Why does D&D assume there's no such thing as refrigeration,  like it was on medieval Earth?  Help me here.  Do you really find this question to be mind bendingly extreme?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754228There is a reason a game has a GM. That reason is to make the calls when people either want to do things the rules don't cover, or when people are taking the rules to their absurd extremes.

Again, the setting as a whole, not your individual table.  Sorry that wasn't clear before.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754228I'm absolutely flabbergasted at this having to be spelled out on this board. Whatever the fuck happened to rulings not rules? I thought this was this place was the posterchild for that kind of thinking.

Since when was this place an echo chamber where we all agree on everything?  I think we're more the outcasts who don't fit in where we're not allowed to speak our minds, myself.