TheRPGSite

What do you think about the power level of spells in the new D&D? Too powerful? Not powerful enough? Just right?

I'm not a fan of completely at-will, zero cost magic (with regard to D&D) just so spell casters always have something to PEW PEW with.

I'm OK with it.  The at-will stuff loses a lot of its luster at higher levels, as actual spells are preferred.

All it really does, IME, is get rid of the "I stand in the back and throw darts" scenario that was common in AD&D

*Edit*  I'll give an example.  The most common "combat" spell I've seen used that is at will is shocking grasp.  It does 1d8 dmg, and the target gets a DEX saving throw.  At level 5, the damage goes to 2d8.  At level 10, 3d8, and so on.

Ray of frost is another one, just at 50ft range.  It doesn't give a DEX saving throw, but you do need to make an attack roll.

Compared to all the other spells available when you're 5th or 10th level, it pretty much is more of a last resort type attack rather than a mage just slinging at-wills all over the place.

I've got a strong preference for wizards who wear robes and cast spells over wizards who wear leather armor and carry crossbows.  

Of all of 3e's failings that was the greatest.

I don't mind having at will cantrips. I think the biggest thing I'm hoping is the new concentration rules give more chance of failure or make unprotected mages a juicier target. From what little I played 3rd edition it seemed that spell failure from losing concentration or wearing armor wasn't really ever a risk for spellcasters at all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754013All it really does, IME, is get rid of the "I stand in the back and throw darts" scenario that was common in AD&D

Darts are resources that have to be managed. They run out and factor into encumbrance. At-will attack spells are a step away from one of the key elements of old-school D&D.

Quote from: aspiringlich;754023Darts are resources that have to be managed. They run out and factor into encumbrance. At-will attack spells are a step away from one of the key elements of old-school D&D.

Exactly.

I wouldn't mind cantrip-level magic that was a bit weaker than 1st level spells and had a lower resource cost. The key component of managing a resource vs the current need is missing when an ability is completely at will.

Don't encumber yourself with torches, we have free light.

Who needs a thief? Just send a PEW at anything suspicious to set off traps from a distance.

I don't like ubiquitous, easy attack spells in nearly any game. The only possible exception is Wizard/The Fantasy Trip, but only because they fit within a rich set of tactical options for spell casters — something I don't think exists in any version of D&D. In most games (including all editions of D&D), I think spells are best treated as something separate from and complementary to, rather than a replacement for, mundane combat options. Actually, the version of D&D magic I like the best is in Chainmail, where spell casters have access to a few spells, all of which are very powerful, but the act of spell casting is pretty uncertain, especially for high level magic. The game I think gets magic best of all is Call of Cthulhu — spells are not a tool for a profession, and you don't think of them as a set of golf clubs to choose among for some tactical situation. Spells are sort of like cultural artifacts, do strange and powerful things, and often have negative consequences that outweigh whatever good they might do you.

As I've stated elsewhere.

I initially was kinda "meh" about the magic system and spells.

Magic Missile, Fireball and Lightning Bolt were all now weaker in some way in a game where the monsters have been beefed up usually.

But over time I came to appreciate the systems "spell slots as magic points" mechanic.

I am still on the fence on the at-will cantrips.

On one hand they are essentially magical darts and staves as it were and do not impact game balance any.

On the other hand I rather liked my darts. :cool:

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;754020... I think the biggest thing I'm hoping is the new concentration rules give more chance of failure or make unprotected mages a juicier target. From what little I played 3rd edition it seemed that spell failure from losing concentration or wearing armor wasn't really ever a risk for spellcasters at all.

It's a little hard to tell how this is going to work in play.

Some spells have a formal concentration component and some don't.

According to the last set of rules I read, certain attacks or effects can disrupt concentration, but these will supposedly be put in the description for the attack or effect itself, rather than in some abstract formula. So I'm not sure how prevalent these will be in monster, attack or item descriptions.

A DM can also call for ability checks in particularly adverse circumstances, but that's pretty discretionary and on a case-by case basis.      

It could be a pretty important issue since the mere act of spellcasting, when adjacent to an enemy doesn't trigger an opportunity attack. (Not that this ever worked very well anyway, since 90% of the time in 3.x, casters could just take a 5 foot step back and blast away.)

Quote from: Omega;754030As I've stated elsewhere.

I initially was kinda "meh" about the magic system and spells.

Magic Missile, Fireball and Lightning Bolt were all now weaker in some way in a game where the monsters have been beefed up usually.

But over time I came to appreciate the systems "spell slots as magic points" mechanic.

I am still on the fence on the at-will cantrips.

On one hand they are essentially magical darts and staves as it were and do not impact game balance any.

On the other hand I rather liked my darts. :cool:

The trouble a lot of people, myself included, have with them is nothing to do with the "game" side of things. It's not about game balance, it's about things like internal consistency and verisimilitude. What does it mean for the game world that someone can fire off beams of cold (or whatever) endlessly (or at least until exhaustion)? It's not about DPS, it's about what else this says about the implied setting.

I am not a fan of 4 spell slots total for 6-9th level spells it's not enough and smacks of AEDU. I'm going to have to experiment a little on that maybe an extra slot for 6-7th level spells. Also what is this no extra spell for Tradition mess?

Otherwise it seems about the right power level.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754032The trouble a lot of people, myself included, have with them is nothing to do with the "game" side of things. It's not about game balance, it's about things like internal consistency and verisimilitude. What does it mean for the game world that someone can fire off beams of cold (or whatever) endlessly (or at least until exhaustion)? It's not about DPS, it's about what else this about the implied setting.

Meh, plenty of books and stories have settings where wizards and sorcerers use minor magics at will.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754027Exactly.

I wouldn't mind cantrip-level magic that was a bit weaker than 1st level spells and had a lower resource cost. The key component of managing a resource vs the current need is missing when an ability is completely at will.

Don't encumber yourself with torches, we have free light.

Who needs a thief? Just send a PEW at anything suspicious to set off traps from a distance.

Just become a Lumberjack. Who needs an axe when you can just cut trees down with Magic Missile

Quote from: Marleycat;754036Meh, plenty of books and stories have settings where wizards and sorcerers use minor magics at will.

Those are books and stories.

Not a game

And not Dungeons and Dragons...

Quote from: Marleycat;754036Meh, plenty of books and stories have settings where wizards and sorcerers use minor magics at will.

Please point to a book where a spellcaster stands repeatedly casting some minor magic (particularly of an offensive variety) indefinitely. I really can't think of one. I think your own predilection for mages has left you fairly biased on the subject.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;754038Those are books and stories.

Not a game

And not Dungeons and Dragons...

Maybe not your version but cantrips at will have been a thing since 2e in some games and definitely in 3x and forward.

To be clear, it's not simply some kind of "At Will" that I have trouble with, it's significant combat spells (or other effects of similar potency) working that way.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754041Please point to a book where a spellcaster stands repeatedly casting some minor magic (particularly of an offensive variety) indefinitely. I really can't think of one. I think your own predilection for mages has left you fairly biased on the subject.

Wheel of Time among thousands of others. The thing is Sacrosanct is correct most players running a wizard might carry Shocking Grasp as a last ditch thing or Scorching Ray maybe but hell no do I want to be that close to the action while some Archer Rogue sneak attacks and offs my stupid ass for trying to be some faux fighter.

I would rather make sure I'm protected while I'm readying a game tilting spell. The real value of at will cantrips are the utility non direct damage types.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754043To be clear, it's not simply some kind of "At Will" that I have trouble with, it's significant combat spells (or other effects of similar potency) working that way.

When 4e came out I did a thought experiment.

A Wizard working 8 hour shifts, 5 days a week and only using Magic Missile. could dig a tunnel through solid stone 20' by 20' square and 19 miles long; only took about 1 year worth of "work".

I might be off on my estimate for the length of time/tunnel. as I cant find my notebook of calculations right now

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;754037Just become a Lumberjack. Who needs an axe when you can just cut trees down with Magic Missile

Good news then, because magic missile is a first level spell, and can't be cast at will.

At-will attack spells also mean that a 1st level party will have a much easier time with monsters that can only be hit by magic weapons. It used to be that the party had to do a bit of adventuring in order to find a +1 weapon that would allow them to take on things like shadows and other monsters that aren't affected by normal weapons. But now your 5e wizard with 0 xp is all set to blast those things into oblivion.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754043To be clear, it's not simply some kind of "At Will" that I have trouble with, it's significant combat spells (or other effects of similar potency) working that way.

I don't really consider ray of frost or shocking grasp to be significant combat spells.  Especially when compared to the standard attacks used by every other class.  Or other spells, really.

To compare an at will ray of frost from a 5th level caster to lightning bolt

Ray of frost: 50ft, requires attack roll.  2d8 dmg.  One target
Lightning bolt: 100ft, each creature needs a DEX save or 6d6 dmg.

A 9th level caster casting ray of frost compared to casting lightning bolt in his 5th level spell slot:
Ray of frost: 50ft, requires attack roll.  2d8 dmg.  One target
Lightning bolt: 100ft, each creature needs a DEX save or 8d6 dmg.

Quote from: aspiringlich;754057At-will attack spells also mean that a 1st level party will have a much easier time with monsters that can only be hit by magic weapons. It used to be that the party had to do a bit of adventuring in order to find a +1 weapon that would allow them to take on things like shadows and other monsters that aren't affected by normal weapons. But now your 5e wizard with 0 xp is all set to blast those things into oblivion.

5e doesn't really have creatures like that anymore.  They might be resistant to normal weapons (taking partial damage), but very few have full immunity like in AD&D

Quote from: Marleycat;754048I would rather make sure I'm protected while I'm readying a game tilting spell. The real value of at will cantrips are the utility non direct damage types.

I do think that there should be some allowance for these, just not completely unlimited.

I even include a variety of minor magics in my B/X games. Casters have several different types of effects to choose from, and can mix & match a number of castings per day equal to 5+ level, so their capacity keeps going up along with the regular spells.

There is a resource cost though, however small. It keeps magical effects from being spammed endlessly just because they can be.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754061I do think that there should be some allowance for these, just not completely unlimited.

I even include a variety of minor magics in my B/X games. Casters have several different types of effects to choose from, and can mix & match a number of castings per day equal to 5+ level, so their capacity keeps going up along with the regular spells.

There is a resource cost though, however small. It keeps magical effects from being spammed endlessly just because they can be.

I see no reason why that system could not be directly ported over to 5e. I will bet you that under Campaign Traits: Magic that will be one of many options in the DMG or a later Unearthed Arcana book where they really let loose.

Quote from: Marleycat;754048Wheel of Time among thousands of others.

The bolded part is quite possibly the silliest thing you've ever said. But, okay, so I haven't read all the Wheel of Time series, but I don't recall this part:

Quote from: Bobloblah;754041...where a spellcaster (singular) stands repeatedly casting some minor magic (particularly of an offensive variety) indefinitely.

...quite apart from the fact that the Wheel of Time's magic system is otherwise nothing like D&D's.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754058I don't really consider ray of frost or shocking grasp to be significant combat spells.

The phrase "significant combat spells" implies something other than what I meant. I'm referring to a spell that does damage comparable to a weapon, not combat spell heavy hitters like Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

The way I see at-will stuff: using magic requires effort, just as swinging a sword or chanting hymns or lurking in the shadows does.

In most editions I run there is no mechanical limit on the number of times a fighter can swing a greatsword, or how long a priest can perform rituals. But if a fighter said "I stand around waving my sword all day long" I'd have him get tired within an hour, if a priest said he was singing a hymn all day I'd have his voice start to give out after about an hour, and so on. Likewise, whilst cantrips might be at-will, that doesn't mean you can stand there blasting them out all day in my games without getting tired.

Ultimately, free magical light and using PEW PEW to trigger traps has advantages and disadvantages. Your free magical light tells your enemy that a) there's a mage in your party and b) the mage is probably where the light is coming from, or close to, which means that the mage will be targeted if/when the ambush gets the drop on you. Blasting stuff with magic to activate suspected traps makes noise, attracts attention, and isn't necessarily helpful if the trap fills the entire corridor with poison gas.

Whereas if you have torches, you can have light even if the mage is incapacitated and your light source doesn't give away too much about your capabilities (beyond the fact that you can make fire) - plus it's useful for setting fire to stuff, which sometimes you'll want to do without expending any fire magic. If you have a thief*, they can go check out that trap and defuse it nice and quiet, like - or, indeed, help you get past it and then leave it active so it can take out anyone who's sneaking after you, if you're worried about that.

On balance, I don't mind giving wizards these tools because they don't seem likely to render anyone redundant, and they allow wizards to feel like they're wizards at 1st level, rather than having 1 moment of wizardiness followed by lots of darts. To me, it only feels like they lose their flavour if people do go with the "I'm going to run my cantrips all day long to dig a tunnel" or something goofy like that, and I generally trust my players to understand that just because something is mechanically permissible, that doesn't necessarily mean it's IC sensible or worth trying.

* Note: OD&D super-purists and those who want to run games for parties of less than 4 PCs may actually like developments which allow you to viably run parties without thieves (or wizards, or clerics, or fighters) if you wish.

Quote from: David Johansen;754015I've got a strong preference for wizards who wear robes and cast spells over wizards who wear leather armor and carry crossbows.  

And nothing says mystical wizard like a bandoleer of darts.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;754037Just become a Lumberjack. Who needs an axe when you can just cut trees down with Magic Missile

Magic missiles don't damage inanimate objects in my game. House ruled, and done. Also, magic missiles aren't cantrips in 5E.

The only overpowered spell I came across in the playtest was the 1st level spell Thunderwave. 2d8 damage in a 15 ft area and pushing foes 10 feet away seems a bit much. It was definitely the go-to spell of the party's wizard. I hope that has been nerfed.

Quote from: Marleycat;754063I see no reason why that system could not be directly ported over to 5e. I will bet you that under Campaign Traits: Magic that will be one of many options in the DMG or a later Unearthed Arcana book where they really let loose.

Yeah, it would be super easy to houserule limits on cantrips.  If you really wanted to emulate AD&D, you could just do "one cantrip per level per long rest" and call it good.

Quote from: aspiringlich;754057At-will attack spells also mean that a 1st level party will have a much easier time with monsters that can only be hit by magic weapons. It used to be that the party had to do a bit of adventuring in order to find a +1 weapon that would allow them to take on things like shadows and other monsters that aren't affected by normal weapons. But now your 5e wizard with 0 xp is all set to blast those things into oblivion.

Will they actually be able to do that before the shadows rip them and their buddies into shreds though?

Quote from: Bobloblah;754032The trouble a lot of people, myself included, have with them is nothing to do with the "game" side of things. It's not about game balance, it's about things like internal consistency and verisimilitude. What does it mean for the game world that someone can fire off beams of cold (or whatever) endlessly (or at least until exhaustion)? It's not about DPS, it's about what else this says about the implied setting.

That has been my hang up about endless at will spells from the get go.

I wouldnt mind so much of they were a bit weaker really. Ray of Frost is a freaking d8! Knock it down to a d6 at least. Or better yet a d4. Shocking Grasp. also a d8. Lower it to a d6, about the same as a staff.

Easy enough to house rule I know. But as RAW it felt a bit too potent.

THEN I stopped and really payed attention to the equipment...

Some have had their damages beefed up.

A light crossbow and a long bow is a d8, a heavy crossbow is a d10!

In context it suddenly made more sense.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754067The bolded part is quite possibly the silliest thing you've ever said. But, okay, so I haven't read all the Wheel of Time series, but I don't recall this:

...quite apart from the fact that the Wheel of Time magic system is otherwise nothing like D&D's.

The phrase "significant combat spells" implies something other than what I meant. I'm referring to a spell that does damage comparable to a weapon, not combat spell heavy hitters like Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

I can't name all the books that have minor 1D8 bolts of whatever at will. That is impossible. Jack Vance's take on magic was very unique and not well known at that. And what do you mean by Dnd's magic system? Vancian spellcasting was about the first thing to go right after level limits in huge numbers of games.

Quote from: Haffrung;754069The only overpowered spell I came across in the playtest was the 1st level spell Thunderwave. 2d8 damage in a 15 ft area and pushing foes 10 feet away seems a bit much. It was definitely the go-to spell of the party's wizard. I hope that has been nerfed.

Same here.  We had a player in a G+ game exploit thunderwave with arcane archer.   It needs to be nerfed.

Quote from: Warthur;754071Will they actually be able to do that before the shadows rip them and their buddies into shreds though?

Probably not, as Shadows are impossible for a low level party to defeat, and hence are a stupid monster.

EDIT: I figured I'd better point out that that last bit is sarcasm for those immune to such things.

Quote from: Warthur;754068The way I see at-will stuff: using magic requires effort, just as swinging a sword or chanting hymns or lurking in the shadows does.

In most editions I run there is no mechanical limit on the number of times a fighter can swing a greatsword, or how long a priest can perform rituals. But if a fighter said "I stand around waving my sword all day long" I'd have him get tired within an hour, if a priest said he was singing a hymn all day I'd have his voice start to give out after about an hour, and so on. Likewise, whilst cantrips might be at-will, that doesn't mean you can stand there blasting them out all day in my games without getting tired.

Exactly. Put your big boy DM pants on, make a common-sense ruling, and these things aren't going to ruin a campaign.

Quote from: Omega;754072That has been my hang up about at will endless at will spells from the get go.

I wouldnt mind so much of they were a bit weaker really. Ray of Frost is a freaking d8! Knock it down to a d6 at least. Or better yet a d4. Shocking Grasp. also a d8. Lower it to a d6, about the same as a staff.

Easy enough to house rule I know. But as RAW it felt a bit too potent.

THEN I stopped and really payed attention to the equipment...

Some have had their damages beefed up.

A light crossbow and a long bow is a d8, a heavy crossbow is a d10!

In context it suddenly made more sense.

Correct and it is known that in the final game all the monsters HP has been bumped up from the last playtest packet. What is more exciting to me is that I can do things like Mage Hand or Minor Illusions or Predistigation at will. That's more dangerous and useful then Scorching Ray. Let the Fighter do her thing while I try and tilt the battle to her advantage.

Quote from: Warthur;754071Will they actually be able to do that before the shadows rip them and their buddies into shreds though?

Yeah, this is a pretty relevant factor.  So what if a 0 XP caster can cast ray of frost each round if he ends up dying in 2 rounds.  Mages are still squishy you know.

Quote from: Omega;754072That has been my hang up about at will endless at will spells from the get go.

I wouldnt mind so much of they were a bit weaker really. Ray of Frost is a freaking d8! Knock it down to a d6 at least. Or better yet a d4. Shocking Grasp. also a d8. Lower it to a d6, about the same as a staff.

Easy enough to house rule I know. But as RAW it felt a bit too potent.

THEN I stopped and really payed attention to the equipment...

Some have had their damages beefed up.

A light crossbow and a long bow is a d8, a heavy crossbow is a d10!

In context it suddenly made more sense.

Exactly.  IN the context of what every other class is doing damage wise each round with just typical attacks, the ray of frost and shocking grasp aren't overpowered at all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754078Yeah, this is a pretty relevant factor.  So what if a 0 XP caster can cast ray of frost each round if he ends up dying in 2 rounds.  Mages are still squishy you know.




Exactly.  IN the context of what every other class is doing damage wise each round with just typical attacks, the ray of frost and shocking grasp aren't overpowered at all.

Most, if not ALL, of the complaints I've seen about this (including my own) are nothing to do with some abstract notion of "game balance".

For anyone that dislikes at will spells, can't you just remove them from the game and possibly just give the caster one or two extra level one spells?


Or just change the at will spells so they have a number of uses per day?

Quote from: Bobloblah;754079
Most, if not ALL, of the complaints I've seen about this (including my own) are nothing to do with some abstract notion of "game balance".

I know it's all about verisimilitude well if that isn't an individual's decision of what is or what is not such a thing then I have no idea what to tell you. As if the term actually has any meaning in a game as fantastical as Dnd.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754079
Most, if not ALL, of the complaints I've seen about this (including my own) are nothing to do with some abstract notion of "game balance".

Even with verisimilitude I don't see the major issue, as Warthur explained earlier.  Why can a fighter fight indefinitely with no penalties but casting a basic spell does?  If it's all a physical effort, it seems to me that verisimilitude would be to apply the same rule to everyone, and not have it selective.

Quote from: Bill;754080For anyone that dislikes at will spells, can't you just remove them from the game and possibly just give the caster one or two extra level one spells?


Or just change the at will spells so they have a number of uses per day?

I see no reason why not or do exactly what ExploderWizard does for his games 5+level or 6+INT mod or remove Shocking Grasp, Ray of Frost and Scorching Ray or another hundred ways. None would affect a damn thing. You could limit the uses but then you better bump up a magic users spell slots (all types) up big time because those cantrips allow for them to radically reduce spell slots and prepared number of spells.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754078Exactly.  IN the context of what every other class is doing damage wise each round with just typical attacks, the ray of frost and shocking grasp aren't overpowered at all.

The very idea that a magic user needs to be able to crank out damage per round on typical attacks that roughly equal a fighter is all the proof I need that whoever designed this turd knows fuckall about actual D&D.

This is the kind of shit that fed directly into LFQW and all that nonsense.

In actual D&D if you want to be a combat god play a FIGHTER.

In light of all the well known issues of 3E, it is worrisome that someone thought that repeating the exact same mistakes wouldn't lead to the exact same problems.

Quote from: Bill;754080For anyone that dislikes at will spells, can't you just remove them from the game and possibly just give the caster one or two extra level one spells?


Or just change the at will spells so they have a number of uses per day?

Of course. There are any number of house rules one could use to change it. No offense to you, Bill, but so what? This is true of anything (and everything) one dislikes in a given system. This wasn't a question of it being fixed, I was simply trying to explain why a great many people dislike it. And, in response, I got Sacrosanct telling me it's not a problem because it didn't unbalance the game, Marleycat telling me it was okay because thousands of her favourite novels did it this way, and Haffrung telling me I was being a suck because I hate WotC, 5e is perfect, and I can just grow up and houserule it anyway. I was just expressing an aesthetic preference for what does and doesn't break my sense of verisimilitude. As such, I'm not sure why I expected anything different on this site.

I think the spell powers and spell slots and swapability for spells, from levels 1-9, are all good right now.

The only complaint I have is the infinite use of cantrips.  I think they should be limited by your spellcasting ability.  So, if you have an 18 intelligence, you should be able to cast 18 cantrips per day between long rests (before you need to start making constitution checks to avoid exhaustion or something).  For normal adventures, this will never come up - you probably wouldn't need to track it.  But for some weird corner cases, where you spend all day zapping something with a ray of frost to create an unanticipated result, it would take care of those issues.

And alternative to that would be each cantrip can only be cast a maximum equal to your spellcasting ability bonus plus your proficiency bonus between short rests.  So if you have an 18 intelligence as a wizard and you are level 1, you can cast the cantrip 6 times (4 from Int, 2 from Proficiency) until you'd need to take a one hour rest.  That would also solve the issue, without interfering much with regular combat (as you would rarely want to cast a cantrip more than 6 times in a single encounter).

Whatever it is, I think cantrips need some limit on their infinite nature.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754086The very idea that a magic user needs to be able to crank out damage per round on typical attacks that roughly equal a fighter is all the proof I need that whoever designed this turd knows fuckall about actual D&D.

This is the kind of shit that fed directly into LFQW and all that nonsense.

In actual D&D if you want to be a combat god play a FIGHTER.

In light of all the well known issues of 3E, it is worrisome that someone thought that repeating the exact same mistakes wouldn't lead to the exact same problems.

LFQW has nothing to do with that. That is a direct result of 1/2e (the insanely weak at the start and insanely powerful at the end model) made worse in 3e because they removed every limit in place on wizards. At will cantrips is the result of many people not liking "I shoot and miss with my crossbow". Lots of fun to had there I guess.

For me I don't actually see the value of using direct damage cantrips in combat situations unless I had no other option anyway. I just like the fact that I'm allowed to do small magic tricks whenever needed without bookkeeping.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754087Of course. There are any number of house rules one could use to change it. No offense to you, Bill, but so what? This is true of anything (and everything) one dislikes in a given system. This wasn't a question of it being fixed, I was simply trying to explain why a great many people dislike it. And, in response, I got Sacrosanct telling me it's not a problem because it didn't unbalance the game, Marleycat telling me it was okay because thousands of her favourite novels did it this way, and Haffrung telling me I was being a suck because I hate WotC, 5e is perfect, and I can just grow up and houserule it anyway. I was just expressing an aesthetic preference for what does and doesn't break my sense of verisimilitude. As such, I'm not sure why I expected anything different on this site.

No offense taken. I was expressing my thoughts; hope that did not offend you.

Quote from: Marleycat;754090LFQW has nothing to do with that. That is a direct result of 1/2e (the insanely weak at the start and insanely powerful at the end model) made worse in 3e because they removed every limit in place on wizards. At will cantrips is the result of many people not liking "I shoot and miss with my crossbow". Lots of fun to had there I guess.

The LFQW can be summed up rather well by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ur9Ps5lqmc&feature=kp


Fighter: "but I can do X damage per attack."

Magic user: " do you know how many mages we have in this party that can do X damage per attack AND other cool things?"

I think there are plenty of ways to house rule cantrips.

It seems like the damage dealing ones are the ones bothering everyone. So why not rule that things like mage hand prestidigitation are at-will, Ray of Frost/Shocking grasp can only be used x number of times?

or require components maybe? A fighter can't actually hit with a longsword without a longsword, so maybe a spellcaster requires some kind of wand or totem (or holy item for a priest or whatever.)

Or houserule that casting a spell burns x number of calories per cast and watch your mages spend all their loot on food.

As far as LFQW, my impressions are that it's nowhere near as bad as 3rd edition got. Especially if you look at pathfinder where certain builds get so many ways to increase number of spells that they'll never even NEED to use their cantrips.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754086The very idea that a magic user needs to be able to crank out damage per round on typical attacks that roughly equal a fighter is all the proof I need that whoever designed this turd knows fuckall about actual D&D.

This is the kind of shit that fed directly into LFQW and all that nonsense.

In actual D&D if you want to be a combat god play a FIGHTER.

In light of all the well known issues of 3E, it is worrisome that someone thought that repeating the exact same mistakes wouldn't lead to the exact same problems.

I said compared to standard attacks they weren't overpowered.  I didn't say they were as powerful as standard attacks.  Those are two different things.

Quote from: Marleycat;754077Correct and it is known that in the final game all the monsters HP has been bumped up from the last playtest packet. What is more exciting to me is that I can do things like Mage Hand or Minor Illusions or Predistigation at will. That's more dangerous and useful then Scorching Ray. Let the Fighter do her thing while I try and tilt the battle to her advantage.

Monsters in the last playtest allready had a sometimes signifigant jump in HP and damage. See my comparison in a separate thread here on a AD&D Minotaur and a Next Minotaur.

Quote from: Marleycat;754082I know it's all about verisimilitude well if that isn't an individual's decision of what is or what is not such a thing then I have no idea what to tell you. As if the term actually has any meaning in a game as fantastical as Dnd.

This comment is just completely asinine. You have your own sense of verisimilitude, it's just that D&D with infinite cantrips (or Mage, or Fantasy Craft) doesn't break it. No doubt we can find a game that would. Regardless, that completely misses the point of others' objections. Infinite cantrips presumably have game-world consequences. People complained bitterly about 3.x hurting their sense of verisimilitude because the campaign worlds typically hadn't adapted to various potent spell combinations.

To the point being raised about spellcasters tiring, I'd point out that even this is little more than the proponent's houserule; there's no real indication anywhere that spellcasting expends some kind of meaningful physical effort the way swinging a sword does. In fact, I think you're just applying it because you find the notion of infinite cantrips as monumentally stupid as I do, and hence the comments that amount to, "Well, that's stupid...obviously it doesn't work like that..."

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754092The LFQW can be summed up rather well by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ur9Ps5lqmc&feature=kp


Fighter: "but I can do X damage per attack."

Magic user: " do you know how many mages we have in this party that can do X damage per attack AND other cool things?"

I know. That's why I think they have taken things in the right direction. You get a short list of spells you can use in any combination your spell slots allow but you only get 4 of those above 5th level spells. And you get to do minor major without bookkeeping. Also your damage isn't nearly as good as a fighter and with backgrounds you get extra skills and so on and so forth.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754097This comment is just completely asinine. You have your own sense of verisimilitude, it's just that D&D with infinite cantrips (or Mage, or Fantasy Craft) doesn't break it. No doubt we can find a game that would. Regardless, that completely misses the point of others' objections. Infinite cantrips presumably have game-world consequences. People complained bitterly about 3.x hurting their sense of verisimilitude because the campaign worlds typically hadn't adapted to various potent spell combinations.

To the point being raised about spellcasters tiring, I'd point out that even this is little more than the proponent's houserule; there's no real indication anywhere that spellcasting expends some kind of meaningful physical effort the way swinging a sword does. In fact, I think you're just applying it because you find the notion of infinite cantrips as monumentally stupid as I do, and hence the comments that amount to, "Well, that’s stupid...obviously it doesn't work like that..."

Then HOUSERULE it already!!!! You are never going to convince me I am wrong even though you keep insisting on insulting me you arrogant fuck. There are several solid suggestions I even gave you a few and some of the drawbacks that may happen for 5e's system just in this thread, let alone the fact I can guarantee WotC themselves will have others in the DMG so it's a non-issue to me.

Or do you actually run games RAW? If so that's pretty damned wierd in my opinion.

I Play RAW as long  as they're rules I wrote.

I actually liked the way 1e cantrips worked.  You had to sacrifice spell slots to have them.  They gave you useful little magical things you could do without the damage unrestricted magic does to the setting.

For Dark Passages (my neo-clone) I just gave Wizards additional spell slots for high Intelligence.  Which is my preferred solution.  I didn't do cantrips because I felt they were beyond the scope of the work.

An alternate route is to require a long casting time and refractory period after casting any spell that gets greater the more powerful the spell gets.  AD&D actually gets this effect with higher level spells which often have ritual casting times and longer memorization times. With Dragon Shadowed Lands (which isn't a D&D clone) I did it a bit differently.  Spells have a difficulty which can be eliminated by taking the time to get attuned with the aether and after you cast the spell the difficulty accumulates with other casting penalties unless you take time to cleanse the aether.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754092The LFQW can be summed up rather well by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ur9Ps5lqmc&feature=kp


Fighter: "but I can do X damage per attack."

Magic user: " do you know how many mages we have in this party that can do X damage per attack AND other cool things?"

I hope you agree that a fighter is much more than X damage per attack, right?  I mean, even if a magic user could do the same average damage per round as a fighter, the fighter has a lot more hp and can wear armor.  Those are important factors that would allow you to "be a combat god" as you say, where a magic user isn't.

Quote from: Omega;754096Monsters in the last playtest allready had a sometimes signifigant jump in HP and damage. See my comparison in a separate thread here on a AD&D Minotaur and a Next Minotaur.

And I guess they are getting another jump beyond that. Who knows really until the BASIC rules are out but I do assume the final game will be different in some ways then what has been seen so far.

Hopefully the monsters will be dangerous, but not have 1,000,000 hp.

Quote from: David Johansen;754101I Play RAW as long  as they're rules I wrote.

Hah, there is always that.:)

Quote from: Bill;754104Hopefully the monsters will be dangerous, but not have 1,000,000 hp.

God I hope not.  HP bloat in 3e and 4e were a turn off to me.  It reminded me of playing a JRPG like Final Fantasy rather than D&D

Quote from: Bill;754104Hopefully the monsters will be dangerous, but not have 1,000,000 hp.

God I hope not they did that mistake in 3/4e. I like my combats fast so I get to doing the fun stuff.

Quote from: Marleycat;754099Then HOUSERULE it already!!!!

Well, here again we have a point of divergence between old-school and 5e. In OD&D, B/X, and AD&D, houseruling almost always has the purpose of beefing up characters (max hp at level 1, extra spells, more favorable rolling methods for abilities, etc.) In other words, the game is deadly by default and it's up to the DM/group to decide if they want to strengthen the characters in this or that way. But in 5e it's apparently the reverse: you have to houserule in order to scale back the PCs. I can just imagine what kind of friction this will cause between DMs who want to run an old-school style campaign and the players who'll think they're being denied all the cool things they're entitled to.

Quote from: Marleycat;754099Then HOUSERULE it already!!!! You are never going to convince me I am wrong even though you keep insisting on insulting me you arrogant fuck. There are several solid suggestions just in this thread let alone the fact I can guarantee WotC themselves will have others in the DMG so it's a non-issue to me.

Okay, let's try this: What you're saying doesn't make any sense. That's not insulting you. On the other hand: You're an idiot. Now that's insulting you. I expressed an opinion about at will spells, and tried to explain why a lot of people feel the same way. You've spent your posts since then trying to tell me why feeling that way is wrong. I haven't found your arguments even slightly compelling. I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong about anything, and I certainly don't need your permission to houserule the game. Maybe you're just hung up on the fact that someone doesn't think your preferred way is right?

Quote from: Bill;754091No offense taken. I was expressing my thoughts; hope that did not offend you.

Not in the least. Sorry if it came off that way.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754106God I hope not.  HP bloat in 3e and 4e were a turn off to me.  It reminded me of playing a JRPG like Final Fantasy rather than D&D

Agreed, although I would say 4E was a more egregious offender than 3X for HP bloat.

Quote from: Marleycat;754107God I hope not they did that mistake in 3/4e. I like my combats fast so I get to doing the fun stuff.

Its amazing how dull combat can be when enemies have too many hp.

I am curious now, how  many people actually prefer 'bucket o' HP?

Quote from: aspiringlich;754108Well, here again we have a point of divergence between old-school and 5e. In OD&D, B/X, and AD&D, houseruling almost always has the purpose of beefing up characters (max hp at level 1, extra spells, more favorable rolling methods for abilities, etc.) .

I don't know if I agree.  I mean, sure, a lot of houserules did do that.  But a lot didn't.  Most houserules I knew were done to speed up the game to the desired rate the group wanted.  Ignoring things like weapon vs AC table is an example.  AS well as ignoring half of the tactical rules in the DMG

FWIW, I don't have a problem with unlimited cantrips and even if I did, it would be one of the easiest things to house rule.

All things considered, I'm very pleased with the 5e spell system and most of the spells seem appropriate for their level.

Still waiting to see how summon and polymorph self spells are treated, but I suspect they'll be nerfed to prevent some of the more severe abuses and hopefully to avoid slowing down the game.

Also waiting to get a better idea of how magic items play into the scheme.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754109Okay, let's try this: What you're saying doesn't make any sense. That's not insulting you. On the other hand: You're an idiot. Now that's insulting you. I expressed an opinion about at will spells, and tried to explain why a lot of people feel the same way. You've spent your posts since then trying to tell me why feeling that way is wrong. I haven't found your arguments even slightly compelling. I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong about anything, and I certainly don't need your permission to houserule the game. Maybe you're just hung up on the fact that someone doesn't think your preferred way is right?

Not in the least. Sorry if it came off that way.

I don't think you're wrong don't you get it? I just don't care about the reasons you give because they're individual to each person and I just like a different thing then you. Basically houserule it already because you like a different thing. Why do you think this is about being correct?

Quote from: Bill;754111Its amazing how dull combat can be when enemies have too many hp.

I am curious now, how  many people actually prefer 'bucket o' HP?

Can't stand it, personally. When I started to drift away from 3.x a few years back I played BECMI and a few other Basic derivatives for the first time in almost a decade. It really made me aware of all the negative trade-offs that come with expanding HP and damage. Even just expanding PC Hit Dice to make use of d10 for some classes has a huge impact.

Quote from: Saplatt;754113FWIW, I don't have a problem with unlimited cantrips and even if I did, it would be one of the easiest things to house rule.

All things considered, I'm very pleased with the 5e spell system and most of the spells seem appropriate for their level.

Still waiting to see how summon and polymorph self spells are treated, but I suspect they'll be nerfed to prevent some of the more severe abuses and hopefully to avoid slowing down the game.

Also waiting to get a better idea of how magic items play into the scheme.

I am wondering about Druids. I really hope they straightened them out compared to 3/4e. I do bet you're right about the summoning and polymorph spells they always need a fix before they get it right.

Quote from: Bill;754111Its amazing how dull combat can be when enemies have too many hp.

I am curious now, how  many people actually prefer 'bucket o' HP?

I wish 5e would go back to 1/2e style hit points. Like 10 levels of hitpoints and then the 1-4 per level depending on class. Keep things like the Fighter has 100 or so hp instead of 455 hp at level 20.

Quote from: Marleycat;754120I wish 5e would go back to 1/2e style hit points. Like 10 levels of hitpoints and then the 1-4 per level depending on class. Keep things like the Fighter has 100 or so hp instead of 455 hp at level 20.

I wonder if the 'oldschool' limited number of HD was implemented from actual play and a perception that Hp were too high?

Good old 1E dnd..Lolth had 66 HP :)



I think a 20th level Pathfinder fighter with a few magic items could solo the first edition Abyss.

in case anyone's curious to compare a 5e 5th level fighter with a 5e 5th level mage, cantrip vs. standard attack:

Mage: ray of frost,  2d8 damage (no other modifiers to damage)

Fighter: standard longsword: 2 attacks per round, +3 damage from strength = 2d8+6 total damage.

So 9 average points of damage compared to 15?  And people have a problem with this?  And that's not even considering a magic weapon, or 18 strength, or the fighter's action surge to double the attacks (I don't count them because those aren't standard attacks and if I did count them, I'd have to count the mage's fireball spells)

shrug.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754126in case anyone's curious to compare a 5e 5th level fighter with a 5e 5th level mage, cantrip vs. standard attack:

Mage: ray of frost,  2d8 damage (no other modifiers to damage)

Fighter: standard longsword: 2 attacks per round, +3 damage from strength = 2d8+6 total damage.

So 9 average points of damage compared to 15?  And people have a problem with this?  And that's not even considering a magic weapon, or 18 strength, or the fighter's action surge to double the attacks (I don't count them because those aren't standard attacks and if I did count them, I'd have to count the mage's fireball spells)

shrug.

Agreed that the damage of it is not a problem. However, many are objecting to the fact it is at will, and are not concerned with the damage.

Funny thing is that in a campaign where there was not tons of combat, you might not even use the at wills all that often.

Quote from: Bill;754128Agreed that the damage of it is not a problem. However, many are objecting to the fact it is at will, and are not concerned with the damage.

.

Well, Exploderwizard seems to think so.  But yeah, and i really can't grok that either.  If it's fatiguing to cast a spell, isn't it also tiring to swing a sword over and over?  Why apply stricter rules to a mage but not a fighter?  That's not verisimilitude.  It's actually the opposite.

So if it's not a verisimilitude issue, or a balance issue, then what?  It just doesn't feel right?

Quote from: Bill;754128Agreed that the damage of it is not a problem. However, many are objecting to the fact it is at will, and are not concerned with the damage.

Funny thing is that in a campaign where there was not tons of combat, you might not even use the at wills all that often.

I would. Things like Mage Hand, Light, Minor Illusion are just too useful to not use. I do think the problem for some is the fact that there are combat cantrips.

Quote from: Marleycat;754133I would. Things like Mage Hand, Light, Minor Illusion are just too useful to not use.

Good point; I was only thinking of combat when I said that.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754097This comment is just completely asinine. You have your own sense of verisimilitude, it's just that D&D with infinite cantrips (or Mage, or Fantasy Craft) doesn't break it. No doubt we can find a game that would. Regardless, that completely misses the point of others' objections. Infinite cantrips presumably have game-world consequences. People complained bitterly about 3.x hurting their sense of verisimilitude because the campaign worlds typically hadn't adapted to various potent spell combinations.

To the point being raised about spellcasters tiring, I'd point out that even this is little more than the proponent's houserule; there's no real indication anywhere that spellcasting expends some kind of meaningful physical effort the way swinging a sword does. In fact, I think you're just applying it because you find the notion of infinite cantrips as monumentally stupid as I do, and hence the comments that amount to, "Well, that's stupid...obviously it doesn't work like that..."

There's nothing in the rules of D&D demonstrating that swinging a sword all day is tiring. As with most things, you allow common sense and D&D discretion to handle a lot of stuff out of combat.

This is what irks me about a lot of old-school dismissal of newer systems: if house rules and DM discretion are allowable - and even necessary - in old-school D&D, why shouldn't they be allowable and necessary in newer D&D? If judging AD&D by the RAW misses the point of how the game works in actual play with a confident DM, why shouldn't the same stance be taken towards 5E? If smacking down attempts by players to rules-lawyer their way into cheesy advantages is part of the job of an AD&D DM, why shouldn't it be part of the job of a 5E DM?

It's a double-standard. A temple of AD&D clerics casting 30x Create Food and Water a day every day doesn't upset the local economy because any DM worth his salt will rule that divine blessings can't be abused in such mundane ways. Cantrips are no different. It shouldn't take a rule in a book to tell you that if you don't want lumber mills taken over my mages, then you don't have to. You're the DM.

If you're going to judge one version of D&D RAW then expect all to be judged RAW. If you're going to recognize that your favourite works best with DM discretion and house rules, then extend that tolerance to all.

Quote from: Bill;754128Funny thing is that in a campaign where there was not tons of combat, you might not even use the at wills all that often.

In a campaign in which the players choose their level of combat involvement, do you think that being able to sling 2d8 magic damage per round, all day would have an impact on their choice of approach to things?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754132Well, Exploderwizard seems to think so.  But yeah, and i really can't grok that either.  If it's fatiguing to cast a spell, isn't it also tiring to swing a sword over and over?  Why apply stricter rules to a mage but not a fighter?  That's not verisimilitude.  It's actually the opposite.

So if it's not a verisimilitude issue, or a balance issue, then what?  It just doesn't feel right?

Who says casting a spell in D&D is fatiguing? Magic in B/X was explained as being a power from another plane. The magic user just acts as a conduit for that power.

There are magic systems that DO draw vital energy from a caster to power them but the standard D&D system isn't one of them. So a D&D world in which the fighter tires from physical exertion, but the mage does not due to channeling magic wouldn't be out of sorts considering the way magic works.

So saying a mage gets exhausted from energy that they aren't spending just because game balance is much clumsier and more illogical than limiting access to the amount of magic able to be channeled per day in the first place given that all other magical power imposes similar restrictions.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754138Who says casting a spell in D&D is fatiguing?

Who says swinging a sword is fatiguing? The DM, that's who.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754138Magic in B/X was explained as being a power from another plane. The magic user just acts as a conduit for that power.

There are limits on casting magic in D&D. It take some kind of energy, whether it's concentration or some other kind. It takes time and energy just to study magic - you need 8 hours rest before you can even read those spells in a spell book. Clearly it's taxing in some way.

But cantrips are considered to require a small enough amount of energy that it's not worth tracking the amount used in a typical adventure context - casting a half-dozen in a few hours of dungeon exploration. Just as it's not worth tracking the energy expended by swinging an iron sword while wearing plate mail off and on for a few hours. For practical purposes, there's no point putting an explicit limit on it.

But try to turn it into some sort of mechanized or commercial application, like dwarves chopping wood relentlessly all day, and a DM should put a stop to it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754138Who says casting a spell in D&D is fatiguing? Magic in B/X was explained as being a power from another plane. The magic user just acts as a conduit for that power.

There are magic systems that DO draw vital energy from a caster to power them but the standard D&D system isn't one of them. So a D&D world in which the fighter tires from physical exertion, but the mage does not due to channeling magic wouldn't be out of sorts considering the way magic works.

So saying a mage gets exhausted from energy that they aren't spending just because game balance is much clumsier and more illogical than limiting access to the amount of magic able to be channeled per day in the first place given that all other magical power imposes similar restrictions.

This makes even less sense then.  If the magic user is just a conduit, what's your issue with at will magic then?  Presumably the amount of magic is unlimited, and the only restrictions to how much a particular magic user can channel is dependent on his or her skill.  That's why a 10th level magic user can channel more magic than a 1st level mu, right?  It's not the actual amount of magic able to be channeled that is a factor; it's there regardless if a 10th level or 1st level MU tries to access it.

So if you're basing off of that, the rules in 5e clearly imply that a 1st level MU has the ability to channel as much magical energy as he wants to power cantrip level magic, just like a demon in AD&D 1e does with it's "at will' magical powers.

So I'm afraid I really don't know what your issue is against at will magic.

Quote from: Haffrung;754141Who says swinging a sword is fatiguing? The DM, that's who.

You're joking, right? So, nothing else tells you that swinging a sword all day is fatiguing? Have you ever actually done any physical activity? There's no double-standard involved; one is simply an activity with a direct real-world analogue.

So how about spells? Concentration, on the other hand, I do all day on a fairly regular basis. Even tasks requiring very intense concentration, there's just no comparison to vigorously swinging an object. You trying to say it's obviously the same appears to be a tacit admission that the alternative (i.e. you can cast cantrips ad infinitum) is pretty stupid.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754144You're joking, right? So, nothing else tells you that swinging a sword all day is fatiguing? Have you ever actually done any physical activity? There's no double-standard involved; one is simply an activity with a direct real-world analogue.

So how about spells? Concentration, on the other hand, I do all day on a fairly regular basis. Even tasks requiring very intense concentration, there's just no comparison to vigorously swinging an object. You trying to say it's obviously the same appears to be a tacit admission that the alternative (i.e. you can cast cantrips ad infinitum) is pretty stupid.

No what he is saying is that you can literally swing a sword as much as you want until you run out of hitpoints with no other penalties. Dnd just doesn't have fatigue rules for swinging a sword or anything near it unless it was some kind of spell/curse/poison/disease. Is that realistic? No but it is what it is. And it takes a DM call to make a judgement if the situation is obviously ridiculous like using scorching ray 4 billion times to melt metal.

Besides I don't care if the rules say you can cast cantrips unlimited times in my game or any game I play in it's not actually possible because you will be fatigued. They put it in as unlimited so that magic users with cantrips can perform minor magic or tricks without having to keep up with boring bookkeeping. They are just able make that ball of light or whatever just like a fighter type can swing a heavy sword anytime without keeping track. Speeds up gameplay is all.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754144You're joking, right? So, nothing else tells you that swinging a sword all day is fatiguing? Have you ever actually done any physical activity? There's no double-standard involved; one is simply an activity with a direct real-world analogue.

So how about spells? Concentration, on the other hand, I do all day on a fairly regular basis. Even tasks requiring very intense concentration, there's just no comparison to vigorously swinging an object. You trying to say it's obviously the same appears to be a tacit admission that the alternative (i.e. you can cast cantrips ad infinitum) is pretty stupid.

I agree.  Therefore, fighters should have a limited number of attack each combat encounter, and mages should be able to cast as many spells as they want all day long


After all, that's what your statement supports ;)

Quote from: Bobloblah;754144You're joking, right? So, nothing else tells you that swinging a sword all day is fatiguing? Have you ever actually done any physical activity? There's no double-standard involved; one is simply an activity with a direct real-world analogue.

So how about spells? Concentration, on the other hand, I do all day on a fairly regular basis. Even tasks requiring very intense concentration, there's just no comparison to vigorously swinging an object. You trying to say it's obviously the same appears to be a tacit admission that the alternative (i.e. you can cast cantrips ad infinitum) is pretty stupid.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that intense cognitive activity can be incredibly fatiguing in real life. So much so that it's reccomended that you do nothing cognitively straining while recovering from a severe head injury (which includes things like reading or playing video games, or even watching tv.)

So it's really not too much of a stretch to imagine that the intense concentration required to cast a spell can be extremely fatiguing.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754138In a campaign in which the players choose their level of combat involvement, do you think that being able to sling 2d8 magic damage per round, all day would have an impact on their choice of approach to things?

Yes, I would expect it to have an impact. However, I have not seen at will magic to be an actual problem in play yet. Even the 3X warlock who is the poster child for at will magic seemed fine.

I always assume the players are choosing their level of combat involvement.
Generally I would not enjoy playing in a game where the gm doe snot allow that.

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;754149There's plenty of evidence to suggest that intense cognitive activity can be incredibly fatiguing in real life.

Shoot just reading this message board can be physically exhausting some days.

(http://www.talkweather.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/rimshot.gif)

Let's forget the Rule 0 fallacy, otherwise F.A.T.A.L. is the best game ever, because you can always fix whatever's wrong with it, right?  Answering a criticism with houserules is like saying "go write your own game", it's a non-answer that dismisses the criticism.  Do we have to resort to 4venger tactics before the damn game is even released?

So back to sanityland.

I personally don't like at-will magics because it alters the fundamental baseline natures of settings that originated without them.  It would be one thing if WotC had options for Low, Medium, and High magic worlds, and defined Greyhawk, Realms, Krynn, Athas, Eberron etc... but they're not.  The baseline assumption is at-will magics.

I also don't like at-will magics because it says something about the structure of the game itself.  It means that wizards are assumed to have a guaranteed baseline damage output equal to a weapon without special combat abilities.  What has been referred to as "Pew-Pew" is the MMOgification of D&D.  Spells per day run out.  Spell Points run out.  Spells that cost fatigue or have drain mechanics run out.  The reason Magic-Users don't have the baseline combat ability of anyone else is because they have limited spells.  WotC isn't learning anything from 3e.

Wizards need to be limited, wizards need to have limitations on magic, otherwise they can do everything anyone else can, PLUS stuff no one else can.

I would much rather have a Wizard with powerful magics that needed to be managed and controlled, then a Wizard who can eternally do baseline combat equal to a melee character.  Otherwise we're stuck with the idiocy of 3e wizards, or the idiocy of 4e magical fighters.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754144You're joking, right? So, nothing else tells you that swinging a sword all day is fatiguing? Have you ever actually done any physical activity? There's no double-standard involved; one is simply an activity with a direct real-world analogue.

I've done enough physical activity to recognize that swinging an iron sword for hours on end while walking around in plate mail would be enormously fatiguing. And I've played enough D&D to recognize that capturing that level of fatigue is not in the scope of the game.

So in the context of magic - something which D&D has always implied is taxing and cannot be done infinitely without rest - I make the same assumption. It's fatiguing, but there is a threshold below which it's not necessary to capture with game mechanics.

Cantrips are to spell/day spells as walking around in platemail holding a shield is to trading blows with an ogre: beneath the level needed to be captured by rules, but fatiguing enough to put some kind of limits on out-of-combat behaviour if you want to run a 'realistic' world model.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754152Let's forget the Rule 0 fallacy, otherwise F.A.T.A.L. is the best game ever, because you can always fix whatever's wrong with it, right?  Answering a criticism with houserules is like saying "go write your own game", it's a non-answer that dismisses the criticism.  Do we have to resort to 4venger tactics before the damn game is even released?

So back to sanityland.

I personally don't like at-will magics because it alters the fundamental baseline natures of settings that originated without them.  It would be one thing if WotC had options for Low, Medium, and High magic worlds, and defined Greyhawk, Realms, Krynn, Athas, Eberron etc... but they're not.  The baseline assumption is at-will magics.

I also don't like at-will magics because it says something about the structure of the game itself.  It means that wizards are assumed to have a guaranteed baseline damage output equal to a weapon without special combat abilities.  What has been referred to as "Pew-Pew" is the MMOgification of D&D.  Spells per day run out.  Spell Points run out.  Spells that cost fatigue or have drain mechanics run out.  The reason Magic-Users don't have the baseline combat ability of anyone else is because they have limited spells.  WotC isn't learning anything from 3e.

Wizards need to be limited, wizards need to have limitations on magic, otherwise they can do everything anyone else can, PLUS stuff no one else can.

I would much rather have a Wizard with powerful magics that needed to be managed and controlled, then a Wizard who can eternally do baseline combat equal to a melee character.  Otherwise we're stuck with the idiocy of 3e wizards, or the idiocy of 4e magical fighters.

It's going to be funny when you see your concerns answered in the DMG. You do know they will have several optional magic systems. Who knows they may even have pure Vancian as an option and ways to make magic Low-Medium-High in there and going forward?

And what is this about no at-will magic I know for a fact it has been a thing since 2e and maybe before that even.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754152I also don't like at-will magics because it says something about the structure of the game itself.  It means that wizards are assumed to have a guaranteed baseline damage output equal to a weapon without special combat abilities. .

No it doesn't.  Did you not see my example above between the fighter and mage?

Also:
At-will magic has been around since at least AD&D1e, so it's not a new concept.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754152Do we have to resort to 4venger tactics before the damn game is even released?

Hang on, I thought RAW was the stick 3E and 4E fans used to prove how fucked up and broken AD&D is as a game. And the defence of grognards like me was always that the game you play at the table is all that matters, not the rules in the book.

I have yet to see the new rules but following the last couple of pages of this discussion left me thinking:

The reason D&D does not track fatigue for physical attacks is the same reason it doesn't track at-wills is the same reason it has escalating hit points and armour making you harder to hit.  D&D is not a simulation game, it's abstract as hell.

If you want a simulation game then play one.  RuneQuest, GURPS, whatever.  Pleaase stop getting your "knickers in a twist" over D&D being abstract.  It's always been abstract and it probably always will.

There, rant over.

I generally think of at-wills as practically unlimited rather than literally unlimited.

You can cast enough that you won't strain yourself throughout a normal adventuring day, but if you try to do nothing but cast a damage at will at a wall for 8 hours straight, I as the DM am going to put a stop that that.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754160I generally think of at-wills as practically unlimited rather than literally unlimited.

You can cast enough that you won't strain yourself throughout a normal adventuring day, but if you try to do nothing but cast a damage at will at a wall for 8 hours straight, I as the DM am going to put a stop that that.

That does sound reasonable.





You mean the DM is in charge, not the RAW rules...I like that. Might be a great new way to play dnd.

Quote from: Bill;754161That does sound reasonable.





You mean the DM is in charge, not the RAW rules...I like that. Might be a great new way to play dnd.

Inconceivable!

Quote from: Bill;754161That does sound reasonable.





You mean the DM is in charge, not the RAW rules...I like that. Might be a great new way to play dnd.

I think a lot of common sense ideas are left out of the rules for the better. Otherwise you'd have rules that say "Cantrips can be cast at will, unless you try to cast them constantly for hours on end because seriously you can't do that."

ROFL, all three, ok.

Quote from: Marleycat;754155It's going to be funny when you see your concerns answered in the DMG. You do know they will have several optional magic systems. Who knows they may even have pure Vancian as an option and ways to make magic Low-Medium-High in there and going forward?

...and yet what is the baseline? Pew Pew.  The fact that you discount all arguments because it's something you like doesn't mean that the arguments about setting aren't valid.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754156No it doesn't.  Did you not see my example above between the fighter and mage?.

Yeah, the only difference was the strength bonus of the fighter, which you assumed was +3.  And the fighter had to attack twice to do that instead of once, so two chances to miss versus 1 so your math was wrong on top of it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754156At-will magic has been around since at least AD&D1e, so it's not a new concept.

At-will existed as certain special abilities, or magical item powers, not as a baseline universal spell-list of at-will.  Complete strawman. Jesus Fuck, you are becoming Seanchai.

Quote from: Haffrung;754158Hang on, I thought RAW was the stick 3E and 4E fans used to prove how fucked up and broken AD&D is as a game. And the defence of grognards like me was always that the game you play at the table is all that matters, not the rules in the book.

If you were paying attention, you'll note that I always told the Denners they might be right in that RAW Wizards completely roflstomped fighters.  Where I disagreed was that the answer was to beef up fighters with wtfpwnbbq magical abilities.  The answer was to put all the limitations back onto wizards that were present in 1e and 2e but had been completely removed in later editions.

Since none of you chose to engage my arguments about setting, I'll assume you so stipulate.  Thanks. :hatsoff:

Quote from: Marleycat;754162Inconceivable!

Yeah, I don't get what the big aversion to making a ruling on this is.  I mean, even back on the earliest days of D&D, if a PC said they wanted to pull a sled all day with their wounded buddy on it to try to get back to town, most DMs would end up doing something like, "Make a Con check every hour to see if you can still continue."  There isn't a rule for that scenario anywhere I know of, but that doesn't mean the DM doesn't have the ability to make a ruling for something he or she finds would be unusually taxing or abuse of the non-rule.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;754049When 4e came out I did a thought experiment.

A Wizard working 8 hour shifts, 5 days a week and only using Magic Missile. could dig a tunnel through solid stone 20' by 20' square and 19 miles long; only took about 1 year worth of "work".

I might be off on my estimate for the length of time/tunnel. as I cant find my notebook of calculations right now

Hold that thought...

Quote from: CRKrueger;754152I personally don't like at-will magics because it alters the fundamental baseline natures of settings that originated without them.  It would be one thing if WotC had options for Low, Medium, and High magic worlds, and defined Greyhawk, Realms, Krynn, Athas, Eberron etc... but they're not.  The baseline assumption is at-will magics.

I agree completely.

Magic isn't real.  Swords are.  We know the impact of introducing swords to a society through our history.  We can only speculate about magic.

It seems to me that pre-3e D&D held magic as a much more difficult thing to do than the later versions do.  E.g. magic shops.  They used to be anathema.  Now they're expected to maintain WBL.

As with the first quote above, if magic is free and easy why would anyone pick up a shovel ever again?  If you can summon infinite water, why not start your own oasis in the desert?  Why would there be deserts at all?

A world where infinite magic has always been normal wouldn't match D&D at all.  Probably a lot closer to Star Trek, actually.  But even though the magic gets changed for metagame reasons, the setting is still medieval or fudal Japan or whatnot.  Never Star Trek...

People in the other thread are asking about Dark Sun.  Can you even have a high-magic Dark Sun?  How does that work in the context of infinite spells for 1st level characters?

Anyone else finding extreme irony in the sort of Cult of the RAW that says that all at wills must be literally unlimited. It just seems so out of place on this forum. Its almost like people are hypocrites.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754165Yeah, the only difference was the strength bonus of the fighter, which you assumed was +3.  And the fighter had to attack twice to do that instead of once, so two chances to miss versus 1 so your math was wrong on top of it.

Maybe you might want to actually get familiar with 5e before you start accusing me of being wrong.

For one, it's a pretty safe assumption that a fighter is going to have at least a +3 ability modifier to damage in 5e (Either Str or Dex, depending on what type of fighter you like: brute or nimble).  Most would have +4 by level 5 because they can increase their attribute at level 4 if they want.

Secondly, a ray of frost doesn't even get that opportunity to have an ability modifier.

Thirdly, the fact that a mage can only cast ray of frost once per round as opposed to the fighter's standard two attacks is pretty relevant.  Those are standard attacks, not using any special ability to do so

Fourthly, you don't understand basic math.  My example was based on each person always hitting.  The % to hit doesn't impact the ratio of damage per round as a comparison as long as both PCs have the same chance.  I.e., if each only had a 50% chance to hit, the average damage for the MU is 4.5 and the fighter's is 7.5.  The fighter will always do almost twice as much damage per round as the MU, regardless of the hit% as long as they are the same for both PC.

QuoteAt-will existed as certain special abilities, or magical item powers, not as a baseline universal spell-list of at-will.  Complete strawman. Jesus Fuck, you are becoming Seanchai.

What strawman?  Who's argument was I making a strawman with.  I only said that "at-will" magic existed as early as AD&D1e.  Which it did.  Even used the same term.

So maybe instead of insulting people, you actually get a clue as to what you're talking about first.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754086The very idea that a magic user needs to be able to crank out damage per round on typical attacks that roughly equal a fighter is all the proof I need that whoever designed this turd knows fuckall about actual D&D.

My understanding is that that at-will Ray of Frost requires a to-hit roll. So I would not be surprised if actually, on average a fighter using a standard weapon would actually end up doing out more damage than a wizard zapping with ray of frost every round after the first few levels. (At low levels they might hit at around the same rate, but the fighter would survive longer in combat due to his superior armour - making it possible for the wizard to get off those frost rays in the first place.)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754166Yeah, I don't get

Asked and answered many times.  It's a setting thing as well as an overall game feel thing.  You don't have to agree.

It's weird though saying you don't understand how the baseline assumption of unlimited magics can alter a setting because the GM can alter the rules.  It's like saying you don't see the problem with putting the Borg in Greyhawk either, because the GM can always say it didn't happen.

WotC has a very bad habit of making rules for a supposed generic ruleset that say a whole lot of specific things about a setting.  They almost seem incapable of seeing it.

Quote from: Warthur;754175My understanding is that that at-will Ray of Frost requires a to-hit roll. So I would not be surprised if actually, on average a fighter using a standard weapon would actually end up doing out more damage than a wizard zapping with ray of frost every round after the first few levels. (At low levels they might hit at around the same rate, but the fighter would survive longer in combat due to his superior armour - making it possible for the wizard to get off those frost rays in the first place.)

They do, as i showed above.  What we have here are a few folks who have no idea how 5e actually works, and are assuming things that aren't true, and/or are taking away conclusions from statements that were never actually made.

In the example you quoted, I said compared to a standard attack, the MU's at will isn't overpowered.  EW assumed that meant that the damage was equal based on his statement.  Note that nothing in my statement remotely says that they are equal, just that one isn't overpowered compared to the other.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754144So how about spells? Concentration, on the other hand, I do all day on a fairly regular basis. Even tasks requiring very intense concentration, there's just no comparison to vigorously swinging an object. You trying to say it's obviously the same appears to be a tacit admission that the alternative (i.e. you can cast cantrips ad infinitum) is pretty stupid.

Spellcasting in D&D typically involves more than concentration though - remember spell components? Remember verbal and somatic components? If you have to chant and wave your arms about to do your spells then that's going to set a limit on how long you can spend spellcasting - even opera singers trained to belt out Wagner from hours on end need to rest their voices.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754176Asked and answered many times.  It's a setting thing as well as an overall game feel thing.  You don't have to agree.

It's weird though saying you don't understand how the baseline assumption of unlimited magics can alter a setting because the GM can alter the rules.  It's like saying you don't see the problem with putting the Borg in Greyhawk either, because the GM can always say it didn't happen.

WotC has a very bad habit of making rules for a supposed generic ruleset that say a whole lot of specific things about a setting.  They almost seem incapable of seeing it.

Stop 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.  I'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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754176It's weird though saying you don't understand how the baseline assumption of unlimited magics can alter a setting because the GM can alter the rules.  It's like saying you don't see the problem with putting the Borg in Greyhawk either, because the GM can always say it didn't happen.

Except 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.

I am sometimes stunned by the willfull idiocy people display on forums, and this place is better than many, but good grief.

I am not pointing out the real world understanding we all have of physical fatigue because I think we need to track the number of swings a Fighter can make (c'mon...you seriously can't be so stupid as to think that's what I was saying). We don't need rules for that because we can make reasonable judgements about it, it would needlessly slow down the game, and the places where it's an issue don't come up much. Saying magic is the same is nothing more than an assumption. An assumption those making it appear blind to.

So, I can project a "ray of frost" so cold it burns the target badly enough to be close to as damaging as a sword blow. Alright, as there are no limits on how often I can cast it, can I create an ice bridge across a pool with it? Why not? Can I "smash" open multiple chests from a distance by just targeting the locks over and over? Why not? Can I start an ice-making business and make a profit (and shouldn't some equivalent of ice cubes be ubiquitous in my setting?) on it? Why not? The answers to these questions might be, "Of course not! Don't be stupid!" but that is completely arbitrary. And by arbitrary, I do not mean simply mean DM judgement as opposed to RAW, so spare me that garbage (as CRKrueger pointed out, "But houserules!" means you haven't got an argument). It's arbitrary in that the DM plays the world, and at will cantrips say something about how that world works. Something that should feed into DM rulings.

When you're constantly having to rule against clever, otherwise reasonable uses of a spell or ability because it would have silly implications, then perhaps there's a problem with said spell or ability (or unlimited uses thereof, in this case). Put another way, I don't think anyone here said there were limits to how many times you could cast a cantrip because it made any kind of in-game sense (in the way the sword-swinging limit did), but because not having that limit was obviously going to create absurdity. Yeah, that's the problem. It's not some weird cult of RAW, it's a rather obvious implication of the rules that says something about the setting.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754152Wizards need to be limited, wizards need to have limitations on magic, otherwise they can do everything anyone else can, PLUS stuff no one else can.

Because a limited set of at-will cantrips gives thieves turning of undead and lockpicking and the ability to wear full plate and use a greatsword?

Oooooooooookay.

Quote from: Haffrung;754153Cantrips are to spell/day spells as walking around in platemail holding a shield is to trading blows with an ogre: beneath the level needed to be captured by rules, but fatiguing enough to put some kind of limits on out-of-combat behaviour if you want to run a 'realistic' world model.

Aaaaand we have a winner.

I hate to sound cliche, but if people actually played the game, most of these concerns wouldn't even come up because they aren't an issue.

And here I thought most people on this forum were against theorycrafting.

Guess not.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754173Maybe you might want to actually get familiar with 5e before you start accusing me of being wrong.

You're assuming that the Fighter has that Strength.  Your argument was that the Fighter did more damage, but that damage is totally based on Strength.  So the only difference between Ray of Frost and a Fighter's normal attack is Str at that level, not exactly a great argument for this not being a primary form of attack, is it?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754173Thirdly, the fact that a mage can only cast ray of frost once per round as opposed to the fighter's standard two attacks is pretty relevant.  Those are standard attacks, not using any special ability to do so.

Are you saying it matters whether 2d8 are delivered 2d8x1 or 1d8x2 or not?  Or does it change depending on how you argue?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754173Fourthly, you don't understand basic math.  

...and you need to get out of the white room.  I give you a 50% to inflict 100pts of damage or I give you 4 50% chances to inflict 25pts of damage.  Which one will you use?  Depends entirely on the situation and what you're facing.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754173What strawman?  Who's argument was I making a strawman with.  I only said that "at-will" magic existed as early as AD&D1e.  Which it did.  Even used the same term.

You understand what a strawman is, right?  I never said that at-wills were new to 5e.  What I said was that at-will spells for mages changed baseline assumptions for settings that previously did not have such things.  So you deciding to reply by saying at-wills were introduced in 1e was either a random synapse fire, or you meant that as a point to counter what I did not say, ie. strawman.

The fact that at-will magics existed somewhere means absolutely nothing when we were talking about it being a feature of one of the 4 core classes.

Quote from: mcbobbo;754167As with the first quote above, if magic is free and easy why would anyone pick up a shovel ever again?  If you can summon infinite water, why not start your own oasis in the desert?  Why would there be deserts at all?

Presumably because it requires a certain amount of sustained training and dedication to even get to the point where you can do at-wills?

If magic is rare it's because wizards are rare, which means presumably there's some reason why everyone doesn't just become a wizard (it requires intensive study that few can afford and fewer can master, or it requires you to be blessed by the gods of magic at birth, or it requires you to make horrifying pacts which most mortals would quail at... not hard to think of reasons). If wizards are rare, then there's the answer to all your questions: people pick up shovels because they don't have the High Art, deserts still exist because there isn't massive armies of wizards who are happy to go around creating water all day, and so on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754190You're assuming that the Fighter has that Strength.  Your argument was that the Fighter did more damage, but that damage is totally based on Strength.  So the only difference between Ray of Frost and a Fighter's normal attack is Str at that level, not exactly a great argument for this not being a primary form of attack, is it?

My answer to this was in the part you conveniently deleted from your quote of me.
 
Impressive.

QuoteAre you saying it matters whether 2d8 are delivered 2d8x1 or 1d8x2 or not?  Or does it change depending on how you argue?

...and you need to get out of the white room.  I give you a 50% to inflict 100pts of damage or I give you 4 50% chances to inflict 25pts of damage.  Which one will you use?  Depends entirely on the situation and what you're facing.

I'm not going to explain 1st grade math to you.  Clearly you don't have a fucking clue as to how it works.

QuoteYou understand what a strawman is, right?  .

I do. And a key requirement of being a strawman is being directed at someone else's argument.  My comment about at wills being in 1e wasn't quoting anyone.  It was just a statement.  Therefore, it cannot be a strawman because it wasn't addressing anyone else's argument.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754190...and you need to get out of the white room.  I give you a 50% to inflict 100pts of damage or I give you 4 50% chances to inflict 25pts of damage.  Which one will you use?  Depends entirely on the situation and what you're facing.

What crackspawned version of D&D do you use where wizards consistently have the same to-hit chances as fighters?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754189I hate to sound cliche, but if people actually played the game, most of these concerns wouldn't even come up because they aren't an issue.

And here I thought most people on this forum were against theorycrafting.

Guess not.

You forgot the shrug, too long out of high school I guess.

It's interesting that you don't realize the main point of the contention has nothing to do with simulations or math.  It has to do with how magic feels and what that says about the setting.  Some people either are incapable of seeing it, or just don't care.  Others are bothered by the idea, so they respond (oddly enough) that they think it is a bad idea and why.  It's not a point that can be argued.  You're

You're basically pulling the same playbook the 4vengers used against fighter daily criticisms or that the narrative crowd uses against metagame criticisms. Seriously, almost down to the sentence, go look it up if you don't believe me.

You don't have to defend 5e against all comers, especially when they're talking about something that you can't refute because it's a feeling, opinion or obvious fact (like common at-will magics do affect the baseline assumptions of a setting and game).

Quote from: CRKrueger;754197It's interesting that you don't realize the main point of the contention has nothing to do with simulations or math.  It has to do with how magic feels and what that says about the setting.  Some people either are incapable of seeing it, or just don't care.  Others are bothered by the idea, so they respond (oddly enough) that they think it is a bad idea and why.  It's not a point that can be argued.  You're

You're basically pulling the same playbook the 4vengers used against fighter daily criticisms or that the narrative crowd uses against metagame criticisms. Seriously, almost down to the sentence, go look it up if you don't believe me.

This. It's stunning who it's coming from.

Quote from: Warthur;754195What crackspawned version of D&D do you use where wizards consistently have the same to-hit chances as fighters?

Actually, in 5e, they are pretty much the same.  The only advantage a fighter gets over a mage in the context of attack rolls is any bonus from magic weapons.  But the way 5e works is (at a basic level):

Attack roll + ability modifier

So a mage casting ray of frost rolls 1d20 + INT modifier.  A fighter rolls 1d20 + either STR or DEX mod (depending on what type of weapon he is using)

It stands to reason that if both PCs have a 16 as their highest ability score, the fighter will have a +3 bonus and the MU will have a +3 bonus to hit as well.

However, ray of frost does not add ability modifier to damage, whereas a fighter does to his weapons.

Therefore, it can be assumed for these purposes that the change to hit for both MU and fighter are the same.  It's damage where it diverts.

Assuming each attack hits, in one round, the MU will do a minimum of 2 points of damage, with a maximum of 16.  The fighter will do a minimum of 8 points of damage, with a maximum of 22.  And that's with a long sword.  If the fighter gives up his shield and goes two-handed weapons, damage increases even more.  Or if they dual wield they do more damage too.

This 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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754165ROFL, all three, ok.

...and yet what is the baseline? Pew Pew.  The fact that you discount all arguments because it's something you like doesn't mean that the arguments about setting aren't valid.



Since none of you chose to engage my arguments about setting, I'll assume you so stipulate.  Thanks. :hatsoff:

The baseline is whatever you want it to be that is the whole point of 5e.They want you to make whatever style floats your boat similar to FantasyCraft where they give you options. You don't like a rule? Change it just like it's been done since 1978.

Quote from: Marleycat;754202The baseline is whatever you want it to be that is the whole point of 5e.They want you to make whatever style floats your boat similar to FantasyCraft.

I get that, and it's a laudable goal. At will cantrips seem to be at odds with that.

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.

You are a good man and this post is an island of sanctuary in a storm of troubles.

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.

I'm pretty sure the 2nd Edition Spelljammer splatbook actually encouraged high levle players to abuse the falling damage rules in order to depart from their ships.

Quote from: Warthur;754195What crackspawned version of D&D do you use where wizards consistently have the same to-hit chances as fighters?

Ask Sacrosanct, he's the one that posited that there was no difference between one roll for 2d8 and two rolls for 1d8.  He probably was in such a hurry to rush to the defense, he forgot that part.

I expect, to actually aid his argument, that at higher levels then 5th, the "to hit" roll for the fighter will actually outpace the wizard, so that the Pew Pew will be much less useful then just about any other classes' base melee.  The bounded accuracy however means it can't be a huge difference.  I don't have the playtest doc in front of me.  For 1-5 though, it seems pretty clear that the Wizard is expected to have a damage output close to the fighter without casting any limited spells.

Which brings us back to if Rogue, Mage, and Cleric can do X damage plus special abilities, then the Fighter without special abilities needs to do more then X+a few %.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754184Saying magic is the same is nothing more than an assumption. An assumption those making it appear blind to.

It's not an assumption. It's a discretionary ruling on something outside the scope of the standard game rules. What does magic mean in your campaign? It's up to you. Always has been.

You are making the assumption that at-will cantrips mean casting does not tax mages in any way. There's nothing in the rules that makes that obvious to me, since there are all sorts of other things PCs can do effectively at-will RAW in game action but which still have endurance limits in the larger scale, and since mages have always had some kind of time and rest limit on casting.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754184So, I can project a "ray of frost" so cold it burns the target badly enough to be close to as damaging as a sword blow. Alright, as there are no limits on how often I can cast it, can I create an ice bridge across a pool with it? Why not? Can I "smash" open multiple chests from a distance by just targeting the locks over and over? Why not? Can I start an ice-making business and make a profit (and shouldn't some equivalent of ice cubes be ubiquitous in my setting?) on it? Why not? The answers to these questions might be, "Of course not! Don’t be stupid!" but that is completely arbitrary.

No more arbitrary than a DM telling a player that just because he can smash open a wooden door once per round, doesn't mean he can spend 10 hours smashing down the entire palisade around a village.

 

Quote from: Bobloblah;754184And by arbitrary, I do not mean simply mean DM judgement as opposed to RAW, so spare me that garbage (as CRKrueger pointed out, "But houserules!" means you haven't got an argument). It's arbitrary in that the DM plays the world, and at will cantrips say something about how that world works. Something that should feed into DM rulings.

When you're constantly having to rule against clever, otherwise reasonable uses of a spell or ability because it would have silly implications, then perhaps there's a problem with said spell or ability (or unlimited uses thereof, in this case). Put another way, I don't think anyone here said there were limits to how many times you could cast a cantrip because it made any kind of in-game sense (in the way the sword-swinging limit did), but because not having that limit was obviously going to create absurdity. Yeah, that's the problem. It’s not some weird cult of RAW, it's a rather obvious implication of the rules that says something about the setting.

D&D doesn't have fatigue rules. As others has said, it's because D&D abstracts out a lot of that grit. Always has. It's at the DM's discretion to make rulings on fatigue for spending hours chopping wood, bashing down doors, or casting the weakest of spells.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754197It's interesting that you don't realize the main point of the contention has nothing to do with simulations or math

Tell 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?

QuoteIt has to do with how magic feels and what that says about the setting.  Some people either are incapable of seeing it, or just don't care.  .

You'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.

You 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.

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;754205I'm pretty sure the 2nd Edition Spelljammer splatbook actually encouraged high levle players to abuse the falling damage rules in order to depart from their ships.

... Ok, well, if I was DMing Spelljammer I would totally allow it because Spelljammer Gravity is whack anyway. Also Spelljammer is my favorite whacky setting.

Quote from: Warthur;754192Presumably because it requires a certain amount of sustained training and dedication to even get to the point where you can do at-wills?

If magic is rare it's because wizards are rare, which means presumably there's some reason why everyone doesn't just become a wizard (it requires intensive study that few can afford and fewer can master, or it requires you to be blessed by the gods of magic at birth, or it requires you to make horrifying pacts which most mortals would quail at... not hard to think of reasons). If wizards are rare, then there's the answer to all your questions: people pick up shovels because they don't have the High Art, deserts still exist because there isn't massive armies of wizards who are happy to go around creating water all day, and so on.

Does the setting say that wizards are rare?  It implies that even kobolds have shaman and sorcerers, does it not?  Also, magic shops but not magic ice shops was a good point.

Quote from: CRKrueger;754206Ask Sacrosanct, he's the one that posited that there was no difference between one roll for 2d8 and two rolls for 1d8.  

Jesus you're fucking stupid.  No, there isn't a difference between:

1d8+1d8

and

(1d8+1d8)

Quote from: Warthur;754195What crackspawned version of D&D do you use where wizards consistently have the same to-hit chances as fighters?

Check your books, dude! In every edition before 3E, wizard's to-hit chances at low to medium levels are within a point or two of fighters of the same level. I would say this is just a symptom of the broader problem that all editions after Chainmail and before 3E (maybe even pre 4E) give fighters way too anemic of a progression in attack ability. The only remedy is to tack on kool powerzzz as house rules, or spread around magic items. Really, if you are playing 'traditional' D&D using RAW and omitting stuff like weapon specialization, the only advantages to being a fighter are hit points and the freedom to use any weapons and armor.

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.

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

No, no, no. Doesn't matter. Arguments about feel are irrelevant. That's why Sacrosanct never made arguments about the feel of 4e.

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.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754233That 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.

It's not a question of mitigation, it's a question of base assumptions.  If I want to change character danger, and it make it a harder game, I'll do it, but it's unfortunate the designers made that choice, because then the default playstyle of the game assumes less danger.

If the game was baseline no at-will cantrips, with at-will cantrips an option, then the baseline assumption wouldn't be Wizards with unlimited utility spells and ranged combat ability.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754233In 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).  

Pick one, broad spectrum at-wills didn't come until 4e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754233I 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.

Ok, but if it did alter the feel for you, you'd post that opinion, right?

So in the end, all we have is it didn't alter the feel for you.  You don't see a real difference between a Wizard using normal weapons in between spells, or a Wizard not having to include damage output every round, and a Wizard casting blue rays of frost every round of combat and that being the default assumption of the game.

We're just going to agree to disagree on this one.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754235That'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.

That's not true. Intelligence modifies how many spells the magic-user is able to know, not how many he's able to cast per day.

Quote from: mcbobbo;754237We'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.

2008 called, it wants its dissociated mechanics flamewars back. This is seriously history repeating itself.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754235That'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.

You are hilarious. Why can't you "memorise" more? Why do you have to sleep or rest before you can rememorise? Why can I only speak 10 of the 15 Japanese words I know before I have to take a nap - oh, wait...your analogy is intentionally misapplied.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754220Just 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.

Jesus do understand how silly that statement sounds? Especially coming from you? Dnd is all about DIY. Sorry you can't actually alter the magic system without WotC approval. What makes this attitude even more senseless is that there will be multiple options and magic systems in the DMG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;7542422008 called, it wants its dissociated mechanics flamewars back. This is seriously history repeating itself.

What amazes me is who is on which side of what is essentially the same issue.

Quote from: CRKrueger;7542422008 called, it wants its dissociated mechanics flamewars back. This is seriously history repeating itself.

I have never seen you act this stupid what is going on with you? Other spell systems beyond Vancian have been used from the start and my friends never use it. Why? Because it's too much bookkeeping that got ignored anyway.

Quote from: Bobloblah;754245What amazes me is who is on which side of what is essentially the same issue.

Yeah, somehow 5e criticism got identified with the "old fogey grognard" faction, so all the anti-grogs are barnstorming, not realizing they're spitting back the same arguments used against them when they criticized 4e.  It's pretty surprising and kind of weird, to be really honest.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754189I hate to sound cliche, but if people actually played the game, most of these concerns wouldn't even come up because they aren't an issue.

And here I thought most people on this forum were against theorycrafting.

Guess not.

Dude, I play the game, I love the game, it's my favorite version of D&D so far, and I agree with them that cantrips should have a limit on their use.  So, cut the canard.

Quote from: Marleycat;754247I have never seen you act this stupid what is going on with you?

You've always been a supporter of more at-will magic for mages, I've always been against it.  That hasn't changed.

What's changed is that you forgot the last 14 years of D&D history which showed that default assumptions in the game ended up creating a charop, player-servicing, bloated monstrosity of a game.  Two versions of crap.

You can just as easily give mages at-will as I can take them away.  The difference is, a default assumption of a mage with unlimited ranged weapon damage every round and unlimited utility spells, alters the nature of the game, which since it is the baseline assumption, is going to affect the future game and the D&D culture.

You don't care about it because you have Pew Pew.  Ok, go you.  Dismissing my opinions as unfounded because it takes away your toy isn't an argument.

If you can't see the difference between the foundations of a game with and without at-will cantrips then there's really nothing I can do to explain it.

Sacrosanct at least says he thought it would make a difference but so far it hasn't.  That's good for him, I will admit he plays it regularly.

It sure as hell felt different to me though.

Quote from: Mistwell;754250Dude, I play the game, I love the game, it's my favorite version of D&D so far, and I agree with them that cantrips should have a limit on their use.  So, cut the canard.

Interesting, I'd like to hear why it's your favorite by far, if you can put it into words.

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

Bullshit. It had NOTHING to with fatigue just how much information your mind call could remember.

Quote from: Bill;754104Hopefully the monsters will be dangerous, but not have 1,000,000 hp.

Using the minotaur as the example again. HP 52 (7d10+14) AC 12, +6 to hit, Great Axe 17 (2d12+4)

Caves of Chaos and older beastiary Minotaur: HP 132, AC 14, +6, Great Axe 1d12+4

But what is really interesting is the new "feats" system which at level 4 allows you to pick up a feat by sacrificing the stat up option you get at level 4. A
And one of those feats is the Initiate (Arcane/Divine/Druidic) which allows you to pick up 2 cantrips and one 1st level spell.

The Barbarian with an at-will Ray of Frost... battling beside the shield bashing Mage...

I remember someone comparing at will cantrips to other classes at will abilities, where cantrips are basically getting a whole slew of at will abilities (basic attack, generate light, manipulate small objects, etc.)

I can't remember if 5e does this, but I remember something that I didn't like with pathfinder is that spellcasters got ALL cantrips at will, which was a bit much.

But if cantrips were awarded as abilities per level maybe that would make it more palatable, like at level 1 a spellcaster gains prestidigitation and one other cantrip, at level 3 they add another one, etc.

I don't really think any one cantrip really overpowers the class compared to other at will abilities, and I certainly don't see it as the slippery slope into Charop. But I houseruled 1st and 2nd ed magic all the time to give mages a bit more survivability, so I'm a bit biased.

Quote from: Marleycat;754253Bullshit. It had NOTHING to with fatigue just how much information your mind call could remember.

I disagree that it has to do with remembering information. That's mundane memorization, not magical memorization. But you're right that doesn't involve fatigue. Here's what the DM's Guide says:

"Release of word/sound-stored energy is not particularly debilitating to the spell caster, as he or she has gathered this energy over a course of time prior to the loosing of the power. It comes from outside the spell catser, not from his or her own vital essence" (DMG 40).

N

Quote from: CRKrueger;754251You've always been a supporter of more at-will magic for mages, I've always been against it.  That hasn't changed.

What's changed is that you forgot the last 14 years of D&D history which showed that default assumptions in the game ended up creating a charop, player-servicing, bloated monstrosity of a game.  Two versions of crap.

You can just as easily give mages at-will as I can take them away.  The difference is, a default assumption of a mage with unlimited ranged weapon damage every round and unlimited utility spells, alters the nature of the game, which since it is the baseline assumption, is going to affect the future game and the D&D culture.

You don't care about it because you have Pew Pew.  Ok, go you.  Dismissing my opinions as unfounded because it takes away your toy isn't an argument.

If you can't see the difference between the foundations of a game with and without at-will cantrips then there's really nothing I can do to explain it.

Sacrosanct at least says he thought it would make a difference but so far it hasn't.  That's good for him, I will admit he plays it regularly.

It sure as hell felt different to me though.

What's your point beyond 5e may not be for you? In my experience no individual game is like another. And I don't care about implied or baseline or overall settings I care about my setting or whatever setting my table is playing.

Quote from: Omega;754255Using the minotaur as the example again. HP 52 (7d10+14) AC 12, +6 to hit, Great Axe 17 (2d12+4)

Caves of Chaos and older beastiary Minotaur: HP 132, AC 14, +6, Great Axe 1d12+4

But what is really interesting is the new "feats" system which at level 4 allows you to pick up a feat by sacrificing the stat up option you get at level 4. A
And one of those feats is the Initiate (Arcane/Divine/Druidic) which allows you to pick up 2 cantrips and one 1st level spell.

The Barbarian with an at-will Ray of Frost... battling beside the shield bashing Mage...

I know.:) It's my kind of gonzo.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754156No it doesn't.  Did you not see my example above between the fighter and mage?

Also:
At-will magic has been around since at least AD&D1e, so it's not a new concept.

Not to mention that the Mage needs a to-hit roll for the Ray and the monster gets a DEX save for the Grasp.

Quote from: CRKrueger;7542422008 called, it wants its dissociated mechanics flamewars back. This is seriously history repeating itself.

I would assume that's got everything to do with 5e moving further down the path of high magic than away from it.

Nice quip though.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754171Anyone else finding extreme irony in the sort of Cult of the RAW that says that all at wills must be literally unlimited. It just seems so out of place on this forum. Its almost like people are hypocrites.

Well for what its worth. the At Will Ray and Grasp both use up a rounds action. So you are limited in a way. You only get 3 actions in a non-combat exploration turn. So theres a built in limiter of sorts it seems.

Bemusingly endless casting is the very reason given in the playtest!
It states that repeated castings had settled the spell in the casters mind and infused them with the magic needed to produce the spell over and over.

Quote from: Omega;754266Well for what its worth. the At Will Ray and Grasp both use up a rounds action. So you are limited in a way. You only get 3 actions in a non-combat exploration turn. So theres a built in limiter of sorts it seems.

Bemusingly endless casting is the very reason given in the playtest!
It states that repeated castings had settled the spell in the casters mind and infused them with the magic needed to produce the spell over and over.

What's neat though is you can attack and move up to your full movement not in any particular order. Like peek out from behind a rock zap somebody and run over to a tree 30 feet away or whatever. So it's very fluid without the action paralysis of 3/4e with the OA's and immediate action/reaction mess.

Quote from: mcbobbo;754211Does the setting say that wizards are rare?  It implies that even kobolds have shaman and sorcerers, does it not?  Also, magic shops but not magic ice shops was a good point.

Does it give those kobold shamen and sorcerers at-will spells?

Quote from: Larsdangly;754213Check your books, dude!

Check my post, dude.

Quote from: Warthur;754195What crackspawned version of D&D do you use where wizards consistently have the same to-hit chances as fighters?

Quote from: Marleycat;754267What's neat though is you can attack and move up to your full movement not in any particular order. Like peek out from behind a rock zap somebody and run over to a tree 30 feet away or whatever. So it's very fluid without the action paralysis of 3/4e.

I thought you were in favor of AD&D-style spell casting consraints? You can't move and cast a spell in the same round in AD&D.

Quote from: aspiringlich;754241That's not true. Intelligence modifies how many spells the magic-user is able to know, not how many he's able to cast per day.

Which in early editions increased most quickly and effectively if the mage obtained a large sum of money, and in subsequent editions the best way to increase it was to kill shit.

If you analyse the rules on this level they stop making sense. They're abstractions, and it's in the abstract gap between the rules and the game world that you have a huge amount of room for interpretation.

Quote from: aspiringlich;754271I thought you were in favor of AD&D-style spell casting consraints? You can't move and cast a spell in the same round in AD&D.

I don't mind it but we allowed movement in our 2e games just not as much as this, but I do prefer free flowing combat. I just hated OA's and other finicky things like that. Certain spells require concentration meaning you really can't do something else or you only can have one buff spell up at a time. The baseline is a middle ground to be honest that's why you'll love the DMG where all the buttons and levers are quite like FantasyCraft.

The playtest isn't even the actual BASIC version let alone what will be possible with the full version.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754189I hate to sound cliche, but if people actually played the game, most of these concerns wouldn't even come up because they aren't an issue.

And here I thought most people on this forum were against theorycrafting.

Guess not.

All I can say is that I was in a two-and-a-half year Pathfinder campaign (that went up to level 13) and at-will cantrips were par for the course.

I can't recall a single incident where they were a problem.

Now summoning spells - - those were a problem. As were all the effects that temporarily increased or decreased ability scores - with all the recalculation of secondary features that depended on them. As were the players who announced they were polymorphing into such and such, but never bothered to have the alternate stats and abilities on hand, so we all got to take a break while the DM recalculated everything for them.

And don't even get me started about the clerical necromancer who had his own damned natural history museum following him around like a Shriner's parade, not even counting the litter bearers and feather fan squad.

Cantrips?  -pha-

Quote from: Warthur;754268Does it give those kobold shamen and sorcerers at-will spells?

Yes?  AFAIK, being an NPC doesn't modify class levels.  Now the 'Adept' class doesn't get them - I just looked it up - but 'Sorcerer' still does, as does Cleric, etc.

Here's one pulled from the pfsrd:  http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/unique-monsters/cr-2/troglodyte-shaman

Quote1st--cure light wounds, divine favor, magic weapon(D)
0 (at will)--create water, mending, stabilize
D domain spell; Domains Destruction, War

So in this case I'd ask - do troglodytes tolerate broken equipment in this game world?  If so, why?

Quote from: mcbobbo;754280So in this case I'd ask - do troglodytes tolerate broken equipment in this game world?  If so, why?

Presumably if they do, it's because their gods get pissed if they get used as cosmological superglue.

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.

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;754205I'm pretty sure the 2nd Edition Spelljammer splatbook actually encouraged high levle players to abuse the falling damage rules in order to depart from their ships.

Totally off topic but...

Spelljammer fixed that problem. Sidebars Page 56-60
1d4 heat damage per round once you hit the 20d6 falling damage limit. Heat damage that doubles every turn, so 2d4, 4d4 etc and it overwhelms fire resistance spells and items. Assuming you lived to hit the ground you take the 20d6 damage AND have to make a save vs death or die.

 Falling from orbit to an Earth size body like Oerth or Toril takes 4 turns. Total of 150d4 fire damage. 10d4+20d4+40d4+80d4.
Oh and the sudden stop at the end if you survived re-entry.

I love Spelljammer.

Back on topic.

So a wizard, (or barbarian ahem) can act as a walking refrigerator or dynamo? They arent doing anything else aside from walking.
In context the Geodome airship from Mystarra is stated as taking a total of 3 years of work to fully enchant. The dynamo alone took 6 months to enchant.

If you REALLY are worried some player will abuse the at will then apply the fatigue rules for extending past 8 hours.

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;754256I can't remember if 5e does this, but I remember something that I didn't like with pathfinder is that spellcasters got ALL cantrips at will, which was a bit much.

Playtest had the following.
Bard got 2 cantrips,
Cleric 3
Druids 2
Mage 3
Paladin and Ranger 0

None of those mention getting more than that.

Quote from: Omega;754297Playtest had the following.
Bard got 2 cantrips,
Cleric 3
Druids 2
Mage 3
Paladin and Ranger 0

None of those mention getting more than that.

So let me get this straight people are having a meltdown over THREE 0-level spells? Unless you actually pick them when you level up? Okaaay. I do assume you'll find more as you adventure but really? I do know that Wizards can have all of them at some point but isn't that logical? They're CANTRIPS for God sake! So you get 15-20 of them maybe 4-5 are direct damage types at best useful in fight if you are trapped with no options or a Wizard (Cartemen) duel. Totally on theme to me.

Quote from: Marleycat;754301So let me get this straight people are having a meltdown over THREE 0-level spells? Unless you actually pick them when you level up? Okaaay. I do assume you'll find more as you adventure but really? I do know that Wizards can have all of them at some point but isn't that logical? They're CANTRIPS for God sake! So you get 15-20 of them maybe 4-5 are direct damage types at best.

There is no mention of gaining more. But at 18th level you gain a 1st and a 2nd level spell that become at wills as well. And using your rest and reorganization period you can swap in and out what those 2 are. So Im going to say a mage has to select 3 cantrips that they can cast at will from whatever theyve picked up past the starting 3. Swapping in and out just like the mastery ones.

Assuming the system hasnt changed overly in the final version.

Oh yeah. and Evoker path gets potent Cantrip at level 5. Even if you miss with the cantrip it still deals 1/2 damage but not any effects like shocking grasps stun. Enchanter gets essentially an at-will charm sort of effect.

Quote from: Omega;754304There is no mention of gaining more. But at 18th level you gain a 1st and a 2nd level spell that become at wills as well. And using your rest and reorganization period you can swap in and out what those 2 are. So Im going to say a mage has to select 3 cantrips that they can cast at will from whatever theyve picked up past the starting 3. Swapping in and out just like the mastery ones.

Assuming the system hasnt changed overly in the final version.

Oh yeah. and Evoker path gets potent Cantrip at level 5. Even if you miss with the cantrip it still deals 1/2 damage but not any effects like shocking grasps stun. Enchanter gets essentially an at-will charm sort of effect.

So? In Pathfinder you know them all at the start and in FantasyCraft a full 20th level Wizard can at-will any 0/1/2 level spells they know and have specialty spells that are considered one level lower meaning less spell points for 5-6 spells of your choice if not more and in the latter they're still underpowered compared to the martial types.

And it's about time blaster Wizards get a chance to be viable. 3/4e made that choice utterly stupid. Good so my Ray of Frost hits for half damage at 5th level but that might break the game and it's not Dnd! Cry me a river.

By the way they are nerfing the Enchanter antipathy ability.:)

Yeah, I'm not really seeing the major issues. And if I run into any problems with my group I'll probably just deal with them as needed. It lets players play a spellcaster and not a dart thrower who can sometimes shoot a magic missile.

Seems like a fair enough bump from older editions without turning into 3rd ed or 4th ed silliness.

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;754311Yeah, I'm not really seeing the major issues. And if I run into any problems with my group I'll probably just deal with them as needed. It lets players play a spellcaster and not a dart thrower who can sometimes shoot a magic missile.

Seems like a fair enough bump from older editions without turning into 3rd ed or 4th ed silliness.

Correct. If I want to throw darts or use a crossbow I'll play a Rogue preferably an elven one with the Assassin background and really start the carnage and laugh in the shadows, quietly of course so I don't get ganked myself.

I have zero interest in it, and spells better damn well be disrupt-able as concentration checks need to die in a fire. Would be the first thing I house rule out upon contact, barring anything else more egregious. You may fuck a bit with the power maths, but don't fuck me over with the quantity maths. Expected mechanical assumptions on multiplier effects, a.k.a. quantity and action economy, can and have been crippling to settings and their conversions, IME.

I want Basic to be as basic as can be. Get your flash out and give me a clean baseline with which to build atop. Unless your setting explains the ramifications for anything greater, I'll assume it is overstepping creative bounds into my GM purview and will be ignored -- be it at the table, and maybe at the sales rack.

As for my permitting 0-lvl spell quantities, extra casting will most definitely come with a cost in my tables. At my MOST generous you get Your Level plus INT Mod of 0-lvl spells. If you want to dip into more, it costs you a temporary INT point per spell, requiring full night rest to recoup an INT point per night. Yeah that means you can Cantrip or Light yourself into a temporary coma, that's a good thing in my opinion. Learn to manage resources and prepare.

Re unlimited damage cantrips - unlimited at-will attacks works fine in my 4e D&D game, but 4e is a game of fantasy superheroes, not resource management. We don't track arrows in 4e either - how are you supposed to track the number of arrows used in a burst or blast attack?

If 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.

My issue with limitless damage cantrips is that it removes a significant component of the resource management aspect of the game. Missile weapons have an ammunition resource, melee attacks are limited by your HP resource but damage cantrips are unlimited range attacks.

That said, its an easy house rule and as for its default setting implication I say meh. Every edition had setting defining quirks that were effectively ignored because they were not logically applied to the setting. i.e 3E could also have had the wizard ice cream shop scenario yet it never happened. 5E is no different.

My bigger gripe is that the default setting (as implied by the modules) is a shitty Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance mash up.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754171Anyone else finding extreme irony in the sort of Cult of the RAW that says that all at wills must be literally unlimited. It just seems so out of place on this forum. Its almost like people are hypocrites.

Hypocrites? Simply because we can parse basic English?

At-will means AT WILL. So barring being unconcious or otherwise incapacitated to a point that impacts your ability to exercise your will, yes it does mean literally unlimited.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754177They do, as i showed above.  What we have here are a few folks who have no idea how 5e actually works, and are assuming things that aren't true, and/or are taking away conclusions from statements that were never actually made.

In the example you quoted, I said compared to a standard attack, the MU's at will isn't overpowered.  EW assumed that meant that the damage was equal based on his statement.  Note that nothing in my statement remotely says that they are equal, just that one isn't overpowered compared to the other.

If a magic user can crank out semi comparable damage in combat to a fighter without the expenditure of limited resources IT IS OVERPOWERED.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754212Jesus you're fucking stupid.  No, there isn't a difference between:

1d8+1d8

and

(1d8+1d8)

Your target has damage resistance 8. Make a difference now?

Quote from: Bobloblah;754220Just 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.

Its easier to start with a basic game that gives you more of what you want and adding to that then filtering out floating piles of shit before even getting started.

Quote from: Larsdangly;754213Check your books, dude! In every edition before 3E, wizard's to-hit chances at low to medium levels are within a point or two of fighters of the same level. I would say this is just a symptom of the broader problem that all editions after Chainmail and before 3E (maybe even pre 4E) give fighters way too anemic of a progression in attack ability. The only remedy is to tack on kool powerzzz as house rules, or spread around magic items. Really, if you are playing 'traditional' D&D using RAW and omitting stuff like weapon specialization, the only advantages to being a fighter are hit points and the freedom to use any weapons and armor.

Hit points are huge part of the fighters combat power.

So, is resource management like the ultimate goal of the game? To see who can manage their arrows/torches/spells/etc the best? Speaking from experience it seems like a thing that some people loved and some people not so much. I still don't see how giving a spellcaster one to three at will options when they completely exhaust their spells is going to somehow let mages run roughshod over a dungeon. It's not like they can cast a cantrip and another spell at the same time so if the party is relying on the mage's light spell and he decides to cast something else then they're all in the dark. There's still risk management going on. To put it another way, I've never felt the need to track the durability of a fighter's weapons and armor in order to rein in their power.

Sure we can rely on Smith's Light spell and not burden ourselves with torches but if we run into an anti-magic field we're screwed. And Smith can't cast anything else because none of us have infravision, etc.

Just seems like a strange hill to die on if that's your biggest gripe with the magic system (which again seems very much toned down from 3rd/4th ed mages being able to just magic their way through everything.)

Personally I've always been more concerned about Clerics and Druids unbalancing a game since they have access to great magic as well as good combat abilities and are able to wear armor. I flat out banned druids in my homebrew world because of it.

Haven'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.

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;754372So, is resource management like the ultimate goal of the game? To see who can manage their arrows/torches/spells/etc the best? Speaking from experience it seems like a thing that some people loved and some people not so much. I still don't see how giving a spellcaster one to three at will options when they completely exhaust their spells is going to somehow let mages run roughshod over a dungeon. It's not like they can cast a cantrip and another spell at the same time so if the party is relying on the mage's light spell and he decides to cast something else then they're all in the dark. There's still risk management going on. To put it another way, I've never felt the need to track the durability of a fighter's weapons and armor in order to rein in their power.

There is more to the game then metagame balance during dungeon exploration.

There are setting considerations which have been expressed here, but most importantly the major difference in feel between classes is largely cosmetic when they are all performing in the same way with different window dressing .

This was supposed to be the edition that felt like D&D again but it is yet another iteration of the band of fantasy superheroes style of play. 4E already did four color fantasy heroes very well.  

Without the expenditure of limited magical resources, the magic user needs to suck donkey balls in combat so hard that he chokes.

If that is not the case then you have something other than a D&D magic user. It isn't a matter of being unbalanced with other party members. If they ARE all balanced to have equal utlity in combat then there is the problem. That is what gets you the band of four color fantasy heroes style that doesn't feel like D&D.

WOTC has yet to figure this out.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754366Hypocrites? Simply because we can parse basic English?

At-will means AT WILL. So barring being unconcious or otherwise incapacitated to a point that impacts your ability to exercise your will, yes it does mean literally unlimited.

Oh for fucks sake. At will is a game rule term, not an in world term. And hell, even in English, I have the ability to throw punches at will in real life. Doesn't mean it doesn't tire me out.

I can snap my fingers at will. If I do it continuously for long enough I'll get blisters on my fingers though.

The reason they are worded in game as at will is that you can cast them often enough that it really won't matter unless you are attempting to abuse the rules, in which case, wow, its like D&D was made with an arbiter of the rules built in.

Also, Jesus fucking christ, did you just go into whining about game balance after this part. Am I really on the right forum?

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;754372To put it another way, I've never felt the need to track the durability of a fighter's weapons and armor in order to rein in their power.

Yeah - when wizard at-wills are as powerful as fighter at-wills, best to worry about tracking expenditure of both, or neither. I wouldn't let a fighter tunnel through solid rock with infinite use of some at-will melee or ranged attack, and same goes for the wizard.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754375If that is not the case then you have something other than a D&D magic user. It isn't a matter of being unbalanced with other party members. If they ARE all balanced to have equal utlity in combat then there is the problem. That is what gets you the band of four color fantasy heroes style that doesn't feel like D&D.

WOTC has yet to figure this out.

While 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.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;754376Oh for fucks sake. At will is a game rule term, not an in world term. And hell, even in English, I have the ability to throw punches at will in real life. Doesn't mean it doesn't tire me out.

The erosion of language is a sad thing. To say that a term means something but then say that, because its a game that term means "whatever" is piss poor design.

In other words, don't fucking use the term at-will unless you mean it. It has already been established that using magic is not physically debilitating to the caster.

From the DMG page 40:  (AGAIN)

Release of word/sound-stored energy is not particularly debilitating to
the spell caster, as he or she has gathered this energy over a course of
time prior to the loosing of the power. It comes from outside the spell
caster, not from his or her own vital essence. The power to activate even
a first level spell would leave a spell caster weak and shaking if it were
drawn from his or her personal energy, and a third level spell would
most certainly totally drain the caster’s body of life!

So. Once again from a logical perspective, if there is indeed some reasonable practical limit to amount of 0 level magic that a caster can sling around in a given time period, what makes more sense:

1) Give sliding scale guidelines about the management  of this resource and how it can be customized to provide the amount of usage desired based on those limits.

OR

2) Just say that such magics are completely at-will then change what at-will actually means when someone who understands english explores the rule to its logical conclusion.


TLDR version: English motherfucker! Do you speak it?

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 (http://io9.com/the-new-d-d-adventures-will-include-all-the-dragons-1583844915), 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 (http://io9.com/the-new-d-d-adventures-will-include-all-the-dragons-1583844915), 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 (http://io9.com/the-new-d-d-adventures-will-include-all-the-dragons-1583844915).  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.

Both of these things are encouraging. Thanks!

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.'

Quote from: Exploderwizard;754615Everything 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: Exploderwizard;754615Everything 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.

Basically most items are +1 or +2. And the really powerful things are usually attuned and currently you only get 3 by 20th level. It's more horizontal then vertical like 3/4e. It's reminiscent to me of 1/2e where you had 7-8 items maximum by the time you were in name level territory. Not the 15-20 like 3/4e.

yeah, magic items in 5e are turned way down compared to most other editions, especially 3e.  Which I happen to like because that +1 sword you got at 3rd level?  Still useful at 15th level.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754714yeah, magic items in 5e are turned way down compared to most other editions, especially 3e.  Which I happen to like because that +1 sword you got at 3rd level?  Still useful at 15th level.

Yep, and those +2 bracers of defense? Literally a game tilter. To me the new paradigm is for more helpful to martial classes then magic using ones especially pure ones like wizards.

Quote from: Marleycat;754722Yep, and those +2 bracers of defense? Literally a game tilter. To me the new paradigm is for more helpful to martial classes then magic using ones especially pure ones like wizards.

I agree.  After all, it almost felt like the fighter was being cheated when he's wearing plate and shield (a key benefit of the class) just to have the MU put on bracers of defense AC 0.  With 5e, I don't see mages coming anywhere near the AC martial classes will have

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754726I agree.  After all, it almost felt like the fighter was being cheated when he's wearing plate and shield (a key benefit of the class) just to have the MU put on bracers of defense AC 0.  With 5e, I don't see mages coming anywhere near the AC martial classes will have

Hell no, at least until I see that Eldritch Knight fighter subclass or a Bladeinger Wizard subclass or how multiclassing actually works.

I did hear the Sorcerer is basically a F/M without multiclassing though...I hope I heard wrong. Something like a Magus or Swordmage would be fine given both are unique full archetypes.

Quote from: Marleycat;754711Basically most items are +1 or +2. And the really powerful things are usually attuned and currently you only get 3 by 20th level. It's more horizontal then vertical like 3/4e. It's reminiscent to me of 1/2e where you had 7-8 items maximum by the time you were in name level territory. Not the 15-20 like 3/4e.

"Attuned" as in the bind-on-equip MMO concept?  If that's what is meant, then that gives me pause.  IIRC, this was essentially the solution for the tension in an MMO between the desire to not have to camp a spawn 3 weeks in a row to get the drop you wanted and preventing the flooding of those items on the secondary/hand-me-down market.  

Off the top of my head I can't think of how that might be useful in a pen-and-paper game. What have I not thought of?

Quote from: Natty Bodak;754876"Attuned" as in the bind-on-equip MMO concept?  If that's what is meant, then that gives me pause.  IIRC, this was essentially the solution for the tension in an MMO between the desire to not have to camp a spawn 3 weeks in a row to get the drop you wanted and preventing the flooding of those items on the secondary/hand-me-down market.  

Off the top of my head I can't think of how that might be useful in a pen-and-paper game. What have I not thought of?

Yes and no.  Unlike MMOs, you can unattune any item you want and do whatever you want with it (give it to someone else, sell it, etc).  It's really just a mechanical way of representing, "by establishing a bond with your magical item, you can unlock it's full magical potential."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754878Yes and no.  Unlike MMOs, you can unattune any item you want and do whatever you want with it (give it to someone else, sell it, etc).  It's really just a mechanical way of representing, "by establishing a bond with your magical item, you can unlock it's full magical potential."

Kind of a way to limit just how many powerful magic items you can have in use at one time. FantasyCraft does something similar (Reputation limits how many magic items you may have total).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;754878Yes and no.  Unlike MMOs, you can unattune any item you want and do whatever you want with it (give it to someone else, sell it, etc).  It's really just a mechanical way of representing, "by establishing a bond with your magical item, you can unlock it's full magical potential."

Ah, OK. I can see the in-game value of that. You don't just sit down at Heward's Mystical Organ and knock out a reality altering jazz piece. Presumably this is more than learning to use the item since we can "unattune" as well.

Is the metagame intent here to limit the number of powerful magic items a character can actively use, or to prevent hot-potato-ing items from party member to party member?

Quote from: Natty Bodak;754876"Attuned" as in the bind-on-equip MMO concept?  If that's what is meant, then that gives me pause.  IIRC, this was essentially the solution for the tension in an MMO between the desire to not have to camp a spawn 3 weeks in a row to get the drop you wanted and preventing the flooding of those items on the secondary/hand-me-down market.  

Off the top of my head I can't think of how that might be useful in a pen-and-paper game. What have I not thought of?

Attuned in the playtest seemed to mostly be for intelligent items or the high end stuff. In the playtest it was a property that could be applied to an item and the ones listed that I recall were the Defender sword, and Holy Avenger, and I think the Vorpal Sword.
As a Mage player I recall the Staff of Charming and the Wand of Binding needed attuning. The Wand of Magic Missiles did not. A few of the magic rings needed attuning, Ring of Protection for example did, Ring of Wizardry didnt.

Base rules limited you to three of these. Though there was optional rules.

If it doesnt fit your playstyle or campaign then it is easy enough to ignore if it made it into the finished game.

Quote from: Marleycat;754881Kind of a way to limit just how many powerful magic items you can have in use at one time. FantasyCraft does something similar (Reputation limits how many magic items you may have total).

Missed your response in flight there.

I'm skeptical of the value of this, but it seems like it would be super easy to ignore/houserule it out.

Probably easier with an example.  Here is one, a Dwarven Thrower warhammer that gets better if you attune it:

Dwarven Thrower Very rare magic weapon (warhammer)
The sledge atop this warhammer is wrought to resemble a dwarf’s visage, hair streaming out to form the claw at the back. When the weapon is swung, the dwarf’s face moves as if yelling a battle cry. When giants threatened their mountain kingdoms, the dwarves forged these weapons in the deeps and gave them to the greatest warriors of each clan. Dwarven throwers are one reason that dwarves remain in the world. Most dwarven throwers are lost in ancient ruins, interred with the heroes who last wielded them. Dwarves who see someone wielding one of these warhammers, regardless of the wielder’s race, sometimes honor the wielder for having returned a weapon of storied wonder to the light.

Property: You gain a +1 bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls you make with this warhammer.

Property [Attuned]: If you are a dwarf, the weapon’s bonus increases from +1 to +3. In addition, this weapon has the thrown property with a range of 25/50 feet. If you hit with an attack made by throwing this weapon, the attack deals 1d8 extra damage, or 2d8 extra damage if the target is a giant.

---

As far as un-attuning, the rules are:

Ending a Magic Item’s Attunement: Your attunement to an item ends when you no longer satisfy the item’s attunement prerequisites, when the item has been more than 100 feet away from you for 24 hours, and when you die. You can also voluntarily end your attunement to an item with 10 minutes of uninterrupted concentration.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;754887Missed your response in flight there.

I'm skeptical of the value of this, but it seems like it would be super easy to ignore/houserule it out.

I suppose you could but I like the rule and I like the fact that really power magic items are multilevel if you make the decision to attune it to yourself. I can definitely see experimenting with the actual number limit to fit your game and playstyle though.

I always kind of felt magic items worked pretty well for the first three editions (though 3E got a bit crazy at time with them for my tastes). They were never really something I felt needed any fixing (which is one of the reasons the 4E approach was a let down). For those who have been following the playtesting closely how well does it match the 1E or 2E approach to magic items? How well does it compare to 3E?

Really one of the things I am hoping for with 5E is a return to the old approach to magic.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;754895I always kind of felt magic items worked pretty well for the first three editions (though 3E got a bit crazy at time with them for my tastes). They were never really something I felt needed any fixing (which is one of the reasons the 4E approach was a let down). For those who have been following the playtesting closely how well does it match the 1E or 2E approach to magic items? How well does it compare to 3E?

Really one of the things I am hoping for with 5E is a return to the old approach to magic.

It's far closer to 1/2e then 3e in my opinion because of the bounded accuracy thing, attunement and the fact magic items are not baked into the math like 3/4e. It would be easy to make it similar to 3e/4e just by raising the attunement limits. Also the items themselves are 1/2/3e style not 4e style.

Quote from: Marleycat;754897It's far closer to 1/2e then 3e in my opinion because of the bounded accuracy thing, attunement and the fact magic items are not baked into the math like 3/4e.

Is attunement just a little boost the weapon gets in the hand of the right class/race/alignmente/etc?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;754899Is attunement just a little boost the weapon gets in the hand of the right class/race/alignmente/etc?

Sometimes or it's just what you would consider classically powerful items (Staff of the Magi, Robes of the Archmage, Vorpal swords, holy swords, Defender sword, etc.) Or basically an item that could have multiple abilities like Cloak of the Bat or something.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;754895I always kind of felt magic items worked pretty well for the first three editions (though 3E got a bit crazy at time with them for my tastes). They were never really something I felt needed any fixing (which is one of the reasons the 4E approach was a let down). For those who have been following the playtesting closely how well does it match the 1E or 2E approach to magic items? How well does it compare to 3E?

Really one of the things I am hoping for with 5E is a return to the old approach to magic.

This pretty much represents how I feel. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Quote from: Marleycat;754897It's far closer to 1/2e then 3e in my opinion because of the bounded accuracy thing, attunement and the fact magic items are not baked into the math like 3/4e. It would be easy to make it similar to 3e/4e just by raising the attunement limits. Also the items themselves are 1/2/3e style not 4e style.

Doesn't the bounded accuracy thing imply much less of a need for magic item churn overall? That alone should make it tend toward earlier versions in style.

I don't see how attunement contributes to that, though.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;754903Doesn't the bounded accuracy thing imply much less of a need for magic item churn overall? That alone should make it tend toward earlier versions in style.

I don't see how attunement contributes to that, though.

1. Yes, magic items especially X-items are not needed at all
2. It's just a way to avoid the "christmas tree" effect and to add flavor/risk/mystery to magic along with forcing a decision on which really cool item do I keep? Because somebody in the group is going to be able to use an attuned item and want it just like you.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;754899Is attunement just a little boost the weapon gets in the hand of the right class/race/alignmente/etc?

More like its a safeguard against full access. Back in AD&D there were one or two items that appeared mundane +X. But if you could activate them they had alot more oomph.

Staff of Striking in the playtest. Unattuned it is a +3 staff. A Mage, Cleric or Druid can attune it and gains access to the use of its charges to deal more damage.

The ring of Protection though grants no bonus till it is attuned. +1

All the playtest items with charges had vastly fewer 10 for the aformentioned staff of striking. But some like said staff regenerated 1d6+4 charges each day. Wand of Magic Missiles has 7 charges and regens 1d6+1 per day.

I wasnt too keen on the charge regen personally. But since the items have so few now in a day. It is ok. The staff of striking for example you could get say five 2-charge hits out of in a day.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;754903Doesn't the bounded accuracy thing imply much less of a need for magic item churn overall? That alone should make it tend toward earlier versions in style.

I don't see how attunement contributes to that, though.

It absolutely does.  It also, by proxy maybe:

* reduces DMs needing to change magic items in an adventure to fit the player's build (I never did that anyway, but a lot of people do).  Because that +1 spear is effective over a much wider level scale compared to previous editions, a PC who focuses on fighting with a spear doesn't need to DM to make sure he gets an ever increasing power level of magic spears throughout the campaign.  Yes, I'm looking at 3e mostly here.

* allows you to not have as many magic weapons and armor, either helping achieve lower magic settings if that's what you want, or to add more miscellaneous magic items.  Again, this sort of ties into the assumed "power creep" of magic items found in older editions.

Quote from: Omega;754906More like its a safeguard against full access. Back in AD&D there were one or two items that appeared mundane +X. But if you could activate them they had alot more oomph.

Staff of Striking in the playtest. Unattuned it is a +3 staff. A Mage, Cleric or Druid can attune it and gains access to the use of its charges to deal more damage.

The ring of Protection though grants no bonus till it is attuned. +1

All the playtest items with charges had vastly fewer 10 for the aformentioned staff of striking. But some like said staff regenerated 1d6+4 charges each day. Wand of Magic Missiles has 7 charges and regens 1d6+1 per day.

I wasnt too keen on the charge regen personally. But since the items have so few now in a day. It is ok. The staff of striking for example you could get say five 2-charge hits out of in a day.

I like the regenerating charges deal it makes you not afraid to use your staff or wand because you know you'll probably always have the item ready to use 2-3 times a day at worst.

Quote from: Marleycat;754913I like the regenerating charges deal it makes you not afraid to use your staff or wand because you know you'll probably always have the item ready to use 2-3 times a day at worst.

It's also less bookkeeping, trying to find a wizard to recharge it, or worrying about recharging it yourself.

That's the nature of little things, they add up to bigger things.

At-will damage spells.
Recharging Staves and Wands.
All assumed to be standard baseline, not optional.

It looks like WotC is just finding a different way to retune the Magic-User to make them work like other classes.  Magic-User is a class I don't think they've ever understood.  It fits well with the High Fantasy Extreme! version of the WotC era Realms though. Easy fix, for me.

For the Internet, oh the humanity.

"Coming in 2015 to a community near you, the new LFQW threads!". :D

I'm not a great fan of the daily re-charge either.

It'd make it a much more interesting mechanic if the user could recharge with his hit points. Low level magic items might be a 1 to 1 deal, but stuff like the Staff of Striking might be 3 hit points gives 1 charge back. You can only recharge upto the max charges it holds during a 24 hour period. So 7 a day for Wand of MM and 10 per day for Staff of Striking.

Another resource management choice.

Looks like the whole game is still bound and determined to have the sun rise and set around the fights per day model.

D&D for the moar PEW PEW less QQ generation.

Quote from: One Horse Town;755271I'm not a great fan of the daily re-charge either.

It'd make it a much more interesting mechanic if the user could recharge with his hit points. Low level magic items might be a 1 to 1 deal, but stuff like the Staff of Striking might be 3 hit points gives 1 charge back. You can only recharge upto the max charges it holds during a 24 hour period. So 7 a day for Wand of MM and 10 per day for Staff of Striking.

Another resource management choice.

That's a great idea, Hit Points or burning spells/day or some kind of resource management that means something other then "Magic-User must always keep up his damage quotient in every round in every combat."

Burning HPs for magic seems like a Blood Magic kind of thing, perhaps the basis for a variant Warlock class or something. (Like Path of the Sun Aztlan Priests for those who know Shadowrun.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;755268That's the nature of little things, they add up to bigger things.

At-will damage spells.
Recharging Staves and Wands.
All assumed to be standard baseline, not optional.

It looks like WotC is just finding a different way to retune the Magic-User to make them work like other classes.  Magic-User is a class I don't think they've ever understood.  It fits well with the High Fantasy Extreme! version of the WotC era Realms though. Easy fix, for me.

For the Internet, oh the humanity.

"Coming in 2015 to a community near you, the new LFQW threads!". :D

See, at least you're open to it and know it can be altered say like so, you can recharge the item on a 1 for 1 basis with your spell slots (9th level slot means 9 charges) or maybe 1 for 2. Charges for hitpoints work but it is variable depending if you altered healing rates also.

Still have no idea about game assumptions or baseline you keep mentioning given you'll have at least the DMG if not the PHB full of tools explicitly there to change the game at the macro and micro level.

For that matter, how many wands and staves will require attunement? If they usually do then you can't so much rely on them for every situation.

Quote from: LibraryLass;755291For that matter, how many wands and staves will require attunement? If they usually do then you can't so much rely on them for every situation.

I'd say generally wands won't require attunement but rods and staves would. Especially Staves because most are multipurpose.

Quote from: LibraryLass;755291For that matter, how many wands and staves will require attunement? If they usually do then you can't so much rely on them for every situation.

Well, going by the final Playtest packet:

Staff of Charming (Rare, needs Attunment)
Staff of Striking (Rare, needs Attunment)
Wand of Binding (Rare, needs Attunment)
Wand of Enemy Detection (Uncommon, no need to Attune)
Wand of Magic Missiles (Uncommon, no need to Attune)

Well I was going to add in rare cases maybe wands but I was just throwing out an educated guess anyway. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;755281That's a great idea, Hit Points or burning spells/day or some kind of resource management that means something other then "Magic-User must always keep up his damage quotient in every round in every combat."

Burning HPs for magic seems like a Blood Magic kind of thing, perhaps the basis for a variant Warlock class or something. (Like Path of the Sun Aztlan Priests for those who know Shadowrun.)

On second thoughts, it'd make more sense to burn Exps on re-charging them.

10 exps a charge on lesser items. 25 on greater items.

Immediate Whizz bang at the expense of a bit of advancement or advancement at the expense of immediate whizz bang?

Quote from: One Horse Town;755308On second thoughts, it'd make more sense to burn Exps on re-charging them.

10 exps a charge on lesser items. 25 on greater items.

Immediate Whizz bang at the expense of a bit of advancement or advancement at the expense of immediate whizz bang?

No. I hate using meta resources for in game equipment it's bad enough that it's been used for item creation before.

Quote from: Marleycat;755311No. I hate using meta resources for in game equipment it's bad enough that it's been used for item creation before.

That's why opinions are like arseholes, we all have one.

Why not just use GP (you can call it components and roleplay their acquisition if you choose) to charge wands? There's always a need for more stuff for PCs to spend gold pieces on. 100 GP/spell level to charge wand. Done.

I 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.

Hmm, let's see...

Casters able to repeatedly cast low-damage spells but with limits over the more significant spells,
Lower level magic items able to be used by anybody but more powerful needing attuning to an individual,

Is it me, or does D&D now bear more of a resemblance to Earthdawn than ever before.  Earthdawn, the game whose whole concept has been "D&D, but in a way that makes sense in setting."

:D

Quote from: Psychman;755339Hmm, let's see...

Casters able to repeatedly cast low-damage spells but with limits over the more significant spells,
Lower level magic items able to be used by anybody but more powerful needing attuning to an individual,

Is it me, or does D&D now bear more of a resemblance to Earthdawn than ever before.  Earthdawn, the game whose whole concept has been "D&D, but in a way that makes sense in setting."

Say it ain't true! :eek:

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

I prefer the idea that those who study and wield magic appreciate their ability to command it. Its harder not to take something that is inexhaustible for granted.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;755334Especially 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.

Even when you aren't sure how many charges are left and the item becomes a useless stick when the last charge is spent?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;755334By 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.

If you are talking about 3E crafting I agree.

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.

Especially since one of the arguments for Vancian magic is "Any MU worth his salt will have wands and scrolls on his possession, so you don't need unlimited spells."

So really, everyone plays a pewpew MU past the first few levels when you get down to it.  Is there really a difference between a MU that casts magic missiles at will and one that has a wand of magic missiles?  The only real difference I can see is that one requires less bookkeeping than the other.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;755342So really, everyone plays a pewpew MU past the first few levels when you get down to it.  Is there really a difference between a MU that casts magic missiles at will and one that has a wand of magic missiles?  The only real difference I can see is that one requires less bookkeeping than the other.

After 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.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755341I prefer the idea that those who study and wield magic appreciate their ability to command it. Its harder not to take something that is inexhaustible for granted.

And you are going to argue that YOUR wizard never used any wands/staves/rods or scrolls right? What do you think all those were for? To go PEW PEW.



Even when you aren't sure how many charges are left and the item becomes a useless stick when the last charge is spent?

Depends on the DM I guess.

If you are talking about 3E crafting I agree.

Wow, finally something EVERYONE can agree on.

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.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755418Crossbow 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.

Maybe for you but obviously it's not the one true way. Get this through your skull many people hated that style especially after 3x. It's okay that 5e isn't your deal I lived through 4e just fine and you'll do the same with 5e if the DMG doesn't give you the options to alter the baseline better suited to your playstyle.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755418Crossbow proficiency was a terrible idea. A wizard out of magic should throw daggers and think about spending power more wisely. .

As a nod to history,  I disagree--crossbows outstripped longbows in real world use because the former took way less training to utilize, that to me is exactly what a wizard would want, an easy weapon to learn and not distract him from his spell casting study.

Quote from: Silverlion;755439As a nod to history,  I disagree--crossbows outstripped longbows in real world use because the former took way less training to utilize, that to me is exactly what a wizard would want, an easy weapon to learn and not distract him from his spell casting study.

Crossbows tend to be heavy, and possibly slow.

But most importantly require the one thing a magic user tends to lack...

Strength.

Priming a crossbow, even with a winch is not a easy task. Though with a light crossbow its not so strenuous.

The one I made in woodworking class has a 120lb pull on it.

Back on topic. As stated earlier. Just reduce the Ray o frost, etc to a d6. Assuming it isnt nerfed allready in the final version.

All this speculation could be a moot point depending on what changes and what doesnt.

Quote from: Marleycat;755435Maybe for you but obviously it's not the one true way.

There is no one true way. There is the D&D way and everything else. The D&D way isn't for everyone.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755455There is no one true way. There is the D&D way and everything else. The D&D way isn't for everyone.

 I'm done with you. Dnd way....bullocks, you meant to say there's you're way and  fuck off you moron. You sir, really take the cake. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously after that piece of ignorance and elitist frappery?

Quote from: Marleycat;755460I'm done with you. Dnd way....bullocks, you meant to say there's you're way and  fuck off you moron. You sir, really take the cake. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously after that piece of ignorance and elitist frappery?

How on earth could the D&D be my way? I must say your logic here is severely faulty for one very significant reason: D&D hit the shelves in 1974 when I was just a 4 year old kid.  I assure you that Gary & Dave did not solicit my advice when they designed this game. I would testify to that in court.

Therefore....

The D&D way was established about 6 years before I even picked up the dice.

Some people hate the D&D way and change things in their games. This is natural and intended. Some people abandon the D&D way for other games more to their liking, ain't choice great?

Yet others aren't happy until D&D is changed into the popular trend of the time whatever that happens to be. D&D loses its meaning and any sense of style identity when this happens. That is sad.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755474How on earth could the D&D be my way? I must say your logic here is severely faulty for one very significant reason: D&D hit the shelves in 1974 when I was just a 4 year old kid.  I assure you that Gary & Dave did not solicit my advice when they designed this game. I would testify to that in court.

Therefore....

The D&D way was established about 6 years before I even picked up the dice.

Some people hate the D&D way and change things in their games. This is natural and intended. Some people abandon the D&D way for other games more to their liking, ain't choice great?

Yet others aren't happy until D&D is changed into the popular trend of the time whatever that happens to be. D&D loses its meaning and any sense of style identity when this happens. That is sad.

Damn they fucked up basketball by adding the 3 point shot.

And what the hell with instant replay in college football, the pussies.

Fuckers changing the body styles of cars every year for no reason than to just look different.

What the fuck is up with hairstyles?!  The bob was fine in the 1930s and is still fine today.

The cheese should never fucking move!  Change sucks, stay the same dammit!  :eyeroll:

ExploderWizard, true interpreter of all that is "real" D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755455There is no one true way. There is the D&D way and everything else. The D&D way isn't for everyone.

I'd say five distinct editions of D&D prove otherwise, but if you count Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer, Rules Cyclopedia and OD&D it's more like ten.

Edit: In fact, I'm gonna stick with five. Collapse Both AD&Ds, Holmes, and OD&D into one, and all the other Basic D&Ds into another because... well, they might as well be.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755455There is no one true way. There is the D&D way and everything else. The D&D way isn't for everyone.

Six immediately-distinct modes of D&D prove you wrong.

(For the record: OD&D/Holmes, AD&D/2e, B/X/BECMI/Cyclopedia, 3.x, 4e, Next)

Im more concerned with the near total pulling of the Rogues teeth. Its nearly a non-class now. Assuming they keep the thief skills all now free to everyone.

That seems more potentially vexing than an at-will spell.

Of course some will rejoice in the death of the thief at last. Well, not really death. But they feel allmost redundant now.

Quote from: Omega;755538Im more concerned with the near total pulling of the Rogues teeth. Its nearly a non-class now. Assuming they keep the thief skills all now free to everyone.

That seems more potentially vexing than an at-will spell.

Of course some will rejoice in the death of the thief at last. Well, not really death. But they feel allmost redundant now.

From what I see the Rogue is barely behind the Fighter as death on wheels. Can dual wield, can be an elven archer sneak attack assassination machine. Yes I said ranged sneak attacks like a real sniper. Plus a skill monkey just for fun (they are just better at whatever skills they have). And then there's the Bard....Jesus H don't piss her off she might multiclass into Rogue or worse. "Hi, I'm Solandenar...as she's singing a tune buffing the entire party and shooting...moving...and shooting (sneak attacks everytime).

The game seems to be going back to 1/2e movement and action economy for the most part don't you see what that does?:) Given you can have armored Mages easy enough I say relax because it's going to get gonzo if you really use the options available.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755418A 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.

This is worth repeating for it is beautiful. :pundit:

But perhaps we can theory craft how fighters can get weaboo mystical powers to step on the toes of magicians. I posit with enough push-ups a fighter can walk through the ethereal plane. Flexing poses used as Charm spells. Body odor used as abjuration. I think there's real potential in this line of thought. It's such a style I want to play.
:rolleyes:

I like to have the option to use 'classic' wizards (Frail, Vancian, Can't use a sword, etc...)

And, I wan't the option to have Warlocks/Sorceroers that are for example, not scholarly, and not strictly vancian.

I don't think I should only be allowed to like Classic wizards just because they were printed in a book first.

It sounds like 5th edition will have more than enough options to cater to everyone, whether you want  meek frail wizards plinking with a single spell a day or something a little stronger.

Which is a good thing I think.

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;755866It sounds like 5th edition will have more than enough options to cater to everyone, whether you want  meek frail wizards plinking with a single spell a day or something a little stronger.

Which is a good thing I think.

I agree.

Quote from: Bionicspacejellyfish;755866It sounds like 5th edition will have more than enough options to cater to everyone, whether you want  meek frail wizards plinking with a single spell a day or something a little stronger.

Which is a good thing I think.

For fun during the playtest I goofed around with a mage who opted for Shield Master at level 4 and then at level 8 picked up Charger. Maybe pick up Toughness at level 10 if survived that far. Couldnt figure out of it was retroactive or not. Better to get it first if it isnt.
That was alot of fun to smack opponents around with the shield.

Then tried it from the opposite direction. A fighter spending the stat points for spellcasting ability instead, Arcane Initiate at level 5 to gain 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell castable 1/day.Then Magic Adept at level 6 to pick up a 2nd level spell, then Improved at level 8 to get a 3rd level spell, and a 4th level spell at level 12 with Mastery. So 2 at will cantrips and 1 spell from casting levels 1 to 4.

If they keep this system then it means that you'll really have to watch out for the unexpected from enemy NPCs. This is going to be great!

Quote from: Omega;755893For fun during the playtest I goofed around with a mage who opted for Shield Master at level 4 and then at level 8 picked up Charger. Maybe pick up Toughness at level 10 if survived that far. Couldnt figure out of it was retroactive or not. Better to get it first if it isnt.
That was alot of fun to smack opponents around with the shield.

Then tried it from the opposite direction. A fighter spending the stat points for spellcasting ability instead, Arcane Initiate at level 5 to gain 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell castable 1/day.Then Magic Adept at level 6 to pick up a 2nd level spell, then Improved at level 8 to get a 3rd level spell, and a 4th level spell at level 12 with Mastery. So 2 at will cantrips and 1 spell from casting levels 1 to 4.

If they keep this system then it means that you'll really have to watch out for the unexpected from enemy NPCs. This is going to be great!

For the first time, it is looking like feats will be fun instead of just being tedious.  Love the big, chunky feats.

Quote from: Opaopajr;755542This is worth repeating for it is beautiful. :pundit:

But perhaps we can theory craft how fighters can get weaboo mystical powers to step on the toes of magicians. I posit with enough push-ups a fighter can walk through the ethereal plane. Flexing poses used as Charm spells. Body odor used as abjuration. I think there's real potential in this line of thought. It's such a style I want to play.
:rolleyes:

Of course. Unless you believe that fighters should be able to do Dragonball Z type shit and fight like they're Neo in the Matrix, then you're just another one of those who think that fighters shouldn't have "nice things."

Quote from: Omega;755893For fun during the playtest I goofed around with a mage who opted for Shield Master at level 4 and then at level 8 picked up Charger. Maybe pick up Toughness at level 10 if survived that far. Couldnt figure out of it was retroactive or not. Better to get it first if it isnt.
That was alot of fun to smack opponents around with the shield.

Then tried it from the opposite direction. A fighter spending the stat points for spellcasting ability instead, Arcane Initiate at level 5 to gain 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell castable 1/day.Then Magic Adept at level 6 to pick up a 2nd level spell, then Improved at level 8 to get a 3rd level spell, and a 4th level spell at level 12 with Mastery. So 2 at will cantrips and 1 spell from casting levels 1 to 4.

If they keep this system then it means that you'll really have to watch out for the unexpected from enemy NPCs. This is going to be great!

Your F/M looks like a good Spellsword to me. Remember cantrips aren't autolearn except by feat or IF a bard or wizard chooses to at level up without a houserule. At least per the playtest rules. Of course I would houserule that stupidity right out the gate to the advantage of every magic using class. Please multiclass so I can tempt you....please?  Then again no feats but multiclassing might work for me like 2e? I have to think on this.... bwahaaawaha!

A wizard that can shield bash or whatever? Sign me up.

I love options and non cookie cutter classes.

Quote from: Omega;755450Crossbows tend to be heavy, and possibly slow.

But most importantly require the one thing a magic user tends to lack...

Strength.

Less so than normal bows. Plus  with a goatsfoot and such you do reduce that a lot as you said; I didn't say it be "easy" on the Wizard, just made sense.

I'm fine limiting them to a light crossbow. *shrugs*

(Then again a 9+ Strength isn't uncommon on wizards necessarily, and these were used by average people IRL, hence 9-12 strength.)