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.