Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
QuotePersonally, I like at-will magic as an equalizer. If attack spells were objectively better than weapons, then the best warriors would be spellcasters, which means all the rulers would be spellcasters.
I don't see a reason for such result necessary. Especially since sure maybe attack spell is better than weapon, but how about overall survivalibity of wizard, and fact that its way harder to become wizard than warrior?
I dont think thats actually true. Fighters are supposed to be the best of the best not your average run of the mill warrior, and people with the aptitude to be the best of the best at anything are rare. I think the real issue in this is most of the time the fighter won't feel like they're really the best of the best because imo Fighter dont really feel like they're that good at fighting in many systems.
Then perhaps Fighters should always do double damage in Melee?
It doesnt need to double...but for me the Deed die in DCC really makes fighters stand out.
QuotePersonally, I like at-will magic as an equalizer. If attack spells were objectively better than weapons, then the best warriors would be spellcasters, which means all the rulers would be spellcasters.
I don't see a reason for such result necessary. Especially since sure maybe attack spell is better than weapon, but how about overall survivalibity of wizard, and fact that its way harder to become wizard than warrior?
I dont think thats actually true. Fighters are supposed to be the best of the best not your average run of the mill warrior, and people with the aptitude to be the best of the best at anything are rare. I think the real issue in this is most of the time the fighter won't feel like they're really the best of the best because imo Fighter dont really feel like they're that good at fighting in many systems.
As Rob mentioned...
My setting dictates the degree of both the necessity and power of magic. Not the rules in the book, they just describe how we're gonna do those magical things if they exist.
As for cantrips in how I like my "D&D fantasy" - I preferred the original UA. But that's because I want my magic to be rare and powerful. Just being a spellcaster in my games has some intrinsic meaning (like all classes) rather than just being a "magic-user level <X>". As such I don't mind my spellcasters doing neat little utilitarian effects to give them some flavor and role-playing fodder. Just like I don't mind even a 1-point damage spell they could fire off to zerk a pest without necessarily killing it. or whatever.
One of the greatest issues I have with the D&D is the sliding or non-existent context of these things we're engaging with. I find it's usually at the root of a lot of these questions. And to the OP I'm not taking a shot at you or anything, I'm merely posting my opinion based on the game. I perfectly understand why you'd ask that question. My aim is to bring you to our side and get you to answer it for yourself. (there is no right answer).
The unlimited use, level 0 spells in D&D / PF.Well does your conception of how magic works in your setting include the above regardless of system?
Your caster is never out of spells, now.
In 5E; Cantrips became almost like 1st level spells, but with unlimited castings.
If it does, then congrats 5e saved some work for you. If it doesn't then kick it out the door and don't use it in your campaigns. And luckily since d20 had cantrips as open content in a text editable format then some work has been done. Just take the d20 list and tweak the effect until cantrip work how you conceive cantrip working in your setting.
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. I won't lie and say that I haven't just fudged rules, or just rolled with whatever was happening to move the game along. But that was made on a foundation of rules I generally liked and could use as written most of the time. Because that was a product I paid for. Functional rules.
When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.
So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?
Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.
