Daily and Encounter version for all spells

I'm getting the idea this may be the only way forward to meet desires of all community with regard to the magic system.
Each spell should come in both versions. So for example a wizard can decide to slot in the most powerful version of a spell, which once used consumes the slot for the day, or the less powerful one, which refreshes after a short rest. 
Then in a sidebar it should be stated that it is up to the DM to make either both versions available to pick or just one type, according to playstyle and campaign.

This way you can opt for full vancian or full encounter, or for a 4E-style AED hybrid. All using a single spells progression; basically requiring just one more line of crunch for each spell entry.

Would this please players from different editions?    
I think that's actually a really cool idea. Giving the player the choice of using a less powerful fireball that comes back, or a powerful one that is daily is pretty neat. However, it's still vulnerable to the "Blow the dailies on the boss" issue that daily powers/spells have always had.
My two copper.
I think that's actually a really cool idea. Giving the player the choice of using a less powerful fireball that comes back, or a powerful one that is daily is pretty neat. However, it's still vulnerable to the "Blow the dailies on the boss" issue that daily powers/spells have always had.



True. But if the DM allows vancian then he should be ready to deal with it.

By the way, this doesn't rule out an optional module to replace daily recharge for some other method (like per milestone or per adventure, for example).  
 
I like it.

More options, more crunch, maybe even more fluff; how can it be bad?

I would prefer this type of spell listing (where all options are coveered), as opposed to different spell listings in different modules. 
This idea definitely has merit.

As a 4e detractor, this is an idea I can get behind.
It fits the intended modularity that the Devs have been professing. Also, I'm all for options, within reason of course.
I would like to see a spell block written with these extra lines added in. Anyone taken a crack at it? 
Looks reasonable in theory. I think it merits a good playtest run to see how it works.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

Seems perfectly well in theory as a module.  I don't think it can be part of the essential Core as initally published, however.  Making new DMs and players have to first create their game mechanics out of unfamiliar parts is too alienating.  But as a later opt-in module, sure.  Put it in a book along with gridded combat and dragonborn warlords and call it the DDN 4E Conversion Guide.
 
Seems perfectly well in theory as a module.  I don't think it can be part of the essential Core as initally published, however. 


I think that depends on how it is presented.

Regardless, I think as a module, it could be fine.  It could be as easy as an optional rule called...

Optional Rule: Refreshing Spells


Generally, once a spell -- other than an at-will -- has been cast, the spellcaster cannot recover that spell until after a long rest.  However, as an optional rule, the DM may allow a spellcaster to designate up to two spells as spells that can be refreshed during a short rest.  Essentially, the spellcaster sacrifices some of the power of the spell in casting, such that a remnant of it lingers in the spellcaster's mind even after casting.  The spellcaster can use that lingering remnant to recall the spell after several minutes of deep meditation.

A spell that is memorized in this fashion suffers the following issues: Any dice rolls that affect hit points are halved.  Any DCs the spell imposes are reduced by 3.  Spells that neither affect hit points nor use DCs cannot be memorized in this fashion.  Spells that grant, restore, or heal hit points cannot be memorized in this fashion.

(I made this up on the spot, so the math may not make sense.  But this could be the framework for an encounter-spell system.)
the DM may allow a spellcaster to designate up to two spells as spells that can be refreshed during a short rest. 



That sounds like signature spells, which is not what I was shooting for here. I would like this to allow players and DMs to handle spellcasting the way they see fit in their game. If you want to play a "full-encouters" wizards, and the DM approves, you should be able to do it.

I'm ok to treat this as a module, but the 'optional' version of the spell (encounter based) should be added as crunch at the bottom of each spell entry in the core book: last thing I would want is duplicating spell lists twice.

Perhaps text like, "When you cast this spell, you may choose to cast it as a lesser version, [with xyz effect], if you do, the spell lingers in your mind; after 10 minutes, you can cast this lesser version again."
I always thought for most spells you could have an at-will, encounter, daily, and ritual.

Spells with durations at will 1 round, encounter 1 minute, daily one hour, ritual, all day (see note below).

Dice for damage spells would be stepped to 1d4 for daily, and radius or range stepped down as well, encounters do 1d6 damage, and dailies will do 1d8 (so fireball would be a 3rd level spell,  accessable at level 5, that does 3d4 with a 10 foot radius as an at will, 3d6 as an encounter with a 20 foot radius, and 3d8 and 30 foot radius as a daily, the ritual version lets you create a delayed blast fireball). A daily magic missile would do 1d8+3 per missile (if at will MM was 1d4+1). At wills are the only spells that automatically scale, all other spells scale based on the spell slot they are cast from, but cannot be cast from a slot lower than their spell level (So fireball could only be cast from a 3rd, 4th, or 5th level slot.

Hard coding it in such a way makes creating your own spells easy, and all spells could be easily balanced against each other. XdY where X is the level of the spell, and Y is the die used depending on the spell type (AED).

With the monitary balancing gone from rituals though it changes the durations for me a bit. Featherfall would only have a ritual and at will, where the ritual allows all involved to activate featherfall on themselves once during that day as a reaction. So contingency spells are only AR.

Math would of course be looked at, and I'm sure people would whine about all spells being samey, but really when you break them down into their bare essentals all spells are samey.
I'm ok to treat this as a module, but the 'optional' version of the spell (encounter based) should be added as crunch at the bottom of each spell entry in the core book: last thing I would want is duplicating spell lists twice.


The problem is that formatting every spell with an at-will, encounter, and daily version is going to create a lot of bloat and some portion of every spell will be unusable to each wizard.  It's going to be a chaotic mess.  And lots of spells can't be scaled that way.  What's the lesser encounter and at-will versions of spells like bless, cure light wounds, darkness, detect undead, feather fall, invisibility, levitate, light, mage armor, silence.

If we can't have a basic template, I'd rather have a supplement for encounter-based casting that offers spells created specifically to be used on an encounter basis.  

The problem is that formatting every spell with an at-will, encounter, and daily version is going to create a lot of bloat and some portion of every spell will be unusable to each wizard.  It's going to be a chaotic mess.  And lots of spells can't be scaled that way.  What's the lesser encounter and at-will versions of spells like bless, cure light wounds, darkness, detect undead, feather fall, invisibility, levitate, light, mage armor, silence.

If we can't have a basic template, I'd rather have a supplement for encounter-based casting that offers spells created specifically to be used on an encounter basis.  



Ok, I just aimed for encounters and daily versions. At-wills can be handled separately if need be.
I agree with a need for a basic template, and I think it shouldn't be that hard to do it. I'll give it a got with two spells here, as examples (numbers are made up):

FIREBALL
You hurl a spinning ball of fire with a pea-sized point of flame bright as the sun at its center. The ball streaks to its target and detonates with an explosion of flame anda low roar.
Effect: Choose a point within 50 feet of you. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius cloud centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 5d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one. The fire ignites unattended flammable objects and damages objects in the area.
Minor outcome (encounter): fire damage is 2d6 on a failed save, and none on a successful one.

FLY
You extend a hand like a swooping wing toward the recipient of the spell. The creature you touch gains the ability to fly for a time.
Effect: You touch a willing creature. That creature gains a fly speed of 60 feet until your concentration is broken, but for no longer than 1 hour. When the spell ends, the creature falls at the start of its next turn if it is still aloft and has no means to stop the fall.
Minor outcome (encounter): The maximum duration of the effect is 1 round.


  
I'll give it a got with two spells here, as examples (numbers are made up)


But you've chosen two very easy spells to convert.  Spells that do damage or have durations longer than combat are easy to "encounterize".  Just halve the damage or limit the duration.

Edited: I wrote that too hastily. I see what you're doing and it does seem like it could work.  Some spells probably cannot be "encounterized" but the way you present it, it doesn't seem like would cause all that much bloat.  You've changed my mind!
I think this is a great idea!  In and of itself it ends a need for a 5MWD specific rule by adding choices rather than restricting them.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

OMG, it's Wrecan, Kalex and myself all pretty much agreeing on the same thread! I think I'm gonna faint Smile

Seriously, it is good to see the idea can get traction for people with different approaches and requirements from the game.
Thanks for the inputs so far.  
So every spell would require two versions?   


So every spell would require two versions?   


Or, as Uskglass proposes, a single line explainign what's different in the encounter version.

On that basis, it would be up to three versions: daily, ritual, and encounter. 
OMG, it's Wrecan, Kalex and myself all pretty much agreeing on the same thread! I think I'm gonna faint Smile

Seriously, it is good to see the idea can get traction for people with different approaches and requirements from the game.
Thanks for the inputs so far.  



Well the end of the world is two weeks away.  ;)

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.



Well the end of the world is two weeks away.  ;)




Right. Better hurry buy that iPad! ;) 
I suggested something similar before.  Meta-magic options, including recharge rates, should be put into the spell discription.

Though i kind prefer it to be balanced via spell slot.  Such as an encounter fireball is a level 6 spell.  And at-will feather fall might take a level 3 slot.

But minor versions work too. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I suggested something similar before.  Meta-magic options, including recharge rates, should be put into the spell discription.

Though i kind prefer it to be balanced via spell slot.  Such as an encounter fireball is a level 6 spell.  And at-will feather fall might take a level 3 slot.

But minor versions work too. 



I think this is too complex.  Metamagic feats in 3e always made my head hurt.  Balancing by effect and frequency enables the spell level to remain the same and keep impromptu math to a minimum.  The effect though is roughly the same.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Maybe you could tie spells together so preparing one lets you cast other weaker spells.

So preparing fireball lets you cast fireball daily or scorching burst encounter.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Maybe you could tie spells together so preparing one lets you cast other weaker spells. So preparing fireball lets you cast fireball daily or scorching burst encounter.




Sounds good on paper, but I'm afraid it will get messy in play, as you have to reference two spells instead of just one.

The way I'm thinking about it is you prepare Fireball. Then at the time of the casting you decide if to use is as standard or minor effect. The first consumes the spells for the day, the latter refreshes after a short rest (or 10 minutes, whatever).    
There are a lot of much easier ways to do this. 

Cantrips will be the new scaling at-wills so no need to make any rules for them. 

Then just halve the new spell progression which is 3 slots per spell level to 1.5. 10 of those are daily powers 1/level. and 5 of them are encounters, wizards choice.

1 Encounter per 2 Spell levels available. 
1 Daily Per spell level

Meaning at level 20 wizards get 10 dailies and 5 encounters and probably 4 at-will. (which would like this: Encounters [lvl 1 , lvl3, lvl5, lvl7, lvl 9] and Daily's one spell at each level).

At level 10 it would be 5 dailies 3 encounters and 4 at wills.
At level 1 it would 1 daily 1 encounter and 3 at-wills.


No need to change or rewrite any spells.


 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

The way I'm thinking about it is you prepare Fireball. Then at the time of the casting you decide if to use is as standard or minor effect. The first consumes the spells for the day, the latter refreshes after a short rest (or 10 minutes, whatever).

This might make it a little too strong, since you could use the lesser version multiple times throughout the day, and then unleash the full daily strength on the BBEG. Perhaps it would be better to allow an either/or at time of prep which version you want to learn. Expect limited fights? Daily might be the better way. Want to play it safer? Prep the minor version.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I'm ok to treat this as a module, but the 'optional' version of the spell (encounter based) should be added as crunch at the bottom of each spell entry in the core book: last thing I would want is duplicating spell lists twice.


The problem is that formatting every spell with an at-will, encounter, and daily version is going to create a lot of bloat and some portion of every spell will be unusable to each wizard.  It's going to be a chaotic mess.  And lots of spells can't be scaled that way.  What's the lesser encounter and at-will versions of spells like bless, cure light wounds, darkness, detect undead, feather fall, invisibility, levitate, light, mage armor, silence.

If we can't have a basic template, I'd rather have a supplement for encounter-based casting that offers spells created specifically to be used on an encounter basis.  

This was something I was talking to a friend about the other day: create a section (could be in a separate book released post core) that introduced new/added lists of maneuvers and spells that had at-will, encounter, and daily abilities. The new abilities wouldn't have the same name as the normal at-will/daily abilities in core, but there's plenty of inspiration for names and effects to pull from 4e. And in the beginning of the book, it would lay out for new players that "at-will effects give players flexibility, encounter effects give longevity/consistancy, and daily effects give bursts of power." This allows not only encounter (and perhaps more at-will options) spells, but also a place for encounter and daily maneuvers (in terms of what we have currently in the packet, maybe an encounter parallel for Deadly Strike would do twice the bonus damage rolled, but only usable once per encounter, for example). And DMs can allow or restrict anything they want (you could have only daily maneuvers and only at-will spells if you felt like being reaaally strange lol).
The way I'm thinking about it is you prepare Fireball. Then at the time of the casting you decide if to use is as standard or minor effect. The first consumes the spells for the day, the latter refreshes after a short rest (or 10 minutes, whatever).

This might make it a little too strong, since you could use the lesser version multiple times throughout the day, and then unleash the full daily strength on the BBEG. Perhaps it would be better to allow an either/or at time of prep which version you want to learn. Expect limited fights? Daily might be the better way. Want to play it safer? Prep the minor version.




Yeah, I think the choice should be made at the time of memorization.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

 

Yeah, I think the choice should be made at the time of memorization.



Fine, that's open for discussion. In general I like flexibility, and in my mind encounter versions of spells are significantly less powerful than daily ones. But if deciding on the spot which version to cast makes them OP it's fine to have that choice made at preparation. Would need a bit of playtesting to assess probably.



1 Encounter per 2 Spell levels available. 
1 Daily Per spell level


 



I see a very dangerous assumption here: that encounter spells are worth 2X daily spells across the board. While it may be true in some cases, it is not applicable all around. Take Fly: if you leave it as it is and make it per encounter that gives you perma-fly, which is way too good for 2 3rd LV slots. 
I think there is no way around needing to tweak each spell on a case by case basis to have balanced minor (encounter) versions.


1 Encounter per 2 Spell levels available. 
1 Daily Per spell level


 



I see a very dangerous assumption here: that encounter spells are worth 2X daily spells across the board. While it may be true in some cases, it is not applicable all around. Take Fly: if you leave it as it is and make it per encounter that gives you perma-fly, which is way too good for 2 3rd LV slots. 
I think there is no way around needing to tweak each spell on a case by case basis to have balanced minor (encounter) versions.




I'm not assuming it, I'm suggesting it. Spells aren't balanced side by side already. So yes this wouldn't be balanced and although it might get better as spells get dialed in. I'm not stressed. These kinds of imbalances are going to be difficult to reconcile with vancian and AED, just because Vancian will put more utility spells low in the list so they have relevance at all player levels, AED would spread Utilities like those mentioned always as daily.

Worst case scenario they add a list to such a module of spells that can't be encounter powers.


Ultimately, if there is a need to do as you think, which is rewrtie 500 spells to have three versions for a module, then, well.... don't get your hopes up. Excessively complex solutions will not "perma-fly".

My mind is a deal-breaker.




Ultimately, if there is a need to do as you think, which is rewrtie 500 spells to have three versions for a module, then, well.... don't get your hopes up. Excessively complex solutions will not "perma-fly".



To me having to balance the whole system to allow for the 2Daily/1Encounter ratio to work looks like a daunting task indeed. 
Adding one line to each spells seems much more feasible in the current framework.



Ultimately, if there is a need to do as you think, which is rewrtie 500 spells to have three versions for a module, then, well.... don't get your hopes up. Excessively complex solutions will not "perma-fly".



To me having to balance the whole system to allow for the 2Daily/1Encounter ratio to work looks like a daunting task indeed. 
Adding one line to each spells seems much more feasible in the current framework.




I don't see it that way. 

I think it would be more like 2 lines per spell, so 1000 lines added.

Also, from the standpoint of new user adoption, it will be really confusing to have every spell have bits of special content, that is meant to be ignored by the main body of players. In fact I would describe it as prohibitively confusing. All of the necesssry content for creating this module needs to exist only in the module, nothing external.


There is also at least 3 other ways to do it easier then adding optional sub-rules to every spell entry
1. Give AED wizards a different spell list to choose from
2. Limit what encounter spells they get (via list)
3. Change Status effect for encounter powers (1 hour dailies become 10 minute encounter powers, 10 minute power become 1 minute)


Balance is already there, Encounter spells do not need to be better then daily, and daily do not need to be better then encounters they can be of the same "power level". There might need to be changes to my sytem to achieve balance, but if you look at the number of spells being cast in a day by the existing vancian wizard, you can create a module that balances the two. Vancian can Nova, AED can endure better, sound sliek a fair trade. 

 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

 
Balance is already there, Encounter spells do not need to be better then daily, and daily do not need to be better then encounters they can be of the same "power level". There might need to be changes to my sytem to achieve balance, but if you look at the number of spells being cast in a day by the existing vancian wizard, you can create a module that balances the two. Vancian can Nova, AED can endure better, sound sliek a fair trade. 

 



I can see where you are coming from. if we have an (optional) Encounters spells list to pick from that basically would give us the 4E Wizard. And this is a perfectly vialbe solution.
That said, as much as I like 4E in general, I'm not so keen of its powers bloat. I'd be interested this time around in consolidating spell lists, even if allowing tweaks to each entry for standard, minor and ritual versions - which overall shouldn't require more than 10% increase in the volume of text for spells. 
It's not the size of the spell section that matters, it's that it makes spells more confusing new players.

Rather than creating multiple versions of spells , why not just make the encounter spells lower levels, at they would already be adjusted down?

My mind is a deal-breaker.

It's not the size of the spell section that matters, it's that it makes spells more confusing new players.

Rather than creating multiple versions of spells , why not just make the encounter spells lower levels, at they would already be adjusted down?



Personally I didn't find it confusing when they added Ritual versions of spells at the bottom of the description, so I guess the same would do for having Minor versions as well. 

With lower level, do you mean for instance that a LV4 Encounter spells would require a LV8 spell slot to be cast?
This could work if the spells is properly balanced, but I see it as more complex proposition, if I'm getting your meaning here.
 
Rituals are totally different, they are part of the rules for everybody. these would be rules for a separate module. I can't obviously say fore they would NEVER do this. But I can with total certainty as a professional print designer that if they did such, it would be the kind of thing that 1/3 new players gets totally confused by.

and thus shouldn't be considered. More importantly your suggestion seems like a more complex way to solve an easy problem. Why go to the trouble? When spell lists solve it completely? 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I'm getting the idea this may be the only way forward to meet desires of all community with regard to the magic system.
Each spell should come in both versions. So for example a wizard can decide to slot in the most powerful version of a spell, which once used consumes the slot for the day, or the less powerful one, which refreshes after a short rest. 
Then in a sidebar it should be stated that it is up to the DM to make either both versions available to pick or just one type, according to playstyle and campaign.

This way you can opt for full vancian or full encounter, or for a 4E-style AED hybrid. All using a single spells progression; basically requiring just one more line of crunch for each spell entry.

Would this please players from different editions?    



I think you should expand the idea. Each spell should have an at-will, encounter, recharge, daily, and ritual version. And scale it for the slot its in. For instance fireball would look like this:

Fireball
3rd-­‐level evocation
You hurl a spinning ball of fire with a pea-­‐ sized point of flame bright as the sun at its center. The ball streaks to its target and detonates with an explosion of flame and a low roar.
Effect: Choose a point within 50 feet of you. Each creature in the radius cloud centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one. The fire ignites unattended flammable objects and damages objects in the area.
At-Will: The radius is 10' (up to 4 targets) and the damage is 1d6
Encounter: The radius is 15' (up to 16 targets) and the damage is 2d6 + 1d6 per spell slot level.
Recharge: The radius is 10' (up to 4 targets) and the damage is 2d6 + 1d6 per spell slot level. Recharges on 6 of 1d6.
Daily: The radius is 20' (up to 36 targets) and the damage is 5d6 + 1d6 per spell slot level.
Ritual: Takes minimum of 10 minutes to cast and makes loud noise and bright light during casting. The radius is 20' (up to 36 targets) and the damage is 5d6 + 1d6 per 10 minutes used to cast.

This would allow everyone to play the way they want and be flexible enough to be balanced...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

and thus shouldn't be considered. More importantly your suggestion seems like a more complex way to solve an easy problem. Why go to the trouble? When spell lists solve it completely? 



Because I think there is more value in having the two together. This way anyone can chose to play as full vancian, full encounter or something in between. What I don't want is a special list of encounter-only spells: all spells should have both versions so that a player won't miss out on any of them because of the style he is adopting.
Now, if it is a matter of presentation and organisation in the book to ensure things don't get confusing I'm completely open to options. If duplicating all spells in separate lists turns out to be the more suitable way then fine, as long as it is sustainable on the costing side. 
I'm getting the idea this may be the only way forward to meet desires of all community with regard to the magic system.
Each spell should come in both versions. So for example a wizard can decide to slot in the most powerful version of a spell, which once used consumes the slot for the day, or the less powerful one, which refreshes after a short rest. 
Then in a sidebar it should be stated that it is up to the DM to make either both versions available to pick or just one type, according to playstyle and campaign.

This way you can opt for full vancian or full encounter, or for a 4E-style AED hybrid. All using a single spells progression; basically requiring just one more line of crunch for each spell entry.

Would this please players from different editions?    



I think you should expand the idea. Each spell should have an at-will, encounter, recharge, daily, and ritual version. And scale it for the slot its in. For instance fireball would look like this:

Fireball
3rd-­‐level evocation
You hurl a spinning ball of fire with a pea-­‐ sized point of flame bright as the sun at its center. The ball streaks to its target and detonates with an explosion of flame and a low roar.
Effect: Choose a point within 50 feet of you. Each creature in the radius cloud centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one. The fire ignites unattended flammable objects and damages objects in the area.
At-Will: The radius is 10' (up to 4 targets) and the damage is 1d6
Encounter: The radius is 15' (up to 16 targets) and the damage is 2d6 + 1d6 per spell slot level.
Recharge: The radius is 10' (up to 4 targets) and the damage is 2d6 + 1d6 per spell slot level. Recharges on 6 of 1d6.
Daily: The radius is 20' (up to 36 targets) and the damage is 5d6 + 1d6 per spell slot level.
Ritual: Takes minimum of 10 minutes to cast and makes loud noise and bright light during casting. The radius is 20' (up to 36 targets) and the damage is 5d6 + 1d6 per 10 minutes used to cast.

This would allow everyone to play the way they want and be flexible enough to be balanced...



My suggestion equally alows everyone the way they want to play, also.... Unless your way is just books with way more text?Smile
I really like the idea of way less spells, but scalable. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen, way more people want 500 spell options for theior wizards.


So here is a way to save about 10,000 unnecessary lines of text (presuming just scalable spells):

Fireball

Effect: Choose a point within 50 feet of you. Each creature in the radius cloud centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one. The fire ignites unattended flammable objects and damages objects in the area.
The radius is 15' (up to 16 targets) and the damage is 2d6 + 1d6 per spell slot level. 


ELSEwhere....


AED MODULE rules
When AED wizards cast their encounter spells they count the spell level as half the spell level. 



Shoudl I feel like a genius or is this just common sense?

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Sign In to post comments