|
1 year ago ::
Feb 20, 2012 - 7:00AM
#61
|
|
|
Dear Santa,
Please don't listen to all of these people that want less spells. Those 150 pages of spells are part of the D&D heritage and something a lot of us want to see coming back.
If they don't like them, let them get rid of them. But make them core for us old farts to have fun with.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 20, 2012 - 8:40AM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
I would like each wizard to know fewer spells. That would make the game much faster. I would like to avoid waiting for wizards in analysis paralysis.
On the other hand I like spending time during level advancement. I would love to have a large spell compendium to choose from.
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 20, 2012 - 3:19PM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2007
|
Dear Santa,
Please don't listen to all of these people that want less spells. Those 150 pages of spells are part of the D&D heritage and something a lot of us want to see coming back.
If they don't like them, let them get rid of them. But make them core for us old farts to have fun with.
No. A thousand times NO! Core BALANCED magic with optional "broken" modules with spells like Wish, Polymorph (ala 3.x), etc. for those that like broken. It is not my job as DM to have to houserule out the broken, it is your job as DM to add broken (if you want it).
Also, please do not return us to the "swiss army Wizard". Do NOT make magic the answer to any problem.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 20, 2012 - 3:46PM
#64
|
|
|
Dear Santa,
Please don't listen to all of these people that want less spells. Those 150 pages of spells are part of the D&D heritage and something a lot of us want to see coming back.
If they don't like them, let them get rid of them. But make them core for us old farts to have fun with.
Why do they have to be core for you to have fun with them? I mean, it seems pretty silly to me to be unable to have fun with something just because it's not core. Why should they be something that everyone else has to get rid of? Just because you can't see past the core? EDIT: Especially given as a large % of the people who want to have all those spells, want them to be optional and DM controlled anyway. Making them core seems like a whole lot of downside for next to no upside.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 20, 2012 - 7:21PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2008
|
I believe having two sets in core will fullfill the desires of those who want all the spells as core while giving those who want to have less spells in core the optional section to deny to the players. You know that Basic Spells that every spellcaster can learn without having to research them, and Advanced Spells that give a few examples of how a caster would go about researching or otherwise finding them. maybe the Advanced Spells could be placed in the DMG while the basic ones can be placed in the PHB with the classes, feats, skills and races among a few other sections that seem to always appear in every PHB.
To me this is a fair solution to the "problem at hand" of spells in core. The DM has the spells that he/she can offer to the players, while the players have a basic standard that they can look over and use right from the get go.
What does the rest of the community here think about this particular suggestion. All spells are core just separated by a module that could be packaged together with either the PHB or DMG(Company discression there).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 20, 2012 - 11:32PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
Perhaps the 150 most basic spells could be printed in PHB and the rest could be in a spell compendium.
But please do not spread the spells over 10 books. It is really useful to have a single book containing all the available spells.
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 2:29AM
#67
|
|
|
Why do they have to be core for you to have fun with them?
Because WoTC does not publish the mathematical models they use, and it's harder to add something without breaking the balance of the game than it is .
I mean, it seems pretty silly to me to be unable to have fun with something just because it's not core.
Why should they be something that everyone else has to get rid of? Just because you can't see past the core?
EDIT: Especially given as a large % of the people who want to have all those spells, want them to be optional and DM controlled anyway. Making them core seems like a whole lot of downside for next to no upside.
Because I don't have time to rewrite 150 pages of D&D. Because I don't have access to the mathematical model the game designers used; so I'll have to crack the model before I get a chance to balance these spells. It takes little to no time for you to say "these spells are not in my game", it takes a lot of work for me to adapt all the traditional D&D spells.
Because 5th edition is supposed to be about making players from all editions happy. A PHB without 150 pages of traditional D&D spells is not going to make me happy. Though I would settle for 30 pages of spells and a spell compendium I would pay extra for if that means I have less 4th edition flavored stuff in my PHB.
I probably used the wrong word when I said core. I meant that I wanted the game designers to adapt those spells for me. I don't want to rework on all the spells the way I almost did in 4th edition. But I want the game to be balanced around the assumption that some people will use these 150 pages of spells.
EDIT: Especially given as a large % of the people who want to have all those spells, want them to be optional and DM controlled anyway. Making them core seems like a whole lot of downside for next to no upside.
The 4th edition flavored D&D camp is overrepresented in these forums!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 3:39AM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
Why do they have to be core for you to have fun with them?
Because WoTC does not publish the mathematical models they use, and it's harder to add something without breaking the balance of the game than it is .
I mean, it seems pretty silly to me to be unable to have fun with something just because it's not core.
Why should they be something that everyone else has to get rid of? Just because you can't see past the core?
EDIT: Especially given as a large % of the people who want to have all those spells, want them to be optional and DM controlled anyway. Making them core seems like a whole lot of downside for next to no upside.
Because I don't have time to rewrite 150 pages of D&D. Because I don't have access to the mathematical model the game designers used; so I'll have to crack the model before I get a chance to balance these spells. It takes little to no time for you to say "these spells are not in my game", it takes a lot of work for me to adapt all the traditional D&D spells.
Because 5th edition is supposed to be about making players from all editions happy. A PHB without 150 pages of traditional D&D spells is not going to make me happy. Though I would settle for 30 pages of spells and a spell compendium I would pay extra for if that means I have less 4th edition flavored stuff in my PHB.
I probably used the wrong word when I said core. I meant that I wanted the game designers to adapt those spells for me. I don't want to rework on all the spells the way I almost did in 4th edition. But I want the game to be balanced around the assumption that some people will use these 150 pages of spells.
EDIT: Especially given as a large % of the people who want to have all those spells, want them to be optional and DM controlled anyway. Making them core seems like a whole lot of downside for next to no upside.
The 4th edition flavored D&D camp is overrepresented in these forums!
I don't think he means you have to design them yourselve.
more that there is a optonal modual book for using more spells, call it the spell compendium.
some players might decide to play without the spell compendium modual.
and you can chose to include it in your game.
|
|
|
