|
Hi Welcome to boards.
Picking spells each day is a pretty basic "sacred cow" of D&D and was very unlikely to go away. I would have actually been very surprised, shocked and, quite frankly, upset if Pathfinder had eliminated something so long a part of the game.
If you have houseruled this in your own games in the past, there is certainly nothing to stand in your way of doing it again.
Once again, welcome to the Paizo / Pathfinder message boards - it's a good group and a great game!
So, in essence, all your casters are spontaneous?
In addition, your wizards have infinite spellbooks, and your sorcerers know every spell by heart? Because to me, this removes a large part of the reasoning to pick wizard ofer sorcerer- The sorcerer gets more spells per day, of a limited choice. Unless you are specifically reffering to only 'spells prepared per day.'
In which case it would expand the versatility of the wizard well past the sorcerer equivalent, since sorcerers would be the only class to have a limited number of spells to choose from (within their class list, that is).
Could you clarify how exactly your houserule works in relation to sorcerers and wizards? Because from what it sounds like, your houserule would blend the classes a little too much.
I play second edition for a while, and I gotta say if ebverything is spontaneous, it's just too much. The way we do it is use spell points(wich I love) and u CAN cast spontaneously, for double the price in UNUSED spell points.
Now, that is a little bit less powerfull than waht you implied friend, that makes spellcasters the most uberabsolute power in the game, I assure you. (Well they were almost like that in second edition anyhow, but going this way is just plain crazy)
Creative Director
|
Guys, seriously, rarely has there ever been in gaming a more useless and pointlessly frustrating rule.
We houseruled this away in 2nd edition and saw immediately that it had exactly ZERO disruptive effect on anything. At all. Except that players now had the tools they needed to deal with encounters and validate their class choice, instead of the "gotcha" approach to game design. If an encounter will fall apart because the wizard uses whatever spell he knows whenever he wants, you're doing it wrong.
The first thing I looked for when I bought the PDF was this, and I'm very dissapointed that it made the cut.
Everyone likes different parts of the game, and saying that a part of the game that's as beloved and traditional as the "selecting spells" aspect is useless and frustrating is a good way to start up a flame war. So try not to do that. Take a step back, realize the game's not just for one style of play, and if you don't like an aspect, change it in your game.
That said, there's options for spontaneous casters (bards and sorcerers now, and soon enough things like oracles and others) in the game.
Hell... I hate dwarves and paladins, but cutting them out of the game because I find them useless and pointlessly frustrating would have been a tragic mistake.
Hell... I hate dwarves and paladins, but cutting them out of the game because I find them useless and pointlessly frustrating would have been a tragic mistake.
You... hate... Paladins AND Dwarves... now you just want to mess with me, right?
I hate YOU!
;) Joking mate... but seriously, hate, hate? Both of them? Seriously?
I dislike picking spells but it is a part of the game unless you just house rule everyone as sorcerers.
I like to split the difference. Pick one spell for each spell slot then just keep track of how many spells you cast. i.e. Don't bother memorizing CLW 3 times. Memorize your three favorite level 1 spells cast three and call it a day.
Hell... I hate dwarves and paladins, but cutting them out of the game because I find them useless and pointlessly frustrating would have been a tragic mistake.
Many other DM's should take this idea to heart, and I dont mean hating Dwarves and Pally's.
Hell... I hate dwarves and paladins, but cutting them out of the game because I find them useless and pointlessly frustrating would have been a tragic mistake.
So a Dwarf Paladin is right out, then?
Disclaimer: Dwarfs are awesome, and not just because they appeal to my inner crotchety old man. Paladins are okay, I guess. I find the LE antipaladin more compelling, though.
|
Creative Director
|
Hell... I hate dwarves and paladins, but cutting them out of the game because I find them useless and pointlessly frustrating would have been a tragic mistake.You... hate... Paladins AND Dwarves... now you just want to mess with me, right?
I hate YOU!
;) Joking mate... but seriously, hate, hate? Both of them? Seriously?
Dwarves are my least-favorite race. Paladins are my least-favorite class. So technically that doesn't really mean I HATE them... but I'm closer to hating those two than any other race or class. :-)
OP
I used to hate the 3.5 magic system, but I recently came to terms with it.
What made the difference for me was realizing that this isn't skill-based magic. Instead you prepare a spell through ritual and carry its energy around like a loaded weapon until it is discharged. When you look at the spells and classes in 3.5/PRPG, there is a lot of metaphysics, philosophy and tradition that support this as an interesting style.
It is no more or less valid than a skill based system (which I also enjoy) where a spell is something a caster does rather than a discrete entity separate from the caster.
It would be nice if more could be done in the rulebook to contextualize the unique classic magic system. When people expect magic to be a skill-like thing, it really seems gamist and implausible. If you dig deep enough, it's perfectly logical, even in an in-world context.
Best of luck house-ruling it the way you want, but take it from me: if that doesn't work, consider how cool it is when a spell isn't a "secret karate move" but more of a "pre-meditated reality hacking recipe". It's made all the difference for me.
If you want spontaneous casting of any spell you know, why not play a sorcerer?
Or a wizard with a bonded item?
Creating a new class that learns spells like a wizard and casts like a sorcerer (and yes, you are essentially creating a new class here) is pretty much the same balance-wise as having one player play a gestalt character and everyone else stuck with a normal one.
|
consider how cool it is when a spell isn't a "secret karate move" but more of a "pre-meditated reality hacking recipe".
Pretty much my favorite interpretation of how magic works in D&D, from way back in 1st or 2nd edition, the idea that spells were like software tools left behind from the creation of the universe.
The kids are playing around with dad's tools.
Also I would point out that a wizard doesn't have to memorize all his spells at once. He can leave slots open to prepare later in order to pick the right tool for the job, which is almost as good as spontaneous casting.
|
|
I dislike picking spells but it is a part of the game unless you just house rule everyone as sorcerers.
I like to split the difference. Pick one spell for each spell slot then just keep track of how many spells you cast. i.e. Don't bother memorizing CLW 3 times. Memorize your three favorite level 1 spells cast three and call it a day.
Hey, getting to pick your spells is always better than rolling for them! Although it *was* kind of exciting back in AD&D (we used the random spell table in 'FR Adventures' for that).
|
[...] I wasn't crazy about 3e, but outclassing the sorceror to me isn't a good enough argument to support picking spells.
Um, it's not about "outclassing" the sorceror, it's about replacing the sorceror.
If the wizard can cast spontaneously, what reason is there to play a sorceror?
And I don't like using tradition to support keeping a rule, things need to move forward or else we would all be still playing Chainmail,
Then you'll love D&D 4e. :)
I don't understand why you don't just go with psionics and remove the spellcasters entirely?
Guys, seriously, rarely has there ever been in gaming a more useless and pointlessly frustrating rule.
We houseruled this away in 2nd edition and saw immediately that it had exactly ZERO disruptive effect on anything. At all. Except that players now had the tools they needed to deal with encounters and validate their class choice, instead of the "gotcha" approach to game design. If an encounter will fall apart because the wizard uses whatever spell he knows whenever he wants, you're doing it wrong.
The first thing I looked for when I bought the PDF was this, and I'm very dissapointed that it made the cut.
I'll be the one to throw my hat in with the OP, our group has been playing with wizards as spontaneous casters since AD&D as well, there was no real game effect other than people used spells that would otherwise never be memorized and wizards felt more like powerful spell casters that fight with intelligence and versatility rather than a guy with a bag of holding containing a limited number of one shot items that he just happens to keep locked in his head.
Our group likes magic to be powerful and have a bit of bang to it so we've used quite a few modifications to magic over the years (upping damage dice one die, critical fails, etc) and we had alot of fun with them. We threw most of those rules out with 3.0 and haven't brought them back, but they were fun and gave a nice feel when we used them.
During the transition from 2nd ed to 3.0, we looked at the sorcerer class, saw that what we had in place was already to our liking and kept going the way we were going. Up until PF nobody has played a sorcerer, I realize that a large part of that is due to the wizard stepping on their toes, but in 3.x it also felt like a tacked on class. You get spontaneous casting but at a highly limited spell list and more castings of the same limited number of spells, just not how any of us see our casters being, our vision of our settings included wizards not sorcerers.
With the actual fleshing out of the bloodlines, sorcerers become far more interesting with things that really set them apart from wizards, things that players can latch onto and say 'hey, this is how I see my caster working.' We have a new sorcerer starting up and the rules for sorcerers work perfectly with his idea. I'm pretty sure sorcerers will get alot more use in PF for this very reason. Wizards have been working fine for over 10 years or so now for our group.
To go back to the original post.
I agree with you. I've never been fond of it. It seemed silly and arbitrary, which made it out of place in a game that otherwise isn't really very silly or arbitrary.
I'm curious, how did you limit your spellcasters?
I mean, 2e wizards already ruled the game (well, mainly at higher levels), dished out by far the most damage, and by far the most tricks up their sleeve, could solve any mystery, overcome any obstacle, and destroy any enemy easier than any other class.
And they had all those advantages despite frequently making bad spell decisions. Whoops, prepared a couple fireballs and then we went off and fought fire giants - guess I won't use these two spells today. Ooops, prepared a Tongues spell and we never met anyone who spoke a language I don't understand. Dangit, I never once fell off a cliff today, so I didn't need this Feather Fall. Etc.
With the possibility (actually, probability) that they would go to bed many nights with a bunch of their spells unused because they never needed them, they were still the gods among the classes.
Without that possibility, didn't they just become the Primal Entities who give orders to the gods?
The vancian system limited the casters, at least somewhat. Wishing it away removed those limits.
Did you replace it with something else, like maybe spell points?
Or did you just live with your superman wizards and accept it as just part of the (houseruled) game?
|
|
I've always hated Vancian casting, 25 years or so now, since high school and books like Gods, Demigods & Heroes. (And, to be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of Vance's fantasy, either.) I wanted a magic system that better suited the sorts of fantasy novels I read, where a wizard could cast spells either indefinitely, or ran some sort of risk of fatiguing or hurting themselves if they overdid it.
But I accept that it's a sacred cow of the game, and move on. There are a ton of games I can play that don't use Vancian casting that I also enjoy (GURPS, Mutants & Masterminds, True20, etc.), and a ton of classes that uses magical powers differently (Sorcerers, Psions, Shadowcasters, Truenamers, Binders, Totemists, Warlocks, Dragon Shamen, Green Ronin Psychics, etc.), to mix things up.
And yet, my favorite classes, the Cleric and Druid, have used Vancian 'fire and forget' magic since their introduction, and I still play them, even if (IMO, lame) spontaneous options are available in the Favored Soul and Spirit Shamen. I've just gotten used to the practice of Vancian magic over the decades, no matter how much I dislike it in theory.
I'm sure, for someone who has *just* discovered D&D, decades after Jack Vance has faded from the scene, in a world were we see 'magic-users' on TV every darn day hurling magic around willy-nilly, and in a world where a dozen other games offer vastly more 'fantastic' feeling magic systems, fire-and-forget magic seems pretty bizarre.
I'm sure the notion of getting up to change the TV channel to one of the other two stations seems pretty bizarre, too. :)
In my pathfinder game, I still use the spell slot system, but a 3.5 game I play in, the GM uses a spell point system for all casters (arcane and divine). It is completely useless to play a sorcerer in that game, because the wizard gets more spells to choose from, and can use them darn near as often as the sorcerer. I prefer the spell slot system because it makes the players think a little about 'what might I encounter today, what spells might I need?' instead of 'oh, no worries, we run into something and I've got the perfect solution.' Especially after the wizard in the 3.5 game has 2 or 3 spellbooks full of spells from the spell compendium, PHB, complete arcane, and several other books. Of course, in that game, the wizard's player was jealous of the Warlock, because he never had to expend any spell points.
An interesting twist would be that wizard could cast their daily spells whenever they want (no memorizing, but still every spell counting towards their daily limit), but only ONCE per day. So if you cast a fireball, you cannot cast any other fireballs until next day.
Still the spontaneous factor, but you gotta choose whether you want to use that dispel magic now or later.
|
|
I too do not like the preparation of spells thing, which is why Sorcerers would always be my first choice, and I have never had any interest in playing a wizard (I do play a cleric, but I tend to have a standard pick list of spells because I can't be arsed continually have to trawl the complete list of spells to decide which ones to prep).
Preparation I find means, as someone already said, you prepare the ones most likely to see use, so that when you come up against a situation where an unusual spell would be very useful - you find you haven't prepared it. It seems it requires the GM to provide some clues to the PCs so that the prep spell casters ready the appropriate spells.
This is one of the sacred cows I am glad they ditched in 4e.
An interesting twist would be that wizard could cast their daily spells whenever they want (no memorizing, but still every spell counting towards their daily limit), but only ONCE per day. So if you cast a fireball, you cannot cast any other fireballs until next day.
Still the spontaneous factor, but you gotta choose whether you want to use that dispel magic now or later.
My problem with that would be cases where you go a long time without resting and fought for roughly 20-25 rounds total that day. You'd be down to spells like Mount, Hold Portal, or Alter Self in order to attack or defend. Its an extreme example, but I think there would be alot of standing around unable to participate effectively.
I dislike picking spells but it is a part of the game unless you just house rule everyone as sorcerers.
I like to split the difference. Pick one spell for each spell slot then just keep track of how many spells you cast. i.e. Don't bother memorizing CLW 3 times. Memorize your three favorite level 1 spells cast three and call it a day.
This I did once and found it a great compromise.
Guys, seriously, rarely has there ever been in gaming a more useless and pointlessly frustrating rule.
Google "Gygaxian Darwinism"
Google "GNS Triangle" or "Simulationist"I would wager the vast majority of people who 'hate' Vancian casting haven't read "The Dying Earth".
I would also say that I hope you enjoy your miniature combat game - 1st Edition was about adventure and risk. You didn't know what you were going to face, and prepping ahead of time was part of that - part of the fun. If you made a poor choice, then it was likely your PC would die and you would have to try again. It made things like combat and spell selection really *matter* when consequences were attached.
I'm not surprised people don't want to live with the consequences of your choices - if you're running a narrativist game that really doesn't fit with the style does it?
But for those of us that run a simulationist game with gamist leanings, how about you lay off the trash talking? Just because you aren't able to see what the point of something is, doesn't mean it doesn't have a point.
Remember you don't have to pick all your spells at once. Leave some slots open and see what happens during the next fifteen minutes, Err, I mean day!
Remember you don't have to pick all your spells at once. Leave some slots open and see what happens during the next fifteen minutes, Err, I mean day!
Agreed. 3.x/PF has 4E Rituals built-in. You can have the versatility to cast any spell you know, so long as you basically add 15 minutes to the casting time. Seems like very few people realize you can do this.
Scrolls. Lots of scrolls.
Not always available in the local MagicItem-Mart.
As for scribing them yourself, that's both expensive and time-consuming. You can only scribe one per day. It's hard to have "lots of scrolls" at the rate of one per day, especially if you actually use them - unless you're playing one of those campaigns where you have weeks, or at least several days, of downtime occur at frequent intervals.
My 6th level wizard who has Scribe Scroll for free cannot aford to scribe anything at all. In the course of adventuring, he has found two spellbooks on enemy wizards. Each spellbook contained about 15-16 spells. He has not even earned enough gold to scribe those spells into his own spellbook (and he cannot use them until he does). If he sells the three magic items he owns (very puny items) he can then afford, barely, to scribe the spells he has found. Still wouldn't leave much gold for scribing scrolls.
And he hasn't had much time. A day here, a day there, maybe all total he's had about 5 days of "downtime" since he left home at level 1. His adventuring life has been a busy one.
So as much as he might like to rely on scrolls, he has neither the time not the money to scribe them. And while he has the time to buy them, he can't afford to pay the full price for them any more than he can afford to pay half-price to scribe them.
|
|
The SRD (3.5) has rules for point-based spellcasting that may be of interest to you. I don't know the details as I like the slot based spell system (I play a bard and enjoy the challenge of making a very limited range of spells as effective as possible), but it may be the rules alternative you're looking for.
Cheers!
X
As for scribing them yourself, that's both expensive and time-consuming. You can only scribe one per day. It's hard to have "lots of scrolls" at the rate of one per day, especially if you actually use them - unless you're playing one of those campaigns where you have weeks, or at least several days, of downtime occur at frequent intervals.
Scribe Scroll (Item Creation)
Benefit: You can create a scroll of any spell that you
know. Scribing a scroll takes 2 hours if its base price is 250
gp or less, otherwise scribing a scroll takes 1 day for each
1,000 gp in its base price.
Shame on you Mr. DM_Blake !
Mr. Jacobs,
You're right, my post was a bit flamie and for that I apologize.
As far as the sorceror/bard argument, as I said we did this in 2nd edition when it wasn't nevesary to make a new class to get around a frustrating rule. I wasn't crazy about 3e, but outclassing the sorceror to me isn't a good enough argument to support picking spells. Many years of D&D taught me that picking spells doesn't lead to variety, it just leads to picking the "safe" reliable spells, or finding houserules to get around it. That tells me that the problem is the content, not user error.
And I don't like using tradition to support keeping a rule, things need to move forward or else we would all be still playing Chainmail, or magenta box basic rules (where I started, so many fond memories). Not that there's anything wrong with those games, just making a point.
Also, where is the lack of versatility? The players can easily purchase, create, or find scrolls, potions, wands, and staffs to use the magic they don't normally prepare or choose as a known spell. A 50-charge wand of Lightning Bolt or Knock can go a LONG way.
Several people have mentioned using spell points as a limiting factor when using a non-core magic system. Not to divert the topic, but how are spell points more of a limiting factor? From the research I've done on most spell point systems they are even more powerful than just using spontaneous casting for wizards. You get more high level casting options than if you were to use the Core Rule table and simply allow any spell you know to be cast for any slot. For instance a 9th level wizard with an 18 int could conceivably cast more than 1 5th level general and 1 specialist school spell per day. Granted, by doing so they severely limit the number of lower level spells they can then go through, but it seems more front loaded when considering encounters.
In our groups the spells became their own limiting factors. Spells were rare and powerful, wizards hoarded their spells to keep advantages over their colleagues. Gaining a new spell in the book is like gaining a new magic item that can then be used to help the party advance. Among party spellcasters sharing was encouraged so that it helped survivability, but giving those spells away to people you dont trust is a real gamble that could come back to bite you.
For the same reasons we don't use alot of scrolls. Both factors help to limit the overall power of the Wizard and keep them from being demi-gods as some say while still allowing for a feel of power, versatility, and without 'magic missile syndrome' as I like to call it.
I too do not like the preparation of spells thing, which is why Sorcerers would always be my first choice, and I have never had any interest in playing a wizard (I do play a cleric, but I tend to have a standard pick list of spells because I can't be arsed continually have to trawl the complete list of spells to decide which ones to prep).
Preparation I find means, as someone already said, you prepare the ones most likely to see use, so that when you come up against a situation where an unusual spell would be very useful - you find you haven't prepared it. It seems it requires the GM to provide some clues to the PCs so that the prep spell casters ready the appropriate spells.
This is one of the sacred cows I am glad they ditched in 4e.
And then you end up with watered-down magic where a Fireball or Lightning Bolt spell for a 30th-level Wizard is limited to ONCE a day, twice if you choose Archmage Paragon Path. Also, you've got the melee characters doing the exact same damage as you and being just as effective at everything you do, with the only saving grace is you can "hit more of them at once".
Last I checked, a real powerful Wizard wasn't limited to two or three of the same exact At-Will magic he had at 1st level and still stuck using them his entire career. A real spellcaster CAN level a keep with his arsenal of wands and scrolls, and preparing Fireball and other nastier spells multiple times. The image of a Wizard or Sorcerer tearing apart the battlefield with tons of lightning bolts and fireballs is the real deal, then one who calls themself a demigod at 30th-level and still throwing out little magic missiles.
Oi! Keep the edition bashing down! I'm tryin' to sleep here!
Yea, us poor first edition players need our sleep!
My problem with that would be cases where you go a long time without resting and fought for roughly 20-25 rounds total that day. You'd be down to spells like Mount, Hold Portal, or Alter Self in order to attack or defend. Its an extreme example, but I think there would be alot of standing around unable to participate effectively.An interesting twist would be that wizard could cast their daily spells whenever they want (no memorizing, but still every spell counting towards their daily limit), but only ONCE per day. So if you cast a fireball, you cannot cast any other fireballs until next day.
Still the spontaneous factor, but you gotta choose whether you want to use that dispel magic now or later.
That might make an evoker more viable since they would likely have grease and chill touch, but the necromancer/conjurer probably doesn't have magic missile, shocking grasp and burning hands. The evoker, knowing more different attack spells might find himself a lot more useful if you could only cast each one once a day... DM's may find themselves raising the price on pearls of power in that kind of campaign.
its one of the reasons i really liked the 3.5 beguiler class. A substantial and versatile spell list with a spontaneous caster. It is unfortunate that enchantment spells are so limited in terms immunities and resistances, or it would be the perfect spell caster (in my humble opinion ofcourse). I have never been a fan of the day to day picking of spells, at least for my own pc's.
|
So, in essence, all your casters are spontaneous?
In addition, your wizards have infinite spellbooks, and your sorcerers know every spell by heart? Because to me, this removes a large part of the reasoning to pick wizard ofer sorcerer- The sorcerer gets more spells per day, of a limited choice. Unless you are specifically reffering to only 'spells prepared per day.'
In which case it would expand the versatility of the wizard well past the sorcerer equivalent, since sorcerers would be the only class to have a limited number of spells to choose from (within their class list, that is).
Could you clarify how exactly your houserule works in relation to sorcerers and wizards? Because from what it sounds like, your houserule would blend the classes a little too much.
I think what Sean ment was wizards can cast any spell in their book and do not prepare only some.
Actually, it's 150 gp (25*2*3).
[friendly jab] It would seem the shame is in your math skills :) [jab]
More likely memory. Potions of second level spells start at 300gp.
As for scribing them yourself, that's both expensive and time-consuming. You can only scribe one per day. It's hard to have "lots of scrolls" at the rate of one per day, especially if you actually use them - unless you're playing one of those campaigns where you have weeks, or at least several days, of downtime occur at frequent intervals.Scribe Scroll (Item Creation)
Benefit: You can create a scroll of any spell that you
know. Scribing a scroll takes 2 hours if its base price is 250
gp or less, otherwise scribing a scroll takes 1 day for each
1,000 gp in its base price.Shame on you Mr. DM_Blake !
No, no, I'm quite aware of that rule. I've quoted it mysel fin other threads. Same deal for potions, too. I was just keeping my wordcount low by not digressing into that rule.
But since that only applies to spells of level 0, 1, or 2, it's hardly a big deal. Almost all of my favorite spells to scribe are higher than level 2, though I am fond of a few levle 1 and 2 scrollable spells.
Here are a few interesting side notes:
1. A potion of Cure Light Wounds costs 300 GP, a scroll of the same costs 150. I guess it is cheaper since only certain classes can use it?
2. The rule of 2 hours is mentioned in the feat, but is not mentioned in the rules for creating scrolls on page 552, whereas the similar rule for potions is mentioned in both places.
3. It takes 75gp and 2 hours to scribe a 1st level spell onto a scroll. It takes 150GP and 4 hours to scribe two 1st level spells onto two separate scrolls. But it takes 150gp and 8 hours to scribe the same two first level spells onto one single scroll (twice as long). Arguably, it's very easy to interpret the rules so that it takes 16 hours to scribe those two spells onto that one scroll, though I doubt that I would interpret it that way.
Here are a few interesting side notes:
1. A potion of Cure Light Wounds costs 300 GP
No! it's 50gp!
, a scroll of the same costs 150. I guess it is cheaper since only certain classes can use it?
No! it's 25gp!
Bad math!
As for good low level scrolls...
Mage Armour
Shield
Mirror Image
Expeditious Retreat
Cat/Bull/Owl/Bear/Eagle/Fox
Spider Climb
Spectral Hand
False Life
Invisibility
Blur
See Invisibility
Glitterdust
Enlarge Person
etc
etc
Sure higher level spells are "better", but the bread and butter stuff is all low level.
Scribing a 1st level scroll for 12.5 gp, and a 2nd level spell for 75gp make them cheaper than buying wands [15gp & 90gp respectively]
Actually, the better standard for what makes good scrolls is how likely you are to have a spell prepared when you really need it. There are a lot of spells out there that you'll probably never prepare, but when you need it, you really need it. Command Undead is a great example. Unless you have some great information on what to expect, you're probably never going to prepare Command Undead. However, when you're facing a zombie well giant and a hoard of mooks, the ability to just whip out the scroll of Command Undead and take control of that well giant with no save and keep control for three whole days is sterling.
When you need a Fly or a Teleport spell all of the sudden, odds are you really need a Fly or a Teleport spell, and a scroll of either makes a fantastic get out of jail free card. So, for picking out the best scrolls, "What's cheapest?" can get you some decent deals, but the better question is often, "What am I likely going to need precisely once without any warning?" 'Cuz there are a lot of those spells out there that will be fantastic precisely once in a campaign, and then never see the light of day again.
This is where a bonded item is far superior to a familiar of any kind.
This is where a bonded item is far superior to a familiar of any kind.
HAHAHA.... oh you're not joking...I'm sorry.
Oi! Keep the edition bashing down! I'm tryin' to sleep here!
Didn't mean for it to be an edition bash, I was meaning for it to be a slam ONLY at that one aspect that the 4E game practices and part of the topic here, not about 4E entirely.