I don't like that spell books in 4e delete powers written within themselves as soon as their owners learn new higher level powers. It's just...well, really stupid to be honest. So I'm thinking of removing the self-deletion property of spell books, or simply reserving spell books for rituals. Obviously this could be a huge boost to the wizard class, so I'd probably give all classes similar abilities to retain lower level powers.
Opinions?
TS
I don't like that spell books in 4e delete powers written within themselves as soon as their owners learn new higher level powers. It's just...well, really stupid to be honest. So I'm thinking of removing the self-deletion property of spell books, or simply reserving spell books for rituals. Obviously this could be a huge boost to the wizard class, so I'd probably give all classes similar abilities to retain lower level powers.
Opinions?
TS
I think your opening the door to pure madness.
As an alternative I note that Wizards already get a multiple choices for their powers every day and simply choose which powers they have on any given day at the start of the day. I doubt it'd be much of a deal breaker if their old lower level powers remained options. They don't get any more uses per day but if they are keen to choose a lower level powers instead of their higher level ones they have that option. I don't think this would be that powerful, however, to balance any extra utility you may want to devise some mechanic that charges the Wizard in gold for doing this - special inks or some such. Essentially nerf them on magic items to the same amount they gain by having extra utility with lower level powers. This way you can keep the other classes unchanged instead of trying to boost all the characters power level and then trying to compensate for that in adventure design.
I don't like that spell books in 4e delete powers written within themselves as soon as their owners learn new higher level powers. It's just...well, really stupid to be honest. So I'm thinking of removing the self-deletion property of spell books, or simply reserving spell books for rituals. Obviously this could be a huge boost to the wizard class, so I'd probably give all classes similar abilities to retain lower level powers.
Opinions?
TSI think your opening the door to pure madness.
As an alternative I note that Wizards already get a multiple choices for their powers every day and simply choose which powers they have on any given day at the start of the day. I doubt it'd be much of a deal breaker if their old lower level powers remained options. They don't get any more uses per day but if they are keen to choose a lower level powers instead of their higher level ones they have that option. I don't think this would be that powerful, however, to balance any extra utility you may want to devise some mechanic that charges the Wizard in gold for doing this - special inks or some such. Essentially nerf them on magic items to the same amount they gain by having extra utility with lower level powers. This way you can keep the other classes unchanged instead of trying to boost all the characters power level and then trying to compensate for that in adventure design.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Charge gold for extra utilities known, even if a PC can only use the same number per day?
TS
I don't like that spell books in 4e delete powers written within themselves as soon as their owners learn new higher level powers. It's just...well, really stupid to be honest. So I'm thinking of removing the self-deletion property of spell books, or simply reserving spell books for rituals.
I can live with it.
I can see it as not 'self-deletion,' but rather the wizard erasing information that is now obsolete. It doesn't establish 100% plausibility, but it's good enough for me.
But in that vein, I think WotC is consistently more interested in play balance than achieving any suspension of disbelief. We see the evidence all over 4e -- IMO.
Additional weirdness (fantasy rationale-wise), PC wizards cannot do a thing with captured spellbooks from enemy wizards (beyond ransacking their rituals). You are an expert in the arcane, get access to a new spell power and you cannot learn it, even though your arcane magic is based on study of tomes and learning of formulae! The wizard's top choice of treasure, spellbooks from vanquished enemy wizards, is gone. Rituals are OK, but everybody with the Ritualist Caster feat can use rituals, so the wizard's uniqueness when fighting for lost lore in spellbooks is gone for good. In practice, a 4e wizard is a sorcerer with minor daily choice of powers.
I wonder why they bothered to include day and utility spells in the spellbook. They could have as well left books for rituals only and have power allotment as a sort of "meditation" or "focusing of innate arcane powers" the wizard does every day.
At least it be consequent with the setting: everyone's a sorcerer or warlock now, academic book-based magic becomes the sole province of rituals, and it's open to anybody who can read and write and has a minimum of skill slots (and a few rituals don't require skill rolls, just money).
I don't like that spell books in 4e delete powers written within themselves as soon as their owners learn new higher level powers. It's just...well, really stupid to be honest. So I'm thinking of removing the self-deletion property of spell books, or simply reserving spell books for rituals. Obviously this could be a huge boost to the wizard class, so I'd probably give all classes similar abilities to retain lower level powers.
Opinions?
TSI think your opening the door to pure madness.
As an alternative I note that Wizards already get a multiple choices for their powers every day and simply choose which powers they have on any given day at the start of the day. I doubt it'd be much of a deal breaker if their old lower level powers remained options. They don't get any more uses per day but if they are keen to choose a lower level powers instead of their higher level ones they have that option. I don't think this would be that powerful, however, to balance any extra utility you may want to devise some mechanic that charges the Wizard in gold for doing this - special inks or some such. Essentially nerf them on magic items to the same amount they gain by having extra utility with lower level powers. This way you can keep the other classes unchanged instead of trying to boost all the characters power level and then trying to compensate for that in adventure design.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Charge gold for extra utilities known, even if a PC can only use the same number per day?
TS
Yeah - but not much presuming that its not that powerful. Your giving a slight boost to the class and they should have to pay for that slight boost.
I can see it as not 'self-deletion,' but rather the wizard erasing information that is now obsolete. It doesn't establish 100% plausibility, but it's good enough for me.
That's doesn't work so well for me. You basically have the rules dictate a PCs decision if you take that approach. The response from the player would be "Well, I don't care if they're obsolete I'm keeping them anyway," and then the only reply is that the rules MAKE you delete them. It's better to have them disappear on their own (although it's a really odd mechanic and hard to justify) than having the rules force a player into making a decision by fiat.
That's doesn't work so well for me. You basically have the rules dictate a PCs decision if you take that approach. The response from the player would be "Well, I don't care if they're obsolete I'm keeping them anyway," and then the only reply is that the rules MAKE you delete them. It's better to have them disappear on their own (although it's a really odd mechanic and hard to justify) than having the rules force a player into making a decision by fiat.
I see it as a Wizard never stops working on their spells, and instead of erasing, he is changing them, adding a gesture here, a new word there, that changes the overall effect of the spell from the previous one to the new one. Think editing the same word document and saving over, instead of writing a new one and throwing the old one away.
I see it as a Wizard never stops working on their spells, and instead of erasing, he is changing them, adding a gesture here, a new word there, that changes the overall effect of the spell from the previous one to the new one. Think editing the same word document and saving over, instead of writing a new one and throwing the old one away.
I like the concept, but it still doesn't explain why he can't cast the old version if he wants to :)
I like the concept, but it still doesn't explain why he can't cast the old version if he wants to :)
I see it as a Wizard never stops working on their spells, and instead of erasing, he is changing them, adding a gesture here, a new word there, that changes the overall effect of the spell from the previous one to the new one. Think editing the same word document and saving over, instead of writing a new one and throwing the old one away.
He wasn't smart enough to make changes in a different colored ink. ;)
From the new Tome of House Rules:
Character Option: Power Retention
This house rule allows characters to retain low level powers as they advance, and to learn a greater number of high level powers. Characters who use this option have different rules than other characters:
---The character cannot retrain powers.
---Once the character knows any given power, that power becomes a permanent part of the character’s repertoire. (Characters do not lose lower level powers when they gain new powers at level-up.)
---The character has only a limited number of power slots, according to the table on page 29 of the Player’s Handbook. To use a power, the character must prepare a power by using up one of his or her power slots. (Powers granted from race, class features, feats and magical items can be used in addition to these base power slots, as normal.) The character cannot prepare the same power twice. The character can change his or her prepared powers after an extended rest.
---The character can learn new powers of his or her level or lower by either finding a manual which describes that power or by spending money to research that power. Normally a character can only learn powers of his or her class, but if the character has a multiclass feat he or she might be able to learn other powers. If the character has Novice Power, the character can learn encounter powers of the appropriate class; if the character has Acolyte Power, the character can learn utility powers of the appropriate class; if the character has Adept Power, the character can learn daily powers of the appropriate class. By studying a manual which describes a suitable power over an extended rest, the character adds that power to his or her repertoire. By spending money to research a suitable power equal to a magical item of equivalent level, the character adds that power to his or her repertoire. To research a new power, the character must spend a week in a community with NPCs and tools of the character’s class.
---If the character is a wizard, he or she does not need a spell book to hold daily and utility spells.
I'm going to offer this option to all the players of my new 4e game. We'll see how many takers I get.
TS
|
my 2 cp:
here's the beauty of any rpg system. you can use the core mechanic and overlay just about anything you want on it. some people will do a brilliamt job, some people will break the system, but every rule set can be "houserules" to suit individual tastes. it may be a bit more of a task with the way 4e is balanced and the way characters develop, but all of the above "fixes" look like they could work.
I can see it as not 'self-deletion,' but rather the wizard erasing information that is now obsolete. It doesn't establish 100% plausibility, but it's good enough for me.
That's doesn't work so well for me. You basically have the rules dictate a PCs decision if you take that approach...
I think it's less than perfect, also. But believability, as I suggested, is at times sacrificed for the sake of balance. I just cope the best I can :)
I like the concept, but it still doesn't explain why he can't cast the old version if he wants to :)
He wasn't smart enough to make changes in a different colored ink. ;)
It's the house elves -- they sneak into the wizard's study at night and erase the relevant pages. House elves actually work for the Ministry of Magic, aka WotC :)
|
I like the concept, but it still doesn't explain why he can't cast the old version if he wants to :)
I see it as a Wizard never stops working on their spells, and instead of erasing, he is changing them, adding a gesture here, a new word there, that changes the overall effect of the spell from the previous one to the new one. Think editing the same word document and saving over, instead of writing a new one and throwing the old one away.
I would like to think that the transcription of a spell is a magical act itself and that the old formula is actually a required component in the creation of the new formula. I imagine the ink on the page swirling and reforming into the the new inscription.
I would like to think that the transcription of a spell is a magical act itself and that the old formula is actually a required component in the creation of the new formula. I imagine the ink on the page swirling and reforming into the the new inscription.
Then make a copy of the old one and use that to create the new one. Clearly making a copy of an existing spell is possible, or spells wouldn't promulgate amongst casters. Alternatively, after the new spell is transcribed, re-transcribe the old formula.
Nope. Doesn't make sense. In my view, you actually make it worse when you come up with some half-baked explanation for something like this. It was put in as a game balancing mechanic. Period. There's no other good explanation for it.
Then make a copy of the old one and use that to create the new one. Clearly making a copy of an existing spell is possible, or spells wouldn't promulgate amongst casters. Alternatively, after the new spell is transcribed, re-transcribe the old formula.Nope. Doesn't make sense. In my view, you actually make it worse when you come up with some half-baked explanation for something like this. It was put in as a game balancing mechanic. Period. There's no other good explanation for it.
But ... spells DON'T promulgate amongst casters in 4E. There is no way to get spells from a defeated Wizard's book (Rituals, yes, Spells, no). In 4E spells aren't traded between Wizards, or bought and sold on the open (or closed!) market.
I think assuming spells in 4E can even be copied may be a bit of a stretch. :)
Nope. Doesn't make sense. In my view, you actually make it worse when you come up with some half-baked explanation for something like this. It was put in as a game balancing mechanic. Period. There's no other good explanation for it.
We've been making up reasons why X but not Y when it comes to magic for a long time.
I think assuming spells in 4E can even be copied may be a bit of a stretch. :)
According to the PHB when you gain a level you choose new spells to ADD to your spell book. So clearly there is a way of transcribing them.
We've been making up reasons why X but not Y when it comes to magic for a long time.
Yeah, but for them to be good reasons they have to be logical within the context of the game world. None of the ones presented here are.
According to the PHB when you gain a level you choose new spells to ADD to your spell book. So clearly there is a way of transcribing them.
I think you're still reading more than is there. ;)
Writing new spells in does not have to imply the ability to copy those spells out. These aren't simple, non-magical schemata on how to build a robot dog (which would totally be awesome) but are really reality warping commands that makes people (Kobolds mostly, really) burst into flame.
In 4E a Wizard's spellbook is a much more magical device than in earlier editions. It's less mundane paper and ink; more strange (and probably terrifying) magical rituals. Try to copy them; I dare you. I dobule dog dare you (note: you probably shouldn't try to copy them; they HATE that!)
Cheers! :)
The OP said: "I don't like that spell books in 4e delete powers written within themselves as soon as their owners learn new higher level powers. It's just...well, really stupid to be honest."
Yes, I agree.
No, I disagree. I'm glad we had this coversation. ;)
Yeah, but for them to be good reasons they have to be logical within the context of the game world. None of the ones presented here are.
They aren't logical for the context of the game world as you assume it. 4E requires a different set of assumptions from earlier editions (technically, I'd say all editions required different assumptions from other editions). Trying to fit 3E's take on magic and Wizards and their spellbooks into 4E will result in silly and arbitrary events.
The same goes for trying to fit 4E's take on magic, Wizards, and their spellbooks into 3E.
Cheers! :)
They aren't logical for the context of the game world as you assume it. 4E requires a different set of assumptions from earlier editions (technically, I'd say all editions required different assumptions from other editions). Trying to fit 3E's take on magic and Wizards and their spellbooks into 4E will result in silly and arbitrary events.
The same goes for trying to fit 4E's take on magic, Wizards, and their spellbooks into 3E.
Cheers! :)
I disagree. 4E is very much more gamey (i.e. metagamey) than previous editions. It brings much more of the metagame thinking front and center into the rules.
I disagree. 4E is very much more gamey (i.e. metagamey) than previous editions. It brings much more of the metagame thinking front and center into the rules.
In some ways, I do agree with you. Several previously existing game concepts are openly acknowledged in 4E in a way that is unprecedented. I find that refreshingly honest, but I understand not everyone shares that view.
But I do think 4E could be used to run a simulationist game just as well as 3E, as long as one to accept some of 4E's assumptions. A good example would be how Wizards and their spellbooks relate to one another. In 4E, there is a much more personal connection between the two than in previous editions.
Cheers! :)
|
|
I would like to think that the transcription of a spell is a magical act itself and that the old formula is actually a required component in the creation of the new formula. I imagine the ink on the page swirling and reforming into the the new inscription.
Then make a copy of the old one and use that to create the new one. Clearly making a copy of an existing spell is possible, or spells wouldn't promulgate amongst casters. Alternatively, after the new spell is transcribed, re-transcribe the old formula.
Nope. Doesn't make sense. In my view, you actually make it worse when you come up with some half-baked explanation for something like this. It was put in as a game balancing mechanic. Period. There's no other good explanation for it.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I would treat writing a spell in the spell book as a magical act - a ritual of sorts. The actual composition of the writing is not enough. You could copy the spell from place to place but it is the ritual of transcription that is a part of the ability to then cast the spell. If a wizard does not use the ritual to write the spell then he cannot cast that spell. Then when a more powerful spell is transcribed it may need to "consume" the previous transcription. The choice would be to learn the more powerful spell or continue to use the older spell.
Game balance IMO is a very very good thing. When the game goes out of balance problems can more easily occur. A lack of balance can also lead to power gaming as players seek to optimize by exploiting the imbalance. I would rather think of ways to explain the balance than simply dismiss it because I value that aspect of 4e.
Yeah, but for them to be good reasons they have to be logical within the context of the game world. None of the ones presented here are.
We've been making up reasons why X but not Y when it comes to magic for a long time.
The thing is we are not really simulating something. If I make a game thats supposed to play like the Call of Cuthulu mythos then I need to craft rules that reflect how magic worked within those books. Same deal if I am trying to simulate any book, TV show, movie etc. However 4E is not really trying to simulate a specific kind of fiction, its left the fiction totally open to the DMs interpretation or the interpretation of the the campaign world and simply provided us the mechanics.
So instead of slotting in X style of magic into your world, and along with that style you get Y mechanics your skipping a step and simply inserting Y mechanics. What the style of magic is and how it works is essentially left up to you to postulate.
|
|
So instead of slotting in X style of magic into your world, and along with that style you get Y mechanics your skipping a step and simply inserting Y mechanics. What the style of magic is and how it works is essentially left up to you to postulate.
And honestly for a homebrew this is a great way to set things up. this does not however show a good way to incorporate things into a setting. Hopefully this will be expanded a bit more with the Forgotten realms books to come.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I would treat writing a spell in the spell book as a magical act - a ritual of sorts. The actual composition of the writing is not enough. You could copy the spell from place to place but it is the ritual of transcription that is a part of the ability to then cast the spell.
Then you just need two copies of it - use one to make the new spell and keep the other old one. Since you said you can copy it from place to place.
The thing is we are not really simulating something.
But there is a continuum between gamism and simulation. Just saying we're not simulating anything doesn't address the point, which is that we're further along the continuum toward gamism than before.
As I said before, I am enjoying 4E. But I'm not trying to pretend it is something it is not, and in my opinion coming up with nonsense in-game explanations for something that is simply a balancing mechanic and has no other justification just makes things worse. I'd rather just say it is a balancing mechanic and leave it at that.
The thing is we are not really simulating something.
But there is a continuum between gamism and simulation. Just saying we're not simulating anything doesn't address the point, which is that we're further along the continuum toward gamism than before.
As I said before, I am enjoying 4E. But I'm not trying to pretend it is something it is not, and in my opinion coming up with nonsense in-game explanations for something that is simply a balancing mechanic and has no other justification just makes things worse. I'd rather just say it is a balancing mechanic and leave it at that.
You can do that and, I suppose, it'll work but it has no depth, no fluff, in my opinion. It would seem we are coming at this from very different directions. Like CWM, I see a canvas upon which I will paint fluff that adds depth to my world and my role playing experience. Certainly the underlying mechanic is gamist and designed to be balanced but that does not stop me from adding fluff to it to make it fit into my campaign setting.
I don't actually see this as that far from how a simulationist RPG goes about the same activity. If I'm trying to simulate a specific style of magic thats used in a novel I need to make my magic feel like it does in those novels. On the other hand and I generally also need to make it balanced. Now this is Gamist in that we start with the balance and then choose to add the fluff around it instead of starting with the fluff and trying to tweak it to get the balance but its not really so far fetched a proposition that one style works in creating an RPG campaign while the other does not.
You can do that and, I suppose, it'll work but it has no depth, no fluff, in my opinion. It would seem we are coming at this from very different directions.
I agree with this in general, but if it comes to a choice between fluff that doesn't make sense and just recognizing the mechanic - well, the fluff that doesn't make sense hurts my suspension of disbelief far more than an irrational fluff explanation. So that's why I prefer to leave it along unless there's a really good explanation at hand :)
|
|
Then you just need two copies of it - use one to make the new spell and keep the other old one. Since you said you can copy it from place to place.Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I would treat writing a spell in the spell book as a magical act - a ritual of sorts. The actual composition of the writing is not enough. You could copy the spell from place to place but it is the ritual of transcription that is a part of the ability to then cast the spell.
Right but the writing is not the spell - it is the ritual use of magic during transcription that would be the link to the spell. It's not that you write a static formula in ink - you actually write with magic on to the page. The act of writing would be a spell in and to itself. Then the only way to add more powerful spells would be to use the magic in the old spell for the creation of a new one.
The book would be like a battery with a finite capacity.
|
|
I agree with this in general, but if it comes to a choice between fluff that doesn't make sense and just recognizing the mechanic - well, the fluff that doesn't make sense hurts my suspension of disbelief far more than an irrational fluff explanation. So that's why I prefer to leave it along unless there's a really good explanation at hand :)
You can do that and, I suppose, it'll work but it has no depth, no fluff, in my opinion. It would seem we are coming at this from very different directions.
But why not do what i have been doing here and create fluff that actually explains the mechanism.
But why not do what i have been doing here and create fluff that actually explains the mechanism.
Your fluff falls into the category of fluff that doesn't make sense. I'd rather not use it. YMMV.
Right but the writing is not the spell - it is the ritual use of magic during transcription that would be the link to the spell. It's not that you write a static formula in ink - you actually write with magic on to the page. The act of writing would be a spell in and to itself. Then the only way to add more powerful spells would be to use the magic in the old spell for the creation of a new one.The book would be like a battery with a finite capacity.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Since you can use a ritual of sorts (as you put it) to transcribe the lower level spell, you'd simply do that more than once. Have two spell books in effect. Then when it comes time to get a new spell, you use one book to power the transcription of the new spell and you leave the copy of the old spell in the second book. Now you've got both.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Since you can use a ritual of sorts (as you put it) to transcribe the lower level spell, you'd simply do that more than once. Have two spell books in effect. Then when it comes time to get a new spell, you use one book to power the transcription of the new spell and you leave the copy of the old spell in the second book. Now you've got both.
It's not how I view things, but I believe in CWM's explanation the material cost of the ritual is the copy of the original spell, meaning it is consumed in the process. Only a few times does a Wizard get to cast it for "free" and actually add a new spell to their book ... the rest of the time they'd be using it to convert an old spell into a new one.
Is that a correct summation of your proposal CWM?
I agree with this in general, but if it comes to a choice between fluff that doesn't make sense and just recognizing the mechanic - well, the fluff that doesn't make sense hurts my suspension of disbelief far more than an irrational fluff explanation. So that's why I prefer to leave it along unless there's a really good explanation at hand :)
You can do that and, I suppose, it'll work but it has no depth, no fluff, in my opinion. It would seem we are coming at this from very different directions.
OK. Though its worth pointing out that tossing out interesting fluff is one of the primary activities one engages in on a message board. That was true, in my experience, in 3.5 and its true in 4E. In fact I'm pretty sure its true of PRPG since I do engage in the threads about the APs (of which I am a collector) and trying to work out how the heal skill, as an example, might be accounted for in 7DttG is a big part of what people engage in here. Thats not to say every example will work for you, but, on the other hand, just deciding that there can be no reasonable explanation seems highly improbable as well.
Certainly some things can rub some one the wrong way to the point were house ruling them is the only way forward. Lots of people had this issue with the magic item shoppe in 3.5 and I personally could not stand bards as written. Every time the party was fighting Orcs or something I kept wanting to shout "put away that f**$ing mandolin and get in here with a sword, you ninny." Once I was DMing I stripped out all the musical aspects of the bard and kept it as a kind of mixed class with some more bonus feats to make up for the lack of musical powers. Lots of people have tried to explain to me that music as a fantasy weapon is in fact iconic but I just can't get past the idea of a guy playing a mandolin while his comrades duel to the death with Orcs.
Hence sometimes no suggestion is going to work for you personally on an issue and thats fine. I suggest house ruling ones way forward in this case as a better alternative then not having immersion in ones game at all but YMMV.
It's not how I view things, but I believe in CWM's explanation the material cost of the ritual is the copy of the original spell, meaning it is consumed in the process.
Yes, that's what I am understanding as well. Doesn't work for me for the reasons above.
Hence sometimes no suggestion is going to work for you personally on an issue...
Typically I will house rule or come up with some fluff. My only point here is where the mechanic is clearly a balancing mechanism and doesn't make sense in terms of any fluff, I'd rather not have an explanation. I might try to house rule it, but if not I'll just say it is a balancing mechanic and go from there.
|
|
It's not how I view things, but I believe in CWM's explanation the material cost of the ritual is the copy of the original spell, meaning it is consumed in the process. Only a few times does a Wizard get to cast it for "free" and actually add a new spell to their book ... the rest of the time they'd be using it to convert an old spell into a new one.
Is that a correct summation of your proposal CWM?
I was thinking along those lines.
My larger point is this - 4e rules prioritize game balance. Being a creative bunch I see no reason we cannot create fluff to match the rules if the rules work. For instance I could never swallow the Vancian magic system and Wizards that needed to refill their memory banks every day. By the time a wizard is 20th level should some spells be committed to memory? So instead of using the stock explanation I figured the Wizards used his study time to prime all of the spells he wanted available for that day. There was never any memory involved but a bank of arcane energy and formulas that had been activated.
So if buying into the memory thing is so easy why is it so hard to buy into the spell book limitations? Both are game balancers and both can be explained if we try.
My larger point is this - 4e rules prioritize game balance. Being a creative bunch I see no reason we cannot create fluff to match the rules if the rules work.
It depends on how far you want to go in torturing a rationale to fit a mechanic that doesn't have a rationale. I think what you're doing makes sense most of the time, but in the instances where it doesn't make sense I see no reason to force it. None of the rationale in this thread or others for the disappearing spell book make any sense to me. Same thing with explanations for a power like split the tree. So I'd rather just accept them as mechanics than use a half-baked explanation that makes the game world seem stupid.
If you had trouble with vancian casting I don't see how you can adopt these explanations you are proposing here. They're far worse. While people disagree on whether vancian casting was a cool mechanic, at least the fluff for it isn't internally inconsistent like the ones proposed in this thread.
Well I just brought this issue up with my new group. One of my players didn't even realize that wizards lose spells as they gain better ones; both players expressed extreme disgust at such a ridiculous mechanic. In fact they both suggested that we house rule it even before I told them that I had come up with my optional Power Retention rule. To make a long story short, they'll both be using Power Retention. One is a ranger and one is a rogue if anyone is interested.
TS
well when the fluff is you can cast it once a day and that is the way it is,
If that's the "fluff" you use for Vancian casting, then I can see where you would have a problem. Saying "that's the way it is" isn't fluff. It's what I'm saying you have to do with some of the 4E mechanics.
Well I just brought this issue up with my new group. One of my players didn't even realize that wizards lose spells as they gain better ones; both players expressed extreme disgust at such a ridiculous mechanic. In fact they both suggested that we house rule it even before I told them that I had come up with my optional Power Retention rule. To make a long story short, they'll both be using Power Retention. One is a ranger and one is a rogue if anyone is interested.
TS
I'll probably come up with a rule for retention of powers as well, if it becomes much of an issue. My wizard player has dropped out of the 4E group...but I will probably find someone else.
|
|
Chronicles of Amber principally the later stories have a variation of Vanacian spell casting where the caster "hangs" his spells on something that resembles a web, and on Items and such. It is a much more descriptive way to cast spells, and would give a more interesting way to show how an Arcane caster has access to spells.