Quote from: James Gillen;762974It depends on whether Stormbringer connects faster than a knee to the groin.

JG

Conan Vs Merlin?

Conan Vs Gandalf etc etc etc .....

Quote from: James Gillen;762974It depends on whether Stormbringer connects faster than a knee to the groin.

JG

So we're back to rocket tag it seems.

I am not thrilled with 5e having 1st level spells become at-will cantrips.

4e was about fantasy superheroes, so that unlimited magic worked. I am not a fan of 3e, but cantrips and orisons in 3e worked.

But 5e exists in an era of video games, so it can't really go back to a long ago age where constant pew-pew didn't exist in the fantasy genre.

I still have never figured out how wizards using crossbows is seen as more iconic fantasy than wizards being able to consistently cast spells.

Apparently any wizard who can do weak magic as tirelessly as a fighter swings his sword is a superhero.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762931My point is cantrips should be interesting little things you can do. Things that feel magical.
Giving a wizard an at will attack that doesn't fit with the description of how magic works at the macro level and feels like a gamist way to prevent them having to throw daggers just sits ill with me.

I think our difference of opinion comes from our preconceptions of the game world and what we want from a game. You are looking at this as an experienced D&D player. You live in a world where adventurers are common where magic is taken for granted and where a group that has formed with the intention of killing things and taking their stuff are all expected to pull their weight.
I live in a world where the Duke of Kanta's daughter has fled from her father's castle after he tried to marry her off to a fat merchant to swell the kingdom's coffers. She has stowed away in the back of a cart leaving town and is now listening to the carts owners, two snakeoil salesmen of dubious parentage, argue over where they should next alight and whether or not they should have lifted the strongbox from the tavern or not. In that world peasants are peasants, no one knows shit about magic, 99% of people are 0 level and everyone things elves are a myth.

I think its just a different mind set.

Well said...

Quote from: Emperor Norton;763003I still have never figured out how wizards using crossbows is seen as more iconic fantasy than wizards being able to consistently cast spells.

Apparently any wizard who can do weak magic as tirelessly as a fighter swings his sword is a superhero.

The crossbow isn't a great example to be sure but if you look at the source material from novels, wizards are very rarely chucking out magic strikes willy nilly.
If the argument is that modern games need to reflect CRPGs then no CRPGs give the PC unlimited magical pings.

So I can't really see a fantasy milieu that has unlimited magical strikes as a feature.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;763003I still have never figured out how wizards using crossbows is seen as more iconic fantasy than wizards being able to consistently cast spells.

Apparently any wizard who can do weak magic as tirelessly as a fighter swings his sword is a superhero.

No, but his magic now becomes mundane as he becomes essentially some form of archer when he's not casting spells.  Yes, he might do less damage then a Fighter or a Rogue as a ranged character, but he can do it at-will with no resources at all.  A fighter, rogue or cleric still needs a weapon to get that base level damage.

Also, the wizard who now still has his spell abilities at the same time, has moved from "some extra damage here and there when he's not casting" to "sustainable damage output at least 50% of a fighter's based on no equipment requirement and no resource requirement".  Let's also remember this is magical damage, isn't it?

That's a pretty big and fundamental shift in how the class operates.

Obviously, if you prefer the class baseline changing fundamentally toward a high fantasy higher-powered version, that's fine.

But please stop pretending you don't understand that this was a fundamental change and misrepresenting those who aren't sold on this quite substantial paradigm shift as making logical errors, which they aren't.

Its one of those really divisive issues, and has been pretty much for a long time.

Personally, if I was playing a wizard I don't think I would take the Damaging Cantrips, and would probably end up getting some sort of Crossbowman feat, because its pretty engrained in me that is how a Wizard should be.

But I can perfectly understand that for a lot of people, they look at that and go WTF?

There was never going to be a solution to this that everyone would be happy with.

Quote from: jadrax;763014There was never going to be a solution to this that everyone would be happy with.

Well as the "please everyone" edition, such an addition certainly could have been an optional rule without such a fundamental alteration to the older style game that Basic seems to be emulating. Instead, now that baseline, non-spell damage is baked into the system and the default assumptions of the game for modules, organized play etc.  It's one of those "butterfly effect" things that WotC has proven themselves unable to judge the effects of.

Global changes and options are always easy to add, not so easy to take away, as we have seen ad infinitum.

Time will tell, it always does, one way or another.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763016Global changes and options are always easy to add, not so easy to take away, as we have seen ad infinitum.

Time will tell, it always does, one way or another.

One spell from a list of spells is one of the absolute easiest things to take away from D&D.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763016Well as the "please everyone" edition, such an addition certainly could have been an optional rule without such a fundamental alteration to the older style game that Basic seems to be emulating. Instead, now that baseline, non-spell damage is baked into the system and the default assumptions of the game for modules, organized play etc.  It's one of those "butterfly effect" things that WotC has proven themselves unable to judge the effects of.

Global changes and options are always easy to add, not so easy to take away, as we have seen ad infinitum.

TBH, I disagree. Most characters will never have more than 5 Cantrips. There are more than 5 basic non offensive cantrips for both clerics and wizards. If you put a line through the four offensive cantrips on day one, your game will run perfectly fine, no further modification required.

For the players who dislike at-wills, how hard would it be to change that to X per day instead? Would it break anything?

Now I'm curious about the Dungeon Master's Guide and what sorts of modular options it might include.

(Personally I like at-wills in this specific context, but whatever)

Quote from: Necrozius;763022For the players who dislike at-wills, how hard would it be to change that to X per day instead? Would it break anything?

Now I'm curious about the Dungeon Master's Guide and what sorts of modular options it might include.

(Personally I like at-wills in this specific context, but whatever)

In my own B/X house rules I added cantrips including an attack cantrip. It even gets the MU's INT modifier to hit. Cantrip uses per day are 5 + caster level, so capacity increases with level.

It is helpful to have such magics available but they are not plentiful enough to be spammable without consideration.

Quote from: Necrozius;763022For the players who dislike at-wills, how hard would it be to change that to X per day instead? Would it break anything?

Now I'm curious about the Dungeon Master's Guide and what sorts of modular options it might include.

(Personally I like at-wills in this specific context, but whatever)

Easy enough to just make cantrips level zero spells and you can cast the same number per day as you get level 1 slots.

Quote from: Warthur;763017One spell from a list of spells is one of the absolute easiest things to take away from D&D.

The absolute easiest thing to take away is one you don't have to because it is an option you can add.

Quote from: jadrax;763018TBH, I disagree. Most characters will never have more than 5 Cantrips. There are more than 5 basic non offensive cantrips for both clerics and wizards. If you put a line through the four offensive cantrips on day one, your game will run perfectly fine, no further modification required.

Spell lists are not the concern, the Mage (and presumably Cleric) now being a class that can pump out 50%+ of base weapon damage of a fighter without expending resources is the concern.  You really think the default assumption is going to be that Mages and Clerics do not have them?

That now affects the HPs of every monster, the design of every module, and the table culture that's going to arise from organized play.

I know WotC has run the numbers, I suspect they lack any interest in analysis of..."and then what".