• jake_eric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What did you hate about it, may I ask? I thought it was a reasonable nerf to flexibility without too huge of an impact.

      • dumples@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s much more book keeping to begin with. It has much more work in most tracking and teaching. If we are going that route we might has well go full vancian and prepare spells slots.

        Also in general the spells I want don’t match with spell progression for prepared casters. I usually want more 1st level spells especially at higher levels. Also there are a few spell levels like 4th that have worse selections. I would prefer either more 3rd and 5th level spells. Especially for druids which have 1 or 2 good options

        • jake_eric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I dunno, I’ve seen a decent amount of players basically match their spells known levels with their spell slots already just because they feel like it makes sense; it’s not really more bookkeeping because you’re already keeping track of exactly how many spell slots you have anyway.

          It certainly does force you to make choices that you might not want to otherwise, but spellcasters are problematically overflexible at the moment, so reining them in a bit like this felt pretty fair to me.

          • dumples@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I just feel like it’s easier to just say you get 10 spells prepared of any level instead of 3 first level, 3 2nd level, 2 3rd level and 2 4th level