I'm still a bit confused by Mike Mearls' latest article about Wizards in 5e.
I thought the plan was to have a Vancian styled wizard with minor at will powers like a bolt of force (so the wizard isn't useless when his memorized spells are spend - L&L Column from 2/27). Or maybe if he has a different specialty, he might instead get something like Tenser's Floating Disk as an at will.
Now it seems like the at will powers are being bumped up, and the vancian styled spells are getting throttled back.
It and of itself, not a big deal. It's a new edition, I expect change. However, it doesn't fit the initially stated goal of one system allowing for play of the different editions, at least in feel.
I'll make an uniformed guess that the release of the public beta play test rules for D&D 5e at the end of this month will also indicate a change of direction for 5e.
There will be less of an emphasis of trying to squeeze nearly 40 years of previous D&D gameplay experience and expectations into one core rule set. It's an impossible goal if you ask me, and one that has been holding the design team back.
Not that I expect 5e to be a game I will want to play. I've seen very little in Mike's articles that describe a game that fills my desires.
That being said, I have little desire to play Pathfinder (although I would play PF Basic Box in a second - it is really good) but it is the most successful game out there right now.
I am most likely not the audience that WotC needs to target for a successful 5e. Now the question becomes - can they actually design a successful 5e?
Jonas Suyderhoef - Hell (After Rubens) 1623 - [image: Jonas Suyderhoef - Hell, After Rubens, 1623]
11 hours ago