And that's gonna go over like a lead balloon.
I certainly know it isn't a mainstream concept by any stretch of the imagination... but for us, who've played D&D and other "medieval" fantasy games for decades, such a game would be a wonderful deviantion from the direction D&D has gone.
My comment, "That's life", was simply meant to convey I
know it is not the type of system people currently seem to be interested in. Which is fine, this wouldn't be for them.
TBH, this is one of those “D&D- in any iteration- is the wrong tool for the job” situations. Magic is simply hardwired into certain classes and races.
It is certainly hardwired into "modern" D&D, but that is the issue for myself and others. I will update the OP to reflect the following since my initial prose was partially me trying to organize my thoughts.
When I say things like "Take away the wizard spellbook and they cannot cast" was overreaching. I meant more in terms that without the spellbook to study, etc. the wizard would be stuff with the spells he currently has prepared. In this system, with Vancian casting, once those spells are used--they're gone. The wizard
really needs his spellbook or he is severely hampered, and eventually without one, useless.
The other casters would have similar "Achilles's heels".
So youre essentially looking at a magic system where instead of spell slots PCs use charged items as casting Tools? - Wands, Scrolls, Holy Symbols, Potions,,Amulets, Tattoos as patron marks? - I could dig that.
Well, not quite but that would certainly be part of it and work with it. Having wands with charges, potions and other magical items would still be a standard.
Casters would have spell slots, and can "cast magic", but are reliant on
something or
someone who can take that power away/ limit it/ etc. Think of it this way: if you take a fighter's weapon away from them, they can't really "fight" comparatively to before. But in current D&D, you can't "take away" magic from spellcasters. Few games IME are run that way, and it gets worse (IMO) when magic becomes "innate" via race, feats, class features, etc. since it can't really be "taken away".
Magical or use magic, is pure fluff that won’t alter the game mechanics most of the time.
Which is why I want to make it more than just pure fluff. AD&D having things like your spellbook taken, your holy symbol melt, you did something naughty with your Paladin, etc. resulted in magic basically "going away".
To be honest, this is the biggest reason why sorcerers need to exist separately from wizards. Spellbooks are albatrosses around the neck of an adventurer and not every caster wants to lug around a book that is especially susceptible to fire, flood, and other types of damage that contains a large part of their class features.
The option to go book free appeals for that very reason.
I certainly agree that is a great point, but the opposite of what I am devising.
The concept is each "magic using" class would have some physical or other restriction, which if removed, removes their ability to use magic. They
NEED something to be able use it, because they are not, themselves, magical.
Now, 5E has this to a very limited degree. Requiring a spellcasting focus, for example. However, such an item is relatively commonplace to the point of being useless as any sort of restriction.
Well, since this isn't about D&D and it's for a rule system you and some friends are designing then c'est la vie.
Ok... then, thanks for reading I guess??
Why should we care? What question(s) are you asking us? Do you want us to prove you wrong? Because we can't since it's your system. Do you want us to tell you are great a revelation this is? (It really isn't.).
Most likely you shouldn't (unless the idea
did appeal to you).
I am not asking any questions, obviously, as there is not a single "?" in the OP.
There is nothing to prove, either right or wrong.
If you like the idea, sure tell me, and give me your thoughts about it.
If you don't (
wink wink) then c'est la vie.
What do you want from this thread?
Just posting about a point I had discussing some game design I'm working on with some friends, very much (loosely) based on 5E (hence the 5E tag).
I thought the opening sentence pretty much said the point of the thread: "Just posting a point..." Sometimes, people do that here...
Is there really wizards loosing their spell book in actual DnD?
I see that like a boogeyman from the past.
In theory, yes. In practice, pretty much not. Some DMs might do it, but the current "atmosphere" of the game is it would be badwrongfun to do so. At worse, a spellbook might be taken away, and the PC(s) has to try to get it back.
I've seen (or had) spellbooks lost to fire, water/submersion, disintegration, theft, and such. It became a very common tactic that if you wanted to cripple a spellcaster, you went for the book. NPC and PC alike. Now that was in 2e, and they have done a lot to make them less a liability in time, but for a long period, a wizard would rather die than lose his spellbook. Death was reversable with a 5th level spell, a spellbook took years to recreate....
Yep! Good times.... good times.
