Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenttaylor" data-source="post: 5786751" data-attributes="member: 80518">Amberian MagicI'm actually toying with a slightly different explanation for traditional D&D magic using the reasoning found in Roger Zelazny's 2nd chronicles of Amber. Basically the main character is a "wizard" who casts maybe 95% of a spell (he calls it "hanging" the spell) and then, when he wants to use it, he does a quick trigger to cast the final 5% at which point the spell discharges. It could take him a full day to prepare (or "hang") a full allotment of combat ready offensive and defensive spells. I never actually read Vance but it seems to me this is a pretty decent explanation for what D&D portrays without the terminology of "cast and forget" which appears to stick in many peoples craw. So, a wizard rests each day and then spends whatever amount of time (I think 1e used 10 minutes per spell level but maybe with a maximum) "hanging" or preparing the spells they want to use that day. As an added twist (and in honor of the rituals of 4e) maybe the wizard could cast a spell cold from their spell book but spend the full time doing so. I'm thinking perhaps 5 minutes per spell level. In fact, with such time constraints, maybe it would be OK to say that the wizard can prepare the number of spells allotted on the progression table but that there is no limit (except for time) on the number of spells they can cast by reading from their spell book.Anyway, I don't think I've ever seen anyone explain the rationale behind preparing spell in the "Amberian" (or perhaps Zelaznian) rather than Vancian way. Anyone ever tried this? Does it help with the logical wall that cast and forget seems to cause?</blockquote>

Verification