Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jediking" data-source="post: 6829768" data-attributes="member: 6803126">"First Law:An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.Second Law:The limitations of a magic system are more interesting than its capabilities. What the magic can't do is more interesting than what it can. Third Law:Expand on what you have already, before you add something new."-Brandon SandersonPersonally I like it when things have some sort of explanation, and when cause follows effect. I don't like hand-waving something away because it's 'magic' and leave it at that. If magic is hard to master, or not fully understood, or has hidden limits that not even the DM knows for sure, I am fine with all of that. But if someone is able to cast Fireball and someone else can't, I want there to be a reason. Years of study, or a magical blood-line, or having the favour of a divine being are reasons enough for me. In 5e I have found that the explanation of the Weave (arcane) or power from the Gods (divine) is enough to explain some parts of magic, but leaves enough wiggle room to still push the boundaries of what can happen and keep things open to mystery and imagination.</blockquote>