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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wolv0rine" data-source="post: 3298649" data-attributes="member: 9045">It's my fault, but there is a kind of sub-topic going on between Pyrex and myself that isn't strictly on-topic.  Having thrown out my non-Potter (but somewhat Potter inspired) Wand system for my D&D campaign world because I thought it might be interesting to the topic, but I'm taking his feedback on the system itself too.   For a Potterverse game, I would say nothing over Cantrip level magic is permissable sans wand, and even then I'd be inclined to introduce a chaos factor into it to account for the slightly uncontrolled nature of that magic.  I could be mis-remembering, but didn't Harry at one point get some instruction on how to control his magic wandless?  If I'm remembering that rightly, I'd say it'd be possible to buy off the chaos-factor, but not the upper limit of the spell capacity when wandless.     So in effect, I'd suggest for a Potter game that the wand doesn't buff the wizard so much as the lack of a wand gimps him.   And that's not even going into the matter of the wrong wand, broken wands, and the nasty things that can happen.  You ever wonder if Ron would make a good wizard if Harry took some of that overflowing gold he's got and bought his best buddy a frelling wand that wasn't hand-me-down?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I mean really, Mrs. Weasley makes Harry sweaters and treats him almost like a foster mother, and the boy doesn't ever think to buy his mate something new?  Cheap bugger.</blockquote>

Verification