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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NoWayJose" data-source="post: 5534115" data-attributes="member: 84810">Just musing here on this "Option C". What if the delineation between rituals and wizard powers was more blurry? What if anyone could theoretically do ritual magic, but wizards were much faster and better at it? To put it in simplistic terms, everyone can get some 'magic points' towards casting magic, but wizards just get a lot more 'magic points'. So you think of every class as a 'fighter' in terms of being capable in combat. A true fighter focuses exclusively on melee/ranged combat. A rogue is a 'fighter' who learns sneaky attacks. A cleric is a 'fighter' with divine focus. Like Gandalf with a sword, wizards are 'fighters' with an aptitude for magic and/or arcane learning background. (For campaigns that aren't combat-oriented, you could swap some combat expertise with more scholarly or professional skills, to emulate a pirate captain or bookish mage). Now you take all these different 'fighters', and you layer an optional magic/ritual system on top of that. A true fighter could know a minor combat spell, without having to multi-class. A thief could use a spell scroll. A wizard with arcane knowledge knows lots of better spells, boosted with implements, wands, etc. I don't know how that would work out mechanically, but I think it's a more natural fit to the traditional fantasy literature. I'm not sure if it makes any sense to anyone, if it's too vague. I'm just imagining gelling together magic and rituals to create a magic system that anyone potentially has access to, so it doesn't feel unfair that only wizards can do it, but it's much more versatile (as a nod to 3E) and wizards don't feel completely incompetent without it (as a nod to 4E).</blockquote>

Verification