Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rmcoen" data-source="post: 7523435" data-attributes="member: 6692404">I have played in some campaigns that have implemented these rules.&nbsp; The wizard had vastly more &quot;spells known&quot; than the Sorcerer, but the Sorc had vastly more spell slots to work with.&nbsp; I disagree with #8 though - all your other suggestions lean toward making things more fluid (with risk), this seems like an arbitrary restriction.All your suggestions though - to me - are defining &quot;this is how magic *works* in my world&quot;, rather than a game system.&nbsp; I ran a campaign that had &quot;Matrices and Conduits&quot;... spells known were matrices, things a wizard setup in the morning (memorizing spells).&nbsp; Conduits were spell slots, the &quot;power&quot; of the spell, which was pushed through a Matrix to form an effect in the world.&nbsp; Some characters and classes were better with Matrices, able to hold more or reuse them more; others were better with Conduits, able to maniuplate more or larger, or even transform conduits into direct effects (i.e. &quot;Channel Energy&quot; for clerics).&nbsp; Wtihin this framework, then, all your suggestions would/could be implemented as made consistent &quot;sense&quot; to the Laws of Magic for that world.&nbsp; Rituals, for example, would still be Matrices, but might be &quot;easier&quot; and/or less powerful.&nbsp; Metamagic is just a complication you add to a Matrix (or, if you don't like them, don't).&nbsp; Risk can be added externally (all magic), internally (this matrix is &quot;easy&quot;, bonus or auto success, that one is &quot;hard&quot;, penalty), or situationally (this Matrix can handle conduits size 1 or 2, size 3 with chance of failure; being attacked is a penalty on drawing a Conduit; being KO'd might cause loss of prepared Matrices).&nbsp; And so on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rmcoen, post: 7523435, member: 6692404"] I have played in some campaigns that have implemented these rules. The wizard had vastly more "spells known" than the Sorcerer, but the Sorc had vastly more spell slots to work with. I disagree with #8 though - all your other suggestions lean toward making things more fluid (with risk), this seems like an arbitrary restriction. All your suggestions though - to me - are defining "this is how magic *works* in my world", rather than a game system. I ran a campaign that had "Matrices and Conduits"... spells known were matrices, things a wizard setup in the morning (memorizing spells). Conduits were spell slots, the "power" of the spell, which was pushed through a Matrix to form an effect in the world. Some characters and classes were better with Matrices, able to hold more or reuse them more; others were better with Conduits, able to maniuplate more or larger, or even transform conduits into direct effects (i.e. "Channel Energy" for clerics). Wtihin this framework, then, all your suggestions would/could be implemented as made consistent "sense" to the Laws of Magic for that world. Rituals, for example, would still be Matrices, but might be "easier" and/or less powerful. Metamagic is just a complication you add to a Matrix (or, if you don't like them, don't). Risk can be added externally (all magic), internally (this matrix is "easy", bonus or auto success, that one is "hard", penalty), or situationally (this Matrix can handle conduits size 1 or 2, size 3 with chance of failure; being attacked is a penalty on drawing a Conduit; being KO'd might cause loss of prepared Matrices). And so on. [/QUOTE]

Verification