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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chris_Nightwing" data-source="post: 5941761" data-attributes="member: 882">That is a very good point. As a DM, I often use magic as a tool, a reason for something to have happened, for something to exist, and I never expect any PC to be able to create their own flying city or ancient artifact unless they decide to seriously pursue it. Players will, though, want to use spells that are used against them, and they might even want to make magic items - so I can see why 3rd edition codified this. I think that if an NPC can create a magical effect (without some plot-centric superpower) then a PC should be able to too. I also don't mind codification of magic item creation - but it has to be more difficult and more limited than in 3E/4E.I also have no idea where to draw the line, and one of the reasons I'd like to see the schools of magic refined is to try to make clear what spell effects can do - for instance my bugbear is Phantasmal Killer, an illusion spell that can actually kill you through fear. Now, in my mind, that's either an enchantment (fear, it clearly affects your mind) or an evocation (an actual killer exists). If you want an illusion, then it should exist for everyone to see and if you don't believe it, then it wastes your time, but can never kill you (damage you perhaps, given the abstract nature of HP).I also like the idea of subtle clerical magic, but so far we've seen Searing Light (or whatever it is called) and there's always a demand for Flamestrike. Clerics shouldn't have these unless they are god-relevant!Ah I didn't say much about this, but I think clerics should go the way of the sorcerer. Give them a list they can cast, let them cast when they need to. They are imbued with power from their gods after all, none of this studying books nonsense!</blockquote>

Verification