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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 5864320" data-attributes="member: 29398">An odd assortment of votes for me:1 - Make it less reliable(1a - Make it riskier - an option that should have been in the poll)2 - Make it take time to cast3 - Don't nerf it.Yet there's a certain logic to those votes, in that if 1, 1a and 2 are applied as they already have been* in previous editions then 3 is unnecessary.* - or close.1 and 1a were in many ways taken care of nicely in 1e.  Powerful spells often had risks involved.  Any damage to the wizard while casting blew the spell.  Durations were often highly random.  Some spells e.g. polymorph had useful limits built in that were removed in later editions.1 was, it seems, also somewhat taken care of in 4e where a roll to hit was required.  I'd modify this to only have it apply to some spells including all with area effect e.g. sleep, fireball, lightning bolt - you want it to cover *that* area, OK, now roll to see how accurate you are.  And yes, you can fumble with a spell...2 was also taken care of in 1e and 2e.  The strict turn-based system of 3e and 4e where everything you do* both starts and resolves on your initiative wrecked this.* - yes I know there's full-round spells in those editions but they're in the minority.And hence 3 - neither most spells nor casters need to be nerfed as such, merely made to work like they already have.  In fact, in one way I'd like to see them helped out: make them all work like 3e Sorcerers and do away with pre-memorization.More could certainly be done if desired.  Interrupted spells should have the potential to go wild, producing who-knows-what effects for good or ill or both.  Various 3e-like buff spells could disappear completely and I wouldn't shed many tears.  Etc.Lan-"the Fighter's best answer to a mage is a +5 Wizardslayer.  You get one spell.  Make it good."-efan</blockquote>

Verification