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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wolfram stout" data-source="post: 8305583" data-attributes="member: 6947995">Initially, I was not interested in the thread as I don't mind the level of magic in D&D.  But the idea of it kept swimming in my head.  First off, would I play in a campaign with these rules:  Yes, I would.  Would I play a Wizard: Maybe, but only after an in-depth talk with the DM regarding the Wizards role in the overall campaign.I do have some reservations:1) The netrunner effect.  The rules as proposed seem to put the wizard either in a minor role (combat) or only one that matters role (non-combat) and nothing in-between.  Which is fine, but for me not that compelling.2) Lankhmar Solution.  I have never been happy with D&D's attempt at capturing Lankhmar.  Making casting longer and more rare is fine, but it doesn't impact the flavor of magic, I think you have to really look at spell selection to start impacting flavor. So, for those wanting to limit magic in combat (but not get rid of it completely) I counter-propose The Amber Solution (2nd Amber series by Zelazny which focused on Corwin's son Merlin).All spells are Rituals.  Casters can complete a ritual except the last touches and "Hang" the spell.  This reduces the casting time back to the casting time in the book, but Casters can only Hang a number of spells equal to their proficiency bonus plus if they have a familiar they can hang one spell on it.  This allows the caster to cast some spells in combat but not a lot.  For me, it is a nice in-between step.</blockquote>

Verification