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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KentDT" data-source="post: 7636921" data-attributes="member: 33455">Yep. It's a feature, not a bug.I never really minded Vancian magic but I did want a better in-world explanation for how it worked. I like how now the game has other options for using arcane magic (sorcerer and warlock, of course) with different levels of flexibility. I like their in-world explanation of how their magic works. For wizards, I wanted a little more flexibility than prepare once, cast, lose it, have to prepare again (ie straight Vancian). So, I added flexibility with; every spell can be a ritual but actually casting counts against your daily slotsyou can prepare or hang a spell anytime when you have time (ie, short rest) with no limits to how many spells can be hung.you may be able to go beyond your daily slots but still limited by getting exhausted each time (and it may not even work as you have to make an ability check to succeed in casting).Amber magic wasn't limitless, there was a fatigue factor (most obviously seen in wearing the jewel of judgement for a prolonged period of time-not actually casting a spell, I know but it was explained that everything Amberites did with their power was some sort of drain-I think exhaustion models this well).I might fiddle with the daily slots available after play-testing but my feeling is that it is well balanced compared to RAW, since the slots don't change and the ability to hang a spell multiple times (or at any time) pretty much models how RAW lets you prepare a spell once and keep it prepared even after casting, until you want to take the time to change your prepared spell list.My main goal was to keep as much of RAW as possible (and keep it balanced compared to the other casting classes which I don't change-except to give the option of extending their daily slots by taking on exhaustion, same as the wizards) but adding on the story elements I'm interested in.</blockquote>

Verification