Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9474798" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Personally, what I would like to see is an actual &quot;rune magic&quot; user. We already know it's possible for pure expression to be a form of magic, that's how Bard magic works. Wizard-type magic is presented as mathematics, what with the &quot;diagrams&quot; and &quot;geometries&quot; and such. And despite loving math, I've always had a special place in my heart for magic based on words--grammar, syntax, etymology, etc.Because that class? Yeah, that absolutely has to be an Int-based caster. Being a grammar tyrant is all about your intimate knowledge of the fine details of linguistic expression. It's not about being persuasive with words, it's about knowing all the rules...literally and figuratively arcane...which condition their &quot;correct&quot; usage.It also helps, quite naturally, avoid the often stupidly-overpowered nature of spellcasting, by having thematic spell lists. Each rune might work similar to a 3e/PF1e-style cleric domain, where it grants access to a couple of spells at every spell level. Early on, you know only few runes, and thus have to be really clever in how you use your spells, and rely almost as much on your rune-mastery class features as you do on actual spell slots. As you grow in power, you get both higher-level spell slots and more runes to play with. You can start playing with rune grammar, where sequences of runes can matter (e.g., if you've used a rune of Water on the previous turn, it might empower runes of Ice). You can diversify, or specialize. Perhaps you can only pick a few runes to get the highest tier of spells from, further ensuring that you're genuinely focused and specialized.(As usual...all of this is spitballing. None of this has been even turned into a proper design goal, let alone a testable class. I'd appreciate a charitable understanding, with the expectation that if testing showed something to be wonky, it would be reworked or, if necessary, replaced with something else.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9474798, member: 6790260"] Personally, what I would like to see is an actual "rune magic" user. We already know it's possible for pure expression to be a form of magic, that's how Bard magic works. Wizard-type magic is presented as [I]mathematics[/I], what with the "diagrams" and "geometries" and such. And despite loving math, I've always had a special place in my heart for magic based on [I]words[/I]--grammar, syntax, etymology, etc. Because that class? Yeah, that [I]absolutely has[/I] to be an Int-based caster. Being a grammar tyrant is all about your intimate knowledge of the fine details of linguistic expression. It's not about being [I]persuasive[/I] with words, it's about knowing all the rules...literally and figuratively arcane...which condition their "correct" usage. It also helps, quite naturally, avoid the often stupidly-overpowered nature of spellcasting, by having thematic spell lists. Each rune might work similar to a 3e/PF1e-style cleric domain, where it grants access to a couple of spells at every spell level. Early on, you know only few runes, and thus have to be really clever in how you use your spells, and rely almost as much on your rune-mastery class features as you do on actual spell slots. As you grow in power, you get both higher-level spell slots and more runes to play with. You can start playing with rune grammar, where sequences of runes can matter (e.g., if you've used a rune of Water on the previous turn, it might empower runes of Ice). You can diversify, or specialize. Perhaps you can only pick a few runes to get the highest tier of spells from, further ensuring that you're genuinely focused and specialized. (As usual...all of this is spitballing. None of this has been even turned into a proper design goal, let alone a testable class. I'd appreciate a charitable understanding, with the expectation that if testing showed something to be wonky, it would be reworked or, if necessary, replaced with something else.) [/QUOTE]

Verification