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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Trevelyan" data-source="post: 3781197" data-attributes="member: 54488">I don't think that wands and such need be magic items ins the sense of a + X longsword. I imagine that a generic wand will be the equivalent of a generic sword in that it won't have a bonus but will allow the wizard to utilise his basic class features in much the same way as a fighter needs a sword to do the same. Why should the fighter depend on basic equipment to fill his role when a wizard does not? A + X wand will fill the same niche as a + X sword.On the topic of the thread, I voted for the original article. I think that tomes will still have a role, most likely the same as in the current edition, with the wizard refering to his spell book when preparing his daily allotment of spells. Even the per-encounter abilities can be studied frmo a book each morning, they just arn't forgotten for the day when used. We know that the wizard will retain some per-day abilities as well, and these are even more likely to require a spell book.I don't like the suggested magic paths on both a flavour level (if schools of magic are going to have overblown names then I'd like to invent them myself without the need to retcon) and on the implied thematic pairings of certain energy types with certain other 'schools' of magic. On first glance it appears that different 'evocation' effects will be split and share an afinity with different effects from current schools. This may impose arbitrary flavour on a game which I'd prefer to de without. It also makes creating home grown magic 'schools' difficult if I have to unpick the old ones first.</blockquote>

Verification