| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Xar Zarath
Senior Scribe
Malaysia
552 Posts |
 Posted - 25 Jul 2012 : 14:00:03
|
Ok, we all know how the methods of spellcasting has been done, for clerics its always been you pray and prepare your spells and wizard follow this by preparing spells too. One thing though the netherese use to be able to simply "pull" or "manipulate" the required weave energy to cast their spells before the Folly.
So naturally a more melee inclined friend of mine, asked me if, since we follow the 4e setting but not the rules, why cant wizards perform those same feats of magic, since Mystra is not around and stuff like that.
Say a wizard instructor in a academy is teaching some students. He is an archmage and has fought countless battles. In his new environment, he has to teach the students for example the spell fireball. However he did not prepare fireball(personal choices maybe this is a hypothetical situation) but he has casted it his entire adventuring life which is a considerable long time! So does he still retain knowledge of the spell or must he show his spellbook, perhaps even copying from his spellbook onto the chalkboard. Why must he memorize it, if he has to, to show how its done? He has casted it before, does he not retain some knowledge of it?
Going in this vein of the situation, say he can show the spell fireball but he still did not prepare it. He knows the spell, he knows the gestures and the incantation required...
What are your opinions on the matter?
|
Everything ends where it begins. Period.
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2012 : 15:55:39
|
This gets into a whole discussion about Vancian magic (prepare a certain number of spells per day, they get cast and vanish until you prepare anew), about which my opinions are mixed.
On the one hand, the system is classic, iconic, and deeply ingrained in D&D (and in many RPGs). On the other, the concept of "preparing" or (worse) "memorizing" a set of spells that then fade from your mind once cast strikes me as somewhat contrived, if not quite hokey. My own personal way of making it make sense is that a wizard has to seal away in his mind the *potential arcane power* that will go into each spell, which then is used and vanishes once he casts the spell. He may know how to cast any spell he's ever cast at any time, but without his spellbook, he can't properly prepare the energy to fuel those spells. Priests work the same way, except the power comes from their deities. Sorcerers and favored souls, on the other hand, can channel arcane/divine energy on the fly, shaping it into spells to use as needed, but they don't have the full selection of spells their preparation counterparts have, because a single mind can't really contain all that knowledge of ritual and spell-use, no matter how intelligent or potent.
In your example, from my perspective, the wizard instructor can certainly *teach* the spell fireball, but can't *demonstrate* it without preparing the actual spell. Why? Because the potential arcane energy doesn't exist in him, ready to be loosed in the actual spell.
Re: Vancian magic, I'm largely of the opinion that a better limitation on wizards is to tie spells to endurance--the more spells you use, the more tired you get until eventually you burn yourself out. Alternatively, you always have your spells, but your body needs to *recharge* with arcane energy to use them at their full potential. Maybe you can cast fireball (level 3) once or twice, but after that you just don't have enough energy to sculpt that entire spell--it comes out as a scorching ray (level 2), for instance, or a burning hands (level 1), or even a flare (level 0).
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
 |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2012 : 17:26:41
|
If you read any of Ed Greenwoods books, you will see that that is precisely how Elminster 'does magic'.
He does it the way the Shades use the Shadoweave - he simply 'reaches in' and grabs strands of magic, and manipulates them.
HOWEVER, you need a Weave for this. There is nothing to work with in the 4e setting; the magic has gone from a 'contained grid' to a random, chaotic electrical storm. You could try it, but you'll get burned.
This is why magic is both lessened and increased in the 4e era. Magic is easier to 'get to' and use (repeatedly), but the energies are so powerful and hard to control that most users simply learn a couple of tricks and keep using them over and over. 'Real Magic' - the stuff of legends - really isn't possible anymore (except by a few truly epic, perhaps exarch-level characters).
Look at it this way. With the weave you had a local reservoir. You could take a glass of water. You could take a pitcher. You could even fill a barrel - it was safe and dependable, and came right out of 'the tap' (if you had the where-withal to learn how to use it). Now there is no reservoir; there is no 'tap' for you to get your water. All there is is one endless sea, and it's stuck in a category 5 storm. You might be able to sneak down to the shore and grab yourself a single glass, but more then that would probably be too much to handle (until you 'grow stronger'). In fact, getting a glass is easy - the stuff is washing-up on your doorstep (thats the analogy of 4e's 'powers'). Its the storm-wracked sea you need to avoid.
So in 4e there is no Weave, so there are no 'Weave strands' for folks to manipulate. This is why Elminster is so much 'lessened' in the 4e era - he can't do things like he used to. Without a Weave, he is practically powerless.
Netherese magic pre-fall came from the unsundered Weave, which was more powerful, since it combined the Weave and Shadoweave. That Weave - the Whole Weave - hasn't existed since Karsus cast his spell. Thats why that level of magic is unobtainable now (by Weave-casters).
In 4e, your not more powerful - you're nerfed. The energy is there, but you have lost the tools to access it. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 25 Jul 2012 17:29:34 |
|
|
|
Barastir
Master of Realmslore
Brazil
1600 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2012 : 20:00:49
|
| The Earthdawn setting had a "semi-Vancian" spellcasting system, in which "memorizing" was actually manipulating energies in a spell matryx (in the astral plane, IIRC), and after casting - and subsequently releasing the spell - this preparation was unmade. A wizard could try to tap the energy without using the spell matryx, but this would be very risky (possibly getting the attention of Horrors, specifically). This system was somehow similar to the Vancian because there were a number of spells that could be safely cast per day, and yet the explanation didn't sound smehow "absurd" in saying that you forgot the spell you cast everyday - you only didn't DARE to cast it more than you should. Of course, experient mages would be powerful enough to try raw magic, IF they are courageous enough to fight the Horrors. |
"Goodness is not a natural state, but must be
fought for to be attained and maintained.
Lead by example.
Let your deeds speak your intentions.
Goodness radiated from the heart."
The Paladin's Virtues, excerpt from the "Quentin's Monograph"
(by Ed Greenwood) |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2012 : 21:51:28
|
I've always looked at it that when preparing a spell, you're actually storing the potential magic in your mind.
This helps explain things like spelljamming or converting spells through methods like the Simbul's Synostodweomer or other ways of converting an existing spell.
Plus, it explains why you "forget" the spell -- it's not that the knowledge is gone from your mind, it's that the particular energy construct has been used.
It also explains why higher levels mean more stored spells (your mind has been conditioned by repeated spellcasting, and can thus hold more), why metamagic spells take more levels (an enhanced and thus "larger" energy construct), and how a wizard can, theoretically, memorize a particular spell and not cast it for months or even years, but keep it ready all that time.
Sorcerers, on the other hand, can form that energy construct at will -- but channeling the magic that way takes more effort, thus they can't do it as frequently as wizards. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Xar Zarath
Senior Scribe
Malaysia
552 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jul 2012 : 05:43:38
|
| Thanks guys for your answers! I would like to hear more theories and your own homebrew methods on spellcasting, if only to bring a bit more lore to Candlekeep! |
Everything ends where it begins. Period.
|
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2012 : 13:51:54
|
I have always like the mix of the two. But I see the overpowered problem of learning like a wizard and casting like a sorcerer, but to me that seems how magic and arcane spell casting should be like. Especially the fact or the thing that one had to have "special" or "magical" blood to wield even the tiniest of magics.
But the way I look at the whole preparation or "memorization" is like this. A wizard would, would he carry his spell book with him at all times, have an unlimited amount of spells per day(depending on his "power") because he could cast the spells directly from his book like having permanent scrolls at hand. But since the spells is in a whole or total form it would take more that a standard action. But be preparing or memorizing spells the wizard is actually casting 75-80% of the spell readying it in his mind, so that with a "snap" of his fingers he can release the readied spells.
The casting directly from spellbook is not something that we practice in our campaign, but its the way or the reason for the whole memorization thing, for me. Because basically I see the book a a complete or compilation of "scrolls", so bacically it means a wizard would become a sorcerer, would he carry his spellbook at all times. Still the spells would then take a longer time to cast and that would be crap!
One could even theorize that it would be cool for a wizard to have a spellbook as a weapon, but then we might enter into a whole Hack and Slash game like D3 or so many other games and thats might not be favorable. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2012 : 14:20:37
|
Ah, but if you cast directly from the spellbook, the energy construct is not prepared beforehand... Even with scrolls, the act of creating it prepares the energy construct. The spellbook just says how to create that construct.
Me, I'd allow casting from a spellbook, but there would be a strong possibility of the spell going awry (since it wasn't properly prepared) and an equally strong possibility of destroying the written spell -- and maybe even other spells in the book.
I believe 2E also had the "do it from a book, destroy the page" rule. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2012 : 14:40:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Ah, but if you cast directly from the spellbook, the energy construct is not prepared beforehand... Even with scrolls, the act of creating it prepares the energy construct. The spellbook just says how to create that construct.
I believe 2E also had the "do it from a book, destroy the page" rule.
Doesn't the spellbook tell you how to create or "do" this energy construct??? And don't you just "do" or create the energy construct while reading aloud from the book??? I mean... to me it would work perfectly, but take time... |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2012 : 23:51:26
|
I think D&D has already offered alternatives to those who prefer magic without spellbooks. Sorcerers and warlocks do not require spellbooks, but their magics arguably draw from alternate sources of "power" (ie, "innate talents" or pacts with supernatural creatures). Priests, Shamans, and other "divine spellcaster" types aren't much different from Sorcerers and Warlocks in this regard.
Incidentally, a central premise in the Earthdawn RPG is that would be impossible - unthinkable! - for any competent spellcaster to ever "forget" his spells. Nonetheless, every spellcaster still requires a grimoire (essentially a spellbook) when studying his spells and constructing spell matrices (these are basically mental containers which store complete "ready to use" spell formulae on the astral plane). Spellcasters can always cast spells by directly manipulating the "raw magic" of the astral plane but - as already pointed out - such activities are immediately obvious when viewed on the astral plane and thus attract much unwanted attention from Horrors, dragons, and other magical predators. The astral plane in Earthdawn is the source of all magic, said to overlap and coexist beyond and throughout the "mundane" world in an organic manner similar to the nature of the Feywild or Shadowfell planes in modern D&D ... spellcasters are creatures of the mundane world who are only able to sense and manipulate the magical energies of the living astral plane through great discipline and deliberate force of will - a task which requires so much mental focus that they use grimoires (spellbooks) when constructing a spell matrix for later use. A ready spell matrix can be discharged by simply "weaving" the final "threads" (designating the target and other last-minute conditional details, etc) and giving the unstable astral construct a little mental "push" to trigger the effect.
The system could be readily adapted to D&D or any D&D setting, the Ethereal Plane (along with those places and creatures which inhabit or intersect it) would serve excellently as the "source" of all magic in the (normally) "non-magical" world. Fiends (and even powers or deities) are easy substitutions for Earthdawn's Horrors.
But
1) why not just play Earthdawn instead?, and
2) this whole system is really just a clever sophistication layered onto a system that is ultimately just Vancian magic in disguise ... indeed, there may be spellcasters in the Realms (and other places) who are already convinced that this is how their magic works. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 29 Jul 2012 00:14:36 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2421 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2012 : 01:11:02
|
Methinks mechanics of arcane magic was fairly well established by the end of 2e era. A wizard creates "pattern", carries it around, then casts from it - but it's treated as a material object: can be stolen, used as fuel, locked, etc. without casting. Some species (like dragons) can construct it from memory, others (like humans) can't and need to do it from perception (visual as in spellbook, read-by-touch strings or engravings, direct-to-mind kiira), it's just a matter of brain architecture.
Common sense says that having half of the job already done is faster and power-efficient in immediate terms, thus somewhat nerfing flexible forms of magic makes sense in-universe. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2012 : 05:51:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Ah, but if you cast directly from the spellbook, the energy construct is not prepared beforehand... Even with scrolls, the act of creating it prepares the energy construct. The spellbook just says how to create that construct.
I believe 2E also had the "do it from a book, destroy the page" rule.
Doesn't the spellbook tell you how to create or "do" this energy construct??? And don't you just "do" or create the energy construct while reading aloud from the book??? I mean... to me it would work perfectly, but take time...
Because the energy construct can't be formed instantaneously.... Look at it this way: you can buy a boxed cake mix and just add milk and eggs, or you can buy and mix all the ingredients yourself. But either way, it's not ready to eat until it's all mixed and put into the oven for the right time at the right temperature.
Casting from a scroll is buying the box of cake mix. Mixing all the ingredients yourself is memorizing the spell. What you're proposing is throwing the ingredients in the microwave and hoping it comes out right. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2012 : 14:12:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Ah, but if you cast directly from the spellbook, the energy construct is not prepared beforehand... Even with scrolls, the act of creating it prepares the energy construct. The spellbook just says how to create that construct.
I believe 2E also had the "do it from a book, destroy the page" rule.
Doesn't the spellbook tell you how to create or "do" this energy construct??? And don't you just "do" or create the energy construct while reading aloud from the book??? I mean... to me it would work perfectly, but take time...
Because the energy construct can't be formed instantaneously.... Look at it this way: you can buy a boxed cake mix and just add milk and eggs, or you can buy and mix all the ingredients yourself. But either way, it's not ready to eat until it's all mixed and put into the oven for the right time at the right temperature.
Casting from a scroll is buying the box of cake mix. Mixing all the ingredients yourself is memorizing the spell. What you're proposing is throwing the ingredients in the microwave and hoping it comes out right.
What I'm proposing by saying that casting directly from the spell book is, that by reading aloud the "recipe" you are sort of automatically succeeding in the baking of the cake! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2012 : 15:02:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
What I'm proposing by saying that casting directly from the spell book is, that by reading aloud the "recipe" you are sort of automatically succeeding in the baking of the cake!
Next time you're in the kitchen, try making something by doing nothing more than reading the recipe, then get back to me.
Maybe another analogy is in order... Just because a textbook has information, it doesn't mean you will learn the information just by reading it. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 29 Jul 2012 15:03:48 |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2012 : 15:33:43
|
Well it just seems that a spellbook containing the information of a spell... the complete information needed to cast it would also make you able to cast it. I do not mean that the letters of a given spell text is magical and in itself casts a spell(then anyone could read a spell aloud and cast it) but more that it would guide the wizard in such a way that it would work like a scroll though it would take longer since it would contain the "whole" spell. We might need another metaphor but since this is magic when you automatically succeeds in the batter of a cake, and since the fact that you are a wizard, have cast and understood the spell before, you simply cast it when you get to the end of the recipe. If anyone can remember the the intro cinematic of Diablo I, Hell Fire expansion, that how a casing from a spell book works for me. Or even the intro cinematic of World of Warcraft, Burning Crusade, where a draenei priest casts something from a book. To me a spellbook will guide you the whole way sort of speaking. But it might take you a minute per level spell to cast it that way. The whole reason for memorization is that you can cast spells as a swift of stadard action.
Am I making sense?
|
Edited by - Nicolai Withander on 29 Jul 2012 15:36:35 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2012 : 16:29:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
Well it just seems that a spellbook containing the information of a spell... the complete information needed to cast it would also make you able to cast it. I do not mean that the letters of a given spell text is magical and in itself casts a spell(then anyone could read a spell aloud and cast it) but more that it would guide the wizard in such a way that it would work like a scroll though it would take longer since it would contain the "whole" spell. We might need another metaphor but since this is magic when you automatically succeeds in the batter of a cake, and since the fact that you are a wizard, have cast and understood the spell before, you simply cast it when you get to the end of the recipe. If anyone can remember the the intro cinematic of Diablo I, Hell Fire expansion, that how a casing from a spell book works for me. Or even the intro cinematic of World of Warcraft, Burning Crusade, where a draenei priest casts something from a book. To me a spellbook will guide you the whole way sort of speaking. But it might take you a minute per level spell to cast it that way. The whole reason for memorization is that you can cast spells as a swift of stadard action.
Am I making sense?
Well, if you could cast spells directly from the book, what's the point of a scroll?
To go back the the cake analogy, the spellbook is just the recipe. Go grab a box of cake mix. Get out the required eggs, milk, oil, butter, and anything else it calls for. Now, read the recipe, and do nothing else. Is that cake mix now magically mixed, put in a bowl, and put in the oven for 30 minutes at 350 degrees? No, it's all still sitting on your counter. Reading the recipe does not accomplish the task.
I work in IT. I sent out dozens of emails a day, explaining to people how they have to submit a request for share access or software, or how to access the VPN, or how to use the interdivisional access that was just set up for them. I can tell a person a dozen times how to map a mailbox in Outlook, they can read the directions and even print them off -- but that mailbox does not map until they actually follow the steps.
Reading is not doing.
If reading a spell from a book was all it took to cast it, we'd have 9th level spells cast by 0-level commoners. There has to be more to the system than just reading it, or everyone in the Realms would be a wizard. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2012 : 17:37:29
|
I allow spellcasters to cast spells directly from their spellbook...so long as they don't mind the spell vanishing just like from a scroll.  |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2012 : 17:52:47
|
As Ive tried to explain I do not say that reading the text magically casts it. But I do mean that by following the steps in the spell book and doing what it says will cast it. And since "you" are a wizard you know how to follow these steps to the point of casting. And so casting from a spellbook is possible.
Look at the way the 3/4 sisters in "Charmed" cast spells. They need The Book of Shadows and use/cast the spells/recipes directly from the book. Still anyone cant use the book. One would have to be magical(Wizard) to cast spells and to understand the recipe. I would say that my wizard when experimenting new spells do not indeed memorize half a spell but uses his finding and try to cast the fragment directly. Ofc he does what any mathematician does and tests/proves the algorithm or equation/spell.
If a spellbook contains so much information on spells and still can only be used for a half part/ memorization the "feel" or magic of that book disappears. When you find a spellbook you find the information or recipe needed to cast the spell, therefor you can, by following the steps cast the spell directly. This however would be, as Ive said a number of times, be a time consuming proses much like a ritual if you will and that makes the whole memorization a must or an advantageous. To me, when, you prepare spells, you follow the casting of a spell 90% and then stop, so not to cast the spell. But now you have it ready at your finger tips.
Because really... I think the notion of a wizard like Larloch needing a spell book to memorize his spells... That notion seems utterly preposterous! Yes I know you can take a feat called Spell Mastery, but still!!! |
Edited by - Nicolai Withander on 29 Jul 2012 17:55:05 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2012 : 22:48:28
|
quote:
Wooly Furball
If reading a spell from a book was all it took to cast it, we'd have 9th level spells cast by 0-level commoners. There has to be more to the system than just reading it, or everyone in the Realms would be a wizard.
I do agree with this statement, wholeheartedly.
But, that being said, the AD&D and D&D rules haven't always been consistent in their treatment of this detail. Some say any wizard of any level can cast any spell of any level by basically just reading it (and presumably following the casting instructions) straight off any scroll or any spellbook - of course with some chance of miscasting or fizzling things if his level or Intelligence score is too low. Other rules state that one need only be any kind of spellcaster. Yet others claim that literally anybody can cast such things, even the dumbest illiterate barbarian in the land.
I think the "core" AD&D 2E rules may have offered the most logical in-game explanations for all this; they basically state that spell formulae scribed onto scrolls and into spellbooks actually contain more than just the recipe, a careful and lengthy (and expensive) method of "casting" the spell is written into the ink itself ... in short, the "recipe" in itself is just description similar to what could be written in the Player's Handbook, whereas the magical writing is charged and powered with the magic of the spell itself. I'd say that a wizard memorizing his spells would study the writhing magical energies stored in his spell formulae just as diligently as he studies the scribbly arcane marking which describe them.
I recall one half-comical Dragonlance tale about an incompetent fool who obtained an archmage's spellbooks and, fancying himself a great and powerful wizard, managed to cast many spells from them in a spectacularly wasteful manner. I can't recall if this fool was a wizard, an apprentice, a 0-level nobody (although I think he was a gnome or gully dwarf) ... yet he was able to read the magical descriptions after a fashion and cast all sorts of spells successfully, up to and including an 8th level gate spell.
Several examples come to mind from Realms novels, but they are invariably all multiclassed or low-level wizards or thieves, often aided by powerful artifacts, individuals, or gods. And besides, we already know that the novels do not consistently adhere to the game rules. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2012 : 23:40:35
|
I do not want anyone to cast magic, if it were to me the whole system was a mix of a wizard and a sorcerer. Where you leaned spells like a wizard but cast spells like a sorcerer...
But I do feel that a spellbook contains not only information, but also instruction for the whole casting process. And so it it my sincere belief that by following these instructions a spell can be cast directly from a spellbook. It will ofc take time, since spell instruction/information in a spellbook is 2 pages per spell level. So following the instructions of a level 3 spell will demand a 6 page read/follow. Not to mention verbal, somatic and material components must ofc also be employed. So all in all a lengthy process. I also feel this it rigth for instruction of apprentices and also when it comes to casting a spell the first time.
Take the Ritual of Unmaking. Apparently Szass Tam miss-casted that... Dont tell me he memorized it and then failed. I do see him casting it while reading or following certain instruction to the letter. These instructions being hard to understand and difficult to discern. Like that of very difficult mathematics. And apparently too hard for him.
So the higher the level spell the longer it would take and the more difficult it would be to understand and cast and that would mean that one would have to have a very high intelligence and be well trained (high enough level and int)
But in the end, when the wizard is alone and has memorized battle spells, he can still manipulate the weave in other ways than his memorization by using his spellbook, just as if he was using scrolls.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 04:49:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
Take the Ritual of Unmaking. Apparently Szass Tam miss-casted that... Dont tell me he memorized it and then failed. I do see him casting it while reading or following certain instruction to the letter. These instructions being hard to understand and difficult to discern. Like that of very difficult mathematics. And apparently too hard for him.
You're saying that it's preferable to think that he flubbed with the instructions right in front of him, as opposed to memorizing it and making a mistake that way? 
That makes him sound like an idiot. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 05:22:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I allow spellcasters to cast spells directly from their spellbook...so long as they don't mind the spell vanishing just like from a scroll.
That's how I run things in my campaign as well.
That said, I think the idea of being able to cast spells out of a spellbook repeatedly is interesting. I like that it should take time (it becomes more like a ritual that way), but I do think 'taking time' isn't enough of a balancing factor; if wizards can cast the any spell in their repertoire repeatedly, that's too powerful in my opinion.
However, Erik's point about wizards getting tired works here too. If the DM can devise a way to limit the number of cast-from-a-book spells, I think book casting could be implemented in a 3.0/3.5 game without unbalancing things. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Barastir
Master of Realmslore
Brazil
1600 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 16:55:07
|
What I was talking about Earthdawn is that the energy for spellcasting was stored elsewhere, and this energy would be depleted, which maybe is a better way of explaining things then saying the wizard forgot that spell. Maybe, instead of the astral plane the spell would be stored in the weave. I was not implying the adoption of the whole ED system, but of their explanation...
About casting from the book, what I do in my campaign is that since you've studied spells of a certain level, you can cast them in any number, depending on the occasion you need. It means that if I studied magic missile, identify and shield and I hava three spells of 1st level per day, I can cast one of them three times, one of each, or one twice and the other two times. In my homebrew explanation, the caster's body cannot handle more energy than that it was prepared for, in a way. So, he or she CAN cast more spells, but after going beyond the limit he or she takes damage according to the spell's level.
Why not changing higher level spells for a greater number of lesser level spells? Because Mystra limited this, especially after the fall of Netheril. Additionally, one can cast a spell studied the day before, with a 5% (1 in 20) chance of failure per day without studying the intrincacies of each spell.
About treating spellbooks as scrolls, I don't agree, because magical scrolls, being magical itens, are created with special materials and enchanted, so the energy to fuel the magical effect doesn't come from the daily energy the mage can access, but from the scroll itself. Although it is an interesting limitation. (Of course, there are spellbooks in scroll format, which are not enchantes, and theoretically you can have a set of magical scrolls binded in book format, but I think it would be very rare to find such a set. |
"Goodness is not a natural state, but must be
fought for to be attained and maintained.
Lead by example.
Let your deeds speak your intentions.
Goodness radiated from the heart."
The Paladin's Virtues, excerpt from the "Quentin's Monograph"
(by Ed Greenwood) |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 17:24:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I allow spellcasters to cast spells directly from their spellbook...so long as they don't mind the spell vanishing just like from a scroll.
That's how I run things in my campaign as well.
That said, I think the idea of being able to cast spells out of a spellbook repeatedly is interesting. I like that it should take time (it becomes more like a ritual that way), but I do think 'taking time' isn't enough of a balancing factor; if wizards can cast the any spell in their repertoire repeatedly, that's too powerful in my opinion.
However, Erik's point about wizards getting tired works here too. If the DM can devise a way to limit the number of cast-from-a-book spells, I think book casting could be implemented in a 3.0/3.5 game without unbalancing things.
The 2e "Black Books" had an interesting manner of casting spells and working with Fatigue as you did so...you might have been a powerful Arch-Mage...but spells could still make you too tired to cast every spell in your memory at the time. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 22:08:20
|
Ive been talking to multiple frieds today about our little debate here. And what I deduct from that is this: Casting from a spellbook would seem like something plausible and to some extent seem right in a high fantasy world like forgotten realms. But what I have also gotten from the guys Ive been talking to is that the limit of spell cast-able by a wizard should not go up.
Here follows an example:
Delorian the mage, has a complete total of 200 spell levels per day, he memorizes spells as normal. Needing to cast some other spells at home, like some ward (a level 8) he now has 192 spell levels left. When he later that day enters combat, he cast his spells as he would normally, but when he gets to his last spells he might have 3 level 3 spells left (a total of 9 spell levels), but since he already used 8 levels, casting the ward from his book, he can now in fact only cast a level 1.
This is because of cause that casting spells is straining on a wizard and thus a wizard becomes tired and thus he can only cast a limited number of spells per day.
Personally I like this! It would work. It would give the wizard a more "realistic" feel sort of speaking, and it would give the wizard some more freedom/cast on the run kind of feel, which I personally think they need.
Now I would say that it would take 1 minute per page in a spellbook,to cast spells that way, so casting a level 9 spell would take 18 minutes. Far, far to long to have any use in combat situations! But just the right time to have the right "ritual" feel to it, which I also like... for some spells!
Tell me again my idea is whack!!!   |
Edited by - Nicolai Withander on 30 Jul 2012 22:10:03 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 22:51:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
Ive been talking to multiple frieds today about our little debate here. And what I deduct from that is this: Casting from a spellbook would seem like something plausible and to some extent seem right in a high fantasy world like forgotten realms. But what I have also gotten from the guys Ive been talking to is that the limit of spell cast-able by a wizard should not go up.
Here follows an example:
Delorian the mage, has a complete total of 200 spell levels per day, he memorizes spells as normal. Needing to cast some other spells at home, like some ward (a level 8) he now has 192 spell levels left. When he later that day enters combat, he cast his spells as he would normally, but when he gets to his last spells he might have 3 level 3 spells left (a total of 9 spell levels), but since he already used 8 levels, casting the ward from his book, he can now in fact only cast a level 1.
This is because of cause that casting spells is straining on a wizard and thus a wizard becomes tired and thus he can only cast a limited number of spells per day.
Personally I like this! It would work. It would give the wizard a more "realistic" feel sort of speaking, and it would give the wizard some more freedom/cast on the run kind of feel, which I personally think they need.
Now I would say that it would take 1 minute per page in a spellbook,to cast spells that way, so casting a level 9 spell would take 18 minutes. Far, far to long to have any use in combat situations! But just the right time to have the right "ritual" feel to it, which I also like... for some spells!
Tell me again my idea is whack!!!
By D&D standards, the 200 spell level idea is very whack. Maybe it's cool under other rules, but D&D doesn't do spellpoints. Your theoretical wizard could, under those rules, cast 200 magic missiles, or 22 meteor swarms. That's horribly broken, even for someone like me who doesn't think that wizards are overpowered.
As for the idea of casting directly from the spellbook, I've already described why I think that idea is whack. And the fact that the rules really don't allow that indicates that I'm not alone in thinking that. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 23:23:28
|
We are not discussing whether or not its in the rules. Cause its not. We are discussing whether or not you guy like the idea.
200 spell levels is not that much. My level 27 has 346. And yes that's a lot of spells but not more than what he can cast anyways. 4 spell of each level is 180. So with bonus spell for high int. So its the same number when you ad it all up. Its just another way of distributing them (perhaps). You don't get to cast more spells that way you can just freely distribute them! You basically get the Arcane Manipulation feat from Lost Empires by utilizing the book casting. And I personally don't think that is too much!
You basically become a Netherese Arcanist while carrying you book, a slow one though!
|
Edited by - Nicolai Withander on 30 Jul 2012 23:28:13 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 23:38:35
|
quote:
Wooly Rupertquote:
Nicolai Withander
Take the Ritual of Unmaking. Apparently Szass Tam miss-casted that... Dont tell me he memorized it and then failed. I do see him casting it while reading or following certain instruction to the letter. These instructions being hard to understand and difficult to discern. Like that of very difficult mathematics. And apparently too hard for him.
You're saying that it's preferable to think that he flubbed with the instructions right in front of him, as opposed to memorizing it and making a mistake that way?
That makes him sound like an idiot.
Szass Tam is definitely insane, but he's certainly not an idiot.
Remember that his Ritual of Unmaking is not a regular spell by any means; no level or prerequisites are plainly listed in the novels, but the ritual seems to require an archmage at least capable of casting "lesser" magics like the 9th level wish spell. I would hesitantly offer that the caster is killed in the process - a detail which doesn't overly concern either Szass or Malark. It apparently also requires divine power to promise any chance of success, evidenced by Szass receiving such power directly from Bane. [Note that 2E wizards could cast "10th level" spells, but always with considerable risk of failure, and only with Mystra's very explicit "permission"; 2E priests could cast "Quest level" spells, but again only in special circumstances and only through the grace of their respective deities. In all instances the casting requirements were higher than those of the highest level spells normally allowed to each class.]
Although it is true that Szass may have "memorized" (and been prepared to cast) a flawed version of the ritual. His ritual is obviously much greater in magnitude than any other spell ever cast before (evidenced by the fact that nobody has ever successfully unmade the Realms) and, given that he is not incompetent, it clearly places exacting demands on even the most accomplished spellcaster - remember that insanity aside, Szass is still an archmage, a Zulkir, and a centuries-old lich of notable caliber. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 23:40:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Wooly Rupertquote:
Nicolai Withander
Take the Ritual of Unmaking. Apparently Szass Tam miss-casted that... Dont tell me he memorized it and then failed. I do see him casting it while reading or following certain instruction to the letter. These instructions being hard to understand and difficult to discern. Like that of very difficult mathematics. And apparently too hard for him.
You're saying that it's preferable to think that he flubbed with the instructions right in front of him, as opposed to memorizing it and making a mistake that way?
That makes him sound like an idiot.
Szass Tam is definitely insane, but he's certainly not an idiot.
Remember that his Ritual of Unmaking is not a regular spell by any means; no level or prerequisites are plainly listed in the novels, but the ritual seems to require an archmage at least capable of casting "lesser" magics like the 9th level wish spell. I would hesitantly offer that the caster is killed in the process - a detail which doesn't overly concern either Szass or Malark. It apparently also requires divine power to promise any chance of success, evidenced by Szass receiving such power directly from Bane. [Note that 2E wizards could cast "10th level" spells, but always with considerable risk of failure, and only with Mystra's very explicit "permission"; 2E priests could cast "Quest level" spells, but again only in special circumstances and only through the grace of their respective deities. In all instances the casting requirements were higher than those of the highest level spells normally allowed to each class.]
Although it is true that Szass may have "memorized" (and been prepared to cast) a flawed version of the ritual. His ritual is obviously much greater in magnitude than any other spell ever cast before (evidenced by the fact that nobody has ever successfully unmade the Realms) and, given that he is not incompetent, it clearly places exacting demands on even the most accomplished spellcaster - remember that insanity aside, Szass is still an archmage, a Zulkir, and a centuries-old lich of notable caliber.
Oh, I wasn't saying he was an idiot -- I was responding to Nicky's assertation that Szassy couldn't follow written instructions. That makes Szassy sound like an idiot. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 23:48:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
We are not discussing whether or not its in the rules. Cause its not. We are discussing whether or not you guy like the idea.
200 spell levels is not that much. My level 27 has 346. And yes that's a lot of spells but not more than what he can cast anyways. 4 spell of each level is 180. So with bonus spell for high int. So its the same number when you ad it all up. Its just another way of distributing them (perhaps). You don't get to cast more spells that way you can just freely distribute them! You basically get the Arcane Manipulation feat from Lost Empires by utilizing the book casting. And I personally don't think that is too much!
You basically become a Netherese Arcanist while carrying you book, a slow one though!
If I'm playing D&D, I don't like the idea. If I'm playing a game system where it's not broken to have a wizard casting 22 of the most powerful spells around, then it's fine.
D&D doesn't do spellpoints. It doesn't matter how many total spell levels you can cast, there is a hard limit on how many spells per level you can cast. If you've cast all your 9th level spells, and nothing else, too bad, you're still done casting 9th level spells.
And your idea of being able to cast spells just by having a book allows anyone to cast any spell. Even if you limit it to just wizards, your idea still allows a 1st level wizard to cast 9th level spells.
You're trying to fix something that's not broken. You're trying to fix something that 20+ years of game designers and the majority of players have felt is fine.
There is a reason there are limitations on what a wizard can do. I'm not interested in any system that removes all limitations from one class, unless there are no other classes at all -- because having one unlimited class is essentially the same thing. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2012 : 06:47:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
200 spell levels is not that much. My level 27 has 346. And yes that's a lot of spells but not more than what he can cast anyways. 4 spell of each level is 180. [snip]
You basically become a Netherese Arcanist while carrying you book, a slow one though!
Hey, slow and steady wins the race, right?
Having run a 3.5 game that hit epic levels (we topped out at 24th/25th level), I understand that it's pretty much up to the DM as far as balance is concerned.
In that sense, having 200 spell levels isn't automatically game-breaking or unbalanced, provided the DM is fine with it and everyone is having fun (and given that you're slow-casting much of those spells).
I think what you're doing is cool in the sense that you're exploring new ways to use the same old rules--much like a lot of the third party material released under the Open Game License.
I think there's room here to transfer what you're doing to the lore of the Realms/your campaign too.
At Epic Levels it's fun because players and their DM really get to explore the rules and create a fusion of what works best for them, modifying some rules and discarding others (such as the rule that spells can be cast out of a spellbook, but the spell pages are lost in the process).
Apologies to the OP and the Mods if I've wandered too far away from Sages of Realmslore territory and into Running the Realms/game theory. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Evolved/Evolving Spellcasting Methods
