quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
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!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolai Withander

What I mean when I say realistic is that I don't remember reading anywhere in any novel someone saying: "Ohh crap I've not memorized that!"

They seem to be able to manipulate the magic energies as they see fit. With in their limitations ofc(level/power)

And that is what I want to bring to the table!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ayrik

Likewise, it might be argued that these spellcasting characters chose wisely when memorizing their spells, strategically attempting to prepare their magical arsenal so that it could be useful in any possible situation they could reasonably expect to experience the following day. (...)

---

Spell Poins per level
1st - 5               11th - 74
2nd - 8               12th - 84
3rd - 11              13th - 97
4th - 16              14th - 112
5th - 20              15th - 127
6th - 27              16th - 144
7th - 34              17th - 161
8th - 43              18th - 180
9th - 52              19th - 198
10th - 63             20th - 217

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xar Zarath

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolai Withander

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolai Withander

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.

---

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?

---

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!!!

---

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!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

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!!!

---

What you're describing here is basically the idea of ritual casting from 4th edition. I'll give 4E that THAT was a good idea, and its one of the few things that I'd actually like to see given as an option to 3.5. It would take a lot of work though to redefine which "spells" need to be redone as rituals. Then of course, there needs to be some means to "store" a ritual such that it can be cast effectively in combat circumstances. Just as an example, I would have no problem with a wizard being able to cast a spell to prevent scrying as a special ritual that takes say 10 minutes or whatever... however, if he needs that anti-scrying to pop up fast, he'll need that ritual in "scroll" form (i.e. stored spell energy). Similar things might go for things like see invisibility, detect magic, and other rituals that were created for 4E.

In fact, at one point, one of the things I mentioned that I'd like to see for 5th edition was a return to the core wizard and given them several options for that first lvl free feat. Maybe they take scribe scroll, maybe they take perform ritual, maybe they take "magic blaster" and have some repeatable low damage magical blast. All 3 are viable options to describe a wizard... those that aren't the "magic blasters" would have to fall back to their trusty crossbow and scrolls, but they'd be much more versatile.... but they couldn't do the rituals they may need, etc...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

Yes, spells cost one more point then their level. Its the only way to (easily) derive a spell cost for cantrips. (...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

Monte Cook had devised a 30-level system by re-building the existing D&D spell list. Its in his Collected Book of Experimental Might. Considering his work on 5e, I hope some of that trickled in. I think a system where spell level = mage lavel is a lot easier to work with.

As for magic missle as a canttrip - its fairly easy to do, and it would work similar to 4e.

Cantrip: Mage Missle
You may fire a single missle per Mage level that dose 1 point of damage. You may fire multiple missles at a single target, or split them between targets, but the number of target is limited by the highest spell level attained (in other words, half your mage level rounded up).

So at level six, you can hit one target for 6 points, two targets for 3 points, 3 targets for 2 points, etc. Its pretty weak, but would be effective in situations where your party is up against a group of casters and you need to disrupt several of them. Also effective against swarms and other relatively weak creatures.

Also, since each point of damage counts as a separate missile, it could peel back layers of a Stoneskin spell (in the same manner that handful of pebbles would).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas
Just a note, the separate missile peeling back layers of a stoneskin would only be a function in 2nd edition. In 3.0/3.5e edition the mechanic changed entirely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barastir

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas
Just a note, the separate missile peeling back layers of a stoneskin would only be a function in 2nd edition. In 3.0/3.5e edition the mechanic changed entirely.

---

Not truth, in the 2e magic missile (and other magical and not physical effects) also bypasses stoneskin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas
go reread the 2nd edition effect again. Yes, the magic missile would have cut straight through and damaged the person (which I never said it wouldn't), but it gives a specific example of the magic missile cutting down the layers of the stoneskin.

---