If you want to use the spell later, you need to carry around a fetish, often a small piece of jewlery.
Would this dilute the idea too much, or might I want to limit it only to the most powerful of wizards?īelievers of "real" magic tend to believe that most things need to be done through (a) creating a sacred space, ( using sanctified foci, © performing a sometimes lengthy ritual, and (d) making a sacrifice (energy, blood, whatever). Of course, these powers would not qualify for a focus limitation, and so would be more expensive than normal wizardry. Thus, a nekkid shaman might have defensive tattoos, or a vile sorceror might have a stare of submission, or a wicked enchantress might have a kiss of domination. Has anyone else tried a system like this?ĭo you have experience with the problems/pitfalls of such a system?Įven if you haven't played with such a system before, I'd welcome any comments and ideas.Īs a final aside, I was also thinking, for those villians who needed the extra edge, and those players who simply had to have innate magic, of allowing wizards to "enchant" their own bodies as well, either through tattoos, ritual scarring, or powerful magic. If every wizard has to have his props, then the alchemist shines, as his "spells" while having fewer, expendable charges, can be much more varied and flexible. In normal FH, as the regular spell-casters can just produce their effects, the alchemist seems kind of pathetic, as he needs to make everything in advance in the kitchen. It also finally renders the alchemist a viable adventuring class, as instead of having wands or rings or bracers or a staff, he has potions and powders. It also means that magic will be relatively cheap (as everything is at least an IIF, before any other limitations), but that you can neutralize a magic user in much the same way that you would neutralize a fighter, by removing his equipment. It also would mean, for my game world, that enchanting something so that it could produce magic was a difficult and time-consuming task (as you are spending character points to do so), so that you don't often encounter trivial bits of magic (like enchanted hairbrushes and the like). The actual use of magic would be separate from the "creation" of magical devices. This would mean that actual spell-casting was done as a form of enchantment or ensorcelment, and was done in advance of using the magical power you were imbuing. In play, this would mean that a wizard would whip out his wand to cast lightning bolts, or perform a ritual with his brazier to summon a smoke demon, rather than simply casting a spell on someone. Universal Foci, usable by everyone, are acceptable, but must be Indepedent as well (these are really more for things like Magic swords, etc that will more commonly be acquired by the PCs than enchanted by them). The focus should be personal, to reflect that the item is used to direct the power of the wizard himself.
All spells must have a Focus, though it does not have to be expendable (although potions and the like should be, or have expendable charges). My idea is to only allow "wizards" to purchase their spells through magic items. I'm considering starting a new FH campaign, either in Lankmar, or in a "fantasy" medieval setting, and one of the things I wanted to do was create a relatively low magic feel without preventing spell-caster PCs.Īlthough this was never overtly part of the Lankhmar mythos (either in the books or in the D&D conversion), I noticed that, other than gods and absurdly powerful spell-casters, virtually every spell cast in Lieber's works is cast through a device.
0 kommentar(er)
