This is a different take on the Wizard, using a much more narrowly focused list of spells and putting more emphasis…

This is a different take on the Wizard, using a much more narrowly focused list of spells and putting more emphasis…

This is a different take on the Wizard, using a much more narrowly focused list of spells and putting more emphasis on a freeform magical utility. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwbHes6iNuGrZUZmREFoekYwdTA/view?usp=sharing

11 thoughts on “This is a different take on the Wizard, using a much more narrowly focused list of spells and putting more emphasis…”

  2. hmm. I like the Idea a lot but it feels a bit clunky when red.

    a couple of Questions for you:

    1. Why did you make “Craft enchantments” so long? Its 3 paragraphs with a lot of very specific explanations. Dont you think it would benefit from being shorter and less specific?

    2. The move itself (the enchanting) has two parts: First you need to meet some requirements and than you also have to roll to make them. Why did you do that?

    3. When you think that “Analyze Dweomer” is to powerful why dont you make it that you can only ask a set Number of Questions about the Object and not that you get everything “for free”?

    4. Why are there no unique Spells for him and why only up to 7. Level?

    5. Why is “Cast an enchantment Spell” not the first in the List since its the most active move he has? (thats more cosmetic ^^)

  3. To Vincent Shine​​​’s first point, perhaps breaking up the first paragraph regarding regents into its own description. Much like the Artificer does with charges. Title it and describe, just to break the text up.

    P.S.

    I do like the concept. Has an Artificer feel, which I’m keen on.

  5. I LOVE THIS!

    This is a very good playbook, compared to everything else I’ve seen here. It really has it’s own merit. If there’s anything wrong with it, it’s practically tweaks, while other playbooks I see here often require a total rewriting. I really like the concept.

    The tweaks I’d make to it:

     + Split the firts move into two, and make them SHORTER, and also I hate the ‘DM will tell you later’ moves, so changed it like this:

    Enchanter’s Supply

    You possess a kit of enchanting supplies and tools; magical dusts, pigments, stones or jewels. It has 1 weight and can hold 4 Stock. When you spend some time (about 4 hours) gathering and purifying reagents, refill your Stock to its maximum.

    Craft Enchantments

    You can use your tools to enchant any item of 1 or more weight with a single enchantment by marking it with materials from your supply (like a symbol in chalk or a rune carved in stone). An enchantment’s effects lasts only as long as the markings are intact.

    When you set out to enchant an object, tell the GM what effect you want to accomplish and how you mark it and spend at least one Stock. Roll+Stock spent (but not more then your +INT). The GM can add time contraints or special requirements for the enchantment process.  *On a 10+, your enchantment takes effect. *On a 7–9, choose one. *On a 6-, choose two, plus the DM will give you two options between inviting unwanted attention, exhaustion or curse.

    • The effect will fade with time.

    • The enchantment has an unexpected limitation, the GM will tell you what.

    • The enchantment has some additional side effect, the GM will tell you what.

    ALSO:

     + Make a roll for Analyze Dweomer, where on a 10+ both, on a 7-9 pick 1:

      – ask the DM what activates the item’s magic

      – ask the DM about the effect of activating it

    The DM will answer truthfully.

     + adding extra spells is not necessary, maybe replace some with altered version, for flavour only. But I’d rather consider replacing this with some sort of lore (like in Bardic Lore) kind of move. Who needs spells if you can use magic items. Other then that, it’s VERY GOOD. Good job!

  7. Re: +Vincent Shine

    1) The move includes both the tools and the method of making them. I felt I had to include some details to clarify both common things which may come up during play (how easy are marks to remove?) and potential avenues for abuse (wearing ten enchanted rings at once.)

    2) It follows a similar logic to Ritual, allowing the GM to add in an additional requirement or two for very powerful enchantments as a way of limiting what you can get away with.

    3) This will be changed.

    4) At 7th level there are already a large number of spells you can cast without preparation. I don’t think there was a need for more.

    5) Cast an Enchantment spell also includes a reference to Stock, so I had to introduce it prior.

    Re: +Andrzej Zielinski

    The funny thing about Bardic Lore is that it allows the Bard to know things about their field without needing to invest in INT. It’s specifically an end run around this limitation to reduce multiple attribute dependency. Since the Enchanter is likely to be stacking INT, there’s no need for this.

  8. Another factor I wanted to address is the idea of getting what you pay for. The greater amount of work put into a mark, the better it works, in general (more Stock is being spent). This is to prevent someone from taking five seconds to grab a piece of chalk and hastily scribble a very simple rune for a powerful effect, then turn around and declare they are spending 4 Stock on the roll.

Comments are closed.