"Never cast ANY spell without a properly-made wand, staff, or tower...

[enderlord99]

...You won't like what happens. Believe me."

...

The reason the court wizards always use a wand to cast their spells, and refuse on principle to use even the simplest, weakest, most pitiful speck of magic if they somehow don't have access to one, isn't just because of the kingdom's laws. It's also because: without something long, thin, and (ideally) inanimate to absorb the force of the energy... their fingers would break.

Likewise, more powerful spells require a staff because they would otherwise break the arm of the reckless oaf who tried to use them (or, potentially, their leg. One of their major limbs, in any case....) and the mightiest spells' implementation can only be survived by building a very sturdy tower of at least moderate size, in order to withstand the damage that otherwise shatter the spine of the one who attempted such folly.

...What was that? Oh‽ Oh! Oh no... Well technically... yes: there are, in fact, other ways to use magic (powerful or otherwise) without harming yourself, physically. HOWEvER:
They are all strictly illegal, for a very large number of very good reasons, and I will absolutely *NOT* discuss them any further!

[noob]

...You won't like what happens. Believe me."

...

Like using your mind as a tower and you break your mind instead of breaking your arm?

[Eldan]

But Professor, does the long, thin structure have to be upright, or could it also be horizontal? Surely it would be easier to build, say, a long, thin hall instead of a tower.

[noob]

But Professor, does the long, thin structure have to be upright, or could it also be horizontal? Surely it would be easier to build, say, a long, thin hall instead of a tower.

Maybe there is some link between magic and gravity fields and you have to spread the structure along the gravity field?
So if you managed to control gravity you could in theory make a long thin hall instead?
and maybe you have to keep the wand or staff upright for casting a spell and those who points the target with their implement would risk limb breakage and teachers would tell you constantly "do not point with the casting implement: keep it vertical"

[quinron]

But Professor, does the long, thin structure have to be upright, or could it also be horizontal? Surely it would be easier to build, say, a long, thin hall instead of a tower.

Clearly you've never seen the chaos that results when casting across opposing ley lines.

[Eldan]

Maybe there is some link between magic and gravity fields and you have to spread the structure along the gravity field?
So if you managed to control gravity you could in theory make a long thin hall instead?
and maybe you have to keep the wand or staff upright for casting a spell and those who points the target with their implement would risk limb breakage and teachers would tell you constantly "do not point with the casting implement: keep it vertical"

Or maybe combined with the leyline idea, different wand orientations cast different magics. Perhaps you hold your staff vertical to cast with the local magical field, and horizontal to break the local magical field (say to dispel protection magic.)

[TheStranger]

It’s a little known fact that wizards who don’t need to compensate for anything are perfectly capable of casting any spell without a long, sturdy, cylindrical object. But 1)very few (male) wizards are actually that confident so it’s much safer to teach all wizards to use a focus, and 2)senior wizards who *can’t* cast spells without a focus (i.e. most of them) are very adamant that they don’t need to compensate for anything, it’s just that *nobody* can cast safely without a focus.

[Silly Name]

So, if it's possibly to transfer those forces to wands, staves and towers, could one use other conduits? Such as animals, or perhaps even other people?

Of course, of course, probably very illegal, but still... it's a possibility, right?

[noob]

So, if it's possibly to transfer those forces to wands, staves and towers, could one use other conduits? Such as animals, or perhaps even other people?

Of course, of course, probably very illegal, but still... it's a possibility, right?

You would probably run the same issue of arm/spinal column breakage(but on other things than yourself unless you cast a too strong spell) and nothing says you cast better spells by using people than by using a person sized staff.
So the issue can be practicality: you could just grab a random person sized thing and cast the spell and you would have the same effect as using a person but the person struggles more.
However if you are feeling particularly cruel during fights it could be a way to incapacitate an opponent while casting a spell so by displaying feats of body magic you could make people think that you are the kind of battlemage that could grab them to cast a spell(which might be true) and therefore increase the fear you inspire.

[Eldan]

I'm now wondering about the possibility of flexible foci. We have established long and thin, but does it have to be a staff/wand/tower, or can I focus on a bow string? Can a bard use the strings of their lute? Can I focus on a rope?

(Edit: this is something I didn't think I wanted, but now really want. We need a thread where we discuss magical phenomena in character. Maybe move this to the roleplaiyng board?)

[Scarlet Knight]

"Hmm, so Professor, might the reason amulets work is because their energy is dispersed circularly around the chain that holds it around the casters neck? Does the energy then keep circulating until the spell dissipates?"

[noob]

"Hmm, so Professor, might the reason amulets work is because their energy is dispersed circularly around the chain that holds it around the casters neck? Does the energy then keep circulating until the spell dissipates?"

Chains are a very complicated field of magic: you need to keep the chain spinning so that the acceleration is along the length of the chain it is why often you use another spell from another source(Generally a wand hence why you generally talk about amulet casting: it is convenient to have a locket with a wand attached to the chain) to keep the chain spinning.
While amulets are good for casting strong impulse spells the energy keeps spinning a while afterwards to dissipate and so you have to keep the chain spinning or else risk limb breakage or worse (why some people prefer to keep the chain spinning around the neck because it can be preferable to break your neck over the worse results) and you also must not cast a new spell before the energy in the chain dissipates.
Chains are comparable at equal length as a wand or a staff for continuous spells but the disadvantage is that the magic from the continuous spell can not link to the local gravitational field: it is always working against it therefore it is why you must constantly pour energy in the chain and keep the chain spinning as long as the continuous spell is active.

The flow in the chain easily disrupt when touched but only the foolish would try to stop an amulet user by touching it with their body or a tool that is not long.

The additional complexity is that the orientation of the magical energy circulating in the chain varies over time due to the spinning so it can interact negatively with the spell used to make it spin which is outright catastrophic.

Generally people seeking a compact focus for strong impulse spells prefers to merely use a circular solid focus such as a circlet and enchanting it with antigravity then making it spin manually in order to benefit from most of the uses of amulet magic with less risks but it is less easily concealable than a chain and while you can attach multiple chains to obtain a very long focus you can not do that with circlets.

Circular casting in general allows to break magic without the agility needed to use a regular wand at the cost of being risky and needing a preliminary spell in order to cast circular spells.

Because as you know magic flows in the focus in a direction parallel to the acceleration so if you are holding your wand horizontally to break magic attached to the local magical field if you keep it still the magic flows in at all the points of the wand at once causing a lot of problems so you need to accelerate the wand horizontally along its length while casting your local magic field breaking spell so you need to time well your movement because speed is not the same thing as acceleration and more than one student fails their casting because they think that if the wand is moving at full speed when their spell is cast it works.

To reduce the issue of the magic spinning in the chain breaking the magic keeping the chain spinning there have been experiments about using a spinning chain to keep other spinning chains spinning(so that it is rotating magic keeping the other rotating magic rotating). Curiously the experimenters are suffering from an impressively high death and maiming rate despite their sound theory in part because they have a really hard time keeping the circulation of magic in the different chains synced up and if they are not synchronised then they have different directions and it generally ends in tragedy.(as one said pertinently: do not cast along opposing leylines)

In the end circular magic is often ignored due to the fact that a good mastery of trigonometry, of the theory of magic and of regular wand casting are all needed just in order to use it without more risks than more ordinary magic.

[Kane0]

Is there any particular reason spears wouldnt work?
Do shamans make use of totem poles in the same manner?
Would it be possible to make use of a caber or even a tree as a midpoint between staff and tower?

Do druids know something we dont?

[Kerching]

I'm now wondering about the possibility of flexible foci. We have established long and thin, but does it have to be a staff/wand/tower, or can I focus on a bow string? Can a bard use the strings of their lute? Can I focus on a rope?

It is commonly thought that bards create magical effects by playing their music. However, this is the opposite of the truth. By channeling their magic through flexible strings, the strings vibrate rapidly, creating a sound. Bards are able to cast more powerful magic through the strings than with a rigid wand of the same length, but all their spells are more unpredictable and tend to cause things to explode. Not many become bards because of the unpredictability and added complexity of bardic magic.

And yes, while it is technically possible to cast spells resulting in unmelodious music, those who do so are usually driven mad by the hideous sounds that result. And then they explode.

Channeling magic through a rope is just asking to explode.

[Eldan]

I'm now imagining a cultist or desperate apprentice threatening the city watch with the words "Stand back, I have 50 feet of rope and I'm not afraid to use it!"

[sktarq]

Is there any particular reason spears wouldnt work?
Do shamans make use of totem poles in the same manner?
Would it be possible to make use of a caber or even a tree as a midpoint between staff and tower?

Do druids know something we dont?

well sorcerers and shortspears were a pairing esp in 3.5.....

*Tosses caber* *trigger wall of stone to be cast but because of size of caber is maximized and level boosted*
*Tosses Caber* *Move earth is cast and the earth gets out of the way FAST leaving the caber at the bottom of your new ditch/moat/canal/whatever*
*Tosses Caber* *makes a huge thud but the echos contain the answer to question the caster asked during the incantation*
*Tosses Caber* *Bibgy's Fist Spell*

yeah this could get fun

As for getting architecturally interesting have a casting area in a cathedral with various stone pillars all linked to cause a harmonic that is even more powerful than the tallest of the main pillars....or a bunch of similar sized pillars that can "pass on" a spell so it effects the entire area (think the Moorish pillars in some palaces/mosques/libraries in Spain for the forest of pillars image I'm aiming at))

[Eldan]

Also flying buttresses.

[Kerching]

Now I'm wondering what happens if you use two half-length staves instead of a single staff...

[noob]

Now I'm wondering what happens if you use two half-length staves instead of a single staff...

If the connection between the two is sturdy and that they are put length to length I would except it to work just fine.

[Kerching]

If the connection between the two is sturdy and that they are put length to length I would except it to work just fine.

I meant something like dual-wielding wands. If two wands can equal one staff in power, than many shenanigans can ensure.

[Eldan]

That just leads to Players trying wand-nunchucks.

[noob]

I meant something like dual-wielding wands. If two wands can equal one staff in power, than many shenanigans can ensure.

I think that you could imagine that if you keep the two wands parallel then that you could cast two different spells that combines in one. (Now you need to find spells that can combine before doing wand dual wielding shenanigans or you could be just happy to cast twice as many spells with two wands)(also if the wands are not parallel then you would just have the two halves cancel each other and get no spell)
I can not imagine lots of staff spells that could be split in two spells easily.(maybe the "throw raw energy at the enemy" kinds of spells would be easier to split)

[Kerching]

ah ha ha... ha hA HAH AH AHAHHAH HA! Tremble before my Connected Stack of Centimeter-Long Wands! Eat a thousand fireballs! Or perhaps a singular one, cast normally! Such is the power of my dastardly invention!

[Greywander]

Break digits or limbs by casting spells recklessly? This immediately reminded me of My Hero Academia.

Spoiler: MHA Season 1 and 2 minor spoilers

Show

Early on, the protagonist gets a super power that is too strong for his body to handle, so while he can absolutely destroy things with a single punch, it also breaks his arm. He can jump super high, but it breaks his legs. He quickly learns to attack using finger flicks, which have less power but only break his fingers instead of his entire arm. Naturally, this is unsustainable, so he has to learn how to turn down his power to a point his body can handle, and then gradually turn it back up as his body gets stronger until he can handle its full power.

So I could see a wizard that casts spells without a wand or staff, and is just super ripped because of years of training without a wand or staff. Maybe his stronger spells are still too much and result in broken bones, but he keeps getting stronger and pushes his limits further.

[SpoonR]

Chains are a very complicated field of magic: you need to keep the chain spinning so that the acceleration is along the length of the chain it is why often you use another spell from another source(Generally a wand hence why you generally talk about amulet casting: it is convenient to have a locket with a wand attached to the chain) to keep the chain spinning.
While amulets are good for casting strong impulse spells the energy keeps spinning a while afterwards to dissipate and so you have to keep the chain spinning or else risk limb breakage or worse (why some people prefer to keep the chain spinning around the neck because it can be preferable to break your neck over the worse results) and you also must not cast a new spell before the energy in the chain dissipates.
Chains are comparable at equal length as a wand or a staff for continuous spells but the disadvantage is that the magic from the continuous spell can not link to the local gravitational field: it is always working against it therefore it is why you must constantly pour energy in the chain and keep the chain spinning as long as the continuous spell is active.

The flow in the chain easily disrupt when touched but only the foolish would try to stop an amulet user by touching it with their body or a tool that is not long.

A magic chainsaw? You monster. I giggled.