| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Caolin |
Posted - 11 Nov 2010 : 22:47:11
So another thought popped into my head as I have been reading through Whisper of Venom. Mr. Byers has been pretty faithful to 4E rules when describing battles, magic use, and divine powers. Frankly, most of the 4E novels have been this way. I personally don't like this because it feels like a friend describing combat in WoW. I also feel that game rules can handcuff the authors story telling.
So I am curious as to everyone's thoughts on this. Do you enjoy a novel more when the author incorporates game rules into their writing? Or do you prefer a more rules agnostic novel? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Malcolm |
Posted - 21 Jan 2015 : 18:58:37
"Ed creates lore for the Realms, he doesn't create D&D rules."
Sigh. Yet more evidence that the above poster lives in a world of his own. Earlier he used the argument that Ed was responsible for what came out under his byline because he cashed the checks.
Agreed. Funny how that argument suddenly gets discounted when we're considering all the times Ed was hired and paid by the publisher of D&D to, yes, "create D&D rules." In over a hundred sourcebooks or modules or rulebooks or boxed sets.
Sheesh, as Ed might say.
(Note that "might." I don't presume to say what Ed would or wouldn't say, whereas the above poster presumes to say what Ed does and can do, and doesn't and can't do.) |
| GMWestermeyer |
Posted - 21 Jan 2015 : 16:44:42
Ed creates lore for the Realms, he doesn't create D&D rules. AND as someone stated, the agreement only extended to material TSR/WOTC had not spoken on. Ed doesn't get to simply change the Realms on a whim.
You fanboys all seem to fail basic logic. EITHER Ed is a poor writer with no power whose awesome creations are destroyed the Powers that Be at which ever company owns the realms, or his every scribble is an FR rule.
Either way the changing tables comparison is apt. I'll cease disturbing you now and walk away. Pray, continue with your game.
quote:
Originally posted by Blueblade
You just don't seem to get it, GM Westermeyer.
Ed doesn't "bungle" the rules, he CREATES them.
As THO was trying to point out to you, that's the nature of the original Realms agreement: when Ed writes about the Realms, he is creating rules and lore for the Realms that's automatically canon unless or until contradicted by later "official" (TSR or WotC, NOT licensed) published Realms products.
If Ed wants fireballs cast in a contest at a MageFair that vary in size and damage by the power of the caster (frankly, the only way fireball-hurling could BE a competitive contest), and Ed writes that, then that's the way it is for the Realms.
Don't like it? Too bad. So ENOUGH with the rules-lawyering. It's tiresome and adds nothing to scribes' enjoyment of the Realms because it's not something we can deduce or derive more from, in this case; it's just nitpicking.
(Or to put it another way, the sort of gamerish behavior that makes me change gaming tables at a convention. Life's too short...)
BB
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 21 Jan 2015 : 02:51:57
quote:
Originally posted by Arcanus
There are some characters that stand above the rules, they have advanced so much in their chosen (heh) field that to try to apply general rules to them is somewhat unrealistic. Tbh I don't want novels bound by rules, be aware of them and loosely follow them yes. Game rules are not only hard to write into stories, they can also hinder the tale being told.
Honestly I think some of the characters that break the rules end up creating new ones. For example Drizzt has been a variety of class's and multiclasses and such. In one such novel he had the ability to use his innate magical ability to summon a globe of Darkness. In 3E he could, by RAW, only do this once. However towards the end of the edition there was a feat that allowed a Drow to do this up to 3/day per day. Now I don't know if the feat was inspired by the novel but it then validated what the novel stated. I wouldn't be surprised if a designer read the novel and said "Hey, this is a cool idea for a feat a Drow can take!" |
| Roseweave |
Posted - 21 Jan 2015 : 00:31:15
When I'm writing Nine Tales University and other stuff I keep a rough estimates of levels, the autistic part of me makes me do it. I sort of hate myself for it though.
http://crystallineprincess.tumblr.com/tagged/short-stories
My main characters are something like -
Penny - 19th level Tiefling Assassin(may rise with party level, though. was previously epic before having unstable powers taken from her.)
Deja - 16th Level Aranea(possibly Hengeyokai) Rogue w/sorcerer multiclass(similarly, but later on)
Thread/Cousin Sarah - 18th Level Feytouched(and artificially constructed) Half-Elf Bladesinger
Yuki - About 13th level, Eladrin Ice Sorcerer. (intended to be a Yuki-Onna, but Eladrin tends to work as a stand in for a lot of Fey with the right themes/feats).
Rygnyr - 10th Level Gnoll Hexblade, 11th by end of the story. Temporarily boosted to close to roughly 18th level at one point.
Ferkith - 8th Level Drow Scout
Lily Prismriver - Level 17 Eladrin Prescient Bard
Emily Ruldegost - Level 20 Human Dragon Soul Sorcerer/Firecrafter
Other Mean Girls - Roughly Level 15, Mermaid, Water Soul Deva, Tiefling, non-specific martial & arcane classes.
Voralda Trobartis III - Level 19 Vryloka Warlord.
Other Cool Guys - Roughly Level 15, Minotaur Barbarian, Tuathan/Human Bard, Fishman Monk.
Torfis Lunfhaven - Level 15 Spellscarred Wood Elf Bow Ranger
Arabelle Stormcaller - Level 14 Harpy Two Weapon Ranger
Doriel August - Level 14 Fey'ri Warlock
Ellie Prismriver(my PC) - Level 20 Eladrin/Leanan Sídhe Bard/Wizard
Alstromeria Ravenvyne - Level 18 Moon Elf Witch/Bard
Glanian Elevnir - Level 16 Sun Elf Rogue
Mother Zaneta - Level 22 speculatively Half-Elf Cleric/Bard/Witch.
Tamama-No-Mae - Level 27 Kitsune/Hengeyokai Sorcerer/Witch.
Clíodhna - Level 25 Eladrin(Bean Sídhe) Witch
Lady Catrina/The White Lady/La Santa Muerte - Level 27 Archfey Wizard of unknown type, tied to the Maztican God of Death. Something similar to a Baelnorn or Archlich.
Farah Al Jala - Level 17 Human Bard/Alchemist
Celindra Weatherback - Level 15 Hamadryad Shaman
Mr. Pots/Prof. Fernsworth - Level 15 Satyr Alchemist/Artificer
Heather/Miss Diamond - Level 17 Spellscarred Moon Elf Psion
Mister Point - Level 18 Dwarf Fighter
Many of the characters are beyond classification, even out of the ones listed their power levels can fluctuate. For example If Yuki goes all out and embraces the storm, she could freeze and potentially kill many of the main characters. There's also a sort of power displacement field in effect in the University to help stop bullying. It also helps that the geeks are actually some of the most powerful creatures there(the aren't going to be many epic level students, and the average student is probably around level 6, still scary for an average person but managable). Some of the teachers may have their levels artificially boosted on school grounds, being a few levels lower in actuality, but are going to have skill points beyond what the average Adventurer has in various things, being teachers and all.
Witch is a weak class in 4E so it may just be a particular build of Wizard, or custom class.
We don't follow the rules to a T in our campaign anyway. There are no rules for Leanan Sídhe for example in 4th ED and my character is also sort of a mutant but not fully spellscarred. Another character has a robot hand that's more of a plot device than anything.
|
| Arcanus |
Posted - 20 Jan 2015 : 22:56:19
There are some characters that stand above the rules, they have advanced so much in their chosen (heh) field that to try to apply general rules to them is somewhat unrealistic. Tbh I don't want novels bound by rules, be aware of them and loosely follow them yes. Game rules are not only hard to write into stories, they can also hinder the tale being told. |
| Roseweave |
Posted - 20 Jan 2015 : 22:17:39
So weird to think my character's familiar/companion could probably take out any of the Downshadow cast at this stage, aha. It makes it harder to play at higher levels sometimes, it feels like I can't relate to the little people anymore. I like the idea that somebody who's low level but clever enough could potentially knock her out in one way, though then again I do like the idea that she's pretty safe and secure most places due to her power level too. |
| Blueblade |
Posted - 20 Jan 2015 : 21:49:50
You just don't seem to get it, GM Westermeyer.
Ed doesn't "bungle" the rules, he CREATES them.
As THO was trying to point out to you, that's the nature of the original Realms agreement: when Ed writes about the Realms, he is creating rules and lore for the Realms that's automatically canon unless or until contradicted by later "official" (TSR or WotC, NOT licensed) published Realms products.
If Ed wants fireballs cast in a contest at a MageFair that vary in size and damage by the power of the caster (frankly, the only way fireball-hurling could BE a competitive contest), and Ed writes that, then that's the way it is for the Realms.
Don't like it? Too bad. So ENOUGH with the rules-lawyering. It's tiresome and adds nothing to scribes' enjoyment of the Realms because it's not something we can deduce or derive more from, in this case; it's just nitpicking.
(Or to put it another way, the sort of gamerish behavior that makes me change gaming tables at a convention. Life's too short...)
BB |
| Arcanus |
Posted - 20 Jan 2015 : 16:10:46
quote:
Originally posted by Barastir
Well, if THO, which contacts Ed directly, says it is a meteor swarm, so it is.  But once again, we must not stick to game terms: even if the name of the spell is another, why would it be considered more than a fireball variant? And the very description of meter swarm says that "A meteor swarm is a very powerful and spectacular spell which is similar to the fireball spell in many aspects." Fireball, meteor swarm, in a way, are game terms IMHO.
The term 'swarm' implies more than one projectile. |
| Barastir |
Posted - 20 Jan 2015 : 15:18:44
Well, if THO, which contacts Ed directly, says it is a meteor swarm, so it is. But once again, we must not stick to game terms: even if the name of the spell is another, why would it be considered more than a fireball variant? And the very description of meter swarm says that "A meteor swarm is a very powerful and spectacular spell which is similar to the fireball spell in many aspects." Fireball, meteor swarm, in a way, are game terms IMHO. |
| GMWestermeyer |
Posted - 20 Jan 2015 : 14:59:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Arcanus
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
That tale is Elminster At The Mage Fair, and it's a Meteor Swarm, not a Fireball, though the later comics adaptation may suggest otherwise.
I could have sworn that it was one massive fireball. It was a fireball throwing competition after all. I seem to remember something about 'it was as if the sun had fallen' or something........then El did it again lol.
I've always thought it was a really big fireball, as well.
It is a fireball. That short story is one of Ed's bests, but he really bungles the rules there. It was published in 1993, written under 2nd edition AD&D. Elminster claims that the size and power of a fireball can be manipulated by the spellcaster. It comes across as a way to explain the damage differential (1d6 per caster level, max 10d6). Well enough. He even describes spell components, which are often forgotten. But then he describes Elminster casting a fireball that was 'huge' and explodes like the sun.
First off, fireball damage was capped in 2e (unlike 1e). but the size was firmly set at 20' radius. Damage and range were level variants, NOT the size of the fireball. A minor thing, except that the fixed volume of a fireball has always been a big deal in D&D, and Ed was well aware of the many discussions in Dragon magazine about that. It isn't a fact that should be altered.
And in 1e for Fireball it was also range and damage that varied by level, not area of effect, which was still a 20' radius. (well, 2" back then, but that meant 20')
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Jan 2015 : 20:10:31
quote:
Originally posted by Arcanus
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
That tale is Elminster At The Mage Fair, and it's a Meteor Swarm, not a Fireball, though the later comics adaptation may suggest otherwise.
I could have sworn that it was one massive fireball. It was a fireball throwing competition after all. I seem to remember something about 'it was as if the sun had fallen' or something........then El did it again lol.
I've always thought it was a really big fireball, as well. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jan 2015 : 18:42:26
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
As far as my knowledge to the 4E ruleset goes (which is not far) I think the new ruleset allows more concise representations of novel characters.
Because of the daily/encounter/at will setup it works more smoothly the other way around aswell: a novel character low level wizard doesn't need to whip out a crossbow to blast his adversaries. This is a thing that should have been common in previous editions and that was avoided because that is a decidedly unwizardly and unheroic thing to describe in a Sword & Sorcery setting such as FR. Now a low level wizard can ve included in a story without player-readers crying foul.
OOI roughly what level were the characters in Downshadow?
Erik was kind enough to give us stats for these characters HERE Roughly between 7th and 9th level.
|
| Roseweave |
Posted - 19 Jan 2015 : 18:37:36
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
As far as my knowledge to the 4E ruleset goes (which is not far) I think the new ruleset allows more concise representations of novel characters.
Because of the daily/encounter/at will setup it works more smoothly the other way around aswell: a novel character low level wizard doesn't need to whip out a crossbow to blast his adversaries. This is a thing that should have been common in previous editions and that was avoided because that is a decidedly unwizardly and unheroic thing to describe in a Sword & Sorcery setting such as FR. Now a low level wizard can ve included in a story without player-readers crying foul.
OOI roughly what level were the characters in Downshadow?
I find when writing something kinda superheroey or more like traditional fairy tales having set power levels can be pretty difficult. They're a useful game mechanic but they can mess around with storytelling a lot as well as creating a kind of frightening classism within the game world.
My character in game is finding it hard to deal with this right now, since at Epic level she could sneeze and wipe out a small crowd. While she does the least damage to a single target, she also has the most crowd control spells, so technically she kills the most people. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jan 2015 : 18:36:31
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
That tale is Elminster At The Mage Fair, and it's a Meteor Swarm, not a Fireball, though the later comics adaptation may suggest otherwise.
Ah, that was it. I read it a LONG time ago.
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
And when it was written, the game mechanics you mention, Diffan, hadn't been created yet, being an edition or two in the future.
Not a criticism, just pointing out the root problem facing all fiction writers: you CAN'T accurately express things in game terms, if the game changes well after your prose is written and published.
Oh I agree but if I were to attempt to adhere to the rules, it's not impossible to do so. The rules at the time might not have been written to express such fantastic spellcasting (instead being derived straight from the power invested with Elminster) but if the scene were written in a later date (in a time with other rules) it can still be expressed.
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Recognition of this very problem is why there have been at least two periods of editorial policy for Realms novels being to NOT follow the game rules, closely or at all. While I never want to have characters verbalize specific game rule terms in a scene (Fernald the Fighter yelling to Zaximo the cleric, "I'll go for the wyvern next round! Use your free action to- -" UGH), I think not "more or less" following the rules (not LIMITING characters to the rules, but when they're using existing official spells or items, following the rules and descriptions for such elements) is a mistake, because you're throwing away the sole unique feature of fantasy related to a game line (using the game) AND alienating readers who find themselves jolted out of their immersive reading experience by something that doesn't match what they expect.
Ah, well. Another matter that will never be solved to everyone's satisfaction.
love,
THO
See, I think it's really cool when a character cast a well-known spell or uses a well-known item and the fiction depict what that spell/item does in the game. To me, it helps immersion not hinders it. For example when I read Swordmage, Corsair, and Avenger novels they took heavy doses of rules (from spells and magical items and locales) but it didn't take away from the story. Geran's spells (which align with the ones from the Swordmage's spells in the FRCG) kept me more engaged with the story rather than making me think (Oh, he must be X level, yadda-yadda).
Obviously YMMV on the matter. |
| Roseweave |
Posted - 19 Jan 2015 : 18:35:50
problem is with explaining why the way the world works changes every so often without apparent cause. |
| Arcanus |
Posted - 19 Jan 2015 : 18:04:10
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
That tale is Elminster At The Mage Fair, and it's a Meteor Swarm, not a Fireball, though the later comics adaptation may suggest otherwise.
I could have sworn that it was one massive fireball. It was a fireball throwing competition after all. I seem to remember something about 'it was as if the sun had fallen' or something........then El did it again lol. |
| Austin the Archmage |
Posted - 18 Jan 2015 : 20:35:35
Indeed, changes between editions are a problem for writers who do try to stick to the rules. You change the rules, you change the lore. I know Forgotten Realms does try to provide an explanation for most of the major changes, but I doubt they can explain away every minute difference. |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 18 Jan 2015 : 19:50:42
That tale is Elminster At The Mage Fair, and it's a Meteor Swarm, not a Fireball, though the later comics adaptation may suggest otherwise.
And when it was written, the game mechanics you mention, Diffan, hadn't been created yet, being an edition or two in the future.
Not a criticism, just pointing out the root problem facing all fiction writers: you CAN'T accurately express things in game terms, if the game changes well after your prose is written and published.
Recognition of this very problem is why there have been at least two periods of editorial policy for Realms novels being to NOT follow the game rules, closely or at all. While I never want to have characters verbalize specific game rule terms in a scene (Fernald the Fighter yelling to Zaximo the cleric, "I'll go for the wyvern next round! Use your free action to- -" UGH), I think not "more or less" following the rules (not LIMITING characters to the rules, but when they're using existing official spells or items, following the rules and descriptions for such elements) is a mistake, because you're throwing away the sole unique feature of fantasy related to a game line (using the game) AND alienating readers who find themselves jolted out of their immersive reading experience by something that doesn't match what they expect.
Ah, well. Another matter that will never be solved to everyone's satisfaction.
love,
THO |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Jan 2015 : 18:08:24
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
Something I've thought about on incorporating the rules into a story is how to handle terminology. I assume that something like spell levels exist in universe, but I don't know if the characters number them or refer to them as "slots".
I've read quite a few novels from both Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance and while specific spells have come up (like Raistlin casting Sleep) I've never heard of anyone refer to spells in a mathematical manner or having "slots" to plug them into. I feel it's a completely gamist term that really only refers to the mechanics of (insert edition number here).
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
On the issue of alignment, would the characters describe someone as "Lawful Evil" or would they say something like "He's a devotee of law and evil"?
They'd probably refer to him/her as a tyrant or dictator, or autocrat, etc. Someone who uses law and power to promote an evil agenda. I think the term "Good" and "Evil" are used more commonly in the fiction of D&D novels than law or chaos. At least in a descriptive sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
I think of metamagic feats as being specific techniques designed to alter the power of the spell, so if a character described a spell as "empowered" it wouldn't break the immersion for me.
I feel this is a hit or miss type of deal. I remember reading a short story which took place at a fair and they were having a Fireball contest to see who could produce the biggest / Strongest Fireball. I'm not sure if Elminster was actually there or if he was mentioned but the way the scene was described it was like someone prepared Fireball with either a Maximized or Empowered metamagic feat to make it look more "amazing". |
| Austin the Archmage |
Posted - 18 Jan 2015 : 15:44:13
Something I've thought about on incorporating the rules into a story is how to handle terminology. I assume that something like spell levels exist in universe, but I don't know if the characters number them or refer to them as "slots". On the issue of alignment, would the characters describe someone as "Lawful Evil" or would they say something like "He's a devotee of law and evil"?
I think of metamagic feats as being specific techniques designed to alter the power of the spell, so if a character described a spell as "empowered" it wouldn't break the immersion for me. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 18 Jan 2015 : 03:34:39
Okay, I've re-read the material on p.54 of the 3E campaign guide, and have been thinking about AMFs and spell shears, and I don't really see any incompatibility there with what I said a few posts back.
An AMF "rearranging the Weave" can mean just about anything, and the same exact words could be used for describing what happens to the Weave during any spell. Having the Weave "intertwine, warp and twist" to result in a spell or spell effect could be described by the word "rearrange" just as well and mean the same thing. The Weave isn't being turned off or pushed aside by an AMF. Like any spell, an AMF is a spell that utilizes the Weave to create a magical effect - in this case, a suppression effect.
We are left to determine what it means when "magic flows around an area" that's created by an AMF, but honestly that could just be a word description for a spherical radius. What we do not ever see with an AMF are spells bending and twisting around the outer edge, so I think they are simply describing that magic works fine quite literally up to the border edge of the AMF's outer edge: that is, the suppression effect isn't stronger in the center and weaker at the edge. It's just an on or off suppression effect.
Therefore, inside an AMF the Weave is still active and empowering the AMF itself. An AMF doesn't quiet or turn off the Weave, or push the Weave aside to create the AMF effect. If it pushed the Weave aside, you'd have a dead magic area, not a suppressed magic area.
Again, just speculating.
|
| MaskedOne |
Posted - 18 Jan 2015 : 02:56:18
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
If the weave is not present its a simple dead magic zone. Antimagic is something that "jams" all magical things... even supernatural abilites which functions in deadmagic zones. If the FRCG says so, its wrong. IMO!
^This. I'd have to go look at the FRCG to comment on whether I think it's flat out wrong or simply open to alternate interpretations* but anti-magic screws over Weave and Shadow Weave alike where as dead magic (what you get in areas where the Weave is absent) applies to one or the other depending on which Weave has been damaged in that specific location.
*The Weave interfaces with and allows manipulation of raw magic. One could theoretically build a Weave construct that moves raw magic in its confines out of reach without saying that you've moved the Weave itself out of reach. The Weave is still there, it just happens to be saying, "No." whenever you ask it to access anything and the Shadow Weave can't help you because the Weave is currently locking off access to the power supply it would use to provide magic. |
| Austin the Archmage |
Posted - 18 Jan 2015 : 01:03:22
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
The 3.0 campaign guide says that antimagic fields rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around the area instead of through it. So you're right.
Hmm, in the 3E FR Campaign Guide? I can't find that. What page?
Page 54, under "The Weave", a couple of paragraphs above the section for "Wild Magic". |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 17 Jan 2015 : 23:54:55
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
The 3.0 campaign guide says that antimagic fields rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around the area instead of through it. So you're right.
Hmm, in the 3E FR Campaign Guide? I can't find that. What page?
If the weave is not present its a simple dead magic zone. Antimagic is something that "jams" all magical things... even supernatural abilites which functions in deadmagic zones. If the FRCG says so, its wrong. IMO! |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 17 Jan 2015 : 18:42:34
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
The 3.0 campaign guide says that antimagic fields rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around the area instead of through it. So you're right.
Hmm, in the 3E FR Campaign Guide? I can't find that. What page?
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 17 Jan 2015 : 15:54:17
Realms magic is inconsistent with D&D magic to the extent that it's a superset of it. As well as introducing many new spells and details of spellcasting, Ed's fiction is our main source -- albeit a sprawling one -- for how that magic works. His stories repay close study for anyone interested in understanding it. |
| Austin the Archmage |
Posted - 17 Jan 2015 : 15:02:05
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
The 3.0 campaign guide says that antimagic fields rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around the area instead of through it. So you're right. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 17 Jan 2015 : 05:21:45
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
My impression of the spell shear, which is just my take, is that it is a method to directly tap raw magic in order to shatter any magic spell. An anti-magic field spell is a spell that uses the Weave as a kind of suppression overlay, but it itself is still formed of magic and uses the Weave. The raw magic of of a spell shear isn't a spell so much as it is focusing a leak of that raw magic to "shred" of spells that use the Weave. That would be my personal take, which may or may not be correct.
I don't think Mystra would be happy seeing people use it a lot, probably because if excessively used it could damage the Weave itself. It would also be potentially deadly for a caster to use, as it would be like trying to hold and point burning plasma in your hands. Again, just a theoretical guess.
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
I don't quite get what a spell shear actually is, but if it does what you say (''shredding'' all Weave-powered spells), to me it seems like some kind of Mage's Disjunction spell that also has high efficiency against AMFs.
If it only works against anti magic, then I'd say that a spell shear can make the Weave flow anywhere, even through zones that keep it out. In this case, I don't think that Mystra would mind them.
It's possible that AMFs might be turning off the Weave in a localized area, but personally I don't think that's what's happening.
Just thinking through this (again, just my speculation), an AMF has the word "field" in it. To me, that says active interference. Active suppression, which requires the Weave. Think about electronic jamming, radio signal jamming, perhaps.
We also have evidence of ripped or torn areas of the Weave which result in dead magic zones. That isn't quite the same as an AMF but it might functionally look the same.
The way AMFs work, I think, they use the Weave itself to create an area of temporary jamming or interference. Spell power that is blocked by an AMF isn't redirected around the AMF, it's like it's being absorbed into the Weave through the AMF or being diffused.
In contrast, a spell shear sounds destructive, it's literally tearing or shredding magic. And one way to do that would be by overloading it or burning it with raw magic.
With a disjunction, it's also destructive, but it's in a field/radius and on this "side" rather than within the Weave. For a disjunction, I think the mage is breaking all of the Weave's connections to magical items in that field. Literally snapping them. This would be like an immediate but temporary electromagnetic pulse. It's enough to permanently damage the electrics in the devices (within a field), but it doesn't destroy electricity - nor is the Weave itself harmed by a disjunction because the "EMP" is generated by the Weave.
Personal theory of the Weave:
It's almost like the raw magic infusing Faerun's crystal sphere is like burning plasma. Perhaps the source of all magic is closer to Faerun than many other settings and is flooding over it. For people living in Faerun, it's like they're in a world flooded with gasoline and attempts to use raw magic directly would be like striking a match for every spell. So the Weave is required.
OR, that raw magic has to be dispersed through gates and various channels. During the post=Spellplague years, the walls between realities were so thinned, that raw magic first flooded Faerun and then started pouring into spillways leading to other planes and other realms. That's why raw magic didn't utterly destroy the Realms with the Weave in tatters - but it wasn't a situation that could last forever either. As the worlds started moving apart again, as those spillways were backing up and portals, gates and thin walls started reactivating, that raw magic started building up again and could've washed over Faerun again.
But by restoring Mystra and the Weave, raw magic is lessened in its direct danger.
So if my musings are at all close to being right, a spell shear is like pulling threads of the Weave aside to let some of that raw magic wash over and destroy or shred the organizing matrix of a spell. And an AMF actually uses the Weave actively to create a suppression effect or an interference effect. So a spell shear will destroy even an AMF. And because it's raw magic, it could potentially damage the Weave because you're "twisting" it against the Weave's primary purpose. If that makes sense at all.
Just theorizing, though.
|
| Irennan |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 22:51:21
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
My impression of the spell shear, which is just my take, is that it is a method to directly tap raw magic in order to shatter any magic spell. An anti-magic field spell is a spell that uses the Weave as a kind of suppression overlay, but it itself is still formed of magic and uses the Weave. The raw magic of of a spell shear isn't a spell so much as it is focusing a leak of that raw magic to "shred" of spells that use the Weave. That would be my personal take, which may or may not be correct.
I don't think Mystra would be happy seeing people use it a lot, probably because if excessively used it could damage the Weave itself. It would also be potentially deadly for a caster to use, as it would be like trying to hold and point burning plasma in your hands. Again, just a theoretical guess.
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
I don't quite get what a spell shear actually is, but if it does what you say (''shredding'' all Weave-powered spells), to me it seems like some kind of Mage's Disjunction spell that also has high efficiency against AMFs.
If it only works against anti magic, then I'd say that a spell shear can make the Weave flow anywhere, even through zones that keep it out. In this case, I don't think that Mystra would mind them. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 21:28:14
My impression of the spell shear, which is just my take, is that it is a method to directly tap raw magic in order to shatter any magic spell. An anti-magic field spell is a spell that uses the Weave as a kind of suppression overlay, but it itself is still formed of magic and uses the Weave. The raw magic of of a spell shear isn't a spell so much as it is focusing a leak of that raw magic to "shred" of spells that use the Weave. That would be my personal take, which may or may not be correct.
I don't think Mystra would be happy seeing people use it a lot, probably because if excessively used it could damage the Weave itself. It would also be potentially deadly for a caster to use, as it would be like trying to hold and point burning plasma in your hands. Again, just a theoretical guess.
|
|
|
