| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 07 Dec 2010 : 11:34:11
Hi there, in 3.5e, it's fairly hard to get MOST arcane magic to be able to heal -- for example, you have to be a bard, or use some very very obscure wizard spells to be able to do some healing or quasi-healing, or you need to use one of the obscure tricks to give you a domain or increase the list of arcane spells to include some (mostly divine) healing spells, and other weird things like that. In other words, its not *intuitive* to be able to heal with Arcane Magic, either via the RAW or in the setting itself.
Anyway, I was wanting to know, what is the lore reason why there isn't a lot of Arcane based healing magic in the realms? What is keeping it mostly segregated into the realm of Divine magic? There is some in world reason for this, right? If this is some agreement between gods of magic or something, what is the precise agreement, or what is the sourcebook or novel where it is described in most detail? Thanks! |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 17 Dec 2010 : 05:52:17
"(Incidentally, neither the assassin class from Blackmoor nor from the 1e PHB required any experience levels in any other class before becoming an assassin.)"
Wow. Wait til I tell the other half that his TSR-cert. DM was doing it wrong....   And let me be clear that I never once referred to "D&D" history, but to ancient history, in regarding the bardic origins. I simply related that history to the rule as stated in the OD&D PHB and the CBH. Moving on....
"I do though require Bards to express some sort of religious belief be it to Oghma, Mystra, Mask, Shar, etc..... This, I feel, helps further explain their divine spells.
OR they could be very well versed in ways of song or encouragement that while the spells are magical in nature, they're displayed and used in a very Martial form."
I like that idea. It's more-or-less what I've thought all along. Touch of the divine, force of will, or intuitive knowledge of the cosmic symphony, it's all the same in the end.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 17 Dec 2010 : 03:53:58
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
So, you all think Bards tend to not use the Weave the normal way? What about the other skillful mostly arcane classes?
What about Beguilers? Factotum casting spell likes? Chameleons?
I was under the impression that most spellcasters--arcane and divine--use the Weave. The Weave isn't arcane specific, but rather the nigh-universal (or at least most common) medium by which mortals can access the source of magic.
I think bards, beguilers, duskblades, factotum folks, chameleons, etc., etc., all use the Weave, just like clerics, sorcerers, and wizards. And they do indeed all use it in a slightly different way, but that way isn't "abnormal"--just slightly different.
Cheers
I actually believe the opposite. Divine spellcasters gain their ability to cast spells directly from their connection to their patron deity. This is further illustrated in the 3 part adventure path Cormyr/Shadowdale/Anauroch(sp?) in which servants of Shar attempted to subvert the Weave, there by making it really hard for those who cast spells from the weave. Divine classes were not affected.
THis helps to illustrate the fact that arcane casters (generally Wizards and Sorcerers) have a very difficult time casting "cure" spells unless very focused in that area of expertise (ie, taking feats that allow them to do so).
Bards, OTOH, take a little from each pool or dabble (if you will) in all sorts of varying magics. In keeping with the spirit of one of the most versatile classes in the game (3e and 4e), it goes to show that they'd be able to cast a few heal spells here or there.
I do though require Bards to express some sort of religious belief be it to Oghma, Mystra, Mask, Shar, etc..... This, I feel, helps further explain their divine spells.
OR they could be very well versed in ways of song or incouragement that while the spells are magical in nature, they're displayed and used in a very Martial form. |
| see |
Posted - 16 Dec 2010 : 22:50:33
First, I apologize for the derailment. I thought I could make a brief historical correction note to Eric Scott de Bie's comment and then things would move on. Insofar as there still seems to be confusion, I will make one last stab at clarification, and then let those who choose to cling to incorrect history do so if they wish.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Forgive me for not having a 1e PHB on me, but is "bard" an actual, statted up class, like fighter, thief, or wizard?
Yes. It was a class with its own unique XP table, its own unique HD progression (d6, not a druid's d8), its own spell progression distinctly different from druids', its own level titles, its own armor and weapon selections, etc. You took levels as a fighter, then as a thief, and then as a bard, never taking any levels as a druid. Thus the class line for Storm Silverhand in the Old Gray Box was "7th level bard (7th level fighter, 5th level thief)", covering all the classes she took in the process.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de BieAlso, is it possible the underlined sentence in Arik's post refers to a TSR-related magazine article that presented the bard class? I'm not a D&D historian, but I seem to think the thief and assassin were originally presented that way into 0e OD&D, before the 1e D&D PHB came out and tied them all together.
Specifically, classes were introduced in D&D the following order:
Original Booklets, 1974: Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic User
Supplement 1, Greyhawk, 1975: Thieves, Paladins
The Strategic Review #2, 1975: Ranger
Supplement 2, Blackmoor, 1975: Monks, Assassins
The Strategic Review #4, 1975: Illusionist
The Strategic Review #6, 1976: Bard
Supplement 3, Eldritch Wizardry, 1976: Druids
Exact order in 1975 might be slightly inaccurate; this is based on internal dates in the documents, not verified dates of publication/shipping/sale. The Strategic Review was a magazine published by TSR; it was renamed The Dragon after issue #7.
It may be noted that every single class published in original D&D, its Supplements, and in The Strategic Review was presented in a revised form in the 1978 Player's Handbook, and the 1978 Player's Handbook only included classes that had been published in original D&D, its Supplements, and in The Strategic Review. There is no such thing as a class originally published in the 1e PHB.
The original D&D bard class, as published by TSR in 1976 in The Strategic Review, had no relation to the druid class whatsoever; it was a hybrid fighting man-thief-magic user with a charm-by-song ability. (The original ranger was similarly not related to the druid, casting magic-user and clerical spells. This is only natural given, as we see above, the druid wasn't published as a class until after the ranger and bard.)
(Incidentally, neither the assassin class from Blackmoor nor from the 1e PHB required any experience levels in any other class before becoming an assassin.) |
| Wulf Waters |
Posted - 16 Dec 2010 : 16:26:36
Weave = Rice
Method of access = cutlery
You use chopstick, your fingers, knife and fork, naan bread ... you're still eating rice, just using a different method.
So basically I agree with Erik. Bards, beguilers, duskblades, factotum folks, chameleons whatever all access the weave, just with different tools. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 16 Dec 2010 : 14:58:37
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
So, you all think Bards tend to not use the Weave the normal way? What about the other skillful mostly arcane classes?
What about Beguilers? Factotum casting spell likes? Chameleons?
I was under the impression that most spellcasters--arcane and divine--use the Weave. The Weave isn't arcane specific, but rather the nigh-universal (or at least most common) medium by which mortals can access the source of magic.
I think bards, beguilers, duskblades, factotum folks, chameleons, etc., etc., all use the Weave, just like clerics, sorcerers, and wizards. And they do indeed all use it in a slightly different way, but that way isn't "abnormal"--just slightly different.
Cheers |
| The Sage |
Posted - 16 Dec 2010 : 01:41:02
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Maybe all this talk about bards should go into its own dedicated scroll...
Actually, I think it's fine the way that it is. Just so long as scribes remember that all arcane/divine-magic using classes can be discussed here. 
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Dec 2010 : 01:06:03
Maybe all this talk about bards should go into its own dedicated scroll... |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 16 Dec 2010 : 00:51:19
So, you all think Bards tend to not use the Weave the normal way? What about the other skillful mostly arcane classes?
What about Beguilers? Factotum casting spell likes? Chameleons? |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 18:02:10
I like that errata better! (Sorry for the drift, there guys- that was partly my fault for wanting to clear up the confusion, since it did come up.) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 17:49:34
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I do to. My example skipped over the player's option to identify the spell as it's being cast, but even if you identify it as a Fireball spell (or as in my campaign where I don't bother tasking players with trying to ID a low-level spell they've cast—or seen cast by others— numerous times before), once the DM is done rolling damage dice and you explain what's going on, players can still be confused in a scenario like the one I described above.
[edit] Forgot to ask what you (Diffan) and others would have done with the Feat to make it better?
And how do you feel about Feat options that aren't always mechanically optimal, but do serve a flavor purpose as much as a mechanical purpose?
I rarely (if ever) chose feats with little or no mechanical benefit or are for fluff alone. IMO, feats are there to support what your character does. They increase class abilities and spells or allow a character to do something extraordinary. And since a characters supply of feats is rather limited (7 in total not counting bonus feats) I don't see why someone would waste one on a Skill buff or to change the theme to match your characters interests. Often, I feel that some Prestige Classes require useless feats in order to tone down the character even if those feats have little to do what the class.
For example, the Frenzied Berserker requires Destructive Rage and Intimidating Rage. Neither of those feats are impressive mechanically and I can think of 10 other feats that would be a better pick, yet that PrC requires them to gain entry. I don't really understand it. It's like the PrC is forcing you into a style-genre of a character that might not fit the player's idea of what a Frenzied Berserker is.
As for making Spell Thematics better? Lets see....
Original Magic of Faerun, p.22-23
Spell Thematics [General]
Your spells have a distinct visual or auditory effect in their manifestation.
Prerequisite: Must be able to cast at least one illusion spell.
Benefit: Choose a theme for your spellcasting, such as "ice" or "fire" or "screaming skulls". All spells you cast have this theme in the manifestation of their effects, although this does not actually change the spell in any way. You cannot use this feat to make your spell manifestations invisible, and it never causes your spells to deal more damage because of the visual change. (You may still cast spells without this thematic manifestation if you so choose.)
For example, if your theme is "fire", then your magic missile spell might appear to produce bolts of fire, although the bolts are still a force effect and cause normal damage, not fire damage....
Add +5 to the DC of any Spellcraft check made to identify a spell cast in this manner.
Wizards of the Coast Errata version
Spell Thematics [General] (Errata)
You have developed a signature thematic manifestation that gives your spells unique visual or auditory qualities.
You are more effective when casting spells strongly linked to your theme, and any spell you cast reflects your signature theme to a greater or lesser extent.
Benefit: Choose a theme for your spellcasting. You cast spells designated as central to your theme at +1 caster level. Add +5 to the DC of any Spellcraft check made to identify any spell you cast, whether or not it is designated as a thematic spell. A spell theme is comprised of two components. The first is a set of spells central to your theme. This consists of one spell at each spell level you can cast. For example, a 5th-level wizard might select ray of frost, magic missile, Snilloc's snowball swarm, and fly as spells central to his theme.
The second component is a Common visual or auditory effect all your spells share, such as "fire", "ice", or "screaming skulls." The special effect does not change the spells in any way, other than enhancing your caster level with the spells you choose to be central to your theme. For example, if your theme is "fire", then your magic missile spell might appear to produce bolts of fire, although the bolts are still a force effect and cause normal damage, not fire damage. If your theme is "screaming skulls", your fly spell might manifest as a dozen small screaming skulls that orbit around you, bearing you aloft.
Diffan's version
Same as the Errata version save that the spells chosen for your Theme are known automatically, without the need to use a spellbook and if cast as a full-round action, gain a +1 to the Spell's DC saving throw. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 17:42:39
Yeah, this whole bard discussion has gone way astray from the original topic... |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 17:22:37
Forgive me for not having a 1e PHB on me, but is "bard" an actual, statted up class, like fighter, thief, or wizard? Because if it is, it might make sense to say that your character trains under druids, as a druid, but is mechanically a member of the BARD CLASS.
If there *isn't* an actual, statted up class, then your character mechanically is a fighter/thief/druid (or maybe just a DRUID with fighter and thief background--the whole multi/dual classing rules are extremely arcane), rather than a member of the non-existent BARD class.
Also, is it possible the underlined sentence in Arik's post refers to a TSR-related magazine article that presented the bard class? I'm not a D&D historian, but I seem to think the thief and assassin were originally presented that way into 0e OD&D, before the 1e D&D PHB came out and tied them all together.
But like I said, I'm not a historian.
Also, this isn't particularly germaine to the topic. The fact remains that a bard is a dabbler in fighting, thieving, arcane, and divine magic. So to me, at least, it isn't a surprise that the bard can cast healing spells like a cleric, as well as offensive magic like a wizard.
Cheers |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 16:28:48
Aye, indeed, Arik. Said evidence being primarily the modern day druids. (Yes, they DO still exist- the official organization is OBOD- Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids, which still uses the practices and teaching -updated a bit, of course- that was in use in the time of the Gaelic War) Emphasis is on the clerical studies, of course. They even have a web site, for those who wish to join. Some of them are highly respected among the religious community, also.
Arik, your question is actually a pretty good one. But before the 1st ed PHB, there didn't seem to be one at all, so my best guess is that either the "original bard class" was never released, or it's just their way of saying it's modified from the historical context. Looking at that second paragraph, on the surface one might just say that yes, they are just bards. It was the part stating they had to 'fulfill the requirements IN ALL of the above classes" (ie, have at least one level of druid, by ninth level, plus the fighter and thief requirements) before they could be bards. Sorry if it seems like I'm nit-picking, but its convoluted wording like this that causes confusion, and leads to so many debates. Personally, I really don't care what they were in 1st ed- I didn't start playing the game until later in 2nd, but I still enjoy going back to the older lore for ideas, so it's still something I'm interested in. That said, I'm also reminded that assaissins were originally a two-class build as well. At least 9th level in fighter and thief at the same time before becoming assassins. My other half actually played one back then, and still has that character. Of course, they didn't get spells back then, but he had taken a wizard class along with the others, and she is now quite the nasty little thing. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 11:37:24
Why are we arguing about 1E bards? 1E PHB rules are written thus:
(Appendix II: Bards)
"As this character class subsumes the functions of two other classes, fighters and thieves, and tops them off with magical abilities, it is often not allowed by Dungeon Masters. Even though this presentation is greatly modified from the original bard character class, it is offered as supplemental to the system, and your DM will be the final arbiter as to the inclusion of bards in your campaign."
"Bards begin play as fighters, and they must remain exclusively fighters until they have achieved at least the 5th level of experience. Anytime thereafter, and in any event prior to attaining the 8th level, they must change their class to that of thieves. Again, sometime between 5th and 9th level of ability, bards must leave off thieving and begin clerical studies as druids; but at this time they are actually bards and under druidical tutelage. Bards must fulfill the requirements in all the above classes before progressing to Bards Table 1."
"Experience Points are strictly those gained as a bard, all previously earned are not considered here. Experience level is likewise that of the bard class only. There is no level beyond the 23rd. The bard gains druidic powers as a druid of the same level, with the exception of druidic spells as explained below."
[The progression shows Druid spell casting, no Magic-User spell casting.]
So ...
Fighter level 5-7, then Thief level 5-8*, then Bard level 1. (* DM may allow Thief-Acrobat class for levels 6-8)
Progression in the bard class is then roughly equal measures of Druidic supervision, instruction at Bardic Colleges, and experience gained through "adventuring".
[Underlined text is my emphasis, because I'm not sure what this sentence really means. Was there a D&D bard class before the 1E PHB, or is this a poorly-worded admission that the bard class presented here is not the same as historical bards?]
Outside of D&D, the term "bard" can loosely describe any entertainer from a primitive shaman to a royal jester to a gypsy fortune teller to William Shakespeare. More traditionally, bards have been long associated with (Irish and Welsh) Celtic histories and we popularly use the term in this context. The exact definition of "bard" is open to debate, though there's plenty of scholarly evidence to support the claim that bards and druids are closely related in a manner roughly similar to that explained in the 1E PHB. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 09:54:23
Okay, how can it be wrong, when it says the same thing, just in slightly different wording? Sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree. In terms of mechanics, being "trained as" equates to taking the class. It flatly states that they had to. Even your quotes said that- just used a different wording of the requirement- and a more dubious one, at that. (They should have worded that better in the old PHB, which is probably why they put that appendix in the CBH in the first place.) "Training as a druid" was a requirement of the bard "class", ergo, one had to TAKE the druid class. It does not contradict the rule, it clarifies it. (One CANNOT receive training in ANY D&D class without first taking it, regardless of the edition used!! 3.5 class-bending feats aside.) It's the same reason they had to become fighters and thieves- for that very same "hodge-podge" of abilities you mentioned. You can't be trained as a thief without taking that class, either. Just because they don't have the same restrictions does not mean they aren't considered using the class. And historically, a bard could ONLY be trained by a senior druid anyway, so you've pretty much proved my point. In or out of game, bards WERE part of the Druidic circle.
The "original concept", as I mentioned, was the original HISTORICAL concept of a bottom-tier Druid. No, they were not CALLED Druids- one had to receive the FULL training (took seven whole years, BTW) to claim that title. And even the historical bards in the Druid circles had a hodge-podge of skills, as well. They were trained in oral recitation of their laws and history, teaching songs, and herbal and astronomical lore, as well as hunting, assisting in rituals, healing and medicine, and various crafts. Still doubt that 1st ed bards were Druids? The 1st ed was not a "deviation" from anything, it was the FIRST bard concept for the game. The later editions simply skewed the class more toward the later historical traditions of traveling minstrels and news-carriers. But even they still had some of the old traditional teachings. O'Carolan, a famous bard of the 1700's in Ireland, was blind, and required a guide everywhere he went, but he was still very much the "true" bard of later times.
I for one am glad they made it easier to be one in 2nd ed onward. IF your interpretation were correct (and I don't believe it is), there would be no reason for the REQUIREMENT of druid training in the first place. Same goes for fighter or thief. They lost those abilities, and did not use the druid ones, but still had to have all three classes. Which is it? Did they have to take druid training or not? If they did, then they had to take the class. 'Nuff said. |
| see |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 08:21:17
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
As for the bards in 1st ed- the conversion in Complete bard says Almost exactly the same thing, except that it says "Sometime between5th and 9th level, bard must leave the thief class and BECOME a druid
Right, that's what the CBH says. And it's wrong on how one became a bard in 1st edition, because it contradicts what the 1st edition PHB said. I'm not trying to make any mystical, subtle point here, or argue some rules advantage, or the like. I'm acting as a historian, trying to keep the actual history of the D&D game straight. When talking about bards in 1e were like, the 1e PHB is unambiguously the better reference than a 2e book like the Complete Bard's Handbook.
As far as the distinction between being trained by versus becoming, let me make an analogy. Doctors are generally trained, in college, in biology by PhD biologists; this does not mean doctors become PhD biologists; biology and medicine are different, though related, fields.
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
The point was that they HAD to take the druid CLASS to become a bard
My point is, they never did take the "druid CLASS". The first edition rules did not say they became druids, they did not use the druid spell progression or combat tables, they did not use the druid XP tables, and they never functioned under the druidic restrictions on weapons or armor. How, then, can one say they took the druid class?
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
But the original concept in-game was based on the earlier history.
Again, as a matter of the historical record, this is wrong. The original concept of the bard in the D&D game, as published by TSR in February 1976, was explicitly "a hodgepodge of at least three different kinds, the norse ‘skald’, the celtic ‘bard’, and the southern european ‘minstrel’." Capitalization verbatim from the original; that's an exact quote. That class very much resembled the 2nd edition bard, being a single-progression class that used magic user (that is, wizard) spells, gained thief abilities as it advanced, etc. The 1st edition bard was a temporary deviation from the archetype used in "0th", 2nd, and 3rd editions, not the original bard concept. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 04:51:32
Passion and performance- that's not too far from what I hadtheorized. Sorcerers might be much the same, but with a bent towards cosmological signs.
Sorcerer: "I'm reading a hot-seat in your near future!" |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 03:18:02
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
Oh boy, this thread is huge. Only got to the first two pages!
Ok, has anyone mentioned here why Arcane users are so adept at Necromancy, which is supposed to be LIFE and DEATH magic, but they're only really good at the DEATH part...while Clerics are adept at the LIFE part. There's a ton of negative energy spells for Wizards, but anything involving healing either uses negative energy to drain from another life source and transfer it, or sacrifice arcane power, etc. In other words, arcane-users have to take the backdoor.
Well, I theorized earlier that divine magic comes from the gods, and so does life -- so divine magic is therefore more adept at dealing with life. Wizard magic comes from other sources, so it does other things. It's not coming directly from the gods, so it can't do nearly as much when dealing with life energies. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 02:37:22
I like your point about bardic spellcasting, Razz. Passion and performance.
Yea, you missed a few pages of discussion about necromancy. Sorcerers are an anomaly, never liked 'em anyhow, just poor-man's-wizards.
Priest - "Blessed Kossuth of the Eternal Flame, answer this unworthy prayer of your humble servant and SMITE THE ENEMIES OF YOUR FAITH WITH BURNING VENGEANCE FROM THE SKY!"
Wizard - "Mumblemumble ... Fire equals (Thermal Conductance divided by Thermal Resistance) plus Ignition Cantrip, modified by Coefficient of Saving Throw, adjusted by volume calculated through Burning Radius, factored into ... mumblemumble"
Bard - "Allow me to play you a hot little song I once heard from a wizard in Waterdeep ..." |
| Razz |
Posted - 15 Dec 2010 : 02:22:17
Oh boy, this thread is huge. Only got to the first two pages!
Ok, has anyone mentioned here why Arcane users are so adept at Necromancy, which is supposed to be LIFE and DEATH magic, but they're only really good at the DEATH part...while Clerics are adept at the LIFE part. There's a ton of negative energy spells for Wizards, but anything involving healing either uses negative energy to drain from another life source and transfer it, or sacrifice arcane power, etc. In other words, arcane-users have to take the backdoor.
Which does point out one key difference between the divine and arcane casters --- Arcane users take a "backdoor" approach, divine casters are "welcomed into the home", so to speak, because a divine power or entity are the ones that open those "pathways", so to speak.
Bards can cure via arcane magic because much of their arcane magic stems not just from knowledge of the arcane, but using a different source an method --- their passion and soul. It's almost divine, in a sense. Limited, of course, because of the lack of a divine source. A source not involving the formulae and mental acrobatics a Wizard has to perform.
Now this poses an interesting question --- Sorcerers. Natural born arcane magic. Why are they limited to Wizard spells only? Shouldn't they be able to cast spells from any arcane spell list, technically? With the lack of a divine source, of course, they still couldn't naturally perform things the clerics could.
Another question, divine/arcane are interchangeable. As in, using Spellcraft skill, a Cleric can identify a fireball spell and a Wizard can identify a bless spell, despite the fact neither can cast the opposing spells. How is this possible? When a Cleric verbalizes the spell component, how does it sound? It can't be just a prayer. It'd have to be the universal language used to control and release the magic. Would a Cleric and a Wizard be reciting the same verbal components to a resistance or dispel magic spell sound the same? (minus the use of metamagic, which is a whole other story)
I think the two speak the same magical language, actually. I doubt a Wizard studies thousands of clerical prayers in his arcane studies just so he can identify a cleric casting a recitation spell or a glyph of warding in effect.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 23:20:15
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
But it's all about flavour!
Magic missiles that look little little screaming skulls or glowing red daggers, icky black gooey fireballs, a smoky cloud of disintegration mist that engulfs the target ... continual light (or darkness) with tailored colours and intensities, eye-candy silvery glow while healing, a purple wave of dispel magic ... I'll admit spectacular blasting/defense spells are easiest to alter cosmetically.
D&D canon (at least in some novels) has long taken liberties with cosmetic changes to divine magic; priests of Tempus like glowing red, Mystrans like glowing blue, Banites like glowing black, Lathandrones just like everything that glows at all, etc.
Magic sword example:
You could have a longsword +3. Or you could have a longsword +2 which, when drawn, covers the wielder with a numinous column of radiant sunlight from the skies and a disembodied trumpeting angelic chorus. I would prefer the latter. Well, at least if I wasn't on a stealth mission.
I'll agree with all that. And in terms of flavor, it's all good.
But feats aren't something that characters have to spare. And if I have to pay for a feat, I want something that provides a mechanical benefit of some sort -- even if that benefit is offset by a penalty somewhere else, or if the benefit is only usable outside of combat. If it's a choice between altering the appearance of something or having a better chance of hitting, I'm going for the latter. I'd love to have both, but if it's one or the other, flavor loses. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 22:43:07
And if the effect is purely cosmetic? The only mechanical effect (aside from making a handy reading light) is largely in the reactions of NPCs? |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 22:32:18
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
Magic sword example:
You could have a longsword +3. Or you could have a longsword +2 which, when drawn, covers the wielder with a numinous column of radiant sunlight from the skies and a disembodied trumpeting angelic chorus. I would prefer the latter. Well, at least if I wasn't on a stealth mission.
I would counter that the latter sword would likely have *some* mechanical effect going on for its shiny effect... |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 22:27:00
But it's all about flavour!
Magic missiles that look little little screaming skulls or glowing red daggers, icky black gooey fireballs, a smoky cloud of disintegration mist that engulfs the target ... continual light (or darkness) with tailored colours and intensities, eye-candy silvery glow while healing, a purple wave of dispel magic ... I'll admit spectacular blasting/defense spells are easiest to alter cosmetically.
D&D canon (at least in some novels) has long taken liberties with cosmetic changes to divine magic; priests of Tempus like glowing red, Mystrans like glowing blue, Banites like glowing black, Lathandrones just like everything that glows at all, etc.
Magic sword example:
You could have a longsword +3. Or you could have a longsword +2 which, when drawn, covers the wielder with a numinous column of radiant sunlight from the skies and a disembodied trumpeting angelic chorus. I would prefer the latter. Well, at least if I wasn't on a stealth mission. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 22:08:01
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
And how do you feel about Feat options that aren't always mechanically optimal, but do serve a flavor purpose as much as a mechanical purpose?
I like them from a flavor standpoint, but if I was playing a spellslinger in 3E, I'm not sure I'd want to use a feat just to add flavor. I'm all about flavor and concept, but I've rarely had a character that had enough feats/proficiencies available that I was comfortable trading utility for style. I'm not a min/maxer, but I do want something mechanical out of my feats -- even if it's only a +1 that is balanced out by a -1 somewhere else. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 21:49:11
I wasn't aware of this feat - where is it? I've used the Sense Shifting spell and minor illusions to accomplish the same thing. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 21:36:36
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I've always ran the mechanics first, then described the action that happened...
I do to. My example skipped over the player's option to identify the spell as it's being cast, but even if you identify it as a Fireball spell (or as in my campaign where I don't bother tasking players with trying to ID a low-level spell they've cast—or seen cast by others— numerous times before), once the DM is done rolling damage dice and you explain what's going on, players can still be confused in a scenario like the one I described above.
[edit] Forgot to ask what you (Diffan) and others would have done with the Feat to make it better?
And how do you feel about Feat options that aren't always mechanically optimal, but do serve a flavor purpose as much as a mechanical purpose? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 21:03:52
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
[hehee, wall of text follows]
Counterspelling in my 3.5 Realms game came up often. We had two wizards and two clerics in the party and I liked running spellcasting NPCs.
I've never actually seen anyone do it in my 10 years, lol. They eithr don't have the spell prepared (or known) to counter or they don't want to waste Dispel Magic on it OR they don't want to ready an action to possibly counter a spell. But to each their own .
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
As for Spell Thematics, I think the feat was a good addition from the standpoint of offering the maximum number of options for players to choose from.
That said I wouldn’t have selected the feat for any of the NPCs I ran. Not sure if I’d take it as a player running a Wizard or Sorcerer. Probably not unless I really had an extra feat with nothing to spend it on or some sort of precise character concept.
This is the biggest problem with the feat. It doesn't offer much in the way of anything except some mild flavor and a mechanic benefit that could possibly turn up in a handful of encounters. Had they made the feat more useful, or versatile, or something with more mechanical weight, I'd be a good choice. But as it stands, there are better feats out there.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
When it comes to spell themes, I think cleric spells should automatically be themed and always described thematically by the DM, whether a PC or NPC doing the casting. The type of theme should fit the deity in question: a feeling like standing in the sun and letting its radiance warm your skin whenever the cleric of Lathander casts Bless on the party, for example, but not much more than that.
Likewise if you play a Wizard or Sorcerer and pick up a PrC (Red Wizard or whatever) with a definite theme, you should have the option of adding minimal changes to your spell effects to reflect your class choices and class themes.
Absent a PrC or feat choice, I don't think a low or mid-level wizard should automatically be able to add themes to their spell castings. Their castings should work "as advertised" (i.e. as found in the spell's description).
Left unrestrained, a player could add a theme where its effect is no different than layering an illusion on top of the original spell (not saying this is what you're after, Diffan; I'm just using it as an extreme example). That's too much because it can confuse players when the DM describes a spell’s effect.
For example:
DM: "You see the wizard go through the motions of casting a Fireball spell. When it explodes in the midst of your party the flames are a roiling green. After, there's an acrid stench in the air and black, cackling skulls shoot out of the flames."
Player 1: "It's green and acrid so it's probably some kind of energy admixture with acid. I have resistance to acid up. I take no damage right?"
Player 2: "No, black skulls and an acrid stench. Hrm...might be some negative energy or possibly something demonic to it. Some of the spell's energy is probably Negative Energy and I’m immune to that so I don't take that damage, right?"
Player 3: “Can I use Knowledge: Planes to see which lower plane that spell drew energy from?”
DM: "No (to all of you). It's just a highly decorated fireball...."
During play in a 3E game, most players analyze events that are out of the norm in order to try and translate that to game mechanics (which isn't metagaming by the way, it's just smart game play) because the 3E rules were designed with that activity in mind.
Some mystery and uncertainty is good. But if PCs and NPCs can really switch up the sensory characteristics of a spell's effect for free (i.e., without having some mechanical basis for the ability to do such switching) then that removes the mechanics correlation inherent in the 3E game and takes away part of the game's fun.
It leads to the kind of uncertainty that convinces players it’s better not to involve themselves too much in the game because there are too many exceptions to what the players know.
All IMO of course.
I've always ran the mechanics first, then described the action that happened, so I don't run into that problem much. And if your players are confused by how the spell's effects look, a simple (free action) Knowledge (arcana) or Knowledge (religion) check [DC = 10 + Spell level] should be able to identify the spell no problem. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 19:18:36
[hehee, wall of text follows]
Counterspelling in my 3.5 Realms game came up often. We had two wizards and two clerics in the party and I liked running spellcasting NPCs.
As for Spell Thematics, I think the feat was a good addition from the standpoint of offering the maximum number of options for players to choose from.
That said I wouldn’t have selected the feat for any of the NPCs I ran. Not sure if I’d take it as a player running a Wizard or Sorcerer. Probably not unless I really had an extra feat with nothing to spend it on or some sort of precise character concept.
When it comes to spell themes, I think cleric spells should automatically be themed and always described thematically by the DM, whether a PC or NPC doing the casting. The type of theme should fit the deity in question: a feeling like standing in the sun and letting its radiance warm your skin whenever the cleric of Lathander casts Bless on the party, for example, but not much more than that.
Likewise if you play a Wizard or Sorcerer and pick up a PrC (Red Wizard or whatever) with a definite theme, you should have the option of adding minimal changes to your spell effects to reflect your class choices and class themes.
Absent a PrC or feat choice, I don't think a low or mid-level wizard should automatically be able to add themes to their spell castings. Their castings should work "as advertised" (i.e. as found in the spell's description).
Left unrestrained, a player could add a theme where its effect is no different than layering an illusion on top of the original spell (not saying this is what you're after, Diffan; I'm just using it as an extreme example). That's too much because it can confuse players when the DM describes a spell’s effect.
For example:
DM: "You see the wizard go through the motions of casting a Fireball spell. When it explodes in the midst of your party the flames are a roiling green. After, there's an acrid stench in the air and black, cackling skulls shoot out of the flames."
Player 1: "It's green and acrid so it's probably some kind of energy admixture with acid. I have resistance to acid up. I take no damage right?"
Player 2: "No, black skulls and an acrid stench. Hrm...might be some negative energy or possibly something demonic to it. Some of the spell's energy is probably Negative Energy and I’m immune to that so I don't take that damage, right?"
Player 3: “Can I use Knowledge: Planes to see which lower plane that spell drew energy from?”
DM: "No (to all of you). It's just a highly decorated fireball...."
During play in a 3E game, most players analyze events that are out of the norm in order to try and translate that to game mechanics (which isn't metagaming by the way, it's just smart game play) because the 3E rules were designed with that activity in mind.
Some mystery and uncertainty is good. But if PCs and NPCs can really switch up the sensory characteristics of a spell's effect for free (i.e., without having some mechanical basis for the ability to do such switching) then that removes the mechanics correlation inherent in the 3E game and takes away part of the game's fun.
It leads to the kind of uncertainty that convinces players it’s better not to involve themselves too much in the game because there are too many exceptions to what the players know.
All IMO of course. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 18:32:40
Yea, it was called Spell Thematics. There was a mechanical benefit that made it harder for other spellcasters to counter the spell because it looked different. Which, is just plain ol' silly since not very many people actually use those Counter-spell rules. I don't really feel changing the flavor of a certain spell should require a feat IMO. |
|
|
