| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lemernis |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 03:22:41
The version 3.0 PHB it states the following regarding sorcerers:
"Some sorcerers claim that the blood of dragons courses through their veins. It may even be true--it is common knowledge that certain powerful dragons can take humanoid form and even have humanoid lovers, and it's difficult to prove that a given sorcerer does not have a dragon ancestor. Sorcerers even often have striking good looks, usually with a touch of the exotic that hints at an unusual heritage. Still, the claim that sorcerers are partially draconic is either an unsubstantiated boast on the part of certain sorcerers or envious gossip on the part of those who lack the sorcerer's gift."
Yet the Book of Exalted Deeds, the Draconomicon, and Races of the Dragon, all allude a sorcerer's power coming from the ancestry or patronage of a powerful creature.
Which sources may be considered definitive here?
In mythology, shamans do often have connections to powerful beings, but that is not a matter of ancestry, it's more of a spiritual totemic relationship. Anyway, that's how I tend to think of sorcerers in D&D--bascially as akin to shamans. I.e., as having an innate ability to spontaneously harness supernatural energies. But is that accurate? And is an ancestry from a dragon requisite to be a sorcerer in D&D?
|
| 28 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 11 Jun 2006 : 17:12:37
quote:
originally posted by Wooly Rubert
Well, see, my thing is that I see prolonged magical contact as changing a creature (particularly one in development, like a fetus), but I don't see it having as profound an effect as to make for a sorcerous baby. I mean, if that was all it took, then any high-level lady wizard would be popping out baby sorcerers left and right.
I Think you misunderstand me a little bit. I agree that the result usually would be a wild talent, but in some cases I think the effect on the fetus could be strong enough to create a sorcerer. Think about it, if the chance of a child of a mother effected by magic to have a wild talent is, maybe 1%, I see 1 or 2% of these as being potential sorcerers. This doesn't make the chances very big.
As I think the magical effect could have a damaging and potentially fatal effect on the fetus I don't think many people would speculate in this.
My point isn't that all sorcerers are the result of contact with magic during pregnancy, I only see it as one of many potential reasons for natural talents. Of these I would think bloodlines are the most common, but not the only one. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jun 2006 : 16:43:44
Well, see, my thing is that I see prolonged magical contact as changing a creature (particularly one in development, like a fetus), but I don't see it having as profound an effect as to make for a sorcerous baby. I mean, if that was all it took, then any high-level lady wizard would be popping out baby sorcerers left and right.
Developing around a lot of magic could certain provide an affinity for magic use, and maybe even the innate talent idea, but I think it's not enough to make a sorcerer.
I do like the idea of an infant sorcerer occasionally manifesting a cantrip, and the parents trying to figure out what was going on.  |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 11 Jun 2006 : 15:55:10
 . Well, where did these oh so romantically inclined creatures come from? Don't say other horny dragons!
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rubert.
I dunno... For the pregnant woman near magic explanation, I'd be more inclined to favor one of the innate talents described in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical (formerly a suppressed work , now available for free from the Wizards downloads page). For some reason, that makes more sense to me than the kid having an innate talent for magic.
I agree, but what if the contact with magic was intense or long lasting? I can see a pregnant woman for some reason affected by magic over a length of time having a chance of giving birth to a child with inborn magical abilities, usually wild talent, but in some cases the effect is stronger and the child could be a sorcerer. this would of course be rare, but I would not think it impossible.
The question of early manifestations of abilities is interesting. Maybe the first signs of a sorcerer child is unexplained magical manifestations around it? |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 11 Jun 2006 : 13:15:15
>>For example how did some creatures become magical creatures in the first place? With some >>many creatures with innate abilities, were did it start?
Horny Dragons?
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jun 2006 : 07:03:37
I dunno... For the pregnant woman near magic explanation, I'd be more inclined to favor one of the innate talents described in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical (formerly a suppressed work , now available for free from the Wizards downloads page). For some reason, that makes more sense to me than the kid having an innate talent for magic.
However... A thought occurs to me. Would a fetus that had strong sorcerous abilities be able to -- purely by instinct -- pop off a cantrip or two? Would a baby? |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 10 Jun 2006 : 21:06:12
In a world so heavily influenced by magic as the realms I would think there were several possible ways that the magic of sorcerers could get in the system so to speak. The bloodline of dragons, demons, fey and other creatures I see as logical, but I would also think that it could stem from a taint by nearby magic. A pregnant woman in contact with strong magic, a family living over an old netherese ruin, or members of a family with strong wizardly traditions; couldn't all of these theoretical result in a child being born with sorcerous abilities
2ed. spoke several times of innate abilities that could manifest themselves in a person and I think Ed has mentioned that unique magical abilities can be found in people without other magical knowledge and abilities. Could not the sorcerers be the strongest of these naturally gifted and therefore more be in a way "children of magic" in lack of a better term?
I am only guessing and thinking out loud here, but could it be that the weave in it self manifests in both things and creatures in some greater plan or by random chance. For example how did some creatures become magical creatures in the first place? With some many creatures with innate abilities, were did it start?
I am curious as to your thoughts about this. Am I totally on the wrong track when it comes to canon? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Jun 2006 : 20:19:15
The more I think about it, the more I'm liking the idea of fae-descended sorcerers... I may have to think on this one further, and reference the Faeries sourcebook (non-WotC, but it is D20, and friend Steven Schend worked on it). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 10 Jun 2006 : 03:31:00
A favored one of mine is the "My Daddy's Daddy's Daddy was a god-king of Mulhorand". I mean not every one of their children becomes the next god-king of deity X, but I'm betting the "runts" still possess some unusual natures. Of course, "Daddy" had to flee Mulhorand for reason Z and married himself off to some non-Mulan woman who offered him succor and safety... and thus the sorceror was born. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 04 Jun 2006 : 01:10:09
Murray, without giving anything away about your book, I have to grin every time I think of what the Shephards shepherd . . .
I wouldn't be too harsh in judging the guys at Dragon for publishing bloodline feats for sorcerers, or get too hung up on the idea that WOTC has run with the dragon bloodline thing. All you have to keep in mind is that it is ONE of many ways that someone might have ended up with sorcerous powers. If you don't want your sorcerer or your player's sorcerers to have a specific bloodline, I don't think its that big a deal. Personally, I think it was a pretty imaginative idea to come up with those bloodlines and feats associated with them.
On the other hand, I can think of a few other ways that someone might end up being a sorcerer. Here goes:
1. I know it was already mentioned, but obviously Mystra could just grant someone the ability to use the Art.
2. Again, already mentioned, but having a great wizard in one's family would also be a way to become a sorcerer. If you had a chosen or a Elven High Mage or a Magister in your family tree, its possible that magic is just that much a part of you.
3. Elves are suppose to be almost a part of the Weave. If this is the case, if they are never trained as wizards, picking up levels as a sorcerer should be possible (I know ROTAW made it seem pretty rare among elves that they become sorcerers, but I prefer to think that Galaeron's teacher just had it in for sorcerers and that colored his opinions of Galaeron's abilities).
4. Again, mentioned earlier in the thread, but exposure to something like Faezress could easily account for sorcerous abilities.
5. Exposure to magical artifacts of knowledge. For example, any artifact that has something to do with imparting magical abilities might leave behind the ability to use magic "naturally" after its no longer used, and may even affect the next generation of the possessor children.
6. We know that Ed has said its dangerous for female spellcasters to use magic while pregnant. Perhaps one of the better outcomes of this might be a child that automatically learns how to use magic without any training. Kinda reminds me of Alia in Dune, but nevermind that . . .
7. The character might have been possesed at some time or another and retained some ability to work magic.
There are tons of cool ideas for where a sorcerer might come from, but I don't think, as with most things in the Realms, we should say that ALL of them come from this or that NONE of them come from that, since its a pretty big world. |
| Murray Leeder |
Posted - 31 May 2006 : 16:13:00
You're right about sorcerers coming from diverse backgrounds in novels. But I'm sure some of you have read Son of Thunder, and recall what the Shepherds tell Kellin Lyme about her heritage... |
| NiTessine |
Posted - 31 May 2006 : 08:18:58
Yah, sorcerers come from a wide variety of backgrounds and heritages. We've got sorcerous heritage feats for dragon (Complete Arcane), celestial (Player's Handbook II), and infernal (Player's Handbook II), at least, so those are in.
Then we've got at least two new sorcerers in the novels, Tzigone of the Counselors and Kings Trilogy, and Jack Ravenwild of City of Ravens. I am given to understand Tzigone's powers manifested merely because she came from a long line of wizards. Jack's sorcerous abilities came from the influence of the wild mythal under Raven's Bluff.
In a place as big as the Realms, there's a thousand ways for an individual to manifest spontaneous magical ability and a thousand ways for it to manifest. Weak spellfire, faerzress radiation, weird stuff in the family tree, fell into a magic cauldron when he was little, touched by the fey, blessed by a god of magic, born in a wild magic zone... sorcerers, warlocks, favoured souls...
What we have is a few defined and confirmed ways for a sorcerer to get his powers, and a whole lot more left to the imagination. I don't think there is a definitive answer, nor do I think there should be one. I think it's open-ended. There's always something new to be discovered, a different way for natural spellslingers to occur. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 31 May 2006 : 06:02:17
To add to this, consider this portion from Eric -
"The Rage of Sorcerers
The Realms is periodically beset by a Rage (or Flight) of Dragons during which powerful chromatic wyrms emerge lemming-like from their lairs to attack settlements across the Realms. The last such flight occurred in 1356 DR. The most famous flight occurred in 1018 DR, the Year of the Dracorage. Normally such a Rage of Dragons is associated with the return of the Kingslayer Star (see www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/2566/stars.htm, Evermeet: A Novel, and the old gray AD&D1 FR boxed set), but the last to beset the Realms may have been magically induced by the Cult of the Dragon (although a likely explanation is that the Dragon Cult took opportunistic credit for a natural event). To date, astrologers have not deciphered any pattern to the return of the Kingslayer Star (also known as the King-Killer star), nor are they able to predict its arrival or duration. (Note that "return," "arrival," and "duration" are somewhat poetic descriptions of periods when the Kingslayer Star grows noticeably brighter in the sky.)
In the Realms, some sorcerers--particularly humans, elves, and kobolds--have a trace of chromatic dragon blood in them from which they draw their eldritch powers. As a result, some percentage of sorcerers succumb to the "call" of a Rage of Dragons, each time such an event occurs. Of those who succumb to the urge to lash out, most get involved in magical battles against overwhelming odds and are slain.
Curiously, children with a trace of chromatic draconic heritage born under the Kingslayer Star seem significantly more likely to discover their latent sorcerous abilities later in life than those born at other periods of time, a result of their draconic blood briefly burning hot under under the Kingslayer's baleful glare. As a result, the number of sorcerers of such ancestry briefly waxes in the decades immediately following a Rage of Dragons and then slowly wanes until the next such Flight. (Of course, the emergence of many chromatic dragons from a decades-long sleep at the same time also leads to a boom in the birth of half-dragons of chromatic ancestry descended from the survivors.)
For those interested in multi-edition continuity for the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, the Rage of Sorcerers partially explains both the small number of sorcerers in established (pre-3e) Realmslore (their population is periodically sharply reduced and their numbers fall during long intervals between Rages), the fact that all sorcerers are seen as inherently untrustworthy by many "commoners" (the actions of a minority tarnish the reputation of the group, prompting others to masquerade as wizards), and the fact that sorcerers are only just starting to be seen in the Realms again in reasonable numbers, at least among the human realms (1372 - 1356 = 16 years, roughly the starting age of a 1st level human adventurer, so they would have been almost unknown in 1358, time of the 1e FRCS, and 1368, time of 2e FRCS).
Mechanics-wise, when the Kingslayer star "returns", all creatures with a trace or more of chromatic dragon blood in their veins in the Realms must make a Will save vs emotion (rage), DC 25. Unlike the spell, the effects of this rage last some number of days or weeks (i.e. as long as the Kingslayer Star burns brightly in the sky and the Flight of Dragons lasts), almost ensuring that an average sorcerer will find himself or herself enmeshed in one or more battles against overwhelming odds and thus slain during this period.
From a game balance/fairness perspective, this suggests that a character who chooses to become a sorcerer should be informed of the risk if they choose to claim draconic ancestry at the time the class is elected. If a sorcerer character has not chosen whether or not his powers derive from a trace of draconic ancestry, the DM and player should work that out together before the Rage of Dragons is unleashed in the campaign.
Eric L Boyd"
|
| scererar |
Posted - 31 May 2006 : 04:45:02
having an innate type ability does not mean you have to be from a draconic bloodline. While 3E may hint at such, I personally do not view this as a neccessity to become a sorcerer. Really, In my opinion a character of this sort does not have to study spells, but gains spell levels a little slower. it all evens out in the end. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 May 2006 : 04:34:59
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
Is a blood lineage to a powerful magical creature of some kind absolutely required, though? I.e., is it possible to be a sorcerer without being descended from a powerful being of some sort? Can the innate power within the sorcerer come from some other source than a bloodline?
I don't believe it's ever been explicitly stated that you can't be a sorcerer without some interesting and powerful critter as an ancestor... However, the "wow, it's in my blood!" angle has been played up heavily, since it's otherwise hard to explain how this one individual class has innate talents and other classes don't. |
| Lemernis |
Posted - 31 May 2006 : 04:30:40
Is a blood lineage to a powerful magical creature of some kind absolutely required, though? I.e., is it possible to be a sorcerer without being descended from a powerful being of some sort? Can the innate power within the sorcerer come from some other source than a bloodline? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 31 May 2006 : 01:32:59
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
While I have no problem with the sorcerers being descended from dragons, I don't see why other highly magical critters can't have sorcerous bloodlines descended from them. If these critters have a lot of innate spellcasting ability, then it only makes sense that it would be passed down to their offspring. After all, if it's in their blood...
I also like that reasoning because it means that not every sorcerer running around is great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson to a dragon. Throwing a demon, solar, fae, whatever into the mix makes for some nice variations.
I'd agree with that.
As well, adding another racial element to the PC's ancestral background provides plenty of potential role-playing aspects for a character, his/her history, and his/her relationship with other areas of the Realmslore that you may have established for your FR.
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 23:23:24
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
So you would all agree that an ancestry to a magical being of some kind is required? Again, the 3.0 PHB makes no such stipulation, and in fact suggests that it is actually a FR myth that sorcerer's power comes from a draconic lineage. Does anyone know what the most recent statement on this is from the source material? Do PHB 3.5 or PHB II shed any further light on the subject?
Not really. The PHBII and Complete Arcane do offer feats that let a sorcerer tap into more power derived from their bloodline, but do not state that all sorcerers must have a supernatural creature in their background --- just those who take the appropriate feats (see the PHBII.) In fact, the PHBII states that although rare, sorcerers may have multiple supernatural creatures in their bloodline, such as celestials and dragons. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 22:51:13
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
So you would all agree that an ancestry to a magical being of some kind is required? Again, the 3.0 PHB makes no such stipulation, and in fact suggests that it is actually a FR myth that sorcerer's power comes from a draconic lineage. Does anyone know what the most recent statement on this is from the source material? Do PHB 3.5 or PHB II shed any further light on the subject?
Well I do not agree, but there again it appears I disagree often these days.
The game design (the rules) say that when one achieves a level they can decide to be any class they want to be including a Barbarian without any training. If there is any canon that requires any magical being blood perhaps 1,000 generations ago, I am not aware of it. Perhaps one of the experts can claim such knowlege.
IMO it should be treated as Myth as there clearly exists already in the game and novels myths that effect RP.
Drow believe they are better then fair Elves.
Fair Elves believe they are better then humans.
Drawves know all orcs and goblins are evil and must be killed on sight, etc.
The rule set for play for most races applies generally and I have seen RP that has resulted in odd combinations.
Of course I have seen oddities in source book and novels as well, that are to be considered law of the realms. |
| Lemernis |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 22:34:50
So you would all agree that an ancestry to a magical being of some kind is required? Again, the 3.0 PHB makes no such stipulation, and in fact suggests that it is actually a FR myth that sorcerer's power comes from a draconic lineage. Does anyone know what the most recent statement on this is from the source material? Do PHB 3.5 or PHB II shed any further light on the subject? |
| Kuje |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 17:42:41
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
While I have no problem with the sorcerers being descended from dragons, I don't see why other highly magical critters can't have sorcerous bloodlines descended from them. If these critters have a lot of innate spellcasting ability, then it only makes sense that it would be passed down to their offspring. After all, if it's in their blood...
I also like that reasoning because it means that not every sorcerer running around is great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson to a dragon. Throwing a demon, solar, fae, whatever into the mix makes for some nice variations.
Exactly. I don't believe it should be restricted to one race. :) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 17:26:47
While I have no problem with the sorcerers being descended from dragons, I don't see why other highly magical critters can't have sorcerous bloodlines descended from them. If these critters have a lot of innate spellcasting ability, then it only makes sense that it would be passed down to their offspring. After all, if it's in their blood...
I also like that reasoning because it means that not every sorcerer running around is great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson to a dragon. Throwing a demon, solar, fae, whatever into the mix makes for some nice variations. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 16:55:17
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Myself, for FR, I'd say sorcerer's get thier blood from dragons, deities, planar blood, etc. Take the Simbul, and yeah, she's a rare example, she probably get's her sorcery from Mystra's blood. But that doesn't mean others can't get that because the Weave is in everything in Toril/Faerun.
My take on sorcerers in my FR is very similar to what Ed outlined in Temptation of Elminster. I've established a possible link between sorcerers and dragon/draconic bloodlines -- which hints at where the sorcerers get their dragonblood from.
In the novel itself, it notes the dragonsblood experiments undertaken by Cordorlar, in the waning days of Netheril.
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 16:41:30
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
Anyway, it does sound to me like in version 3.0 and higher the source of the sorcerer's power does not necessarily have to be literally in the blood, i.e., from an ancestry tracing back to a powerful being. Though in earlier versions in D&D it was tied to bloodline with a dragon. Do I have that right?
We can't comment on what the earlier versions of D&D have to say on sorcerers because they didn't exist as a class until 3e. There was a sorcerer class in Zakhara but that was more of a kit and not a core class. I.E. a prestige class in 3/3.5e.
Myself, for FR, I'd say sorcerer's get thier blood from dragons, deities, planar blood, etc. Take the Simbul, and yeah, she's a rare example, she probably get's her sorcery from Mystra's blood. But that doesn't mean others can't get that because the Weave is in everything in Toril/Faerun. |
| Lemernis |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 11:27:51
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Earth mythology does not apply, FR mythology is subject to change at the will of the current owner (and sometimes failures of continuity editor(s) if any).
Archetypes are basic templates in myth and legend appearing in the human imagination across time and culture. I mean it seems that D&D's sorcerer is derived more from the 'Shaman' archetype than the 'Wizard' archetype (either consciously or unconsiously on the game developers part).
The sorcerer's power is supposed to be coming more from a 'right brain' kind of experience, in contrast with the wizard's more 'left brain' study of arcane knowledge and forumlas. With sorcerers it is a kind of innate energy or mojo that is at work, as in "the Force, Luke, use the Force." That's why sorcerers' need high Cha in D&D.
All magic users in FR, arcane or divine, would presumably be tapping into the FR cosmology's basic supernatural energies to perform magic, i.e., the equivalent of Lucas' "the Force," if you will. Wizards use the intellect to harness and direct it. Sorcerers would have it innately and spontaneously occuring, it's use as a matter of directed will. Clerics gain control of of through faith and a divine connection with a deity. And druids get it not unlike the sorcerer, but through a consciously experienced relationship with Nature, with Nature usually manifesting via a specific deity.
Anyway, it does sound to me like in version 3.0 and higher the source of the sorcerer's power does not necessarily have to be literally in the blood, i.e., from an ancestry tracing back to a powerful being. Though in earlier versions in D&D it was tied to bloodline with a dragon. Do I have that right?
|
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 07:53:26
I think they created the options so that people wouldn't feel bound to the dragon idea for their world. Dragons don't play a huge part in every world, and do not mate with humanoids in every world, thus it would be somewhat constricting to limit sorceress power to draconic lineage. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 03:40:46
Not just a dragon, but generally most 3rd edition and 3.5 lore has built on the idea that sorcerers have some creature with innate magical abilities in their bloodlines. The dragon idea has been the one most often run with, but if you look up some of the bloodline feat articles in Dragon Magazine you will find some more mechanics that support the "powerful natural magic using creature" idea.
Most of these feats are compiled in the Dragon Compendium Volume One (an excellent resource, if you can find it), and they range the gamut from outsiders, aberrations, and, of course, dragons. In the Realms, I would also say that its possible that Mystra and/or Azuth simply "touches" some families or individuals and gives them the ability to use magic untrained (though they still must hone their abilities).
An interesting take on the whole "natural spellcaster" thing is shown in the novel City of Splendors. One of the characters, without giving away too much, is a "sorceress" but has access only to a relatively novel yet (in the grand scheme of things) minor spell. |
| Swordsage |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 03:38:27
A Realms justification for sorcerers having draconic bloodlines can be found in Ed Greenwood's "Temptation of Elminster" novel where the two mage/sages are discussing the Netherese 'dragonsblood experiments'.
The Swordsage
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 30 May 2006 : 03:36:43
Alas here as in other places there is no correct answer. It apears to be cler that not all sorcerers have a dragon blood line. It is also clear the Dragons are sorcerers.
Earth mythology does not apply, FR mythology is subject to change at the will of the current owner (and sometimes failures of continuity editor(s) if any).
Shamans are an interesting concept in game terms, in prior edtions they were clerics with level ans spells limits (because of beinfa sub=race or just game design to pervent TPK?). The priests of 3.X can still call themselves Shamans if the wish, they however need to fit into one of the divine caster classs and that list appears to grow. |
|
|
