| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Andrekan |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 20:06:22
With the return of the Weave, Spell scars no longer work and Arcane Spell casting returns to the old style. Will there be a rush of Arcane users searching for old tomes, spell books, and seeking out the Elves or longer lived races (Dragons?) in hopes to retain their Arcane power. Will academies of magic waver only a short while before discovering the subtle changes to casting or will many close and new ones reopen? Will new powers arise with the techniques of the time before Spellplague? It will effect all of Toril. What are your thoughts? This is a Sundering Topic of course and it is upon the Realms, now. Or should we just sit back and watch it all unfold? Perhaps there are some place or things that will hold important "Canon" lore that will return or should. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 30 Oct 2013 : 16:10:17
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Could you remind me of which character had a spellscar that lit up his/her pre-existing arcane tattoos?
Hi Sage, sorry I missed this question. The character you're asking about is Myrin, who first appears in DOWNSHADOW and becomes a main character in my subsequent SHADOWBANE novels. And the relationship between her tattoos and her spellscar is not strictly clear, but I think it's clear her spellscar doesn't "cause" her tattoos. (Re-)learning a spell causes a new permanent tattoo to appear, casting magic causes her tattoos to light up, as does using her spellscar (which lights them up with blue light). In the most recent book (Eye of Justice) she has a lot of tattoos all over her body.
Cheers |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 28 Oct 2013 : 19:43:14
Or it's all new lore about how mortals cope with magic under less than ideal conditions. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 28 Oct 2013 : 18:13:51
Protagonists from novels could, and everyone else couldn't.
And although I am being a jerk, its actually true. While the rest of the world was struggling with cantrips, Szass Tam was b***ch-slapping gods. He's just cool like that.
The whole thing was 'very random' canonically (which meas they - and supposedly us - could 'pick & chose' what we wanted effected).
'I think' that perhaps Sorcerers were able to adapt to the new way magic worked quicker, so for the first few years they may have had an edge, but after awhile everyone knew how to 'do magic' once again.
Thus rendering every previous piece of lore we had about The Weave and Magic inaccurate. |
| Sluban |
Posted - 28 Oct 2013 : 17:59:16
I don't understand what happened with magic after spellplague. Sorcerers can cast spells but wizards can't or what? |
| Neil Bishop |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 14:32:19
IMC, the Spellplague and all its manifestations - including spellscars - are the wreckage of the Weave. If the Weave returns, it will, in a sense, be built out of this wreckage and that will mean things like most spellscars will disappear and plaguelands will definitely disappear.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik (snip)Spellscars are just a premise for granting random powers to characters. (snip) PCs are already supposed to be inherently special and unique, I prefer ye olde AD&D(1E)-style where one does not gain special abilities until reaching the very highest levels of experience in a class or specialty; (snip)When everybody is Super then nobody is. Thus I disdain such stuff as spellscars. (snip)
Ahhh, disdain. Such a pompous word.
Spellscars do not give out random powers and there is a significant direct (your defences are reduced against plaguechanged creatures) and opportunity (you have to take spellscarred powers - which are generally weaker and less useful - in place of your class powers AND use a feat each time you do so) costs to being spellscarred. Personally, none of my players would do it unless it was specifically for RP purposes.
If you want an example of random powers making folks special, I would point you to your 1E rules and the section on psionics. Now that's random. |
| Andrekan |
Posted - 29 Aug 2013 : 17:58:20
From what I've been reading and observing as far as D&D Next, favor of the Gods (Chosen) is based on characters actions that earn favor as a chosen. Dumathoin may grant a boon such as the character is able to see secret doors/passages/traps and also recognize features that reveal secrets of dwarven lore, that non-chosen of could only learn through skill checks. Tymora might allow a chosen a free action during the character's turn rolled with advantage, this free action can also be granted by the chosen to it's companions. I believe this is loosely applied at this time by the DM if the players are being loyal to the God's role.
It is something being used and I have been using a similar boon for my players since I started our Sundering game six months ago. I as a DM look at many different books for which ever power reflects what I may be planning to represent in our game. There are many great game reference to the Gods: holy days, times of prayer or meditation, and activities of the clergy or paladins. I try to read over 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition book references and decide what I(DM) want to use for my game. I try to keep minor details that are important clues as what god is being represented and what goals should be hinted. This is where the biggest balance is in the mysteries revealed by the God to it's chosen. These are visions/dreams which are only clues the character has to determine what these mean or how to proceed and keep favor by seeking out what they might believe is important to their God. This doesn't mean the character will always get it right, but that is part of the fun of it.
Murder In Baldur's Gate suggests something about this earning favor through deeds. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 29 Aug 2013 : 03:50:00
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Personally, I'm always more interested in the stories of things than their mechanical executions in one or another of the editions of the game. 4e is both helpful and unhelpful in this regard, as spellscars were similar to other types of magic you might have (both active powers and passive feats), which were themselves mechanically similar to any other set of powers.
Agreed.
Plus, as I've long maintained, my rules-set is a hodge-podge of different rules and mechanics from various gaming systems I've collected over the last thirty years. So the 4e rules for spellscars don't really work for me or my campaigns anyway. Which is why I tend to prefer seeing further development of the concept through the lore, because it's entirely more expansive, and can be more ably moulded into my own Realmslore. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 29 Aug 2013 : 01:10:38
I commend everyone for maintaining a refreshingly civil, academic, and well-argued discussion ... normally these scrolls seem to degenerate into locked 4E-bashing flame fests.
Spellscars are just a premise for granting random powers to characters. Every player likes having that special little unpredictable edge in his pocket for rough situations ... I‘ve seen many, many DMs grant their PCs (and most noteworthy NPCs) some sort of unique cheat: psionic wild talents, minor magical talents, spellfire, hellfire, silverfire, “shadowfire“, dragonmarks, cinnabryl powers, “intrinsics“, outsider/deity ancestry, exotic bloodlines, etc etc
To me these sorts of things are a bit of a crutch, they make fine fare as one-of-a-kind gifts for interesting and special novel protagonists (once in a while), but they tend to become dominant freebies for ever-power-hungry PCs who - in my opinion - should work hard with what they‘ve got to get what they want instead of having unneeded mutant superpowers. PCs are already supposed to be inherently special and unique, I prefer ye olde AD&D(1E)-style where one does not gain special abilities until reaching the very highest levels of experience in a class or specialty; powers like the quivering palm or Hands of Myrkul are much more feared (and potent because of that fear) when there‘s literally only one Grand Master monk or a mere handful of priests who can access them.
When everybody is Super then nobody is. Thus I disdain such stuff as spellscars.
Of course, spellscars are/were already asserted in canon. I feel that simply retconning them out would do more damage than progressively easing them into the background until only a few scribes might recall arguing about them. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 19:09:54
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Most of my comparisons of dragonmarks and spellscars have been from a mechanical standpoint. The causes for them are different, and the end results are different, but I think the rules for them are quite compatible.
One could certainly make that argument, it's true. Personally, I'm always more interested in the stories of things than their mechanical executions in one or another of the editions of the game. 4e is both helpful and unhelpful in this regard, as spellscars were similar to other types of magic you might have (both active powers and passive feats), which were themselves mechanically similar to any other set of powers.
We shall see how DnD-Next does spellscars, if it even addresses the issue at all.
Cheers
Oh, I quite agree on that one. But most of the few times I've discussed spellscars, it's been when someone wanted to do something similar in 3.x/Pathfinder. I don't really have anything to say on the 4E application of them. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 17:33:50
Thanks for the kind words, RW. I'm glad you are pleased despite an element you're not entirely sold on. And you're right: the spellscars I use are not an afterthought but exist for a purpose. SB:EOJ started to make that more clear, and forthcoming novels will develop the concept further. (One hopes!)
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Thinking of how spellscars manifest in my novels, one isn't visual at all, one lights up a character's pre-existing arcane tattoos, and one takes the form of blue fire when activated. None of them are anything like a dragonmark.
This shows that I need to reread your books, Erik. 
Could you remind me of which character had a spellscar that lit up his/her pre-existing arcane tattoos?
That would be my amnesiac wizard Myrin, whose spellscar is closely tied to her magical abilities. She "remembers" spells she cast once upon a time, and each causes a gleaming black tattoo to appear somewhere on her skin. When she uses her spellscar (which at least thus far largely serves to absorb magic or memories), those tattoos start glowing bright blue.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Most of my comparisons of dragonmarks and spellscars have been from a mechanical standpoint. The causes for them are different, and the end results are different, but I think the rules for them are quite compatible.
One could certainly make that argument, it's true. Personally, I'm always more interested in the stories of things than their mechanical executions in one or another of the editions of the game. 4e is both helpful and unhelpful in this regard, as spellscars were similar to other types of magic you might have (both active powers and passive feats), which were themselves mechanically similar to any other set of powers.
We shall see how DnD-Next does spellscars, if it even addresses the issue at all.
Cheers |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 17:16:03
Most of my comparisons of dragonmarks and spellscars have been from a mechanical standpoint. The causes for them are different, and the end results are different, but I think the rules for them are quite compatible. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 16:54:41
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I have a plan for the spellscars in my novels, no worries.
Good.
I know a lot of folk decry the spellscars, but I really feel like, had they been further developed in 4e, we would have eventually seen some creative stuff as designers took the concept and made them work as worthwhile expansions of the original 1e wild talents. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 16:54:33
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I wasn't replying to anyone directly, Sage, and certainly not you.
Not to worry then. 
quote:
Thinking of how spellscars manifest in my novels, one isn't visual at all, one lights up a character's pre-existing arcane tattoos, and one takes the form of blue fire when activated. None of them are anything like a dragonmark.
This shows that I need to reread your books, Erik.
Could you remind me of which character had a spellscar that lit up his/her pre-existing arcane tattoos? |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 16:53:14
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I have a plan for the spellscars in my novels, no worries. I'm sorry they don't work better for you.
Cheers
Don.t be sorry. But I do greatly appreciate that you care....about every reader.....every single one. And it does matter to you what they think and feel. And you aren't using them as a crutch to prop up a poor story (not that anyone else is either!) or turn one into a Mary Sue and make things easier for them. And more importantly you didnt just graft them on all your characters for the kewl factor. Seems they fit your characters arcs and serve a purpose. And since you are playing(writing) a long game.....I'm sure you have a twist for them all that we cant see coming, and likey another twist after that.
Hmmm...now that I reflect on your novels I am feeling a fine sense of balance for your characters. You give almost nothing without taking something away. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 15:43:08
I have a plan for the spellscars in my novels, no worries. I'm sorry they don't work better for you.
Cheers |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 14:14:03
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I wasn't replying to anyone directly, Sage, and certainly not you.
I think given a thousand years or so, spellscars could settle and evolve into something like dragonmarks. That's be an interesting discussion.
Thinking of how spellscars manifest in my novels, one isn't visual at all, one lights up a character's pre-existing arcane tattoos, and one takes the form of blue fire when activated. None of them are anything like a dragonmark.
Cheers
And they are by far my least favorite things in your novels. I dont like Spellscars in any way, shape or form. But if the writing is good and the characters strong like yours, I can overlook them. I just do not want them to define who someone is.....they should be an enhancement(positive or negative) to a character....not all that they are. Ideally I'd like to see them all gone, never to return, but who am I to dump on everyone who enjoys them? I sincerley do hope they at least recede to where they are very rare and we are not seeing them in most every novel and never by all main players in a tale. But that's just me and I am only one customer.(even though I have bought multiples of almost every ESDB novel and distributed them to friends on the continents of North and South America, Europe, Asia and Austrailia )
It's a fine line to balnce when there are elements to address that are so polarizing post-spellplague. Here is to hoping the Sundering eases that burden on all our Realms Scribes! |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 08:07:19
I wasn't replying to anyone directly, Sage, and certainly not you.
I think given a thousand years or so, spellscars could settle and evolve into something like dragonmarks. That's be an interesting discussion.
Thinking of how spellscars manifest in my novels, one isn't visual at all, one lights up a character's pre-existing arcane tattoos, and one takes the form of blue fire when activated. None of them are anything like a dragonmark.
Cheers |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 05:35:46
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
You know, I've heard the spellscar vs dragonmarks comparison before, and it just doesn't really wash. They're superficially similar (and then only spellscars that manifest as markings), but no more similar than a warlock's pact vs a sorcerer's power source. Spellscars can be acquired/inflicted and are basically curses--they are hereditary after a fashion but are not predictable in their manifestation. Like a Warlock pact. Dragonmarks are hereditary and provide a useful utility ability to support particular noble houses--they are a fundamental part of culture in the Eberron setting. Like sorcery.
So no, let's not rehash this old discussion. Spellscars are just a freak magic thing, like spellfite, wild talents, etc. They aren't nearly as developed or essential as dragonmarks.
Cheers
Just to be clear, I wasn't actually intending on making the comparison. I was simply noting that it was the course I might follow in my Realms, by further developing spellscars beyond how they currently appear in the 4e rules set.
I agree that the comparison, as both sets are currently in the rules, doesn't quite work. Spellscars are, as I said above, really just rare wild talents at their core. Very much indicative of the original state of wild talents in 1e Realms. Dragonmarks tend to be more fully developed and aren't so usually open to the unexpectedness and random nature we've seen with spellscars in the fiction. [Cordell's examples in his "Abolethic Sovereignty" novels come immediately to mind when considering this.] |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 05:24:47
You know, I've heard the spellscar vs dragonmarks comparison before, and it just doesn't really wash. They're superficially similar (and then only spellscars that manifest as markings), but no more similar than a warlock's pact vs a sorcerer's power source. Spellscars can be acquired/inflicted and are basically curses--they are hereditary after a fashion but are not predictable in their manifestation. Like a Warlock pact. Dragonmarks are hereditary and provide a useful utility ability to support particular noble houses--they are a fundamental part of culture in the Eberron setting. Like sorcery.
So no, let's not rehash this old discussion. Spellscars are just a freak magic thing, like spellfite, wild talents, etc. They aren't nearly as developed or essential as dragonmarks.
Cheers |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 04:03:13
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
If you ask me, Spellscars were an attempt to lure in the Eberron crowd.
Not really.
As Therise mentioned above, curiously spontaneous abilities like those granted by spellscarred can be seen as just a further exploration of those 1e NPCs that could manifest strange "wild talents." The 'Invisible Art,' [or psionics] for example, during 1e, occurred among humans and demihumans mostly as minor and rare wild talents.
I could see the future of the spellscarred in the Realms being reduced to these kinds of rare abilities at some point. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 03:59:34
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I don't see why one has to get rid of spellscars. I think WotC should have spellscars remain, though they might become very, very rare. Some creatures have adapted to them such that their survival depends on their function. And there might be no way (or diminishing ways) to get a new spellscar.
Pretty much.
The effects of the Time of Troubles, wild magic areas, the Tuigan invasion, and other great events all still have their signs of impact upon both the lands and peoples of the Realms. The spellscarred of the Spellplague should not be any different.
Even with the reduced effects of the Spellplague, those touched by the event aren't simply going to disappear over night. And establishing spellscarred lineages [kind of somewhat similar to the Dragonmarked Houses of EBERRON] is something I've been tinkering with in my Realms now for quite some time. These lineages would see spellscarred abilities passed down to offspring -- either in reduced ability or with unexpected results to reflect the genetic uncertainties of conception. |
| ksu_bond |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 01:00:06
With all of the 4e changes, spellscars (while yes very similar to dragonmarks, they did give me a way to introduce dragonmarks into the game) and the spellplague (while I didn't like the extent of the effects, I did incorporate the spellplague as areas where dead magic & wild magic areas had changed/worsened) were ones that I could at least modify and incorporate easily. So I don't think that they need to get rid of them, they are a part of the canon and should remain, leaving it up to the DMs and Authors to use as they see fit. |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 00:01:15
If you ask me, Spellscars were an attempt to lure in the Eberron crowd. |
| Therise |
Posted - 27 Aug 2013 : 19:59:05
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Perhaps off-topic (sorry) ... but did anything similar to spellscars exist prior to post-Mystra 4E lore?
Absolutely, yes. Even in 1E, Greenwood had "wild talents" for certain characters. And as you also mentioned, later in 2E there were wild magic effects, special artifacts and "items of a lost age" that could bestow either limited or permanent powers.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Aug 2013 : 19:27:21
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I don't see why one has to get rid of spellscars. I think WotC should have spellscars remain, though they might become very, very rare. Some creatures have adapted to them such that their survival depends on their function. And there might be no way (or diminishing ways) to get a new spellscar.
I liken it to people sticking with Walkmans even though CD players are coming out.
Cheers
I'm not a fan of spellscars, but I have to agree: I don't see a reason to get rid of them. I'd make them quite rare, but I'd not get rid of them entirely.
The only reason I can see for getting rid of them would be resetting the entire Weave to its pre-ToT status, with no wild or dead magic areas. In that case, I'd still have spellscars on those that had them before, but there wouldn't be new ones after that, unless they became hereditary, like dragonmarks. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 27 Aug 2013 : 18:44:47
I don't see why one has to get rid of spellscars. I think WotC should have spellscars remain, though they might become very, very rare. Some creatures have adapted to them such that their survival depends on their function. And there might be no way (or diminishing ways) to get a new spellscar.
I liken it to people sticking with Walkmans even though CD players are coming out.
Cheers |
| Alenis |
Posted - 27 Aug 2013 : 00:13:02
I concur that the Shadow Weave should go away during this 5E transition; I never found the way it was described to really make much sense to me. All in all, I hope that the Shadow Weave either gets destroyed permanently, or somehow is incorporated into the Weave under the re-constituted Mystras control (which would be a bad day for the Shadow-magic using, Shar-worshipping Netherese). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 16:01:52
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I honestly hope they get rid of the Shadow Weave for 5E. I always thought it was kind of an awkward, bolted-on thing, and the fact that they never could work out all the details really says something about the development of it. Multiple sources contradicted each other, and I believe it was right after the Shadowdale module came out that Rich Baker said that what was in there on the Shadow Weave was incorrect.
I believe it won't come back. Casters will probably continue to work just as they always have and the weave will fuel spells that bring about shadows and the like. Currently there are no Shadow-like spells in the Playtest packet but I'm sure that'll change once they get closer to finalizing the product. |
| Lilianviaten |
Posted - 14 Aug 2013 : 22:27:41
This is why the 100 year time jump was a terrible idea. Realistically, any smart mage is going to consider casting through the Weave to be too risky. Gods have been dying left and right, and if Mystra dies again, they will be left powerless. Mystra's also not going to have the worship she once did. Her worship came from average Realms folk believing she WAS magic; that she was the source of all the miraculous creations of wizards and sorcerers.
If Mystra had come back within a few years, after the Spellplague had ravaged Faerun, she would have had more worshippers. She would have been seen as saving the world from its likely destruction. But now people see that she's not necessary at all. The best way to rally people around her is by killing Shar. Then she'll be a great hero who saved Toril from certain annihilation. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Aug 2013 : 06:25:58
I honestly hope they get rid of the Shadow Weave for 5E. I always thought it was kind of an awkward, bolted-on thing, and the fact that they never could work out all the details really says something about the development of it. Multiple sources contradicted each other, and I believe it was right after the Shadowdale module came out that Rich Baker said that what was in there on the Shadow Weave was incorrect. |
|
|
