| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| prototype00 |
Posted - 11 Nov 2017 : 06:08:31
So Xanathar’s Guide to everything is out, and the Hexblade is making waves, so I thought I’d poll the august experts here as to their feelings of reflavouring the Hexblade as a Moonblade heir?
The fluff lends itself well, these are semi-sentient/sentient armaments that bestow on their weilder a wide range of powers.
Would it be a good fit?
|
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 29 Feb 2020 : 18:04:33
Explorer Markustay,
It never seems to get avoided forever, does it? haha
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Yes, you get burned to death if you are not 'worthy' (racially 'pure').
I never liked elves......
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Feb 2018 : 02:44:15
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Barastir
Actually, Mrs. Elaine Cunningham, which created the moonblades, said more than once that Arilyn's sword was an exception, as it was the blade acceptance of her, a half-elf. In part, it happened because the blade was dismantled to preserve Evermeet's security (this is in the novel Elfshadow, the one in which the blades appeared for the first time, along with some Mrs. Cunningham's statements here in the Keep).
Yup. My headcanon, however, is that this happened in part due to intervention of Hanali Celanil. This situation was a result of the deed guaranteed to offend her, and the other involved parties were in for a little, but very memorable slap in return. And then Arilyn claimed the moonblade right before a statue of Hanali - a place likely to receive some divine attention as dedicated to her (even if not truly consecrated).
Method, motive, opportunity. 
While that theory doesn't quite work for me -- I can't find anything to say against it. Good stuff.  |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 15 Feb 2018 : 23:36:56
quote:
Originally posted by Barastir
Actually, Mrs. Elaine Cunningham, which created the moonblades, said more than once that Arilyn's sword was an exception, as it was the blade acceptance of her, a half-elf. In part, it happened because the blade was dismantled to preserve Evermeet's security (this is in the novel Elfshadow, the one in which the blades appeared for the first time, along with some Mrs. Cunningham's statements here in the Keep).
Yup. My headcanon, however, is that this happened in part due to intervention of Hanali Celanil. This situation was a result of the deed guaranteed to offend her, and the other involved parties were in for a little, but very memorable slap in return. And then Arilyn claimed the moonblade right before a statue of Hanali - a place likely to receive some divine attention as dedicated to her (even if not truly consecrated).
Method, motive, opportunity. |
| Barastir |
Posted - 15 Feb 2018 : 10:29:43
quote:
Originally posted by Starshade
(...), and therefore attribute the elven hexblade being able to use moonblades to him, eventually to the crafting of the "hex moonblade".
I actually didn't understand this phrase, "able to use to him"... But well, moonblades were created in a specific time, and with a specific purpose (the selection of a clan to rule Evermeet). Hexblades could have powers which would make them similar to moonblades, but they would be not moonblades per se.
Please tell me if I got it wrong. |
| Barastir |
Posted - 15 Feb 2018 : 10:21:46
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
Given that a half-elf was able to use one, and in fact was the first prominent person we ever see using one IIRC, I don't think it's really based on racial purity (...)
That these families were all moon elves is because the moon elves themselves created the moon blades (...)
Also, for what it's worth, rules for moonblades are provided in the D&D 5E Dungeon Master's Guide.
Actually, Mrs. Elaine Cunningham, which created the moonblades, said more than once that Arilyn's sword was an exception, as it was the blade acceptance of her, a half-elf. In part, it happened because the blade was dismantled to preserve Evermeet's security (this is in the novel Elfshadow, the one in which the blades appeared for the first time, along with some Mrs. Cunningham's statements here in the Keep).
Not only moon elf families created moonblades. Many sun elf clans had moonblades, but none survived the claiming ceremony. Why? This is something widely discussed, either in Faerûn and in our forum.
Moonblades have been described in rules since 2e, but in fact they don't translate well the novel's swords. Sometimes the translation of novels to rules sourcebooks is hard, if not impossible. Anyway, both version exist, the ones in your Realms will depend on the version you choose.
Moonblades were extensively discussed in many threads here in the Keep, and you can find more info on them after a proper search. You can also send me a PM, if you have interest in this matter (I do, and read a lot about it since I joined the Keep). |
| Balmar Foghaven |
Posted - 15 Feb 2018 : 07:49:12
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Its just that when I flip through the pages of these splat books (all editions), and see very similar spells (which no-one is ever actually going to use, since the basic spells is all anyone needs), or a bunch of very similar PrCs (we had three - I think - different PrCs that used 'circle magic' - why not just have them all be 'Circle Casters'?) But the worst thing was the never-ending monster manuals. Some people love them, but do we really need 50 different types of 'skeleton monster' with its own write-up? We had TWO different pterodactyl-people in FR in 2e! (one with wings and one without, IIRC).
Yes! Thank you, you took the words right out of my mouth. When I say I prefer 5e over 3.x, some of my players (some of whom are even related) stare at me in shock. But it was quite literally hundreds of sourcebooks of the same old thing, but with a twist. |
| Scots Dragon |
Posted - 13 Feb 2018 : 16:58:47
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Yes, you get burned to death if you are not 'worthy' (racially 'pure').
I never liked elves......
Given that a half-elf was able to use one, and in fact was the first prominent person we ever see using one IIRC, I don't think it's really based on racial purity; it's based on direct inheritance.
A moonblade can only be wielded by someone descended from a specific family. That these families were all moon elves is because the moon elves themselves created the moon blades.
Also, for what it's worth, rules for moonblades are provided in the D&D 5E Dungeon Master's Guide. |
| Starshade |
Posted - 14 Dec 2017 : 12:16:00
My first thought was to make Erevan Ilesere the patron of elven Hexblades, and therefore attribute the elven hexblade being able to use moonblades to him, eventually to the crafting of the "hex moonblade". |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 22 Nov 2017 : 08:56:03
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But the worst thing was the never-ending monster manuals. Some people love them, but do we really need 50 different types of 'skeleton monster' with its own write-up? We had TWO different pterodactyl-people in FR in 2e! (one with wings and one without, IIRC).
That's a complaint I've often had... Quoting from myself, referring to the fact that every single monster book includes dragons and undead:
I never minded the new monsters, what I hated was that they continuously reprint with tiny variations old material and called it new. Version after version after version had the same monsters with slight changes served up for us - zero creativity. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 14 Nov 2017 : 13:35:46
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'm all about that slurpee breath weapon. 
Yeah, totally on the same page with you - 'Blazing Bones' - He's like skeleton... with blazing bones!
Just NO.
And some of those monsters in the SJ books... a living meteor? Please explain to me just how many times are you going to use THAT on your players? Orcs and goblinoids have always been the 'best bang for the buck' - one page entry, 56 billion usages and counting.
Lol, I was intrigued with the vampyre ... no not the one from ravenloft that was a living humanoid who drank blood or whatever.... I'm talking about the undead being that accidentally set things on fire. I only ever saw it in use in the first undermountain, but I loved the idea of an artist who liked to paint and sketch, who was plagued by the fact that he could no longer pick up a brush, pencil, or touch a canvas. You know, that guy who was known for "painting with light", whose patrayals were always so bright and vibrant... and now can't go out in the sunlight. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 14 Nov 2017 : 07:14:36
I'm all about that slurpee breath weapon.
Yeah, totally on the same page with you - 'Blazing Bones' - He's like skeleton... with blazing bones!
Just NO.
And some of those monsters in the SJ books... a living meteor? Please explain to me just how many times are you going to use THAT on your players? Orcs and goblinoids have always been the 'best bang for the buck' - one page entry, 56 billion usages and counting. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 13 Nov 2017 : 22:11:19
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But the worst thing was the never-ending monster manuals. Some people love them, but do we really need 50 different types of 'skeleton monster' with its own write-up? We had TWO different pterodactyl-people in FR in 2e! (one with wings and one without, IIRC).
That's a complaint I've often had... Quoting from myself, referring to the fact that every single monster book includes dragons and undead:
quote:
Okay, so we've got the main bunch of metallics, and the main bunch of chromatics. I'm fine with that.
The gem dragons are okay, though it's obvious they were created for no more purpose than having neutral dragons.
Aside from those, I don't see a need for too many other breeds. A couple oddballs, like steel dragons, song dragons, or fang dragons, are fine, but that's it.
Instead, we've had lesser metallics, lesser gemstones, lesser chromatics, and a host of goofy dragon types created simply to have more dragons.
I realize that the name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons, but in my opinion, the main breeds of chromatic and metallic fill most of our draconic needs. We don't need all those niche dragons -- the true dragons overlap most of those niches.
It's the same with undead. We have all the classic ones, but then there are ones that have identical creation methods to others and yet are dramatically different, and then there are the really weird ones, like my theoretical green howling yodeler -- "a green howling yodeler is created when a heartbroken half-elven male name Frehd falls off a mountain while yodeling, lands in a pool of green Jell-O, and then freezes to death while a trio of dire penguins laugh at his struggles to get out".
Yeah, that's over the top, but I've seen some official undead that have really unlikely origins, to the point of being near-ridiculous.
I'd rather have something wholly new, rather than "bizarrely formed undead #43,612" or "highly-specialized niche dragon #309".
Instead of "Pokopo dragons are majestic dragons that evolved on and are only found on the north shore of this one tiny island that's barely bigger than a halfling's bed," how about some highly intelligent amphibious monkey found on temperate shorelines?
Or instead of "ice cube dragons that occupy the same spot as white dragons but look like ice cubes and have a Slurpee breath weapon," how about some critter that burrows in ice, can suck heat out of nearby creatures, and has a natural ability to magically shape ice?
I've got nothing against the creation of more monsters, I just get tired of seeing undead and dragons every time a new monster book comes out. Especially considering that with draconic dominance of the food chain, some of these niche dragons should be quickly killed or driven off by true dragons.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 13 Nov 2017 : 19:30:10
Its just that when I flip through the pages of these splat books (all editions), and see very similar spells (which no-one is ever actually going to use, since the basic spells is all anyone needs), or a bunch of very similar PrCs (we had three - I think - different PrCs that used 'circle magic' - why not just have them all be 'Circle Casters'?) But the worst thing was the never-ending monster manuals. Some people love them, but do we really need 50 different types of 'skeleton monster' with its own write-up? We had TWO different pterodactyl-people in FR in 2e! (one with wings and one without, IIRC).
This is why I am completely in favor of what the OP is attempting here - take the crunchy bits and reflavor them. Maybe even a substitution or two for powers/abilities.
I had the same idea years ago for 'special beasts' - combining familiars, Druid/ranger 'pets', and Paladin's mounts under one, single set of (companion) rules, and using that to build a more folklore-based Witch class. While I totally get combining too much stuff washes-out the 'flavor' entirely (*cough* 4e *cough*), there has to be some sort of happy middle ground. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 13 Nov 2017 : 17:34:35
For some people it's scary to think outside the box. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Nov 2017 : 22:14:18
I think Prototype just means to strip the mechanics out and apply new fluff, is all.
I'm a big fan of 'less is more'. Or, in other words, rather than have thirty five thousand similar PrCs (as it was in 3e), just create generic ones (mechanically), and re-flavor them as needed.
I recall having similar thoughts about monsters way back when, when a new MM was being discussed on the Paizo boards. I suggested just adding templates to base creatures (they were creating a lot of variant skeletons, zombies, and 'ghosts', from what I could see), rather than create entirely new MM entries for each and every flavor.
I got attacked for it. I stopped going to the Paizo boards after that. Seems some people LOVE spending money on the same thing over and over again. You know that meme with Frye (Futurama) yelling, "Take my Money!!!" Yeah, thats the Pathfinder people.
Although I've heard the 'rabid fanboism' has died down somewhat in recent years - they even had a flop or two, from what I heard (I wouldn't know, I've come home to FR and here I'll stay).
Of course, if we make ever flavor of character class just that (a 'flavor'), and every monster another template glued onto an existing beastie, they wouldn't sell very many splats, now would they? Although I think thats the way 5e is going, which I am very happy to see. Adventures over unnecessary splats. Warms my ancient, cold heart (I am a type of 'gamer undead' - that which has no life). |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 12 Nov 2017 : 03:06:00
I only mean the stated powers of moonblades (once you were accepted by it) were not, for the most part, all that dark (aside from perhaps, the shadow). The hexblade is all about the power of curses and hexes and the like. As written it is tied to the Shadowfell and 4E's Raven Queen, all of which is pretty dark stuff. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Nov 2017 : 02:40:37
Yes, you get burned to death if you are not 'worthy' (racially 'pure').
I never liked elves...... |
| prototype00 |
Posted - 12 Nov 2017 : 01:21:59
Quite a bit darker than the blades of maiming and spontaneous combustion (if you aren’t “The Chosen One”)?
Whew! That’s real dark then! ;) |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 11 Nov 2017 : 13:20:22
It's quite a bit darker than moonblades IMO, but as you say, reflavouring could work. Go for it. |
|
|
