| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
 Posted - 29 May 2009 : 00:46:34
|
There's one thing about the 'in game' transition in the Realms from 3E to 4E that has been bugging me from the very beginning that I just can't get my head around. I did ask Rich Baker about it on the WotC Boards but the response I got didn't really answer my question, so here goes ...
What happened to all the 3E, pre-Spellplague magic items?
What I'm asking is: what is the in-game rationale for magic item changes from 3E to 4E?
The 3E Realms had a host of unique and difficult to translate into 4E terms magic items as well as very simple items like 'old' potions of healing. As there was no 'in game' reason for the change from 2E to 3E, they were 'always like that' when that edition change occurred. For things like spells and magic items, I thought this was the neatest and best approach. 4E, with the Spellpague as the 'in game' explanation, is obviously a little bit different.
So simply, is the 4E brief that 3E magic items have to be 'translated' into 4E rules terms (i.e. they were 'always like that' or haven't changed and this is how you 'play' them ...) or is the Spellplague used as the universal explanation for the change in game stats? If the latter, I expected to read somewhere in the FRCG or FRPG that when the blue fire swept across Toril, magic items of all descriptions were altered, made inert, or changed totally ... but there was northing like that there.
Of course, this raises an even bigger question/problem: what is the deal now with things like mythals, wardmists, and 3E spells that had been 'hanging' from the time before the Spellplague (from the simplest 'magic mouth' to the the most complex 'spell trigger')?
Given that I plan to hopefully write a few 4E FR magic item articles, I'd be interested to read what people think. If I was to do the next installment of the "Soargar's Legacy" articles on magic swords (that obviously pre-existed the Spellplague), would I need to state that the Spellplague changed some of them and left others unscathed or just go along on the basis they were 'always like that' and just give them 4E rules stats.
Further, if I was to re-write some older edition magic items up in 4E format would I try and get them as close to what they were just using 4E terms or change them into 4E terms and use the Spellplague as an explanation for why they aren't exactly the same.
Thanks to all for your thoughts.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2009 : 03:04:17
|
I saw your question, and the response, and several similar bewtween fans and various 'official types', and the answer is always hazy, at best.
What it boils down to is this - its whatever YOU decide happened.
This is why I am constantly telling people the entire concept of 'canon' in 4e is gone. The are purposely leaving everything vague, by design, so that the DM can "fill in the blanks". |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
 |
|
|
Draezen
Acolyte
25 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2009 : 09:50:44
|
I personally wouldn't just say magic items were always like that, since, even in comparison to spells, which were dependent on the Weave so they actually had a good reason to work somewhat differently now, the mechanical changes of magic items, or the way a magic item works now, from 3e to 4e are (1) bigger than other (mechanical) changes from 3e to 4e (e.g. spells) and (2) are bigger than other edition changes so far.
A discussion over at ENWorld made me think about it. Just take Gauntlets of Ogre Power. They once gave you a permanent bonus, while now they give you only a bonus you can use once per day/encounter. And that's the point here. Most magic items in 4e only allow you to do something extraordinary only a few times a day; they seldom allow you to gain a permanent advantage.
For that reason, I'd link this change in how magic items can be used now in some way to the Spellplague. Sounds rather vague, I know, though more plausible than just assuming they always worked in this way and you obviously did something wrong. |
Realms 4e NPC Characters / Realms 4e Cosmology, Deities, & More
Participate in your own manipulation! |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2009 : 18:16:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
There's one thing about the 'in game' transition in the Realms from 3E to 4E that has been bugging me from the very beginning that I just can't get my head around. I did ask Rich Baker about it on the WotC Boards but the response I got didn't really answer my question, so here goes ...
What happened to all the 3E, pre-Spellplague magic items?
What I'm asking is: what is the in-game rationale for magic item changes from 3E to 4E?
The 3E Realms had a host of unique and difficult to translate into 4E terms magic items as well as very simple items like 'old' potions of healing. As there was no 'in game' reason for the change from 2E to 3E, they were 'always like that' when that edition change occurred. For things like spells and magic items, I thought this was the neatest and best approach. 4E, with the Spellpague as the 'in game' explanation, is obviously a little bit different.
So simply, is the 4E brief that 3E magic items have to be 'translated' into 4E rules terms (i.e. they were 'always like that' or haven't changed and this is how you 'play' them ...) or is the Spellplague used as the universal explanation for the change in game stats? If the latter, I expected to read somewhere in the FRCG or FRPG that when the blue fire swept across Toril, magic items of all descriptions were altered, made inert, or changed totally ... but there was northing like that there.
Of course, this raises an even bigger question/problem: what is the deal now with things like mythals, wardmists, and 3E spells that had been 'hanging' from the time before the Spellplague (from the simplest 'magic mouth' to the the most complex 'spell trigger')?
Given that I plan to hopefully write a few 4E FR magic item articles, I'd be interested to read what people think. If I was to do the next installment of the "Soargar's Legacy" articles on magic swords (that obviously pre-existed the Spellplague), would I need to state that the Spellplague changed some of them and left others unscathed or just go along on the basis they were 'always like that' and just give them 4E rules stats.
Further, if I was to re-write some older edition magic items up in 4E format would I try and get them as close to what they were just using 4E terms or change them into 4E terms and use the Spellplague as an explanation for why they aren't exactly the same.
Thanks to all for your thoughts.
-- George Krashos
I think a responce from Rich Baker over on WotC boards tackles this hairy topic. (It's even an answer to your question, Krash :P)
He essentially says the magic used to create a magic item stores the required weave essence into a magic item that is more or less stable after its creation. A longsword +1 still acts as such in the post spellplague area. But as soon as your blade has triggered effects the spellplague likely has blown it to pieces or altered it to some chaotic new form. A charged item such as a wand or a triggered item such as a flametongue sword would not work post spellplague.
quote:
Hi, George!
There's an explanation on page 50 of the FRCG, under "Effect on Magic Items and Spells." Basically, permanent items from before the Spellplague survived it, and charged items from before the Spellplague didn't.
Regarding specific items -- say, a 3rd. Ed. character's +3 shocking holy greatsword -- there really isn't a direct conversion process. All you can do is peruse the magic item lists in the PH or the Adventurer's Vault, and choose the most similar item to represent that old item. Maybe that weapon becomes a +3 lightning greatsword instead. You can say "it always was that way," which isn't crazy, since the change in the rules might simply allow you to better portray what was the essential truth of that item before. Or you can say that the Spellplague physically changed the operation of the item to conform to the new rules of magic, so that the item itself was X before the Spellplague and Y after it.
Finally, if there's an item you're really missing from before, I think a DM's within his rights to build a new version of it, using the 4e chassis. All rings are built to the same basic structure, for example; as long as your "new version" of the old ring fits that chassis, you won't have any problems.
I agree the realms has a bevvy of magic items that are not easily captured mechanicly but require more of a freeform adjucation to their powers. I love most of those though. Which item is giving you the most questions at the moment? |
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
|
|
|
Kyrene
Senior Scribe
South Africa
757 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jun 2009 : 09:41:20
|
George,
I'd go with the "it was changed/mutated by the Spellplague" option myself. A +3 lightning greatsword is no longer the same as a +3 shocking holy greatsword of old. There is more than enough of the "it was always so" (eg. high elf = eldarin) nonsense around, we don't need (canonized) more of it. |
Lost for words? Find them in the Glossary of Phrases, Sayings & Words of the Realms
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jun 2009 : 18:55:28
|
I think there's a slight distinction to be drawn between how items function mechanically (i.e., at the table) and how they function narrativistically (i.e., in the novels).
3e and 4e are much farther apart mechanically than 2e and 3e were: it seems the whole concept of encounter/daily powers and effects was that, well, in your 3.5 games, you were only really using this once an encounter/day, so we'll make it that way directly.
It's similar with items: the concept was, you only used your lightning bolt wand once in a combat anyway in 3.5, so in 4e its lightning bolt is an encounter-use power. (Though you would more rarely use it more frequently, and there are ways you can do that in 4e.) In this way, you're more showing off your special item ability cinematically ("ha ha! this power I have been saving for just the right moment!"), rather than it just being part of your repertoire ("oh, do I cast a lightning bolt or just use another charge from the wand? guess I'll use the charges"). So in a sense it makes the item "more unique."*
* Not saying that's a good or bad way to do it--only that it seems to have been done that way. (And the phrase more unique makes no sense--something is either unique or it isn't.)
This hearkens back to my original point: when you're writing people using magic items, you can highlight their uses (i.e., make them dramatic moments) the way the game intends. Also, you don't have to list the mechanics in the margins--tell readers he's holding a holy avenger sword, and there he is. (Guess that's an advantage to writing, rather than designing.)
As for rebuilding, I am rather of the "it works pretty much like it used to" frame of mind.** I think it's better to rebuild items to equivalence rather than try for a straight interpretation of the original rules. Sure, they technically function differently, but as long as the spirit is the same, then the function is more or less consistent between 3e and 4e. (And of course there are lots of exceptions that just won't work the same, which is unfortunate--I for one have always loved seeing the breadth of magic items that could be articulated under previous mechanical systems.)
I don't think I'm explaining my point very well . . . if I had an example (devoid of actual game statistics, so just talking in general), that would probably help.
Take a cloak of resistance: before, it gave you bonuses to resist damage (i.e., saving throws); now, it does that, but also lets you use it to shield yourself from one attack in particular. Cinematically, that's an excellent moment, when you wrap yourself in the protection of the cloak, which in 3.5 only would have come out if you made a pivotal save and your DM chose to describe it that way.
Cheers
**Another example of this from 3.5 would be looking at novel character writeups and seeing how they interpreted the items. Like Drizzt's swords, for instance, which were clearly specific weapons in 1e but have a 3.0 equivalent. Same sort of deal, as things float across editions. |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 01 Jun 2009 18:57:09 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
4E, magic items, the Spellplague and more
