| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 20:47:50
|
Just gonna jump in here quickly, and I'm not saying this to kiss butt in any way. Lord knows that I certainly am outspoken, often extremely judgy of FR material, and there are definitely Realms novels (not authors, but novels) that I truly despise. But in no way would I consider Ed's novels bad. On the contrary, Ed is one of the authors that I'll still buy sight-unseen and I've never been disappointed in the stories or the writing style.
I do think there are some significant issues in trying to translate or use novel material into the game (as I've stated in this thread earlier), but I think that's just as true with other FR authors as much as Ed.
I'll say it again in perhaps a different way: sometimes, what works brilliantly for novels, for cliffhangers or epic battles, or even just the presence of beyond-epic and utterly cryptic NPCs, isn't always good for the game side of things. And there isn't an easy answer or fix, not at all. Or at least, none of the things I've ever seen suggested (e.g., just ignore it, or deal with it) aren't good answers for everyone.
(Plus, if Ed's even partly responsible for evolving the D&D Vancian system into what it is in 5E, a hearty and SERIOUS thank you to him for that. Spells just getting wiped from a wizard's memory never sat well with me, even in original AD&D. What we had in 4E was better, what we have in 5E is still better than that. IMO.)
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 15 Jan 2015 20:57:10 |
 |
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 21:04:05
|
It's your perfect right to stand by your statements, Paul, but that doesn't make them true.
Ed has written, co-written, or contributed to more than 280 books under his own name over the years (so, not counting ghostwriting), and has had over 260 editors.
His Realms novels, including collaborations, number 22 published as I write this, and have had ten editors that I can think of, re-running through them all more carefully now, in my head. And that 22 includes three trilogies, so three editors editing a trio of books each. That's NOT the opposite of a high turnover. Nor does it mean Ed's difficult to work with; it's just the way publishing works, with staff turnover and the publisher assigning editor workloads, not writers getting to choose their editors.
As for both versions of Spellfire: the first one was cut by two-thirds from its original, not with Ed's involvement. The second "expanded" one was rewritten and cut by an editor after final acceptance to shorten it by more than 20,000 words to fit a new "standard" length for the publisher at the time. Literally every sentence got rewritten - - shortened - - not be Ed. He's a pro and said nothing publicly about it, but I saw the final MS (legitimately) and what got published, so I know. Most hints, inferences, qualifiers, and small details hit the cutting room floor.
Facts, Paul, facts.
I'm not saying you have to like Ed's writing or praise it. I'm saying you make incorrect and unsupported assumptions that you then post about him and his writing.
Ed's writing, as published, DOES indicate a strong attachment to the Vancian magic system as expressed in D&D - - and also features characters, especially ancient ones of other cultures, that employ different magic systems (arcane and divine magics are the most popular and widespread methods of accessing natural forces, but by no means the only ones). You seem to be unable to distinguish, when reading.
I will grant that Ed doesn't "stop and plainly explain" in his fiction writing. He regards that as a mistake in style, especially when there's game writing about the same setting in which everything must and should be clearly explained.
On the other hand, I and Ed (both of us are editors, and have been publishers, too) will accept your respect of editors. The writer who goes unedited is a fool. (Almost as big a fool as the editor who wants to write a book his or her way, rather than the writer's way. But that's another topic.)
I get that Ed's writing isn't your cup of tea. Wooly and others would agree with you. But most of them don't, here at the Keep, extend their preferences into categorical judgments of what Ed does and doesn't do, or does and doesn't think.
Ed and I both happen to remember Jack Vance (and for that matter, Roger Zelazny and Hal Clement and quite a few other fantasy and sf greats we talked with or knew as friends, over the years) fondly. I resent it when someone so blatantly mischaracterizes Ed's like or dislike of Vance's magic system. Even when that someone is you, a longtime user of the Realms.
We're all entitled to our own likes and dislikes, our own opinions, and our own preferences. So I usually keep quiet when rude and hurtful or just misinformed (like Austin's comment about Ed wanting a character to have all the Archmage abilities; he didn't know the character was older than the game, not just the character class) comments are made here at the Keep.
However, as the years pass and I get more crotchety, I tend to be less patient when someone spreads misinformation about Ed, particularly if I think they know better or they repeatedly do it and stick to their guns when countered.
So be warned. I'll keep countering you and anyone else who spreads untruths about my friends.
If you don't see what you're doing as that, let's talk.
love,
THO
|
Edited by - The Hooded One on 15 Jan 2015 21:11:30 |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6688 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 21:14:52
|
Why read D&D fiction through the oily lens of the Players Handbook unless you're searching for an opportunity to either show off your supposed superior knowledge of 'the game' or to look for elements to incorporate in 'the game'. If the latter, Ed's novels are brilliant for showcasing ideas on magic that DMs can try to 'stat out' and adapt for their campaign. If the former, well I guess having a life in this hobby focused on arguing and one-upmanship is some form of existence. A wasted one in my view, but the cheap seats have always been there.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36968 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 21:41:24
|
In all of the fiction published by TSR and WotC, I've rarely noted anything that struck me as Vancian magic. This is not to say that it wasn't; instead, it's generally been handled in such a way that I don't notice game-driven elements.
Yes, the characters have abilities broadly dictated by their classes and usually stick with that, but some characters go outside their apparent class abilities. And that doesn't bother me, as long as it's logical and fits the plot.
I don't read novels looking for game elements. I read novels to enjoy the story. And if plot/characterization winds up trumping the current rule set, that's fine, so long as everything remains consistent. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Malcolm
Learned Scribe
242 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 21:54:33
|
Bravo, George Krashos! VERY well said.
(And everybody, remind me never, ever to get into a serious dispute with our lovely Lady Hooded. She shames like a grandmother/awesome teacher. Whew! GMWestermeyer, consider yourself TOLD.  |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 23:23:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Facts, Paul, facts.
Opinions, THO, you keep mistaking opinion, for fact. And you defense of Ed's writing seems to focus on things others cannot confirm or deny, having no access to it.
I'm strictly speaking of his FR novels, and the editors he has had there.
Everything wrong with something Ed wrote was 'imposed' on him by the 'editors' but ed himself is 'too gentlemanly' to say who did what when? <head shake>
Look, I judge the man's writing by his published works, the works with his name on them. And here, just the works he has published concerning FR. If he didn't want his work to be judged by those works, he should NOT have taken the checks and let them used his name. That is how it works.
I like Ed, I love Ed's game books. I love many of his short stories ( he can maintain focus in short fiction far better then in novels). I repeat, his Volo's books are IMO the best RPG books yet produced in the industry, period. Hard to get higher praise then that, IMO.
He writes novels poorly. for the reasons mentioned above.
And please, OTHER FR writers had the same editors yet NOT the same problems Ed's books have.
Stop blaming the editors. His name, his work.
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 23:39:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Why read D&D fiction through the oily lens of the Players Handbook unless you're searching for an opportunity to either show off your supposed superior knowledge of 'the game' or to look for elements to incorporate in 'the game'. If the latter, Ed's novels are brilliant for showcasing ideas on magic that DMs can try to 'stat out' and adapt for their campaign. If the former, well I guess having a life in this hobby focused on arguing and one-upmanship is some form of existence. A wasted one in my view, but the cheap seats have always been there.
-- George Krashos
I get what your saying but I want to play in the world of Forgotten Realms. Which to me also include the novels. So I dont want to "just" include the gaming material, because as have been poited out, it lacks a lot of information about some of the most important movers of power and politics in the world. For me, it would be nice, that it was basically the same world (forget different game editions right now). Therefore when I read a novel sat in pre-plague I want to be able to trust that and use that in my game. Im not sure thats so easy though.
As I have said, I'm not a great reader, and I think that the story should take precedence, but some adaptation should happen between novel and game and back again. This is so not to have two parralel world but to have one. |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 00:17:12
|
| I'm frankly sick of this thread and think we've reached the end of it. Who has a handy seal scroll spell? |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 00:26:18
|
I agree. When a poster accuses me of confusing my opinions with facts, at the same time as he's advancing HIS opinions as irreproachable facts, it's pointless to go on. A closed mind can't be reasoned with.
(Sigh.)
love,
THO |
Edited by - The Hooded One on 16 Jan 2015 00:32:30 |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 01:42:55
|
I think we could all benefit from one of Alustriel's famous pool parties, with those floating glowglobes that know instinctively when to go dark.
Bring your best mask and naught else. Just after moonrise. Don't be late or you might miss the oiled massages.
Those hot cheesy crab puffs last time were a triumph.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 16 Jan 2015 01:45:01 |
|
|
|
Austin the Archmage
Seeker
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 01:51:54
|
Damn it Eltheron, when are you going to learn that not every problem in life can be solved with an orgy? 
|
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 01:57:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
Damn it Eltheron, when are you going to learn that not every problem in life can be solved with an orgy?
The scientific data suggest otherwise.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
A Publishing Lackey
Seeker
74 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 02:24:42
|
Although I applaud the lighthearted injection (and suspect the lovely THO would be only too willing to participate in an orgy), I would like to underscore something of lasting worth and interest that THO mentioned in her er, battle with Professor Westermeyer:
The role Ed's fiction has played, from the very beginning, as a deliberate, editorially-sanctioned vehicle for introducing new spells, magic items, monsters, magic systems, NPCs others could develop, and interesting uses of monsters.
I happen to know that THO isn't just making this up. Back in the late 1980s, I worked for TSR's main distributor to the book trade (different from the hobby trade), and attended Book Expo America (it may still have been called ABA back then; I attended them for decades, and lost track of when it changed its name). The TSR booth staff always thought they had to educate book trade reps, explaining the game and so forth - - and I received the five-minute potted lecture on "This guy created the Realms, and every novel of his we sell introduces new stuff the hardcore gamers want and devour, so you should order and stock lots of copies!"
So to anyone (Westermeyer and others) who may think poorly of Realms fiction authors for not following game rules (a pointless criticism if there ever was one, but that's just MY opinion, so I'm sure it will be swept aside as such by certain posters) in their novels, there's proof positive that it was TSR's (and, obviously, Ed's) intention from the outset that the novels support the game line by introducing new details usable in D&D. And I seem to recall Ed lamenting, years ago here at Candlekeep, about not being able to get "table magic" (another system of magic) properly into a story, so that would be one magic system that didn't make it. The magic displayed in Elminster In Myth Drannor was deliberately different from "modern human magic" and so was some of the stuff in Temptation and in El in Hell, and that's just off the top of my head.
So that's something for us all to bear in mind as we read and re-read Ed's books. Which are good fun, though I'll grant he isn't the greatest writer in the world. He IS a great storyteller, if you see the distinction.
Just my two coppers. |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 05:33:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
I agree. When a poster accuses me of confusing my opinions with facts, at the same time as he's advancing HIS opinions as irreproachable facts, it's pointless to go on. A closed mind can't be reasoned with.
(Sigh.)
love,
THO
I could be mistaken, but while I have defended my statements firmly, I do not recall naming my opinions as facts. I am quite aware of the difference. |
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
BenN
Senior Scribe
Japan
382 Posts |
|
|
MaskedOne
Acolyte
42 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 06:58:32
|
The extent to which I care about novels following rules is that
1) they pay enough lip service to them that I'm not asking if the novel is set in the same universe that I have rules for. FR authors generally aren't bad enough for me to lose my temper with this.
2) If I see something really cool in a novel then I want some way within the rules to mimic it. I can actually do this with a lot of the stunts pulled by Ed's high level characters and I can pull it off in either 2E or 3.5. 5E hasn't got enough material yet for me to pull something like El's mantles together or go island disintegrating but I have hope.
The still present exceptions are
1) I want to see a spell shear in print. I have a personal distaste for anti-magic. I always want printed counters to it.
2) The Chosen have been known to pull off some feats as a side effect of being Chosen that I can't remember ways to mimic off hand but that may change. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6688 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 09:57:07
|
I asked Ed to put something about 'spell shear' in his Spin a Yarn tale at GENCON, so stay tuned for that story.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Broken Helm
Learned Scribe
USA
108 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 15:24:40
|
Okay, please help my addled brain: what is a spell shear, and where have spell shears been mentioned?
Obviously they're not detailed enough, from what's just been posted, but I want to know what I'm hungering for, if you get my meaning.  |
|
|
|
MaskedOne
Acolyte
42 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 16:24:10
|
| Spell shears show up in Elminster in Myth Drannor, a wizard attempts to kill off the creator of the mythal before the casting by tossing a massive anti-magic shell over his estate and sending a drow raiding party. He is later informed that if he'd done his research better then he'd know that "No anti-magic, no matter how empowered can prevail against a spell shear." |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 16:58:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by MaskedOne
Spell shears show up in Elminster in Myth Drannor, a wizard attempts to kill off the creator of the mythal before the casting by tossing a massive anti-magic shell over his estate and sending a drow raiding party. He is later informed that if he'd done his research better then he'd know that "No anti-magic, no matter how empowered can prevail against a spell shear."
Wow... I did not understand that at all.. So a spell shear is a bunch of drows? Or an antimagic shell or... Sorry but I'm completely lost he he  |
|
|
|
MaskedOne
Acolyte
42 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 17:19:12
|
| His would be victim countered the anti-magic shell with a spell shear and escaped (or butchered, we don't really know) the drow but spell shears have never been displayed in detail. I want to see how one works. |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 18:16:00
|
A spell shear was a spell or something Mythanthor used to counter the anti-magic field dropped on his home when one of the Starym attempted to have him murdered.
I'd like to know more about Mythanthor and his works too. |
Edited by - Eilserus on 16 Jan 2015 18:17:45 |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 21:28:14
|
My impression of the spell shear, which is just my take, is that it is a method to directly tap raw magic in order to shatter any magic spell. An anti-magic field spell is a spell that uses the Weave as a kind of suppression overlay, but it itself is still formed of magic and uses the Weave. The raw magic of of a spell shear isn't a spell so much as it is focusing a leak of that raw magic to "shred" of spells that use the Weave. That would be my personal take, which may or may not be correct.
I don't think Mystra would be happy seeing people use it a lot, probably because if excessively used it could damage the Weave itself. It would also be potentially deadly for a caster to use, as it would be like trying to hold and point burning plasma in your hands. Again, just a theoretical guess.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 16 Jan 2015 21:31:03 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3823 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2015 : 22:51:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
My impression of the spell shear, which is just my take, is that it is a method to directly tap raw magic in order to shatter any magic spell. An anti-magic field spell is a spell that uses the Weave as a kind of suppression overlay, but it itself is still formed of magic and uses the Weave. The raw magic of of a spell shear isn't a spell so much as it is focusing a leak of that raw magic to "shred" of spells that use the Weave. That would be my personal take, which may or may not be correct.
I don't think Mystra would be happy seeing people use it a lot, probably because if excessively used it could damage the Weave itself. It would also be potentially deadly for a caster to use, as it would be like trying to hold and point burning plasma in your hands. Again, just a theoretical guess.
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
I don't quite get what a spell shear actually is, but if it does what you say (''shredding'' all Weave-powered spells), to me it seems like some kind of Mage's Disjunction spell that also has high efficiency against AMFs.
If it only works against anti magic, then I'd say that a spell shear can make the Weave flow anywhere, even through zones that keep it out. In this case, I don't think that Mystra would mind them. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 16 Jan 2015 22:53:05 |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2015 : 05:21:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
My impression of the spell shear, which is just my take, is that it is a method to directly tap raw magic in order to shatter any magic spell. An anti-magic field spell is a spell that uses the Weave as a kind of suppression overlay, but it itself is still formed of magic and uses the Weave. The raw magic of of a spell shear isn't a spell so much as it is focusing a leak of that raw magic to "shred" of spells that use the Weave. That would be my personal take, which may or may not be correct.
I don't think Mystra would be happy seeing people use it a lot, probably because if excessively used it could damage the Weave itself. It would also be potentially deadly for a caster to use, as it would be like trying to hold and point burning plasma in your hands. Again, just a theoretical guess.
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
I don't quite get what a spell shear actually is, but if it does what you say (''shredding'' all Weave-powered spells), to me it seems like some kind of Mage's Disjunction spell that also has high efficiency against AMFs.
If it only works against anti magic, then I'd say that a spell shear can make the Weave flow anywhere, even through zones that keep it out. In this case, I don't think that Mystra would mind them.
It's possible that AMFs might be turning off the Weave in a localized area, but personally I don't think that's what's happening.
Just thinking through this (again, just my speculation), an AMF has the word "field" in it. To me, that says active interference. Active suppression, which requires the Weave. Think about electronic jamming, radio signal jamming, perhaps.
We also have evidence of ripped or torn areas of the Weave which result in dead magic zones. That isn't quite the same as an AMF but it might functionally look the same.
The way AMFs work, I think, they use the Weave itself to create an area of temporary jamming or interference. Spell power that is blocked by an AMF isn't redirected around the AMF, it's like it's being absorbed into the Weave through the AMF or being diffused.
In contrast, a spell shear sounds destructive, it's literally tearing or shredding magic. And one way to do that would be by overloading it or burning it with raw magic.
With a disjunction, it's also destructive, but it's in a field/radius and on this "side" rather than within the Weave. For a disjunction, I think the mage is breaking all of the Weave's connections to magical items in that field. Literally snapping them. This would be like an immediate but temporary electromagnetic pulse. It's enough to permanently damage the electrics in the devices (within a field), but it doesn't destroy electricity - nor is the Weave itself harmed by a disjunction because the "EMP" is generated by the Weave.
Personal theory of the Weave:
It's almost like the raw magic infusing Faerun's crystal sphere is like burning plasma. Perhaps the source of all magic is closer to Faerun than many other settings and is flooding over it. For people living in Faerun, it's like they're in a world flooded with gasoline and attempts to use raw magic directly would be like striking a match for every spell. So the Weave is required.
OR, that raw magic has to be dispersed through gates and various channels. During the post=Spellplague years, the walls between realities were so thinned, that raw magic first flooded Faerun and then started pouring into spillways leading to other planes and other realms. That's why raw magic didn't utterly destroy the Realms with the Weave in tatters - but it wasn't a situation that could last forever either. As the worlds started moving apart again, as those spillways were backing up and portals, gates and thin walls started reactivating, that raw magic started building up again and could've washed over Faerun again.
But by restoring Mystra and the Weave, raw magic is lessened in its direct danger.
So if my musings are at all close to being right, a spell shear is like pulling threads of the Weave aside to let some of that raw magic wash over and destroy or shred the organizing matrix of a spell. And an AMF actually uses the Weave actively to create a suppression effect or an interference effect. So a spell shear will destroy even an AMF. And because it's raw magic, it could potentially damage the Weave because you're "twisting" it against the Weave's primary purpose. If that makes sense at all.
Just theorizing, though.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 17 Jan 2015 05:46:19 |
|
|
|
Austin the Archmage
Seeker
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2015 : 15:02:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
The 3.0 campaign guide says that antimagic fields rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around the area instead of through it. So you're right. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2015 : 15:54:17
|
| Realms magic is inconsistent with D&D magic to the extent that it's a superset of it. As well as introducing many new spells and details of spellcasting, Ed's fiction is our main source -- albeit a sprawling one -- for how that magic works. His stories repay close study for anyone interested in understanding it. |
Edited by - Faraer on 17 Jan 2015 16:05:02 |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2015 : 18:42:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
The 3.0 campaign guide says that antimagic fields rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around the area instead of through it. So you're right.
Hmm, in the 3E FR Campaign Guide? I can't find that. What page?
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2015 : 23:54:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
The 3.0 campaign guide says that antimagic fields rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around the area instead of through it. So you're right.
Hmm, in the 3E FR Campaign Guide? I can't find that. What page?
If the weave is not present its a simple dead magic zone. Antimagic is something that "jams" all magical things... even supernatural abilites which functions in deadmagic zones. If the FRCG says so, its wrong. IMO! |
|
|
|
Austin the Archmage
Seeker
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2015 : 01:03:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I've always imagined Anti Magic Fields as the result of a caster's somehow keeping the Weave from out flowing through a small zone, creating a sort of temporary discontinuity by holding the Weave on its borders.
The 3.0 campaign guide says that antimagic fields rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around the area instead of through it. So you're right.
Hmm, in the 3E FR Campaign Guide? I can't find that. What page?
Page 54, under "The Weave", a couple of paragraphs above the section for "Wild Magic". |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Realms authors who follow the rule books
