| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Mar 2013 : 19:09:45
|
In my travels if heard mention of several strange gemstones, baubles and materials, but I still don't know what they are or do.
Does anyone have a clue what these stones/gems/materials look like? What use do they have (above their monetary value)?
Roguestones
Bloodstones
Moonstones
Sunstones
Starmetal
|
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36789 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2013 : 21:05:03
|
Forgotten Realms Adventures and Volo's Guide to All Things Magical (formerly a supressed work  ) should have all of these things listed.
Roguestones were also detailed in an old issue of Dragon, in the article "Roguestones and Gemjumping". |
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!  |
 |
|
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2013 : 21:34:47
|
| A rough conversion (to 3E) of such items also appears in "Magic of Faerun" for those 3/3.5/PF players out there. It also has a description of the Gem Magic feat and gem magic in general. |
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2013 : 01:04:09
|
| Also described in Forgotten Realms Adventures are mysterious "Kings Tears" aka "Lich's Tears", which I believe Tome of Magic or PO: Spells & Magic suggests using as suitable alternatives for some spells which use stuff like crystal balls or spheres of annihilation as material components. FRA, VGtATM, and the Arcane Age sourcebooks (Netheril, Cormanthyr, and Myth Drannor) also describe Chardalyn stones, Ioun stones, elven "kiira" stones, and a few other types in great detail. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2013 : 01:15:00
|
| Also refer to Volo's guide to all things magical. There is a section about substances and their known magical properties within it. |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11798 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2013 : 12:34:14
|
| its important to note that the magical properties of many such items varied drastically between 2nd editions "VGtatM" and "Magic of Faerun", moreso as pertains to metals. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36789 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2013 : 12:52:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
its important to note that the magical properties of many such items varied drastically between 2nd editions "VGtatM" and "Magic of Faerun", moreso as pertains to metals.
A good point. But for me, Volo's Guide will always be the first thing I refer to. Not only am I going to trust Ed's take on the magic of the Realms before anyone else's, there's also the fact that I don't like how the 3.x ruleset handled magic items. |
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! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2013 : 16:21:30
|
| I am definitely biased towards classic AD&D, most especially the ancient tomes written in the original High Gygaxian tongue spoken by the ancient disco-era D&D progenitors. But, (2E) edition preference aside, I'm with Wooly Bluebeeble in recommending "old" D&D books for richest fluff and flavour and "Realms logic". 3E sorta went far too far overboard on standardization and mass-production of magic, I prefer the old Volo-style uncertainties. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2013 : 18:43:45
|
@Ayrik - I couldn't agree with you more about the superiority of 2E's 'magical mysteries' approach versus the 3/3.5/PF 'cookie cutter' standardization of magic items. Don't get me wrong, those systems are still cool, but having a truly unique and unpredictably powerful item was much easier to achieve in 2E (if only because 3 is kitted out so the PCs can always make most any item themselves if they just have the right levels/feats/materials).
As it turns out, my players and I have been having this very debate of late as we ponder switching our campaign to 2E from PF. In my comparison of the two systems (trying to retrofit the characters) I've found that 3/3.5/PF moved away from 'weird' or overly unique/powerful items in favor of investing magical powers in the character classes themselves with their host of 'extraordinary' and 'supernatural' powers for all. That probably explains some of the loss of focus on little cool items like magical gem properties etc.
|
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2013 : 19:27:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I am definitely biased towards classic AD&D, most especially the ancient tomes written in the original High Gygaxian tongue spoken by the ancient disco-era D&D progenitors. But, (2E) edition preference aside, I'm with Wooly Bluebeeble in recommending "old" D&D books for richest fluff and flavour and "Realms logic". 3E sorta went far too far overboard on standardization and mass-production of magic, I prefer the old Volo-style uncertainties.
I always like to consider each and every magical item as unique. There is no such thing as a dagger +1 in my book, or a 3rd E wand of ____fill in the blank. They are uninteresting and a waste of time. D&D should be a game of imagination. I cannot imagine a dagger +1. I can imagine a steel dagger with a rougestone set in its pommel, , enchanted and treated to be everbright (described in Volo's and elsewhere), etched with what appear to be dwarven runes. This makes me want to find someone who can read the runes and perhaps tell me who made the dagger. Did it have a purpose? Why a roguestone? Does it have other hidden properties; are they magical? |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2013 : 20:53:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I am definitely biased towards classic AD&D, most especially the ancient tomes written in the original High Gygaxian tongue spoken by the ancient disco-era D&D progenitors. But, (2E) edition preference aside, I'm with Wooly Bluebeeble in recommending "old" D&D books for richest fluff and flavour and "Realms logic". 3E sorta went far too far overboard on standardization and mass-production of magic, I prefer the old Volo-style uncertainties.
I always like to consider each and every magical item as unique. There is no such thing as a dagger +1 in my book, or a 3rd E wand of ____fill in the blank. They are uninteresting and a waste of time. D&D should be a game of imagination. I cannot imagine a dagger +1. I can imagine a steel dagger with a rougestone set in its pommel, , enchanted and treated to be everbright (described in Volo's and elsewhere), etched with what appear to be dwarven runes. This makes me want to find someone who can read the runes and perhaps tell me who made the dagger. Did it have a purpose? Why a roguestone? Does it have other hidden properties; are they magical?
Sounds like you are being lazy , to be honest. You want to read the book and have it tell you what to do. 3e said, this is a +1 dagger, and what it does mechanically, now you fill in the fluff anyway you like in a way that a player with meta game knowledge would know identify it.
My +1 dagger, would be made from some sort of bone of a creature or created by a dwarf or elf compared to the every day steel dagger or human masterworks. 3.5 E made things mechanically easier, fluff is mutable, and something you can do yourself, if you have so many Forgotten realm books anyways.
We are talking about a setting that has epic level artifacts sitting in the local hobos trash cart. So except for the icnoic ones like holy sword and mages hand items, everyday things like a +1 weapon is open for you to make what you want. |
Edited by - silverwolfer on 19 Mar 2013 21:01:40 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36789 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2013 : 03:23:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I am definitely biased towards classic AD&D, most especially the ancient tomes written in the original High Gygaxian tongue spoken by the ancient disco-era D&D progenitors. But, (2E) edition preference aside, I'm with Wooly Bluebeeble in recommending "old" D&D books for richest fluff and flavour and "Realms logic". 3E sorta went far too far overboard on standardization and mass-production of magic, I prefer the old Volo-style uncertainties.
I always like to consider each and every magical item as unique. There is no such thing as a dagger +1 in my book, or a 3rd E wand of ____fill in the blank. They are uninteresting and a waste of time. D&D should be a game of imagination. I cannot imagine a dagger +1. I can imagine a steel dagger with a rougestone set in its pommel, , enchanted and treated to be everbright (described in Volo's and elsewhere), etched with what appear to be dwarven runes. This makes me want to find someone who can read the runes and perhaps tell me who made the dagger. Did it have a purpose? Why a roguestone? Does it have other hidden properties; are they magical?
Sounds like you are being lazy , to be honest. You want to read the book and have it tell you what to do. 3e said, this is a +1 dagger, and what it does mechanically, now you fill in the fluff anyway you like in a way that a player with meta game knowledge would know identify it.
I believe you're misreading him. He doesn't like the generic, "this thing always does this" approach, and prefers to add the mystery that was stripped away with 3E magical items. |
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! |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2013 : 04:55:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I am definitely biased towards classic AD&D, most especially the ancient tomes written in the original High Gygaxian tongue spoken by the ancient disco-era D&D progenitors. But, (2E) edition preference aside, I'm with Wooly Bluebeeble in recommending "old" D&D books for richest fluff and flavour and "Realms logic". 3E sorta went far too far overboard on standardization and mass-production of magic, I prefer the old Volo-style uncertainties.
I always like to consider each and every magical item as unique. There is no such thing as a dagger +1 in my book, or a 3rd E wand of ____fill in the blank. They are uninteresting and a waste of time. D&D should be a game of imagination. I cannot imagine a dagger +1. I can imagine a steel dagger with a rougestone set in its pommel, , enchanted and treated to be everbright (described in Volo's and elsewhere), etched with what appear to be dwarven runes. This makes me want to find someone who can read the runes and perhaps tell me who made the dagger. Did it have a purpose? Why a roguestone? Does it have other hidden properties; are they magical?
Sounds like you are being lazy , to be honest. You want to read the book and have it tell you what to do. 3e said, this is a +1 dagger, and what it does mechanically, now you fill in the fluff anyway you like in a way that a player with meta game knowledge would know identify it.
I believe you're misreading him. He doesn't like the generic, "this thing always does this" approach, and prefers to add the mystery that was stripped away with 3E magical items.
 Aw yeeeah. I got a big ol' Wooly Rupert gettin' my back. Who Dat?! You want summa dis? Now on I'mma set 'em up and let my hommie Rup' knock 'em down!  |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2013 : 06:53:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I believe you're misreading him. He doesn't like the generic, "this thing always does this" approach, and prefers to add the mystery that was stripped away with 3E magical items.
Heh...I remember getting into an argument pretty early on in the days of 3E with one of the ruleslawyers (who later became a moderator) at ENWorld over whether magic items could be activated outside of the conditions set down in the rules.
To be clear, 3E doesn't say magic items can't be mysterious, can't be cursed or unreliable.
I can see how that sort of thing got pushed to the wayside by 3E trying hard to encouraging DMs to use the rules to reflect the flavor they wanted to put into a magic item.
Good example of melding lore/flavor with 3E mechanics right here.
I love the Volo's Guides too. That's why I used them so much in my 3E Realms games. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 21 Mar 2013 07:06:08 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2419 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2013 : 09:00:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
3E sorta went far too far overboard on standardization and mass-production of magic, I prefer the old Volo-style uncertainties.
3e was nailed down the mistake many (judging by 'net) made with PO: failure to see the difference between a setting-design toolkit and a player-level toolkit. Add to this "gold piece magic" system and Omnipresent Magic Shop, and everything turns into a MUD.
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
I always like to consider each and every magical item as unique. There is no such thing as a dagger +1 in my book, or a 3rd E wand of ____fill in the blank. They are uninteresting and a waste of time.
It is my sad (ah, who's kidding whom?) duty to inform you about the existence of Purple Dragon Rings and suchlike series of fully compatible magic items produced by hundreds in AD&D2 era FR. 
quote:
I cannot imagine a dagger +1. I can imagine a steel dagger with a rougestone set in its pommel, , enchanted and treated to be everbright (described in Volo's and elsewhere), etched with what appear to be dwarven runes.
A "dagger +1" is very simple: it's just a finely crafted dagger which detects as somewhat magical if checked. That's all.
But, as common sense suggests, VGtATM quite transparently hints and Ed's reply threads reiterate, magic items tend to be made not for mass sale, but for use in specific tasks or circumstances, so most permanent enchanted items (as opposed to e.g. potions or drow quasimagic) - and, hilariously enough, especially mass-produced identical ones - are likely to be not of "dagger +1" sort, but more peculiar (or quirky). It's going to be at very least "dagger +1, light on command". |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2013 : 07:04:09
|
| My point was a dagger +1 is boring. As far as Cormyr'v various rings (and the other crown items of Cormyr), while Volo's guide to Cormyr presents them as all the same later novels revealed that there are numerous different kinds of each, given to different "ranked" war wizards, as well as those that are linked, those that allow Vangy to do certain things through them, etc. So you might have Purple dragon with a "normal" Purple Dragon Ring or a war wizard with a Purple Dragon Ring that does something else, or a Lionar that knows Azoun and can send him messages through it or ________ whatever. More often then not I'd bet the "normal" ring has a hidden function. How many times in Ed's books do Vangey or El or Storm know some trick with this or that item that no one else knows, simply because they MADE the friggin' thing several hundred years ago, of course. |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2419 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2013 : 17:29:09
|
Not as a rule. There were basic PD ring and PD commander ring, with differences like ward access levels - but the point is, they are interchangeable in each type and downward compatible between type. The same reason: that's how these items are used - as keys for compatible wards (ring/cloak/full) and part of uniform or regalia. Function follows the purpose, and the purpose promotes interchangeability. If they have any quirks, these also have to be interchangeable, and item combination feature (PD and commander rings count as one ring if worn together) obviously promotes compatibility too. Activation words differ, but if Vangey tried to do something really non-trivial, he would be both bothered and risk tipping his hand by e.g. having to seek out or position a specific PD who weas that unusual ringg, who was just patrolling the street.
High-profile wards are opened with specific and counted passage stones, which is more convenient than saddling high-ups in a crisis with extra requirements and/or risking mix-ups. So, anything beyond a few variants for significantly different service branches (Blue Dragon ring with sea-related powers) or maybe a variant Commander Ring for very few high-ranked officers (but then, why not to simply give them another item in addition to basic ones?) would be very unlikely. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Roguestones
