| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 05:51:12
|
Shadowstone was a strange duck of a novel, but I did find the differing magical traditions and their differing ways of writing out spells to be quite interesting. Too bad it seems to be one of those novels that got completely ignored in later game designs (IIRC it had a bunch of stuff happening in the Chessenta area, but it's been a while since I read it).
I can remember a really old Dragon article (somewhere in the mid 100's, but I can't remember which one) that had a bunch of dwarven cleric spells and the addition of rune stones that strengthened the effects of other spells (like divinations). I liked it a lot for the added flavor and have used it since. I like the concept of the runecaster, my problem is with how it's implimented. Either make the costs the same as scrolls/wands, or give it more advantages to offset the increased cost. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
 |
|
|
Gray Richardson
Master of Realmslore
USA
1291 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 11:33:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I was bored one day and created a large spreadsheet comparing runes to similar, more mundane devices (meaning scrolls and wands, primarily). The end result, even using the 50 gp version from the Player's Guide, is that they were *never* cost effective, and were usually ridiculously overpriced. They had one or two advantages, and were cool from a flavor perspective, but didn't compare to the normal items.
Which is darned strange, considering 3e's penchant for sacrificing everything for the sake of parity.
Runes are twice as expensive as potions. Like potions, runes can be triggered by anyone. Runes can be triggered by anyone, it doesn't have to be on your spell list, it doesn't require a magic word to activate, merely touching the rune will suffice.
Runes can be maximized. And they can be keyed to only trigger in response to a password, or when read, or they can trigger to go off when someone passes by them. They can be set to go off according to physical characteristics, creature type, subtype, race, alignment, or patron deity. This particular feature is extremely versatile and useful.
Touch activation could be perhaps a great advantage also in certain circumstances. Especially if your DM allows you to touch a rune on your person as a free or swift or immediate action.
Consider that a healing potion requires a standard action to swallow and activate it. Time can sometimes be crucial in a fight. But if a fighter had an emergency healing rune on his armor, and he were about to be downed by impending fatal damage, if the DM were to let him simply touch the rune on his armor as a free, swift or immediate action, then he could possibly heal himself in time to survive.
I don't know for sure if rune activation is different from standard magical item activation. The FRCS would seem to imply that it is different, but I may be reading too much into it.
Though twice the cost of potions, they have a lot more flexible uses and might be worth the cost in certain situations.
Runes are also ideal for setting traps and warding things. |
|
|
|
Vvornth
Acolyte
Sweden
48 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 12:05:44
|
| I'm going somewhat off-topic here but please humor me as I had a DnD hiatus around 2000-01. How did WOTC handle the transition between 2e and 3e in regard to such things as Dwarven mages non-human Paladins? Were they simply written into the universe and their prior absence simply ignored? Or was there some kind of event that explained their sudden existance? |
It's good to be king |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 13:06:18
|
| That's one of the problems many of us have with the many changes third edition wraught: no attempt to explain it was made, even though there were several opportunities (the Thunder Blessing and the return of Shade being two of them). WotC seems to be relying on the flimsy argument of "Well, it's always been like that, but we never knew before." |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 17:54:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
That's one of the problems many of us have with the many changes third edition wraught: no attempt to explain it was made, even though there were several opportunities (the Thunder Blessing and the return of Shade being two of them). WotC seems to be relying on the flimsy argument of "Well, it's always been like that, but we never knew before."
Exactly. :) |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31726 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2006 : 00:26:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
WotC seems to be relying on the flimsy argument of "Well, it's always been like that, but we never knew before."
Exactly. :)
Oh, how I've grown so weary of such an explanation...  .
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2006 : 02:41:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
WotC seems to be relying on the flimsy argument of "Well, it's always been like that, but we never knew before."
Exactly. :)
Oh, how I've grown so weary of such an explanation... .
Indeed... And considering the lengths they went to for explaining the far simpler shift from 1E to 2E, it's odd that they decided to give such a lame explanation. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2006 : 06:26:30
|
We did get an explanation of sorts for why drow weapons/armor don't disintegrate in sunlight any more, but that was the private initiative of Elaine Cunningham, who realized she had two books in the "sunlight bad" drow item time and one book in the "sunlight ok" time and decided to do something about it.
At least WotC didn't squelch it in editing... |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Rory
Seeker
79 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2006 : 23:56:31
|
I wonder if the mixed breeding will be one of the main themes for 4e. In Icewindale 2 you had creatures that were half Dwarf half goblin, in the novel Dissolution you had a half orc/goblin, dragon kin are becoming more popular, as are the Planetouched. I read about a Gnome/Dwarf mix in some novel not long ago.
|
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 00:17:19
|
The Thunder Blessing was partly an explanation of dwarven mages (FRCS p. 10). There aren't lots of nonhuman paladins in the new material, either.
Wooly, it's in large part because of the ill feeling towards the Time of Troubles that the 3E changes weren't given a matching in-Realms upheaval.
I think the tedious template-frenzied hybridization and miscegenation has gone as far as it will; there's a sizeable backlash against it. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 00:36:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The Thunder Blessing was partly an explanation of dwarven mages (FRCS p. 10). There aren't lots of nonhuman paladins in the new material, either.
Wooly, it's in large part because of the ill feeling towards the Time of Troubles that the 3E changes weren't given a matching in-Realms upheaval.
But the Thunder Blessing explanation still doesn't cover a more important (to me, at least) change concerning dwarves and magic: in 2E, dwarves were seriously non-magical, to the point that they had problems using magic devices. That's gone out the window, with no explanation as to why.
And that blurb you reference seems to indicate that the distrust of magic is a cultural change. This would mean that despite the decline of their race, dwarves were refusing to turn to something that could aid them in their many conflicts. Magic weapons and armor were acceptable, so why wouldn't spells be? And now, after generations of refusing to use something useful, a new generation reverses that, just because there's more dwarves around? Nope, that doesn't work for me.
About the lack of explanations... The 1E to 2E change had an upheaval specifically created for it. 3E could have taken advantage of one they were doing anyway, but it didn't... And, as I've said before, the changes from 1E to 2E were very minor. 3E ushered in a host of dramatic changes, and the "oh, it's always been like that, but no one knew about it!" explanation has generated no small amount of ill feeling... Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather see a serious shake-up than be told that everyone was too stupid to see something in front of their faces. |
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! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 12 Jan 2006 00:42:40 |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6662 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 01:24:09
|
Oooh, not me! I disliked what the Time of Troubles did to the Realms so as to provide an 'in game' explanation for game mechanics changes. I can only hazard a guess re the 'events' that would have had to have taken place to explain all the 3E game mechanics changes - the changes that were made to explain additions to the setting in 3E (i.e. the shadow weave) remain some of the most controversial and thread-heavy stuff going. Multiply that by 50 and that's what you would have got with a Time of Troubles II. And doesn't the Thunder Blessing count as an in-game explanation for dwarven wizards if you don't want to retro-fit them into your Realms and campaign?
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 02:00:59
|
Not really, since the Blessing happened sixty-plus years ago. Technically, despite all of the 1e and 2e gaming products saying how depleted dwarven numbers are, the Thunder Blessing has been happening for over half a century. If you use the TB (hmm... all the dwarves have TB! No wonder they're dying off!) to explain dwarven mages, then they should have been around for the last fifty years or so as well, meaning in 1e and 2e.
The only instance of dwarven mages that I kinda like is the Xothol (sp?) mentioned in LEoF. There, Ammarindar got scared enough that Netheril might decide to expand in their direction they created a top-secret wizard school to defend the realm. *That* I kind of buy. If I bought the dwarves having arcane ability that long ago, which I don't. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 02:06:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Oooh, not me! I disliked what the Time of Troubles did to the Realms so as to provide an 'in game' explanation for game mechanics changes. I can only hazard a guess re the 'events' that would have had to have taken place to explain all the 3E game mechanics changes - the changes that were made to explain additions to the setting in 3E (i.e. the shadow weave) remain some of the most controversial and thread-heavy stuff going. Multiply that by 50 and that's what you would have got with a Time of Troubles II. And doesn't the Thunder Blessing count as an in-game explanation for dwarven wizards if you don't want to retro-fit them into your Realms and campaign?
-- George Krashos
The Thunder Blessing can be used as an explanation, yes. It's just that it's not entirely adequate.
I'm not saying that I want a huge, in-game event to explain all of the changes. What I am saying is that I want some explanation, and that I want it to be better than something a 6 year old could have come up with (the "always been like that" excuse).
The rise of sorcerers, for example, could have been tied into the return of Shade -- after all, these were people from one of the most magically advanced societies ever seen in the Realms, and they came from a society that used magic in an entirely different way. Something about their return could have caused a ripple in the Weave, for example, which would have allowed some people to access the Weave in a different way. Or the final battle, with Chosen fighting Shadow Weave users, could have caused a similar effect.
That right there is what I'm talking about. An existing event could have been used to explain sorcerers, rather than saying that for hundreds of years, no one noticed that there were people using magic in a different way. When you're a mage limited to memorized spells, someone being able to toss off more spells, who does it without even glancing at a spellbook, is something noteworthy. I can't believe that no one ever noticed that.
When I first was glancing thru a Previews, and read that there was a book coming that featured the return of Shade, I immediately assumed that was how 3E's changes were going to be ushered in. I was disappointed by the fact that that trilogy really didn't change anything (yeah, it was an RSE, but other than the loss of Tilverton and a new power in the Anauroch, nothing seems to have happened -- there's not been any follow-up to the events in the trilogy).
It doesn't have to be a huge thing. I just want some viable explanation. I feel that not getting an explanation is an insult to the people that have been supporting the setting for years. |
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! |
|
|
|
Mystery_Man
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 02:47:11
|
A lot of the new changes to FR at least personally for me (such as the Shades) have not had much of an impact. I just don't find them as interesting as the older stuff. First and foremost the priority for me is campaigning and using FR as a backdrop to run my games. After that, canon resources and how they might provide good ideas but that's all that canon means to me. Finally a book or two every now and then by only a select group of FR novel writers that don't bore me silly.
For me I thought the Thunder Blessing was kinda cool. At least it was interesting.
I'd have to agree about the sorcerer explanation (mostly because its just boring) but really don't see any other way around it. Because there we so few would be my reason for no one noticing (as in one or two every 100 years), then I'd take your suggestion about a major event that has brought more with the inate talent to the forefront. What do you do about all the other new classes such as warlocks? Ban them for canon FR sake? What if your player really wants to play one? This is where IMO canon gets in the way (remember I'm a campaigner first) and ruins the fun.
As an aside, after watching two of my players play sorcerers for serveral levels I personally think that it is the most useless class out of all the cores. Just...useless, but whatever. And the warlock is really kind of dumb but that's all another discussion.
|
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 15:23:19
|
There are pretty clear pros and cons to both approaches. Part of why I don't favour more RSEs is that I see a lot of these things as rules artefacts that will vanish the next time someone reconceives D&D or how to present the Realms, and turning them into events would cement them as in-Realms facts. Also, a made-up in-world explanation that has nothing to do with the real reason for the change is pretty dubious. And how are you going to explain lightfoot halflings except 'it's always been so'. Ignore, wait and hope, and such things may go away.
I'm not aware of a rise of sorcerers. The Realms has always had a rare kind of wizard that the 3E sorcerer roughly models (among many variant magic types, not of all of which have seen print at all) -- why not leave it at that?
Elastic as it may be, the Realms can't assimilate all the classes and races the core books throw up without returning to the TSR dumping-ground days. Leave that to DMs who want to implement such rules-driven additions or changes, rather than needlessly and compulsively adding it all to the official lore. |
Edited by - Faraer on 12 Jan 2006 15:24:27 |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 19:51:46
|
I agree. I don't have a problem with sorcerers suddenly showing up as a PC class, since I've ruled that there's only about 100 on the entire contient (they're duking it out with the psionicists to see which class can have the fewest practioners).
As for all the new core classes, well, first off, keep in mind that I still play 2e (with the one or two things I like from 3e added to it). But if a player of mine wanted to essentially port a warlock or whatever into my campaign my initial reply would be no. On the other hand, I'm one of those DM's who'll let his players get away with breaking just about any rule, provided they give me a darned good in-campaign explanation for it. So if my player sold me on warlock's backstory (which would be hard, but not impossible), then I'd probably let it in. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Elrond Half Elven
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
322 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2006 : 00:30:52
|
According to the 2nd Edition PHB:
"Also because of their nonmagical nature, however, dwarves have trouble using magical items. All magical items that are not specifically suited to the character's class have a 20% chance to malfunction when used by a dwarf."
A rule that I've noticed is commonly 'forgotten' by your average dwarven player. A point of confusion is that dwarves forge magical items I cannot supply a reason for this as recently my copy of my dwarven guide got destroyed through a leaky roof .
Dwarves where restricted to the following classes; Fighter, Thief & Cleric at least according to the players handbook. Several of the 'Classes and Races' supplements considered multi-classes and adjustments to allow PHB classes to assume a role similar to those classes. This being said I feel, and I've had this discussion with many people, that 3E is more rules orientated, with people treating it as the rules where set in stone. 2nd however always suggested the idea that if you don't like a rule then change it.
At the end of the day I'd agree that WoTC have produced no real explanation for the sudden inclusion for dwarven arcane spell casters, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least one person of this board had ran or at least seen a dwarven arcane spell caster. (I view these like I do psionics- there should be few of them in the realms, and almost always run as NPCs)
Hanx
Elrond |
Once upon a midnight dreary, while i pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore-
While i nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
-The Raven by Edgar Allan Poe |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2006 : 01:17:12
|
| Err you forget to inculde Draven Clerics, which clearly exist in 2nd Edition. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dwarven Mages, hhmmmnnn...
