Seriously though, there are a few ways it could be looked at, some painfully so, others simply cosmetically. Officially, I'm not aware of any real explanations of the sort you seem to be looking for.
One could look at the Spellplague and see it as a fundamental shift in the fabric of magic/reality that altered the medium through which spells were cast, and that magic had to be rediscovered.
One could look at it as the rules of magic changing with the deaths of Mystra and Azuth, and that with their passing, the rules they enforced over magic were chaotically overturned and, while weakened from former heights, it was much more widely accessible. That in and of itself could be looked at as either the fragments of the Weave infusing into all living things and creating a 'mini-weave' in everything, enough to explain away the much more easily accessed rituals, or you could look at it as Mystra and Azuth having held back the full potential of non-spellcasters for whatever reasons they might have had.
Of couse there's the ever-popular "Mystra was holding us back, good riddance and hurrah that magic is now free" mantra, though 4e spellcasters don't really live up to that one in terms of power compared to previous editions, at least as far as I can tell. But that's neither here nor there.
Or, you could use a fairly simple explanation and say that magic hasn't changed at all, at least mechanically (RW sort, not game). Perhaps the Spellplague simply warped magical knowledge and arcane writings with the divine and planar upheavals, and things which are thought to be known really aren't, since the information isn't really reliable due to the warping effects of the Spellplague. Introduces the idea of societal rediscovery, and gives a convenient excuse to justify the downscaling of arcane power (and by extension NPCs), although it does have the potential flaw of players maybe expecting to be the one who rediscovers how to do it. One could say of course that Oghma is disallowing such knowledge, since the responsibility of doling out such information would sort of by default fall to him, so you do have some DM wriggle room with that one.
Can't think of much else at the moment, but hope that gives you a few ideas to work with... if only as pet theories that some sages puts forth maybe. They can come up with some pretty wacky ideas afterall. :D
Ok, so, I am sure this is eventually going to come up in game. I am NOT looking for 4e FR haters to come on here and rant about the 4e FR. Personally, I love the 4e FR. Its the first time I have WANTED to run a realms game in a LONG time. But, as more and more information is released in my game, eventually someone is going to ask "if the weave is what people once used to cast magic, and the weave is now gone, how is magic now cast?" I'm just curious, does anyone know where I can find an answer to this question, or does anyone have some neat theories I might be able to steal?
I'm not familiar with the 'Weave' in general, but were I to run an FR game and it came up, I would simply say that said Weave was actually not necessary. Everybody merely thought it was, and then went 'Hey, wait a second ...'.
In the beginning, there were many magical traditions. Gem Magic, Table Magic, Rune Magic - and many other lost forms. Another good example is the two magical traditions we know existed in Maztica. There were many magic types like this scattered throughout Faerun.
Then came the Sarrukh. They sought to gather all magical knowledge, and attempt to consolidate their arcane power into a single form. Eventually the Nether Scrolls were created to contain this new magical tradition in its entirety.
So far, the above information is 100% cannon.
Eventually the Netherese came along and obtained the Nether Scrolls. They learned this magical tradition, and then perfected it into what would become known simply as "the Weave". Mystryl naturally took "the Weave" under her command as Goddess of Magic.
After the fall of the Netherese Empire, its people began to migrate overtime across the continent, taking the teachings of the Weave and Netherese magic with them.
The Weave was important and prevalent as a form of magic due to it scalability and ease of use. You could do awesome things with the Weave. Raw Magic was difficult to work with and complex. The Weave made things simple. It's comparable to trying to write a program (a spell) in the Assembly Language (raw magic) vs something like Python (the Weave).
Various bastardized forms of the Netherese teachings spread all over, but the same basic standard methods remained.
When Mystra died all the raw magic being drawn on by the Weave (to power spells, and permanent magical items / artifacts) "burst from it's bonds" and started what was known as the Spellplague.
Without the Weave, everyone was pretty much forced to go back to basics. Magic is no where near as spectacular as it once was and this is primarily due to the loss of the Weave.
That's my explanation. I think it blends nicely into cannon, with very little retconning. It even smooths over some other things that did not make sense in the past.
Without the Weave, everyone was pretty much forced to go back to basics. Magic is no where near as spectacular as it once was and this is primarily due to the loss of the Weave.
That's my explanation. I think it blends nicely into cannon, with very little retconning. It even smooths over some other things that did not make sense in the past.
I like this (obligatory boo hiss 4e). Explains the eliminated spells too! The weave = insta kill spells....I guess.
...
Thanks Meldread. That is perfect.
The weave (and shadow weave) have been shattered with Mystra's death. Many wizards lost their ability to cast spells since the old formulas don't work since the weave's not intact so can't be manipulated to work magic.
Other wizards (Szass amongst them and many other Red Wizards) found they could still cast the simple spells and eventually learned how to do much of what they could before just in a new way.
With the weave gone wizards have to once again draw on magic in it's pure unfiltered form which is harder to do but also allows more flexibility.
This is why a wizard no longer needs to memorize most of their spells since once they've mastered the spell they know it and can use it. Only the more powerful spells still need memorization and as such can only be used once than rememorized (which takes time and rest). Presumably it's because without the weave it's more draining on them physically (like Rastlin in Dragonlance).
The simpler spells can now be used more more freely, and the staple magic missile can be used near constantly without any drain on the wizard. This indicates that while the weave might have made certain powerful spells available, and a larger repetoire of spells overall it also made even a simple manifestation of magical energy something that had to be memorized and limited in use.
Wizards now have more freedoms with magic but it comes at the cost of the big guns for the most part and forces them to specialize more. They get less spells overall but more uses of magic per day.
The Spellplague and plaguetouched lands are areas where the massive amounts of magical energy that was channeled and contained in the weave has left an impact (similar to a nuclear explosion and residual radiation). The spellscarred are basically the new Spellfire users, who were those previously who could tap into raw magical energy bypassing the Weave for the most part.
Also there's no reason MOST of the old spells couldn't be shown in 4e, just that they've not written them all (after all there were a lot of them). It's just a matter of finding one of similar overall power and DM discretion as to the level and rate for the spell. This means that wizards won't all 'look the same' by having vastly different selections of spells. It actually makes it interesting this way. Fight a wizard and unless you know of him you don't know exactly what types of spells he'll be throwing at you.
do I have my facts right?
-The Weave came into being when Mystyl (who would later become Mystra) was created. She is the Weave incarnate. She is the Weave, and the Weave is her. The Weave allowed for the use of 10th Level + Spells in the past, until the fall of Netheril. Because such spells were extremely taxing and destructive on the Weave, the reborn Mystra created the cap that prevented such spells from being cast, so that: (A) The Weave wouldn't be as abused as it had been during the days of Netheril at it's height of power, and (B) To prevent little mishaps like magicians casting spells to steal the power from deities.
Perhaps "new" magic has something more to do with the primordials than then the gods. (have to remember that the Dawn Titans are now a force in that whole sort of thing.
Overchanneling is known to have driven several wizards mad, burned alive quite a few sorcerers and irrevocably changed other unfortunate spellcasters into plaguechanged. So the spellplague itself might be seen as actual vortexes of raw magic set free on the land. The changes on lifeforms might be the result not of the weave itself but of the overexposure to the newly freed raw magic. Channelling too few energy simply failed to even begin a casting, making a wizard feel rather disconnected from magic at first.
This all results in a highly unstable climate for wizards in the first decades after the spellplague, with all the socialogic changes this will inherently have. Wizard schools and academies would struggle to regain the former social positions they once had. But eventually just as large investments have been made in wizard schools in the past, with new found methods sponsored by the willing the new magic schools would rise up from the ashes of the former academies.
Methods of drawing on the weave would largely depend on the methods devised by the inhabitants of those new magic academies. I suspect old school spellweaving would largely be the most popular method of those practisioners, depending on how much is left from the former theoretical works on magic. Old habits die slowly. They only found that most of the old school spells need relatively large amounts of the current arcane energy "units". The old dusty tomes still had their spells usable but they took quite more time to gather the proper energy (i.e. ritual casting). Some schools however might have developed quite contrasting ways to drawing on arcane energy more quickly. This way wizards from different schools have varying ways of drawing on the weave easily (i.e. different at will spells and encounter spells). Accomplished wizards from both schools also combined efforts to find new ways of getting old school spells working at least a bit like they used to (i.e. daily spells) and altered the somatic components to include more foci (i.e. implements) which help gather latent natural energies and/or help direct them.
All in all the flow of magic has effectively been equalized around life more, making it flow at half the pace but be more prevalent. The weave made it so the magic energy could easily be concentrated in or around a caster. But now that is gone the higher energy spells take a lot more time to harness and subsequently weave properly. Simple spells however are more easily drawn because of the prevalence of the magic and new measured ways of drawing the proper magic energy.
::::::::::::::::::
The take I've been thinking about with regard to the Weave is that it's always been the fabric keeping mortals and other spellcasters from being roasted alive when they attempt to access the raw power of magic directly (think Pool of Radiance).
The Imaskari, the Netherese, Elven High Mages, natives of Abeir and the Sarukh (sorry, I know I just spelled that wrong) all could "see past" the Weave and go right to the good stuff (raw magic, unfettered by the Weave) more or less safely.
Now that the Weave is gone, the gods chose to anoint their most trustworthy and skilled clerics (those that survived the Spellplague) with the ability to safely cast spells (this jives with the 4E rules for clerics having to be christened/anointed before they can cast) and gave them the power to anoint others with spell casting ability.
As for mages, it's all trial and error. The Netherese and the Elves in my opinion should have an advantage after the Spellplague, because the roots of their magical skill include lore on how to bypass the Weave. For the rest, well it’s been 100 years of trail and error and unfortunate, sudden death.
This release is what is known as the Spellplague, a controlled unraveling of the weave. If Shar had succeeded in assassinating Mystra the uncontrolled energies may well have ripped apart the entirety of Toril.
Once again the Gods worry at the potential of mortals. The True Arcane Arts have once again spread from ancient repositories of knowledge, the returned Feywild and Shadowfell, and even some of the Gods have passed this knowledge on planting seeds of doom or hope.
But those are just my thoughts on the matter, and shouldn't have any impact on how you interpret anything. Though as a point of fact, LK is quite correct, so...
It may be slightly arrogant, but I like my explanation a lot. I feel it makes everything fit together nicely, with very little retconning. I'll try and explain it.
In the beginning, there were many magical traditions. Gem Magic, Table Magic, Rune Magic - and many other lost forms. Another good example is the two magical traditions we know existed in Maztica. There were many magic types like this scattered throughout Faerun.
Then came the Sarrukh. They sought to gather all magical knowledge, and attempt to consolidate their arcane power into a single form. Eventually the Nether Scrolls were created to contain this new magical tradition in its entirety.
So far, the above information is 100% cannon.
Eventually the Netherese came along and obtained the Nether Scrolls. They learned this magical tradition, and then perfected it into what would become known simply as "the Weave". Mystryl naturally took "the Weave" under her command as Goddess of Magic.
After the fall of the Netherese Empire, its people began to migrate overtime across the continent, taking the teachings of the Weave and Netherese magic with them.
The Weave was important and prevalent as a form of magic due to it scalability and ease of use. You could do awesome things with the Weave. Raw Magic was difficult to work with and complex. The Weave made things simple. It's comparable to trying to write a program (a spell) in the Assembly Language (raw magic) vs something like Python (the Weave).
Various bastardized forms of the Netherese teachings spread all over, but the same basic standard methods remained.
When Mystra died all the raw magic being drawn on by the Weave (to power spells, and permanent magical items / artifacts) "burst from it's bonds" and started what was known as the Spellplague.
Without the Weave, everyone was pretty much forced to go back to basics. Magic is no where near as spectacular as it once was and this is primarily due to the loss of the Weave.
That's my explanation. I think it blends nicely into cannon, with very little retconning. It even smooths over some other things that did not make sense in the past.
This is exactly how I saw the Weave and how it worked. Great analogy with the programming languages.
Since the Spellplague destroyed the weave .
The Spellplague was a bi-product of Mystra/Weave being destroyed.
I also think that at first not alot of people in the realms realize Mystra's death has caused this. Probably the clerics of dietes who were Mystra's allies and enemies will be the messengers of the actual cause of the failing of spells and spellstorms in the south.
-In accordance with the commonly accepted creation myth, Mystryl was born long before mortal existence in the Crystal Sphere.
I realize this, however as you noted it is a myth.
Interesting thought, but I have a real hard time with the thought of humanity/mortals ever truly threatening deities with much of anything... maybe as an individual with the aid of another deity, possibly, maybe I could see it... as a species though, no, don't see it at all. But I tend to see mortals as ultimately insignificant little specks, one among many, and place little if any inherent value on humanity as a species in this vast omniverse.
I used to think this way, but as I grew older, and my tastes diversified it changed. It also has changed frequently in D&D. In 1st it could be done. In 2nd just forget about it. In 3rd here are some stats and by the way forget about it. In 4th it has come full circle. Throughout fantasy literature, and myth there are instances of the hero who overthrows a god. Often it is through some unexpected means that said god ignores because the hero is such a tiny little speck.
In FR the ToT (which I dislike, but I realize is cannon helped form my view of Mystra's death and past existence). God's do die, and in ToT they are supplanted by mortals who become gods. In "Netheril: Empire of Magic" p.12 there are hints that the weave is also in fact separate from Mystryl/Mystra, and of course she is once again resurrected via a human becoming a god. This occurs because of a chain of events a mortal set in motion. The process of apotheosis, and the myth of the god killer is firmly entrenched in the FR, as it is in real world myth, hence why I included hints of it in my brief counter-myth.
The reason I have used my myth of Mystra's death for my FR game, is that counter to what others have hinted at elsewhere (that magic in 4th edition D&D is lesser), I see Mystra's death as Magic Unbound. Ritual magic is incredibly powerful, and can be used by player's, or the DM to actually affect the world in permanent ways. In fact this use of Ritual magic is expected. It is meant to be used as more than just an expenditure of resources, instead being used to produce plot threads wholesale from the weaving of mythic threads, which may encompass whole nations (Szass Tam). Powerful Magic is a storytelling tool, not just pew pew. Ultimately in my FR the death of Mystra is the single most noble act any of her incarnations has ever performed, because it was not spur of the moment, it was planned, it was intentional. I fully intend for her to come back, but now as what a Goddess of Magic should be, a gatekeeper, a guardian of the mysteries, a teacher, not the shut off valve on the basic building block of reality.
Just my couple of cents
I realize this, however as you noted it is a myth.
-Myths have a tendency to be true. But, regardless...There is no indication from the earlier societies on Abeir-Toril that Mystyl did not exist. There isn't an indication that she did exist either, however. In the same vein, there is no indication that the earlier societies on the planet worshiped Shar or Selûne either- or that they weren't worshiped by some, so...
-Myths have a tendency to be true. But, regardless...There is no indication from the earlier societies on Abeir-Toril that Mystyl did not exist. There isn't an indication that she did exist either, however. In the same vein, there is no indication that the earlier societies on the planet worshiped Shar or Selûne either- or that they weren't worshiped by some, so...
Myths tend to be true in part, and of course far more literally true in the FR. There are indications that different races have different creation myths, even in the FR. All I am saying is that when dealing with myths you are not going to have a clearly defined factual accounting of what is. The degree to which any myth is factual in the FR has mostly been left in the lap of each individual DM.
I realize this, however as you noted it is a myth.
I used to think this way, but as I grew older, and my tastes diversified it changed. It also has changed frequently in D&D. In 1st it could be done. In 2nd just forget about it. In 3rd here are some stats and by the way forget about it. In 4th it has come full circle. Throughout fantasy literature, and myth there are instances of the hero who overthrows a god. Often it is through some unexpected means that said god ignores because the hero is such a tiny little speck.
In FR the ToT (which I dislike, but I realize is cannon helped form my view of Mystra's death and past existence). God's do die, and in ToT they are supplanted by mortals who become gods. In "Netheril: Empire of Magic" p.12 there are hints that the weave is also in fact separate from Mystryl/Mystra, and of course she is once again resurrected via a human becoming a god. This occurs because of a chain of events a mortal set in motion. The process of apotheosis, and the myth of the god killer is firmly entrenched in the FR, as it is in real world myth, hence why I included hints of it in my brief counter-myth.
The reason I have used my myth of Mystra's death for my FR game, is that counter to what others have hinted at elsewhere (that magic in 4th edition D&D is lesser), I see Mystra's death as Magic Unbound. Ritual magic is incredibly powerful, and can be used by player's, or the DM to actually affect the world in permanent ways. In fact this use of Ritual magic is expected. It is meant to be used as more than just an expenditure of resources, instead being used to produce plot threads wholesale from the weaving of mythic threads, which may encompass whole nations (Szass Tam). Powerful Magic is a storytelling tool, not just pew pew. Ultimately in my FR the death of Mystra is the single most noble act any of her incarnations has ever performed, because it was not spur of the moment, it was planned, it was intentional. I fully intend for her to come back, but now as what a Goddess of Magic should be, a gatekeeper, a guardian of the mysteries, a teacher, not the shut off valve on the basic building block of reality.
Just my couple of cents
I totally agree with your take on Mystra, the weave, and FR magic in general. When I read about how Mystra died I immediately thought that this was somehow planned because it was way too easy. So either this was planned and WoTC has something in store for Mystra in the future. Or this was the biggest hack job of all time by the designers in order to fit a square peg into a round hole. I tend to have some faith in the designers and I feel that your take on this is the most logical outcome.
I used to think this way, but as I grew older, and my tastes diversified it changed. It also has changed frequently in D&D. In 1st it could be done. In 2nd just forget about it. In 3rd here are some stats and by the way forget about it. In 4th it has come full circle. Throughout fantasy literature, and myth there are instances of the hero who overthrows a god. Often it is through some unexpected means that said god ignores because the hero is such a tiny little speck.
Heh, it's a pesonal opinion on my part. I won't argue that it makes for a great story, it certainly can when done correctly, but as far as personal philosophy/outlook on life, I just don't see it. But, by the same token, I don't see divinity as even remotely resembling anything in D&D... though I could see things working out that way if it did.
The reason I have used my myth of Mystra's death for my FR game, is that counter to what others have hinted at elsewhere (that magic in 4th edition D&D is lesser), I see Mystra's death as Magic Unbound. Ritual magic is incredibly powerful, and can be used by player's, or the DM to actually affect the world in permanent ways. In fact this use of Ritual magic is expected. It is meant to be used as more than just an expenditure of resources, instead being used to produce plot threads wholesale from the weaving of mythic threads, which may encompass whole nations (Szass Tam). Powerful Magic is a storytelling tool, not just pew pew. Ultimately in my FR the death of Mystra is the single most noble act any of her incarnations has ever performed, because it was not spur of the moment, it was planned, it was intentional. I fully intend for her to come back, but now as what a Goddess of Magic should be, a gatekeeper, a guardian of the mysteries, a teacher, not the shut off valve on the basic building block of reality.
Just my couple of cents
That was usually the way I viewed epic magic myself... and it was definitely the way I used Mystra. I can't say I've ever viewed her as a 'shut-off valve' of magic though, could be because I don't bother with novels though.
Heh, it's a pesonal opinion on my part. I won't argue that it makes for a great story, it certainly can when done correctly, but as far as personal philosophy/outlook on life, I just don't see it. But, by the same token, I don't see divinity as even remotely resembling anything in D&D... though I could see things working out that way if it did.
I personally believe that we should keep our real world views and outlooks of life and divinity out of any discussion pertaining to D&D deities and life. The two are not the same.
Heh, I wasn't trying to bring up real world views, I was simply explaining why I don't buy into mortals as anything other than insignificant specks.
Are you talking in D&D or real life? Because, if you are talking in real life, then there is nothing to discuss. Pure opinion and speculation, and nobody will ever agree. Its sort of like the argument about whether its evolution or intelligent design. The two sides will never agree. Why bring up a silly argument about it yet again? If you are talking about in the Realms, considering that gods have been killed by mortals, I think you have sort of built a straw man position. Insignificant little specks don't go around killing gods, but in the realms, mortals do...
-Being insignificant =/= being able to accomplish goals. In the grand scheme of things, in the infiniteness of the universe, Human Beings are pretty insignificant. That doesn't take away from our accomplishments, such as going to the moon, splitting the atom, all that good stuff.
I think you mean to say that being insignificant =/= not being able to accomplish goals. But, to be honest, I would argue that it does. In the grand scheme of the universe human beings are pretty insignificant, and so are our accomplishments. Going to the moon, splitting the atom, these things mean nothing to the universe. We are a very significant factor on a planetary scale, but a universal scale we are small potatoes (and will be until we learn how to shake the foundation of the universe.)
Individual mortals of the realms might be insignificant, but the mortal population as a whole is not. They can, and have, learn/learned to accomplish feats which results in the ascension to godhood, or the death of a god. I think the death of a god qualifies as a very significant event, and the ability to murder a god precludes one from wearing the title "insignificant." The ability to accomplish the goal deicide is, by any definition of the word I can imagine, an example of significance.
I think you mean to say that being insignificant =/= not being able to accomplish goals.
-Yep, that one.
But, to be honest, I would argue that it does. In the grand scheme of the universe human beings are pretty insignificant, and so are our accomplishments. Going to the moon, splitting the atom, these things mean nothing to the universe. We are a very significant factor on a planetary scale, but a universal scale we are small potatoes (and will be until we learn how to shake the foundation of the universe.)
-That's the crux of it. For something to be significant, it's measured subjectively. As such, the grand scheme measured objectively, going to the moon, splitting the atom don't matter all that much. We're not using that scale, however. We are using a scale that is constructed by us, and us alone. If the Znooboks on Planet Q create a "Mega Ray" that can do anything, doesn't effect us any if we don't know about it, or them.
-That's the crux of it. For something to be significant, it's measured subjectively. As such, the grand scheme measured objectively, going to the moon, splitting the atom don't matter all that much. We're not using that scale, however. We are using a scale that is constructed by us, and us alone. If the Znooboks on Planet Q create a "Mega Ray" that can do anything, doesn't effect us any if we don't know about it, or them.
Fair enough, but it still doesn't in any way defend a point of view which claims that the ability to kill a god is insignificant... unless you are claiming that in the grand scheme of things the gods themselves are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things... in which case I have to ask, what is significant in the grand scheme of things? What is there that is more powerful then a god?
Fair enough, but it still doesn't in any way defend a point of view which claims that the ability to kill a god is insignificant... unless you are claiming that in the grand scheme of things the gods themselves are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things... in which case I have to ask, what is significant in the grand scheme of things?
-I am not involved in that debate. I am simply interposing that being insignificant in the grand scheme of things =/= not being able to accomplish goals
What is there that is more powerful then a god?
-An overdeity.
-And Raistlin, apparently.
And yes, I was speaking in terms of D&D there.
As to being more powerful than a god... well, as LK mentioned, an overdeity comes to mind for starters... the head of a pantheon of gods... cosmic divinity, presuming such beings exist... Gaea probably, going by the Planescape version of her... The Source, in the Planescape sense as well... lots of stuff really.
Are you talking in D&D or real life? Because, if you are talking in real life, then there is nothing to discuss. Pure opinion and speculation, and nobody will ever agree. Its sort of like the argument about whether its evolution or intelligent design.
Actually, I have to say that's a really, really bad comparison. Whether or not humans are "significant" (significant according to whom?) is a philosophical question, yes. The argument that you used as a comparison does NOT solely involve opinion and speculation, not by far.
As to being more powerful than a god... well, as LK mentioned, an overdeity comes to mind for starters... the head of a pantheon of gods... cosmic divinity, presuming such beings exist... Gaea probably, going by the Planescape version of her... The Source, in the Planescape sense as well... lots of stuff really.
Yes, but a game that takes place on that scale allows mortals to challenge such deities as well...
Actually, I have to say that's a really, really bad comparison. Whether or not humans are "significant" (significant according to whom?) is a philosophical question, yes. The argument that you used as a comparison does NOT solely involve opinion and speculation, not by far.
And I would say that your statement just proved that my comparison was perfect. You feel that the argument over evolution or intelligent design is not just philosophical. That it involves more then opinion and speculation. And yet there are two sides to that argument, and both fervently argue their viewpoint as being empirically "right or true." You obviously have enough vested interest in the debate that you believe that more then "opinion and speculation" dictates which side of the argument is correct. To be honest, so do I. But, the other side will say that more then opinion and speculation in turn proves them right. Which in turn leaves us with the following situation: pure opinion and speculation, and nobody will ever agree. It just so happens that the opinion and speculation of either side indicates that the side in question has more then opinion and speculation on their side. One side has the word of god and scripture. The other side has the indication of science and the most likely turn of past events as indicated by science (read: theory).
Yes, but a game that takes place on that scale allows mortals to challenge such deities as well...
See, now that entirely depends on if you want it to or not. It certainly doesn't have to, nor should it be presumed that it has to.
As to Creationism/Intelligent Design versus Science... its not philosophical, since its something we can presumably figure out one way or another at some point, even if not in the here and now. Well, something science can figure out eventually I should say... but LK is right, we should probably just drop the subject before the mod slap-down hits the thread.
See, now that entirely depends on if you want it to or not. It certainly doesn't have to, nor should it be presumed that it has to.
Fair enough. But, in terms of lore, don't the planescape books feature mortals going up against gods?
I was going to ask a question - I almost started my own thread for it, but then figured it fit this topic - now I'm not so sure.
Back in the day, it was assumed that a 'Dead magic Zone' was an area where Mystra's weave was no longer present (a 'hole' in the Weave, if you will). Shar's Shadoweave worked just fine there, however, which makes perfect sense. I know there is a canon spell in one of the books that allows Arcane casters to 'supress' Shar's weave in an area, which is akin to creating an anti-dead magic Zone - one in which Weave Magic works fine, but Shadoweave magic does not. I don't know where that is, because I only heard about it in another thread, but if anyone wants to point it out I'd appreciate it.
Anyhow, after re-reading the Cormyr novel in the last few days, I came upon a Thayan Wizardess who was able to cast a similar spell, but pertaining to the Weave - obviously Shar's church can do the same things as Mystra's, and followers have access to magic that can create dead magic Zones.
Thats all well and good, and makes pefect sense... up to 4e.
How do I explain a Dead Magic Zone in a 4e world? Is that even possible? The closest I could come was saying it was an area where NO magic worked, not just arcane, but that isn't as... useful... as a magic-specific field would be.
Technically, the entire planet is a Dead-Magic Zone now, where Weave casting doesn't work.
How do I explain a Dead Magic Zone in a 4e world? Is that even possible? The closest I could come was saying it was an area where NO magic worked, not just arcane, but that isn't as... useful... as a magic-specific field would be.
Technically, the entire planet is a Dead-Magic Zone now, where Weave casting doesn't work.
You can of course do anything you want in your Realms as always, however in 4th edition the very concept of a Dead Magic Zone goes completely counter to the design of the game. Magic is simply a method of accomplishing something. Can a Fighter forget how to swing a sword? Not likely, so taking a Wizards magic away seems to be something on a similar level. In past editions Anti-magic Spells, Dead Magic Zones, Wild Magic, were all really introduced and used as a balancing factor. Personally I never liked them because they completely neutered the character, however it was a way of allowing others to shine. In 4th edition this is an unnecessary restriction as the game is very well balanced.
If I were to need something like this to exist for purely story based reasons I would probably restrict its effect to Ritual Magic. This would affect all players equally, while still leaving a Wizard with his core abilities intact.
Can a Fighter forget how to swing a sword?
-In a literal sense, yes. After muscle atrophy, one must be "retaught" how to use said muscles. If you want to go into a more D&D explanation, negative levels or ability score drains, or whatever else, resulting in the loss of BAB/Feats would also be explained in-game as the warrior being a less effective warrior, due to a loss of ability.
-Not that that's especially relevant to anything, but.
-In a literal sense, yes. After muscle atrophy, one must be "retaught" how to use said muscles. If you want to go into a more D&D explanation, negative levels or ability score drains, or whatever else, resulting in the loss of BAB/Feats would also be explained in-game as the warrior being a less effective warrior, due to a loss of ability.
-Not that that's especially relevant to anything, but.
Well not exactly how I meant it, I think you get what I am driving at though. ;)
And I would say that your statement just proved that my comparison was perfect.
You might think so, but that's not the case. You seem to have forgotten that many people who argue for the side of ID consistently do try to use science to prove their points correct.*
You obviously have enough vested interest in the debate that you believe that more then "opinion and speculation" dictates which side of the argument is correct.
No, I don't "believe", I know. I know because science and use of the scientific method goes beyond opinion and speculation and enters the realm of fact. That's really it. Please refrain from making bold statements about what you think my vested interests are--it's really none of your business and no one else's unless I decide I want it to be.
And, I'm done discussing this here. If you want to discuss this further with me, please take it to PMs.
*And no, I'm not trying to say they are correct or that I agree with them here.
And, I'm done discussing this here. If you want to discuss this further with me, please take it to PMs.
There is nothing to discuss. Please, stay on topic. Magic in Faerun post Weave...
So yea, on topic, dead magic zones in 4e. I personally agree with the whole philosophy that there is no real place for it. With 4e actually balancing the non magic classes vs. the magic classes, there is no longer a need for zones in which the "non magic classes can shine" (quite aside from the mechanical problems that these mechanics introduced in and of themselves). To remove the ability of a class to use its powers totally nullifies the effectiveness of that class. And, as it can only happen to arcane classes, it unfairly penalizes characters that choose this power source. At most I would set up a zone which stops rituals from working, and which imposes some sort of penalty to attack rolls or damage rolls of arcane power source powers (but does not totally stop their use). Something like that can in turn be balanced with mythal (is that the right name) spots which enhance the use of arcane power source powers (with a bonus to hit or a slight bonus to damage or some such).
I NEVER asked if 4e was perfectly balanced - I could care less one way or the other... what I WAS asking is how can I explain a dead-magic zone in a 4e game, without the weave around.
On other worlds, such a thing would counter ALL magic, but Toril was exceptional in that you could have such terrific story-devices specific to certain types of magic. If I wanted to make one in 4e FR, I would just have to say it stopped all forms of magic, not just arcane, since I don't have the handy-dandy Weave to use as an excuse for the way it works.
Personally, I always saw the Weave as rather limiting, and a very artifical construct (I was one of it's detractors), but now I'm starting to see that it had a special charm, and there was a certain amount of finesse that it enabled.
I suppose we can't have our cake and eat it too, but I was hoping someone could give me a reasonable explanation of why a magical field would block some casters and not others in the 'Age of 4e'.
And I don't want to hear people's opinions on why that would or wouldn't be neccessary.
Sorry if I came off hot-headed, but you guys were taking my question down the old 3e vs 4e path, and I'm getting tired of it. I was just hoping someone would have a nifty idea here.
In 4th edition mechanics each power source is a unique and singularly defined power source. In other words what you do to Divine does not automatically transfer to Arcane, and vice versa. Essentially each power source has its own frequency, blocking one or jamming one does not affect the others.Though I would not use these as stated previously, I realize the potential as regards specific stories being told. Since there is no universal answer to your question I would recommend tailoring the reason for the field to the individual story you are trying to tell. What works for one campaign in the FR may not work for another, and even within the same campaign the needs of the story at different times may dictate a change.
On the mechanics of 4e, wish I could help you, but I know almost nothing beyond the most general to offer any suggestions with...
Kerym Ammath: Thank You - I forgot about 'Power Sources' in 4e... that may work. I just need to learn a bit more about them (aren't there a bunch, or am I thinking of warlock Pacts here?)
Each different type of magic (Arcane, Shadow, Fey, Divine, Fiendish, etc) could have the abilty to block ONE other type via a magical ritual unique to that magical source, and each in turn would be able to block the next, with the last blocking the first, so that all things remain equal (ever source would be strong against one other, but weak against one other as well).
the only problem with that is that you would need to establish EVERY magical source from the beginnig, which precludes any that might come out in future splatbooks.
Otherwise you'd have to slip one in-between two others, which would be a retcon.
unless... you could have a new source weak against one that another already has that weakness, and strong against yet another that has one strong against it, giving you new options with each new power source.
For instance,
A trumps B, B is strong vs C, and C is good against D, and D is powerful vs A
If we wanted to add 'E', but didn't want to retcon A & D., we could say that E is good vs C (like B is), but is weak against D (like A is), giving us a completely different relationship to the already-established magical types then they have to each other. Then as new ones are added (through splat & setting books, or DDi articles), they could be strong or weak against others that were 'added-in' previously (so the list of would never run out of combinations, since you'd always be adding others to pair-off against).
I hope that wasn't too confusing, with me using the letters in lieu of magical types. I was just trying to wrap my mind around some sort of formula for this type of 'magical shielding'.
So Arcane magic might be able to create a field-effect that blocks out all forms of divine magic, while Divine would be able to do so to Fey magic, and then Fey magic would be able to severe arcane casters from their conection to the source... (in a simple, three-source example).
Hmmmm....
The thing is though, on FR, bits of latent magic gets to power the more superhuman martial exploits of rogues, rangers and fighters. So the Martial powersource should be effected by a dead magic zone aswell.
-It's an interesting idea, power sources, one that I like, but...
Each different type of magic (Arcane, Shadow, Fey, Divine, Fiendish, etc) could have the abilty to block ONE other type via a magical ritual unique to that magical source, and each in turn would be able to block the next, with the last blocking the first, so that all things remain equal (ever source would be strong against one other, but weak against one other as well).
the only problem with that is that you would need to establish EVERY magical source from the beginnig, which precludes any that might come out in future splatbooks.
Otherwise you'd have to slip one in-between two others, which would be a retcon.
unless... you could have a new source weak against one that another already has that weakness, and strong against yet another that has one strong against it, giving you new options with each new power source.
For instance,
A trumps B, B is strong vs C, and C is good against D, and D is powerful vs A
If we wanted to add 'E', but didn't want to retcon A & D., we could say that E is good vs C (like B is), but is weak against D (like A is), giving us a completely different relationship to the already-established magical types then they have to each other, then as new ones are added (through splat & setting books, or DDi articles), they could be strong or weak against others that were 'added-in' previously (so the list of would never run out of combinations, since you'd always be adding others to pair-off against).
I hope that wasn't to confusing, with me using the letters in lieu of magical types. I was just trying to wrap my mind around some sort of formula for this type of 'magical shielding'.
So Arcane magic might be able to create a field-effect that blocks out all forms of divine magic, while Divine would be able to do so to Fey magic, and then Fey magic would be able to severe arcane casters from their conection to the source... (in a simple, three-source example).
Hmmmm....
Interesting take on it. Not my cup of tea, but interesting nonetheless.
The main thing is that if it works for you run with it. Personally I see the different power sources more as methods. These methods are means of using the basic lego set of the universe. How you tap into it has a large effect on how it winds up being expressed. So for me I don't see these forces as opposing since they all draw from a universal source, how they do it differs. In this difference lies the means of reducing them individually if needed to tell a specific story. I don't think it needs to be mechanically defined, to be repeatable, and I personally have no need for it to proliferate. Like I said whatever works for you.
The thing is though, on FR, bits of latent magic gets to power the more superhuman martial exploits of rogues, rangers and fighters. So the Martial powersource should be effected by a dead magic zone aswell.
Do you want to give a quote to support that? I have not seen anything in any book that suggests that any of what is done with the martial power source in any way, shape, or form relates to magic... in Forgotten Realms or otherwise.
-Some detail and expansion will help, but I think that, in the way WotC did it, the ball is dropped. I mean: What is the 'Martial' Power Source? Some- like Fey, Infernal, Diabolical, Far Realms, things like that- make plenty of sense. Others, like 'Martial', don't.
-It's an interesting idea, power sources, one that I like, but...
I really don't agree with you in any shape or form. First of all, its hard to "drop the ball" on something that is little more then a descriptor. Your power source has no real mechanical effect. It dictates what your powers are called (spells, exploits, prayers), it describes how you perform your powers, but it has NO mechanical effect. The mechanics of the martial power source are outlined not through the existence of the power source, but through the way its exploits are written. Now, if you are saying that WotC dropped the ball on the mechanics of these exploits, I don't agree. The fighter, ranger, warlord, and rogue are great classes. In my opinion, they are far better balanced against their magical counterparts then they ever were in the past. If this was not your meaning then there was nothing to drop the ball on, except for description. And I don't agree that WotC dropped the ball on the description of the martial power source. As per the description on page 54 of the Players Handbook, "martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. Martial characters use their own strength [dexterity] and willpower to vanquish their enemies. Training and dedication replace arane formulas and prayers....Martial powers are called exploits." This is a fairly clear and concise description of what the martial power source is, and the description is just as believable as any other power source.
As Suin Bahner said,
Martial power is when Conan crushes an elephant in a single wellplaced blow, when Artemis evades notice by blending into the shadows, when Drizzt performs his reversed crosscut parry.
Which leads me to this.
Sounds like its turning D&D into anime... nothing inherently wrong with that, but not being a fan of anime it certainly doesn't find much appeal with me...
To quote Markustay, you can take your "4e is anime" and stick it up your... tuba.
There is nothing more or less anime about 4e then there ever was in the past. In the past characters called upon either divine power, arcane power, martial power, or the like as well. 4e just clearly spelled out what exactly each classes "power source" was with a two word descriptor or catch phrase. With or without this descriptor, classes still called on their heroic "energy" from the same place. The fighter was still a martial character. The cleric still divine. The wizard still arcane. The only real change from 3e to 4e are semantic. That is to say, a couple classes had their "power source" reorganized/redefined, and all "power sources" were clarified with simplicity of expression. Lets avoid turning this thread into an edition war by making comments like "4e is more anime" or the like.
Martial power is when Conan crushes an elephant in a single wellplaced blow, when Artemis evades notice by blending into the shadows, when Drizzt performs his reversed crosscut parry. This requires a bit of "ki" or concentrated physical energy that resembles the building block of arcane energy in the broadest sense of its definition that it comes from life, but this time its more internal.
-The Ki Power source- which I believe is something separate and to be discussed in future source material- can explain Drizzt performing those fighting maneuvers (He's good at it!), and Conan crushing an elephant (He's strong!), but not Entreri fading into the shadows. This is something that normal people cannot do by "tapping in" to their inner potential. It is something that needs an explanation as to where the power comes from, that isn't provided (yet).
Do you want to give a quote to support that? I have not seen anything in any book that suggests that any of what is done with the martial power source in any way, shape, or form relates to magic... in Forgotten Realms or otherwise.
This was in Bruce Cordells Countdown to the Realms: Magic in the Forgotten Realms article. It begins with:
Wizards, warlocks, clerics, sorcerers, bards, paladins, and even rogues, fighters, rangers, and other adventurers call upon personally derived threads of magic to cast mighty spells, enforce pacts with enigmatic entities, heal injury, ward against evil, or accomplish physical feats that transcend purely mortal means.
In the last paragraph it says:
The ancient wonder of old magic yet lingers among the ruins of thousand-year-old empires, in crumbling towers of mad wizards, and in buried vaults of elder races. The modern marvels of living wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, clerics, druids, and other spellcasters stride the land as purposefully as they ever did, altering the world in small or large ways with each spell they cast. Indeed, without the divine restrictions of previous ages, magic is more abundant than ever, manifesting not only as inexplicable changes to the landscape, items, and creatures, but even in some of the most fantastic exploits of fighters, rogues, rangers, and other heroes. Magic truly does permeate all things. For all the changes wrought by the Mystra’s death, magic remains the lifeblood of Toril.
-The Ki Power source- which I believe is something separate and to be discussed in future source material- can explain Drizzt performing those fighting maneuvers (He's good at it!), and Conan crushing an elephant (He's strong!), but not Entreri fading into the shadows. This is something that normal people cannot do by "tapping in" to their inner potential. It is something that needs an explanation as to where the power comes from, that isn't provided (yet).
1) Its not the Ki power source, its the martial power source. Unfortunately they will later come out with a ki power source (as you have said)... which is sort of REALLY dumb, because the "ki" power source is pretty much the Asian martial power source. But, whatever... people other then me like the term, and like its use as a supernatural power source, so who am I to tell them that its badwrongfun.
2) Yes, they really have explained it Lord Karsus. "Martial characters use their own strength [dexterity] and willpower to vanquish their enemies. Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers....Martial powers are called exploits." This explains Drizzt performing those fighting maneuvers (He's good at it!), Conan crushing an elephant (He's strong!), AND Entreri fading into the shadows (he is exceptionally skilled in the art of stealth and evasion). Stop trying to picture Entreri's ability as something magical, and picture it more as something akin to the abilities of Batman. Ever see the new movies? He is constantly disappearing into the shadows. He is constantly disappearing the moment someone stops paying attention to him. He has learned the art not only of not being seen, but of being invisible (read: hiding in a manner that people don't notice him even when he is a couple feet away). Never, in any part of these movies, does batman use anything but martial skill and training. Nothing he does is supernatural (even when his enemies are sometimes led to believe that it is). What he does is perform a variety of martial exploits related to stealth and evasion.
This was in Bruce Cordells Countdown to the Realms: Magic in the Forgotten Realms article. It begins with:
In the last paragraph it says:
Ah. That explains why I have never seen it before. Its online content instead of something written in the book. I was going to say that the first paragraph doesn't indicate that the martial exploits are magical. All it says is that "even rogues, fighters, rangers, and other adventurers call upon personally derived threads of magic to cast mighty spells, enforce pacts with enigmatic entities, heal injury, ward against evil, or accomplish physical feats that transcend purely mortal means." In other words, fighters, rogues, rangers, and other adventurers can all learn to cast ritual magic. But, then I read this: magic is more abundant than ever, manifesting not only as inexplicable changes to the landscape, items, and creatures, but even in some of the most fantastic exploits of fighters, rogues, rangers, and other heroes. I guess I could say something like "that's only because in the realms everything is permeated by magic, so even the mundane is magical..." but it would feel a little hokey. So, all I can say is, "not in my realms." :P
A rogue using the (5th level?) camouflage exploit (i.e. remain hidden even in unobstructed view) is slightly bending light with magic when hiding. Physically even batman would be revealed if he didnot have a camoflage ability like that. I picture a camouflaged rogue actually becoming transparent when actively using that skill, i.e. his outline is blurred in the shadows...
Only the truly fantastical powers would "draw upon the weave" (in 3rd editions terms). Most exploits are pretty obvious in showing somesort of physical maneuvers being used. But when a fighter starts getting exploits that toss around their enemies like ragdolls somesort of fantastic element could be used to explain the physics defying things happenening on the battlefield. This magic would not show in bands of drawn energy like the arcane or divine powersource are prone to exibit, but be subtle and barely detecable.
A rogue using the (5th level?) camouflage exploit (i.e. remain hidden even in unobstructed view) is slightly bending light with magic when hiding. Physically even batman would be revealed if he didnot have a camoflage ability like that. I picture a camouflaged rogue actually becoming transparent when actively using that skill, i.e. his outline is blurred in the shadows...
I always pictured it as more of a batman maneuver then something magical like that. For example, in Batman begins there are a bunch of the league of shadows hiding in a hallway with him and Raz. There is nothing in the hallway to obstruct anyone's view. In D&D terms they would be standing in a hallway with unobstructed view. Yet, all of them were camouflaged and hanging off the rafters of the ceiling. Until Raz told Bruce Wayn that he could teach him not only to avoid being noticed, but also to be invisible, these members of the league of shadows were effectively invisible both to the viewer and Bruce Wayn. That is how I picture camouflage.
I think your explanation is better for the game if they decide the powersources are going to have different origens for the energy powering their powersource, but the magic in FR article strongly suggests in the end all powersources are powered by raw magic.
The difference here is that Bruce and the viewer are distracted (penalty to spot) and the Members of the League of Shadows have shadowy illumination to hide in. Camouflage also works in broad daylight on fully aware seekers, albeit for only a single round...
I think your explanation is better for the game if they decide the powersources are going to have different origens for the energy powering their powersource, but the magic in FR article strongly suggests in the end all powersources are powered by raw magic.
I just don't consider any martial exploit to be powered by magic, of Faerun or otherwise. A martial exploit is nothing more then a feat of (sometimes Olympic) skill.
To top that off, I think the term power source is important. The reason it is called a power source is because it describes the source of a persons power. Not all power sources use the same source, hence the reason why they are different power sources.
-Performing a feat of Olympic strength, or some other action that defies normal believability (Jumping 100' into the air, let's just say) is something that needs some sort of explanation, being as such an action well surpasses something a normal person can do.
An no normal person can do it... only a hero in the late paragon to epic tier can perform any such ability. You are talking about a legendary hero of such scope that their martial skill can challenge the gods. How they do what they do has already been explained. As I have pointed out over and over, "martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. Martial characters use their own strength [dexterity] and willpower to vanquish their enemies. Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers....Martial powers are called exploits." This is ALL that needs to be said. Martial characters don't need any more of a description behind how their powers work then characters of any other power source. The short one paragraph blurb is what all power sources get, and its all that any of them need to get. The reason why their powers become more powerful and more fantastic as they get to higher levels is BECAUSE they get to higher levels.
Fighter abilities being akin to feats (ie, Sundering, Power Attacking, Cleaving, etc.) those make sense, that all works. Certain abilities that straddle the area of believability that a normal person can perform without some kind of outside aid (ie, feats of Olympic strength, Drizzt whirling and whirling with his weapons) make sense, but others don't (ie, Jumping 100' into the aid, Hiding in Plain Sight), and it is the fact that these are not explained is where the ball was dropped. Other Power Sources (with the exception of 'Arcane', in the Forgotten Realms), I have no problems with, except for 'Martial'.
And I repeate everything I said above again. High level epic characters can do what they do BECAUSE they are epic. The fact that they are epic, and can thus perform epic powers with their martial training, needs no more explanation then the reason why any other epic character can perform epic powers. At heroic and late early paragon tier these classes gain no such capabilities (that I have seen as of yet, at least).
Thus I totally disagree with you that the ball was dropped. I don't think there is anything wrong with the existing description of the martial power source or how its powers work. I REALLY don't agree that the ball was dropped. I love what they did with the martial power source. I think its probably my favorite power source to be honest...
-Nothing is being answered. You saying "Because they are heroes" is not an answer. Because someone is "a hero" doesn't change the fact that these individuals are otherwise identical to Cormyrian Farmer #3 with Pitchfork, except for some experiences (that very from person to person), accolades (that vary from person to person), and equipment (that very from person to person). How is an individual performing a feat that is not physically possible without the outside aid of any source (ie, magic spell, magic weapon, etc.) augmenting him/her? This is where I take exception to the Martial Power Source. It isn't a source of power, and it doesn't make much sense as one. A 'Ki' Power Source makes a modicum of sense, as it is explaining otherwise unexplainable happenings though the use of Ki manipulation, which has otherwise magical effects on the individual. Unfortunately, this is lacking that.
And I disagree with you. If the person was identical to a Farmer with a pitchfork, they would not be an epic level character. Physically they may appear to be the same as farmer number #3, but so does a wizard. What makes a wizard different is their knowledge of magic. What makes a fighter different is their intensive martial training. The fact that the characters have become epic level heroes indicates that they are something far more then a farmer. What they are is an epic level character, someone with the skill, training, dedication, and focus comparable to a demi-god. Someone capable of pushing their strength, dexterity, and willpower into feats of super-human exploits. They gain their power from martial training, and thus their martial training is their power source. They are a martial character. Everything makes sense to me. Not to mention that the term "ki" and "martial" are pretty much interchangeable. The only real difference between the two is their regional flavor. Again, I am not seeing where the ball was dropped on anything. I am not seeing where anything is lacking. I don't see why any power source should require any more description then any other power source. I like things the way things have been done.
As to LK's dropping the ball issue, I think he's saying that more elaboration was called for, particularly on the "not magic in the traditional sense" part, since it implies that there is magic involved on some level, just not one most are used to... and if it involves magic, then it can be messed with somehow. At least that's how I was taking what he said. Its an ambiguous definition of things, for most power sources, at least that I recall, and where there is ambiguity, there is room for abuse.
Not sure I really see anything wrong with the definition they gave per se, but for those who like more certainty, I can definitely see how it could be found wanting.
Is it really that different with Arcane and Divine magics, and all of their permutations? Seriously, there's nothing wrong inherently with 4e beyond personal preference and style, same goes with 3e. Its all D&D when it comes right down to it.
Amen.
Lets get back to magic post weave. :P
I also miss counterspelling. Loved mage duels using lots of feint spells, followed up with real punch spells. And finally I miss the provocative named spells of Oerths mages, such as the Tenser's series. Can one still research new spells and bring them back in the 15th century realms?
I still think they dropped the ball on the magic system. Wizard powers lack the flavour explenations I would have loved to see. Perhaps when Arcane Power comes out I might consider the system again if they include some proper wizard fluff like wizard schools and practises. They did hint at those in the preview books.
And I really think wizards dropped the ball on pretty much everything to do with 3e. In my estimation, it was one of the worst gaming systems I have ever spent money on. The non mechanical aspects of the 3e settings books were great. I sort of wish the 4e FRCG had a calendar in it like the 3e book did (though I can always look back to my 3e books for this purpose). But everything to do with the editions mechanics, the way they worked, the balance of the game, the speed at which it ran, was done poorly. My opinion includes the way 3e magic was handled. It was a horrible system that needed a major overhaul. I am much happier with the 4e Wizard, and I am quite content to wait for new classes to replace "specialist wizards" and their "schools of magic." But, I am guessing you don't want to hear that. So, maybe we can drop the discussion on what WotC dropped the ball on and get back to a discussion of magic in Faerun post weave, from the point of view of fluff?
I'm sorry, but I really don't want to take part in another edition war discussion, especially on a thread I created in order to flesh out the fluff I will use to describe the fall of the weave and the existence of magic post weave. Discussion on what "WotC dropped the ball on" will inevitably turn into an edition war thread, especially when opinions on where, when, and why the ball was dropped are so polarized. I understand not everyone likes 4e, or the way some things were done in 4e. I understand that some people prefer the mechanics of 3e. That is totally cool and fair. I personally prefer 4e to 3e in every shape and form. We each have our opinions. If you really want to discuss those opinions I am sure that there is at least one such discussion going on somewhere in the D&D general forum. But can we please avoid discussing them here?
I also miss counterspelling. Loved mage duels using lots of feint spells, followed up with real punch spells. And finally I miss the provocative named spells of Oerths mages, such as the Tenser's series. Can one still research new spells and bring them back in the 15th century realms?
Mechanically? There are no rules for this. Practically? There is nothing stopping you from writing up a new power, and then petitioning your DM to allow you to "research it" and then choose it with your next power gained. Whether your DM says yes or no will probably depend (one would hope) on whether the spell is balanced in comparison to other spells of its level, works as a 4e spell, and is a power geared towards the role of the caster's class or not.
Future novels might give more insight aswell. I recall someone mentioned that magic seemed more "out of control" when called upon by casters in Schends Blackstaff Tower. Dont know for sure if we are looking at a sorcerer working magic or a wizard...
To quote Markustay, you can take your "4e is anime" and stick it up your... tuba.
So 'Paragon' and 'Epic' are NOT akin to Super-Saiyan 1 and Super-Sayan 2?
And here I was, looking forward to my first 4e game, just so my hair would go all 'Spikey'. :D
And I really think wizards dropped the ball on pretty much everything to do with 3e.
This has nothing to do with the topic. Please, stay on topic.
This has nothing to do with the topic. Please, stay on topic.
Read the whole post before you zero in on a single line and respond. What you just said is pretty much what I said, though I tend to be a little more long winded. Specifically, here are the most important lines with everything in between cut out.
And I really think wizards dropped the ball on pretty much everything to do with 3e...But, I am guessing you don't want to hear that. So, maybe we can drop the discussion on what WotC dropped the ball on and get back to a discussion of magic in Faerun post weave, from the point of view of fluff?
I'm sorry, but I really don't want to take part in another edition war discussion, especially on a thread I created in order to flesh out the fluff I will use to describe the fall of the weave and the existence of magic post weave.
Thus, what I said was on topic. I was a little sick of hearing people say that WotC dropped the ball on various aspects of 4e, especially since I love 4e and disagree. Its not what I created the post to discuss, and its not what I wanted to talk about. To make my point I made the equivalent statement from the other side of metaphorical ballpark, and pointed out how useless my own statement was to the conversation because it likewise was of no interest to those talking about how WotC dropped the ball with 4e...
So anything else on magic post weave? What about wild magic? With the fall of the Weave wild magic is said to have "exploded." That is what caused the spellplague (at least in part). So, does that mean that there is no more "benign" spots of wild magic, and that such areas have instead been replaced with plagueland spots?
To me, the Spellscarred lands are just pockets of Wild Magic on steroids. Nothing new there, they just came up with fancy new names for stuff. The Spellplage and and everything leading up to it I have really warmed-up to, and fully accept EVERYTHING in the GHotR as canon in my games.
I might embellish the Mystra/Shar/Cyric thing with something to my liking, and give the Tyr/Helm/Tymora thing a new spin, but I'm more then willing to say it all happened.
You know what I call the Spellplague?
In fact, if they hadn't of hit us with that horrible timeshift and the craptastic Abeir stuff, I'd proably have "gone over to the Dark Side" and be a complete 4e-proponent right now.
Edit: Or would that be "The Shadey Side"?
