-Given their depictions in Plague of Spells, Spellscars, seemingly and apparently, can come in any form, and can do anything. So, that gives a lot of leeway, in terms of creating people/creatures affected by them.
Longevity seems to a popular one, specifically amongst novel characters.
Funny; the novels that have mentioned spellscars haven't really focused too much on spellscarred creatures.
-The aforementioned Plague of Spells has some kind of Undead monster that is apparently Plaguetouched. I believe it was a ghoul, but the influence of the Spellplague caused it to have a mouth- complete with large chompers- on it's stomach, as well as on it's face. Yeah, it's not much, but...That's the extent of it, in my reading experience.
Mine too. I wasn't too impressed by the "first spellscarred creature" shown to us.
Really? There aren't any rules for having a spellscar? Given that the spellplague and spellscars are such a big plot point, that seems like a pretty big omission if that's true. What about DDi rules for spellscars?
I mean, if they can do "anything," then I want a spellscar that grants 15000 hp, maximum stats, plot armor, and immortality. ;)
Done and done.:P
Really? There aren't any rules for having a spellscar? Given that the spellplague and spellscars are such a big plot point, that seems like a pretty big omission if that's true. What about DDi rules for spellscars?
I mean, if they can do "anything," then I want a spellscar that grants 15000 hp, maximum stats, plot armor, and immortality. ;)
-I don't know about specific rules presented in any of the RPG sourcebooks or articles, but, as portrayed just in Plague of Spells, we have spellscars that turn people/things in aberration banes, we have some individuals gaining super strength, we have individuals turning trees into “super trees” and rocks into “super rocks”, we have individuals turning into phantasm-like specters while dreaming…The novel didn't present any rhyme or reason to what they can and/or cannot do, and coupled with the chaos that the Spellplague was, in terms of causing stuff to change, spellscars can do anything or everything, apparently, if you want them to.
-I don't know about specific rules presented in any of the RPG sourcebooks or articles, but, as portrayed just in Plague of Spells, we have spellscars that turn people/things in aberration banes, we have some individuals gaining super strength, we have individuals turning trees into “super trees” and rocks into “super rocks”, we have individuals turning into phantasm-like specters while dreaming…The novel didn't present any rhyme or reason to what they can and/or cannot do, and coupled with the chaos that the Spellplague was, in terms of causing stuff to change, spellscars can do anything or everything, apparently, if you want them to.
I don't suppose you read Unholy, by any chance? The one character Aoth had a single spellscar which granted him super-longevity (to the point where he no longer seemed to age), increased vision (sharp as a hawk's, I think it was described), and the ability to peer into the future (through random, involuntary visions). Quite a kicker.
A plaguechanged monster can be emulated with a spellstitched template, a magical hazard with the living spell template and abberation stats of a skum can make a good base creature to use as basic plaguechanged fodder.
The plaguechanged ghoul from Undead got its own lame mini...
Huzzah...
Huzzah...
-Think Undead Tomb Tapper, and there you go.
There are, indeed, strict rules for PCs with spellscars and they can be found in the FRPG. What we don't have are strict rules for monsters with spellscars, but I imagine that will become more clear as more data is released on how to build balanced monsters. It's basically just a monster, with its powers originating in the spellplague--meaning they can be a little more random than you might otherwise expect.
And as the author of one novel that deals a bit with the spellplague . . .
Sounds like Marvel Universe superhero powers. Don't get me wrong, I love X-Men, the Avengers, and all that stuff, but it seems a bit out of joint for D&D. Unbalanced, really.
Yeah, I suppose that's a reasonable parallel. You get godsmacked by some largely unexplained power, and it alters your metabolism/body/soul in some way, giving you magical powers.
To me, though, it seems very little different from wielding sorcery you inherited from a long ago ancestor--or making a warlock's pact with a powerful entity in exchange for power--or Spellfire. The way it comes off as comic-booky is if the writer or gamer makes it comic-booky. You can kinda make the reverse argument: that comic books are pretty much urban fantasy/scifi.
Anyway--here's how I dealt with it in my novel Downshadow:
Two of the main characters are spellscarred: in one, it manifests as a numbing/deadening curse, kind of like progressive CIPA (think the villain from The World is not Enough); the other character's scar gives powers similar to those of the 3.5 Spellthief (see Complete Adventurer)--basically, she absorbs people's spells and can use them herself (though generally only once, and then they're gone). Also, she can occasionally read people's minds/memories by much the same process.
(I want to make it clear--I pretty much did that through spellscarring because it was the only existent explanation I could use for how she got those sorts of abilities. There's no 4e spellthief . . . yet, anyway.)
I also have a few minor characters who are spellscarred: one can enhance his clawed fingers to do more damage (sort of magic fang), one can manipulate colors and patterns in a person's appearance (sort of alter self), and one burns people at a touch (sort of like inflict wounds that you can't turn off).
Of all of those, my spellthief is a *little bit* Rogue from X-Men, but only in one particular concept (stealing powers), and not in the "omg, I can't touch people" way that is so central to her character. ('Course, it can be argued that the original spellthief concept comes from Rogue--but anyway.) If that's too much superhero-ness for you, however, by all means--don't read the novel!
As is probably pretty obvious by this point, I don't have an issue with spellscars--in fact, I think they're fun plot devices to use, particularly if you treat them more like a curse than a boon.
Cheers
Though I know there are lots of folks who disagree (wink wink LK), I think spellscars are as reasonable a part of the Realms as any source of magic.
I actually agree.
Two of the main characters are spellscarred: in one, it manifests as a numbing/deadening curse, kind of like progressive CIPA (think the villain from The World is not Enough); the other character's scar gives powers similar to those of the 3.5 Spellthief (see Complete Adventurer)--basically, she absorbs people's spells and can use them herself (though generally only once, and then they're gone). Also, she can occasionally read people's minds/memories by much the same process.
(I want to make it clear--I pretty much did that through spellscarring because it was the only existent explanation I could use for how she got those sorts of abilities. There's no 4e spellthief . . . yet, anyway.)
I also have a few minor characters who are spellscarred: one can enhance his clawed fingers to do more damage (sort of magic fang), one can manipulate colors and patterns in a person's appearance (sort of alter self), and one burns people at a touch (sort of like inflict wounds that you can't turn off).
As is probably pretty obvious by this point, I don't have an issue with spellscars--in fact, I think they're fun plot devices to use, particularly if you treat them more like a curse than a boon.
And this is exactly why I prefer your portrayal of Spellscars. It's a scar; it's supposed to take away in some fashion. The beauty of
Show
Kalen's
Though I know there are lots of folks who disagree (wink wink LK), I think spellscars are as reasonable a part of the Realms as any source of magic.
-I have no problems with them, as a magical tattoo, or item, or whatever, other than their limits are ultimately undefined and ambiguous in various instances of Spellscars being portrayed.
-I have no problems with them, as a magical tattoo, or item, or whatever, other than their limits are ultimately undefined and ambiguous in various instances of Spellscars being portrayed.
Well, no more undefined and ambiguous than some of the more liberal spellslinging that goes on at times in the Realms . . . I mean, there's nothing you can or can't do with spellscars you can't do with magic. It's just a flavor thing.
But at least it's defined mechanically--for PCs at least. A little more freedom for DMs.
Cheers
Well, no more undefined and ambiguous than some of the more liberal spellslinging that goes on at times in the Realms . . . I mean, there's nothing you can or can't do with spellscars you can't do with magic. It's just a flavor thing.
But at least it's defined mechanically--for PCs at least. A little more freedom for DMs.
Cheers
-With magic, using either the old D&D system, or the new D&D system, there are clear boundaries as to what can be done by who. A magician's apprentice can snap his fingers and conjure a a little light, open and/or close a door, shoot a little beam of cold, whatever. He/she has a clear and set limit (in D&D terms, once again) of what he/she can and can not do. The 1st Level Wizard/magician's apprentice can't stop time (Time Stop), shoot fireballs (Fireball), teleport to another plane (Plane Shift) and plenty of other things that are clearly defined by the rules, and are reinforced in novels.
-The depictions of Spellscars in Plague of Spells (being my only exposure to them) don't seem to follow the guidelines set forth in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, nor do they have any internal (as in, in the story being self-contained) limits/guidelines as to what they are possible of doing; that is, each Spellscar seems radically different from the next, in terms of what it does, and the "relative power level of what it does". Certain individuals have Spellscars that give them special abilities in fighting aberrations. Others have Spellscars that let them turn into phantasms while sleeping, or that grant them super strength, or to animate objects- there doesn't seem to be any set definitions to what they can do (which I have no real problem with, as more options are always better), but more importantly, there doesn't seem to be any set "scaling" to what they can do, as depicted in Plague of Spells. If I can have a key to a car, and can pick either an broken down Edsel, or a brand new Camaro, without receiving any incentives in taking the Edsel/drawbacks in taking the Camaro, why pick the lesser of the two?
Show
Duvan
I would've hoped that in 4E there would be rules that allow for pretty much everything in the novels. Many are drawn to D&D because of the novels, or come back to D&D so they can try out a character that's like one of their novel favorites. The rules should reflect what we see in the novels. If spellscars mean one thing for PCs, and are a "global whatever you want" thing for novel authors, it's really unfortunate and makes me want to avoid future novels altogether.
Play by the rules, authors! Or develop rules that can be used in game. Don't just invent something that is only useful for you.
But we've seen authors not take into account D&D rules way before the Spellplague. Hells even before the ToT. I mean RAS is a great example: I can recall many times Drizzt has used his spell-like ability darkness or cloud of darkness (in 4e) multipul times per battle and yet, his stats via FRCS don't state he can actually do that. Or often times you can find high-powered mages casting spells i've never read or heard about from any source book.
I feel that authors should have a certain lee-way when it comes to illustrating and depicting what their characters do and shouldn't be constrained to the rules set forth by game designers who often aren't novel writers to begin with.
For an example, say an author is writing about a young mage who is adventuring..blah, blah and he casts 3 bolts of magic from his hands. Every D&D player probably knows he's at least 5th to 6th level wizard/sorcerer and now that author is limited to what spells that character can cast. If he casts a spell thats way out of his league (game level wise) but fits/ties his story beautifully, what is he to do? Does he break the rules of the game (something he's not writing about) or feel compelled to change his story to fit a rule-set?
-With magic, using either the old D&D system, or the new D&D system, there are clear boundaries as to what can be done by who. A magician's apprentice can snap his fingers and conjure a little light, open and/or close a door, shoot a little beam of cold, whatever. He/she has a clear and set limit (in D&D terms, once again) of what he/she can and can not do. The 1st Level Wizard/magician's apprentice can't stop time (Time Stop), shoot fireballs (Fireball), teleport to another plane (Plane Shift) and plenty of other things that are clearly defined by the rules, and are reinforced in novels.
True and that is also the case in reguard to Spellscars when your dealing with PCs. A novel illustrates a character who's not a PC. Once again, we're constraining an author (who's attempting to tell a story) by setting forth black and white guidelines on what his character can and cannot do. To me, takes away from the story.
Additionally, when authors go beyond the boundries (such in the way as creative spellscar powers) it can and has generated additional game mechanics and powers for players to use in their campaigns.
Plus the chaotic, random, and wild effects that Spellscars have on people gives it (game and book) a freedom that I rather like. A DM can read a book, find a character's spellscar compelling and intresting and then apply rules in reguards to that spellscar. And for those who say creating your own stuff un-balances the game, I beg to differ. I myself have created over 20+ Paragon Paths just from converting old 3.5 materials and I haven't found any balance problems yet. That's the beauty of 4e, it's adapter friendly.
The rules should reflect what we see in the novels. If spellscars mean one thing for PCs, and are a "global whatever you want" thing for novel authors, it's really unfortunate and makes me want to avoid future novels altogether.
Well, that’s tragic, not the least of which because the premise is IMO a misunderstanding.
In the FRCG and FRPG, spellscars are described as random and potentially capable of all sorts of things. In that sense, the spellscars discussed in the novels that have come out so far are *totally* in line with what spellscars are supposed to be.
When we run into trouble is when we expect the novels to show characters with the spellscar abilities in the sourcebooks--and ONLY those abilities.
The abilities shown in the FRPG are *guidelines* and *examples* of what spellscars could do--presenting you with a ready set of powers for your PCs, whilst still giving you the capability to invent new ones as you have need. Just because a novel character demonstrates a spellscar power you don't find in the FRPG doesn't mean it's unreasonable.
Mechanics can be easily developed based on the abilities presented in the novels. For instance, in Downshadow, one of the spellscars is basically a utility power that kicks in when you're bloodied and gives damage reduction (example: immediate reaction; trigger: bloodied; you gain damage reduction 5 until the end of the encounter). My spellthief's scar is basically an encounter power that lets you *steal* another character's power and use it yourself (the way this would work mechanically would be something like, standard action, INT vs. Will, Hit: Target can’t use encounter or recharge powers until the end of your next turn; pick one of the target’s encounter or recharge powers; you gain that power until the end of your next turn). The other powers I discussed are just as easy to make into usable mechanics. She also has a utility power that allows her to read someone’s mind (I seem to think there’s a warlock power that lets you force a subject to answer questions, so this would be similar; probably, PHB3 is going to have psionic abilities to read minds).
Other thoughts:
It was specified to me, at least, that no two people have quite the same spellscar (or at least, it's very rare)--so of course I made my own abilities for characters to have.
It's worth noting that characters in the novels are *not necessarily* PCs. If they actually appear in the game, it's far more likely that they will be monsters, who don't follow the same creation rules in 4e. If a given spellscar in a novel seems too powerful for a PC to have, well, then a PC shouldn't have it. This is even supported in the mechanics, with the distinction between "plague-changed" and "spell-scarred," making it pretty clear that there are varying levels of power when dealing with the effects of the Spellplague. The rules for monster creation *clearly* allow for awesome and totally original powers, so that’s very much in keeping with the mechanics. (Not that that’s much of a comforting explanation, as you seem to want the characters of the novels to be like PCs.)
And last but not least, IMO, it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of a good story than slavish devotion to the mechanics. These are real fantasy novels--not transcripts of gaming sessions.
Play by the rules, authors! Or develop rules that can be used in game. Don't just invent something that is only useful for you.
Well, I can't and don't want to speak for the other authors. As you can see, I for one make a concerted effort to do exactly what you're talking about. As I pointed out, mechanics can be created to explain the various spellplague powers--just because they’re not already presented in the sourcebooks doesn’t mean they’re unreasonable.
NONE of this is to say that the books shouldn’t reflect the mechanics or that we shouldn’t put the reins on what we do with spellscars. As I said, I’m not speaking for anyone but myself--I personally feel comfortable with my use of spellscars.
Cheers