| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 14 Jan 2008 : 22:13:34
I keep reading that Shadow magic was a failure or that it was a mistake from Wizards people.. I'm wondering... why?
For starters, I liked it. It was new, it was something dark, that eventually if Mystra gained control of could have shifted her back to a more neutral god. She'd still have the Chosen, because someone has to fight the evil guys and keep them from using magic to destory the world, nut that didn't happen. What we got instead was Shar lowing herself to working with someone like Cyric.. who she really probably would have looked down on instead of being affiliated with.. just my opinion.
Anyway, back on topic, why did it fail? Was it because the Shadow magic prestige class sucked? Was it because Wizards decided to go in other directions (dragons, demon/elf wars, and theme books: classes, cities, dungeons, etc.), or was it because they released Tome of Magic which had a better shadow magic system and class in it then what the Realms had?
Now granted, I didn't read Twilight War and have a lot of Cale left, but it seems to be that if Shadow Magic failed it's because Wizards lost focus on it after Archwizards instead of continuing it's story immediately. We never really learned how it was discovered by Mystra or her followers. We never really saw any attempt of unraveling the mysteries of the Shadow weave. Heck, we didn't even see any evil groups like the Red Wizards or Cult mass covert to it.
It failed because Wizards dropped the ball.
Now in the campaign I'm currently playing we had a cleric of Mystra discover a tome carried by a Shadow magic Wizard that contained his research and theories of the shadow weave. She became the target of the followers of Shar, Shadow magic users, and a few random Zhents looking to gain access to said power. Eventually she got the tome into the hands of a sage who was able to figure out what the tome was about and what should be done with it (go to elminster of course!) but that's a whole other story. :)
|
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Shilo99 |
Posted - 17 Jan 2008 : 13:32:39
Interesting topic and insights.
I never realised there were so many ways to slice the shadow-pie!
Yeah it seems a real case of throwing out the wrong magic when they ditched the weave because the Shadow Weave is considered a problem!
To SirUrza's initial comments:
I think the concern of many stems from the fact Shadow Magic/Weave was effectively ported to the Realms.
If there was the concern that magic under Midnight Mystra was too aligned to good, then I wish for 4e they just sent Mystra back more towards her stance from pre-Midnight days, and make her a little more remote from followers. Not more rubbish about banning magic from naughty folks…and naughty gods. Bah!
Thinking more and more about introducing Tome of Magic in my campaign via the Shadow Weave casters.
All,
S |
| Shilo99 |
Posted - 17 Jan 2008 : 13:21:35
I'm currently reading the trilogy and agree with KnightErrantJR on his first paragraph...Troy gave us a very different and powerful version of Shadow Weave powered arcane magic that is much more powerful and different than was accommodated in the rules (where you had to play up the non-rules/non-combat wierdness of the casting or else its practically no different from everything else the PCs see, except with a couple of +1/-1’s. I don’t like the idea that Weave magic can’t detect Shadow Weave magic and yet the converse is true is; but the whole concept of difference made for an interesting story.
On the Tome of Magic sidebar, do you mean the one on page 110? If so, I can’t see what’s wrong with (except that its 13 lines not 50 pages!). It simply states the basic lore of the shadow weave, and that the shadow magic casters described in that work use the shadow weave as A source of their power.
I have been thunking since I got the book, that I would like to introduce shadow magic into my campaigns via the shadow magic style described in Tome of Magic. Base class is cool, and there are enough interesting options to establish the weirdness of the shadow weave and its casters: it’s colourful (which is saying a lot for a shadow!)
All,
S |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 15 Jan 2008 : 20:40:56
Given that WOTC tripped over themselves to start the Last Mythal books before the Year of Rogue Dragons was even over, yeah, that's probably a fair assessment. I also think that Troy's interpretation of the Shadow Weave/Weave split in Return of the Archwizards was actually a wholly different interpretation that either the Magic of Faerun or the "current unitl it was just rescinded" version of the Shadow Weave.
Meaning that at the least we had three different origins, before you add in the confusion of the poorly written sidebar on Shadow Magic in the Tome of Magic, which didn't touch on the origin of the Shadow Weave, but did imply that somehow every shadow effect in Faerun had to be tied to the Shadow Weave somehow. |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 15 Jan 2008 : 20:33:42
So we agree that it didn't work because they never put pen to paper to define Shar's anti-Mystra magic and use it heavily in the setting before turning their attention on crazy dragons and half-demon/elf wars? :) |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 15 Jan 2008 : 01:40:55
And we end up with Shadow Weave still working, Shadow Magic not working and the Weave not working because "the Shadow Weave. It's fiddly, it's complex".
Let us cheer the survivor, *shakes head* |
| Uzzy |
Posted - 15 Jan 2008 : 01:40:05
The Shadow Weave had potential. It just wasn't ever clearly defined. The continual contradictory mentions of it in FR canon certainly didn't help either. I think that given a proper definition, it could be an interesting part of Realmslore. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 15 Jan 2008 : 01:29:52
This is the quote from Rich that we're talking about, in response to a question about the old bad ideas in the Realms:quote:
I'll pick on one of my own: the Shadow Weave. It's fiddly, it's complex, and it's really intended to provide DMs with a fig leaf of explanation for a check on Mystra's otherwise absolute power in the setting. With a different take on magic and the goddess of magic in the setting, the necessity of a Shadow Weave diminishes drastically. It's something we can live without.
He didn't expand on the fiddliness and complexity.
I disliked the Shadow Weave from the start, since the idea that it's 'necessary' to check Mystra's power is so obviously bogus, though I'd not realized that Rich actually believed it. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 15 Jan 2008 : 01:03:55
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Please do not tell me the Weave was removed because of Shadow Magic.
Yes - it appears that when a choice needed to be made, it was the Weave that got the axe.  |
| Wandering_mage |
Posted - 15 Jan 2008 : 00:26:57
Shadow magic and the shadow weave have such potential. ::shake of the head:: If only it had been defined better. I think some spells that are unique to the weave and contrasted by some unique to the Shadow weave might have at least gave the concept legs to stand up on at the gaming table. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 14 Jan 2008 : 22:57:31
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
The fact that the Shadow Weave has been so poorly defined over the years is a knock against it, I think. I don't even like to discuss it anymore on the WotC boards, because it seems like each person has their own interpretation of what it is and how it works (ie. not everyone agrees that the SW is seperate and independent from the regular Weave).
I am starting to wonder about if the problem comes from types of magic in the first place.
Blindsight at one time meant three different things for example.
Shadow magic as a word does not Indicate if Shadow Weave is being used or Shadow Magic being used.
The Shades it appears use Shadow Magic (and based on what so far has been released appears to no longer work).
Followers of Shar use Shadow Weave (and based on what so far has been released still works).
Shadow magic (note the small m) cound be from Shadow Weave or Shadow Magic.
Rich Baker also might have confused the terms in the game design.
I can not realy answer a question because, while it appears Shadow Weave is being the discussion, Shadow magic is the Topoc.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 14 Jan 2008 : 22:52:47
Yeah, the whole subject give me a headache now. I thought that this whole thing was settled in recent years, but it seems like even the designers and authors cannot get on the same page. Plus, I really thought that when Rich said that the Shadow Weave was a failed element, that he meant it was gone, but his more recent comments seem to indicate that it has survived in some form, which seems to be one more internal logic defying element of 4th edition.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 14 Jan 2008 : 22:48:09
The fact that the Shadow Weave has been so poorly defined over the years is a knock against it, I think. I don't even like to discuss it anymore on the WotC boards, because it seems like each person has their own interpretation of what it is and how it works (ie. not everyone agrees that the SW is seperate and independent from the regular Weave). |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 14 Jan 2008 : 22:34:19
Err, unless I read it wrong Shadow Weave was a mistake, not Shadow Magic (based on what has been said), Shadow Magic at least in July used the Weave.
Please do not tell me the Weave was removed because of Shadow Magic.
|
