| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
dmgorgon
Acolyte
28 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 02:32:44
|
I was recently reading the Magic of Faerun source book and I came across Page 68 that says spells with origins are not restricted to those origins.
As a DM, I don't allow that to be true. IMO, spells like Silverbeard should only be granted to paladins of Clangeddin Silverbeard. If not then all the paladins in the realms would be charging into melee with long silver beards.
What were the designers thinking when they did this? I think iconic spells help differentiate followers of each god.
|
Edited by - dmgorgon on 14 Apr 2014 02:37:39
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 03:37:13
|
I can not speak for the designers, however offer a few ideas.
Almost all pay homage to more then one deity, their patron deity is the most important. There is not one true deity to be kept separate.
Deities also have allies, those of near same portfolios and goals. As long as a spell furthers a deities purpose it should not matter that much if another friendly deity's follower cast the spell.
There clearly can be likes and dislike in design and in your home game clearly use your likes. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
 |
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 03:46:10
|
I'd restrict it to dwarf only, but that's just me. One thing that is NEVER played out (in print it seems) is the discovery of a new spell found in some dusty tomb by the party wizard. There might only be a dozen copies of it in the Realms and the party wizard just found one. Instead, alot of the times we see all wizards using the same spells from all the sources.
Clerics are a bit of a different animal. If all they have to do is pray then do they get any spell out of any book? Or do they pray and their deity gives them the spells he/she thinks they should have? I always thought they should have to discover long lost prayers or create new prayers to their gods for receiving new spells etc. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 04:31:19
|
| While I can see some divine spells being signature spells for a certain deity, I think it's unreasonable to assume that no one else would ever get their hands on the spell or figure out their own way of doing it. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 10:38:36
|
dmgorgon. I'll have to say that I'm 99.9% sure that it's a combination of two things, that have gone through the designers minds:
1) It'll be easier to handle for the players, if clerics can get access to all cleric spells.
2) If we make some spells exclusive to some particular gods, we'll have boatloads of players who will bitch, whine, and moan to their GM about why they can't be allowed to use a particular spell, since it would be so perfectly in line with their character...
Personally I'm on your side. I much prefer how spell access was handled for clerics under 2nd ed. AD&D, where spell access was determined by which god the cleric followed. It's never sat well with me to have i.e. a God of Life and Healing offer their clerics spells of Destruction and Undead Animation. |
|
|
|
ksu_bond
Learned Scribe
New Zealand
214 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 21:14:04
|
| I like named spells and spells with an origin and a history...but for me these spells then become a bit more unique and not as common or as easily accessible by all...I've also had characters who enjoyed using the "original" spells rather than their commonplace names they have today, so they weren't simply casting magic missiles or lobbing a fireball... |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2014 : 00:07:27
|
-In D&D, there's probably millions of spells out there, and many of them are probably overlapping, or developed mostly the same, have mostly the same effects, or whatever else. <i>Magic Missile</i> was developed at least twice in the Forgotten Realms that we know of., for example.
-In a sourcebook with a limited number of pages, it's much simpler to say "XYZ-specific spell can be used by anyone" than say "Clangeddin Silverbeard grants his followers this unique spell. Moradin grants his followers a unique spell, "Moradin's Steelbeard", which is exactly the same from a mechanics POV. Torm grants his followers a unique spell, "Torm's Ironface", which is exactly the same from a mechanics POV". And so on. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2014 : 02:50:12
|
My take on this reverts to "how does the weave work". I see all spells as "objects" and what clerics and wizards do is imprint an image of this "object" into their mind. Each spell "object" has definitions, much like a database. Some of these definitions would be something like "available to these classes" and some may be "available only to clerics of X deity". My take is that all the gods (not just Mystra and Azuth, etc...) can put their busy hands into modifying spells. Thus, Milil may deal with/have say so in spells involving music/sound, but little say so on anything else. Velsharoon though may be able to modify any necromancy spells. All such modifications must be approved by committee (and Mystra sets who is in what committees). Thus, it may be that Clangeddin was able to get some neat spell approved for just his priests, in return for some help he gave in some form to another god. As a result, other clerics simply cannot memorize said magic until the "spell object" is modified to allow their priesthood to do so. My imagining is that all priesthoods should have a small handful of spells of this sort (similar to what we saw in the second edition F&A and P&P with certain priesthoods getting special spells just for them).
Now, have I laid out some vast list of the spell types and which gods can modify what? Nope, I assume Mystra knows what she's doing. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2014 : 04:55:54
|
| Something else that has to be considered is that even if a spell is available to all clerics, they may not want to cast it... A priestess of Sune may be able to cast silverbeard, but it's pretty safe to say she'll pick another spell! |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Saxmilian
Learned Scribe
USA
157 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2014 : 14:24:43
|
While it gets my goat that clerics are simply supposed to have access to all clerical spells, I actually take the WAY-TO-MUCH time to go through EVERY spell allowed in my game and assign which ones each Deity allows for their clerics. My players can come to me with their opinions (and whining) as to why they worship Kossuth but think they should have Tsunami on their spell list.
For the most part, while time consuming, Ive received positive feedback and for those that play clerics, enjoyment that they are not all generic.
The "Basic" spells granted by every deity to their spellcasters such as Bless, Cure Light Wounds...I mean even Bane and Tyr want their worshipers to do well and survive are simple but some raise some theologicial debate...which was the point. It gets my players involved rather than just looking at a list and picking the best spells for the day. |
|
|
|
Cbad285
Learned Scribe
160 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2014 : 15:19:55
|
| breaking it down to brass tax. in our home campaign a cleric is allowed to use any priest spell from the phb. outside of that, they have to earn a source book spell through some means as determined by the dm. for wizards, they have access in their startup spell book to 2nd lv spells. after that they have to pen their own spells or learn under a more powerful wizard. With that being said, even a cleric has to work with his church to whatever ends that involves to keep favor with his god or gods or risk not having spells at all. |
"Beware the Dream Fever!" |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2014 : 23:24:04
|
Heh, people living in the City of Brass might have mixed feelings about brass tax.
Many spells in the 2E PHB were inherited from the 1E PHB, and the 1E rulebooks were more or less written with the Greyhawk setting in mind. Various Realmslore sources mention how (the PHB) spells by Melf, Tensor, Otiluke, and the rest have been brought into the Realms. Mordenkainen was chummy with Elminster and Khelben (and Khelben disparaged Bigby) etc etc.
Spelljammer provided a good platform to explain elements of campaign crossover. Planescape, too, although it had less intrinsic focus on the Realms or Primes in general.
Arcane Ages Netheril provided a comprehensive list of which Netherese arcanists devised which spells (and when). We might assume that Magic Missile was originally General Mattick‘s Missile, but has been altered over millennia of dispersal.
I note that a few spells in 1E Realmslore were eventually republished in 2E Realmslore, but with their creators‘ names dropped ... Alcimer‘s Flying Fist became Flying Fist, Shaerloon‘s Scimitar became Scimitar of Doom, etc.
3E continued this trend further, so Melf and Leomund are no longer credited for the Acid Arrow and Magical Chest spells once attributed to them.
I imagine this trend existed since the dawn of spellcasting. Almost every spell had to first be invented by a spellcaster who (in most cases) would proudly slap an impressive moniker upon it ... and over time this nonfunctional part of the spell title has been dropped or generalized or forgotten.
My PCs always liked finding “unique“ spells like Presk‘s Impregnable Forcewall or Figaro‘s Flameball or Richter‘s Lightning Lash ... even though these are just dollied up versions of plain PHB spells with trivial differences in material components or cosmetic affect. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6643 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2014 : 05:51:57
|
Spell and magic item diversity is in my view the lifeblood of a rich, immersive campaign and play experience. It was Ed who opened up my eyes to this in his earliest "Pages From the Mages" articles - specifically the "Book of the Silver Talon" - when he played with standard spells and gave them tweaks in terms of material components, duration, losing a somatic component etc.
I agree that the trend would be for more popular spells to lose a unique moniker over time, but that might be widespread or localised. Spells might also be known by different names in different regions (likely after the wizard who used them there first). I like the idea of spells being unique and exclusive to a priesthood. Magic items should also get this treatment IMO. It would be a good campaign hook that the "best" healing potions came from the Church of Lathander (i.e. potions of extra healing to use the old term)or that everbright longswords are the preserve of the Church of Clangeddin in the Great Rift. Basically, other than killing bad guys and getting loot, there should be no easy way for players to access spells or magic items in a campaign. They should be made to work for it by either travelling, or having to deal with difficult NPCs (or even not so difficult NPCs - but ones that might require a favour or three).
There is mystery in magic. And it should always be that way.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2014 : 12:57:38
|
I use 'mysteries' in my campaigns for clergy of various faiths. Each one has at least a 'secret' spell of each level (though I haven't written all of them yet...that's done as needed when certain priests are encountered or played).
I allow players to create their own versions of spells once they have a 'standard' version. I assume that by changing the wording of a spell one can get minor differences. Thus, one wizard may have magic missiles that look like actual arrows, another's like flaming darts, and still another with streaking finger bones. Mechanically they are the same spell but with different appearances for flavor. Of course, actual research can yield a different spell altogether (whether a minor change such as dropping a component or a major one that requires an entirely new write-up). |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2014 : 23:29:38
|
I agree wholeheartedly with Grand Master Krashos - the setting would be much richer if every spell and even every magical item basically had a unique identity, a special name and a bit of history or somesuch.
AD&D 1E/2E tended towards this approach. A mage had to even research details like which exotic reagents went into the quill and inks he used to even inscribe the spell. And yes, early FR products did an excellent job of presenting minor variant spell variants which tweaked some component or casting detail to generate a slightly nonstandard effect.
D&D 3E streamlined magic, made it more commonplace and abstract. One basically just needs some gold and some XP and access to the proper feats to produce magical items made to custom specifications. One needs only certain feats and skills to vary all sorts of spellcasting parameters on the fly, rather than the old AD&D approach of painstaking research and experimentation for every little tweak.
(Apparently only a tiny fraction of Elminster‘s library contained actual spells. And at least 90% of these were simply experimental variants - levitation spells which function over slightly differing ground inclines, continual light spells which produce specific colours or intensities, etc - each one a “unique“ spell researched from scratch.)
I vastly prefer the old AD&D style over the newer D&D style ... but wizards were often faced with crippling costs in gold and time if they wanted custom magic. PCs (and NPCs) basically used whatever magic they could find, even when it wasn‘t quite “perfect“, even when it had outright tradeoffs or disadvantages or unwanted conditions on its use. The newer style takes the exoticness away, but standardization means characters worry more about application of the magic than acquisition of exotic subcomponents to obtain the magic. In theory this means less time on the character sheet, more time crawling into dungeons ... lol, not sure that worked, 3E onwards is all about making perfect “builds“ which aren‘t covered in dungeon filth. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
dmgorgon
Acolyte
28 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 17:38:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kyrel
dmgorgon. I'll have to say that I'm 99.9% sure that it's a combination of two things, that have gone through the designers minds:
1) It'll be easier to handle for the players, if clerics can get access to all cleric spells.
2) If we make some spells exclusive to some particular gods, we'll have boatloads of players who will bitch, whine, and moan to their GM about why they can't be allowed to use a particular spell, since it would be so perfectly in line with their character...
Personally I'm on your side. I much prefer how spell access was handled for clerics under 2nd ed. AD&D, where spell access was determined by which god the cleric followed. It's never sat well with me to have i.e. a God of Life and Healing offer their clerics spells of Destruction and Undead Animation.
That's very true, but all that happens is that you end up with players who bitch and whine when the DM says otherwise.
It just breaks my immersion when the human paladin of Ilmater casts Silverbeard to increase his diplomacy check when speaking to the dwarven thane. I think it could even be considered a racists act.
|
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2014 : 15:17:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by dmgorgon
That's very true, but all that happens is that you end up with players who bitch and whine when the DM says otherwise.
It just breaks my immersion when the human paladin of Ilmater casts Silverbeard to increase his diplomacy check when speaking to the dwarven thane. I think it could even be considered a racists act.
I completely agree with you on that. For the same reason I prefer what they did under the AD&D 2nd rules with minor and major access to various spheres. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 07:20:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by dmgorgon
It just breaks my immersion when the human paladin of Ilmater casts Silverbeard to increase his diplomacy check when speaking to the dwarven thane. I think it could even be considered a racists act.
-Well, if the player are able to have access to the spells on a technicality (I'd call it a technicality) and for the 'greater good' of giving it to the players as not to bog down the game with rules lawyering and whatever else, that'd be a good way of negating the bonus granted by the spell. "OK, you get the bonus but the Dwarf who saw you cast the spell/noticed the spell is incensed by the fact that you're using a Dwarven spell and is hostile, so the spell's effects are the only thing from making his anger into something more". |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
How do you feel about spell origins?
