AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Priests are identified by painting three concentric circles to their heads

Middle Nobility paint two.

Low Nobility paint one.

All nobility shave their heads daily if possible. Including women.

- - -

Freemen don't posses house insignia.

- - -

Slaves are identified by their house insignia.

- - -

Mercenaries are considered lower than slaves in the eyes of the law

Slave is a misnomer in Mulhorand which beyond the noble ruling class is high meritocracy. A particularly skilled slave can achieve personal wealth, power and prestige beyond anything possible for a freeman to achieve and can even exceed the power of the lower and middle nobility.

An example would be a title such as "Keeper of the Pharoahs comb" a title which could potentially outrank Governor of Djedet for example.

No freeman can own a person all slaves are owned by particular houses. Freemen and even nobles enter into slavedom willingly to pay of a debt or if their position becomes untenable and they are proving to be a drain on Mulhorand society.

Its a society where everyone has a place. It is actually illegal to beat a slave without cause, because you are beating the property of your house and thus your diety. The penalty for doing so is death.

Svensk, about Lobsul and its places here is lore that was gathered IC so far:

Zau'tar are merchant lolithe house. But merchants firsthand. They do sometimes go smack Ghandaurite encampment. Also they arent in mine. Mine is Charnag area separated between svirf and duergar level.

City itself was founded around large hole or shaft, that connects so many corridors that it became prominent spot to set up trade operations. All else grew around it.

There is no more lore on it. Its ad hoc and subjected to dm whim and need as per situation. Thats why it is heap of all races on same spot held in somewhat peace by trade.

Stop asking for what there is not.

There is actually more lore, but no one's cared to learn about it, and it's not publically available, so it's not posted.

Would it be possible for an experienced user of the Shadow Weave to hide the fact that they were casting using it from another caster? And also for a Weave user to hide the same, with enough practice? I'm just imagining it would take like opposing spellcraft rolls, but I don't know how glaringly obvious or unimaginably subtle it would be to someone intuitive or trained to the Weave or Shadow Weave. I'm imagining it would vary by knowledge and experience of the involved parties(thus opposing spellcraft rolls), but again, I don't even know if it's even possibly to proactively try to conceal one's arcane source.

Any Amian precedent for this? This is mainly a question for our magicy DMs.

I suppose it could be possible but I would sooner call it a metamagic feat.

"Suppressed Spell".

A question of words: would a character know the d&d name of spells as is written? Like, would a character know the spell is called "Mass Haste" or "Shadow Conjuration" by those names?

Similarly, would a character know feats by the feat name? Like, someone could say "I have the extend spell ability" or "I'm casting Extended Amplify" and the like? What about feats like Lasting Inspiration or Improved Evasion?

Thanks for the help!

Since many spells are named after the wizards who created them, most likely. Mestils, Mordenkainens, Bigby, etc etc.

Day Dreaming wrote:

A question of words: would a character know the d&d name of spells as is written? Like, would a character know the spell is called "Mass Haste" or "Shadow Conjuration" by those names?

Naming conventions are based, usually, around culture and ideology and institutions of magical education. Traditional spell names were used at the Monolith, for instance. Mass Haste was instructed and referred to as Mass Haste. Fireball as fireball. Greater Dispel as Greater dispell, Ulrik's Spell of Maximized Disintegration as Ulrik's Spell of Maximized Disintegration. (<.<)

Spells named after wizards are a bit more subjective. At the Monolith, Bigby spells were referred to as Bigby's [Insert type of hand here]. However, I can think of some groups of magicians who might not give Bigby the honor of such designation. Or, for example, xenophobic elven groups may omit the names of human wizards from spells (Bigby, Mordenkainen, etc. Or even replace them with names of their own! Because clearly humans are inferior and could not have researched those spells!) But, this is getting into the nitty and gritty of both wizardly politics, race, and ideological history. Safe to say the short, easy, boring answer for Amia is : yes.

Day Dreaming wrote:

Similarly, would a character know feats by the feat name? Like, someone could say "I have the extend spell ability" or "I'm casting Extended Amplify" and the like? What about feats like Lasting Inspiration or Improved Evasion?

It would be appropriate to say you have learned a spell extending meta-magic technique, or a variable maximizing technique (if you're a wizard, that even sounds wizardy!). Or, that you are casting an extended spell. Or, are casting a Maximized spell. Etc etc.

I won't touch non-magicy feats, however. Best left to someone else.

Nivo wrote:

Or, for example, xenophobic elven groups may omit the names of human wizards from spells (Bigby, Mordenkainen, etc. Or even replace them with names of their own! Because clearly humans are inferior and could not have researched those spells!)

Even Qirlan didn't do this, btw.

As to the main question... I'd venture to say that a character who was formally educated (i.e., probably a wizard but probably not a sorcerer?) would almost certainly at least know the formal names for spells, but certainly there's nothing binding a character from referring to them IC however she thinks is awesome. The PHB goes into a whole big spiel about how a rogue or monk might have different names for her abilities ("Rice Paper Walk" for Move Silently, etc.), so I think it's reasonable to interpret that as a precedent for a wizard being able to call her spells whatever she wants, ICly.

"Fire the pies."

"Firing pies!"

*IGMS*

Thanks for the info Nivo! So the spell names themselves don't come from spellcraft, they come from education? I'm basically asking if a Bard/Sorcerer who doesn't have much contact with wizards would know the names, someone who hasn't had that kind of education. So far I make up pet names for magic like "Speedy spell" or "No-Fear-Magic" but I'm wondering if my character would just know the names from spellcraft.

Nivo wrote:

Ulrik's Spell of Maximized Disintegration as Ulrik's Spell of Maximized Disintegration. (<.<)

Outstanding.

Edit: Oops, ninja'ed. Thanks Lizzy, so perhaps cha-based casters wouldn't know these names?

The "Spellcraft Name" for lack of a better word is probably the accepted wizardly nomenclature that would get used as the standard. Sort of like the Latin name for an animal: It gets used as a standard way to refer to a creature across all languages. It's entirely possible that regions, religions, and cultures have different names for the same spell.

Thanks Tormak. So it's okay for my cha-based character to know the 'proper' names for the spells?

Day Dreaming wrote:

Thanks for the info Nivo! So the spell names themselves don't come from spellcraft, they come from education? I'm basically asking if a Bard/Sorcerer who doesn't have much contact with wizards would know the names, someone who hasn't had that kind of education. So far I make up pet names for magic like "Speedy spell" or "No-Fear-Magic" but I'm wondering if my character would just know the names from spellcraft.

Spellcraft is education. Just saying. If you have spellcraft, it tends to represent some kind of formal or informal education. Be it self-taught, a mentor, etc.

If your character has not had contact with educated casters, and is not themselves educated, it makes sense they would refer to their spells as 'Speedy spell!' and "No-fear-magic!" Etc etc.

Ulrik had RP with several sorcerer characters, where he instructed them in the formal names of their spells as they came across their ability to cast them. "What you call 'Spray of Frost' is traditionally referred to as 'Cone of Cold.' I like your name better."

At the end of the day, wizards are an idiosyncratic lot, is the rule-of-thumb.

I would say it's okay for any caster to know the "traditional names" of their spells regardless of their upbringing. It's just never something I've really thought about, I suppose. Maybe if you wer a sorceror who grew up alone and has never ever met another spellcaster! But no one's gonig to give you guff because your sorceror or bard knows that Lesser Planar Binding is called Lesser Planar Binding and not First Degree Extraplanar Rebuke.

Nivo wrote:

If you have spellcraft, it tends to represent some kind of formal or informal education. Be it self-taught, a mentor, etc.

Oh I see... I had thought that spellcraft was just experience with magic. Should a cha-based caster not have it then? Or, if it's 'informal education,' what exactly does that mean for a non-wizard non-educated spellcaster? Can you maybe give an example of how a bard/sorcerer with spellcraft would differ in background from one who didn't have spellcraft?

TormakSaber wrote:

But no one's gonig to give you guff because your sorceror or bard knows that Lesser Planar Binding is called Lesser Planar Binding and not First Degree Extraplanar Rebuke.

Nice name! I'm more worried about the opposite... if Arion can talk about the 'correct' names for spells without ever hearing them, just from 'having spellcraft.'

And thank you both for the continued help.

informal education is exactly the sort of self taught life experience a sorceror has simply by being connected with magic the way they are.

Also, if your uneducated character has access to the various magic shops of the realm, he'd be exposed to the "formal" names of spells every time he looked at some merchant's scroll shop. "Oh, look, these backwards citified folk call their Black Zap spell 'Negative Energy Ray'. How quaint."

Day Dreaming wrote:

Nice name! I'm more worried about the opposite... if Arion can talk about the 'correct' names for spells without ever hearing them, just from 'having spellcraft.'

And thank you both for the continued help.

What Tormak said. 'Having spellcraft' means, in some way, he knows the names. Up to the player to say the 'how' of it.

Consider, as well, that magic does not exist in a vacuum in Faerun. It is very much integrated into the world: its history, its tales, stories, and legends, as well as its collective consciousness. Magic is very much part of the world, and in many places, part of day-to-day life. It does not take much to recognize a big ball of fire that explodes, for example.

What I am saying is, mention of spells and their names is not exclusive to dusty wizard tomes. Mention of them might be found in all sorts of books. Charm Person in a romance novel. Fireball in an adventure story, and so forth. Although more esoteric spells, such as Analyze Dweomer, Temporal Stasis, etc, will elude those without proper education.

So! Be creative! Much of magical RP is making stuff up in a way that makes sense and is engaging.

Edit: And what Lizzie said, also. :wink:

There's nothing to say Spellcraft couldn't be an intuitive skill. Your ranks just represent your level of intuition. That's actually how I've interpreted it for my PC's in a few situations. As sorcerers simply know how to move their hands and what words to say to conjure an Ice Storm, who's to say by the same token they don't simply know that the orc shaman waving his hands and talking is casting Wall of Fire by his words and motions? As they advance, they don't so much gain magical knowledge like a wizard, but instead magical intuition into their own abilities and the magic within them; and by my idea of Spellcraft, intuition into magic around them as well.

I agree that they can easily pick up the name of their powers or spells from the many stories, tales, and even history of Faerun. "Hmm, I can turn people into toads like that witch in the fairy tale. What was that called again? Baffle Polymorph? Bashful Polymorph? Meh, whatever." But I imagine magical cultures can have regional names for certain spells just as they can have regional paradigms and ways of casting.

But it does bring up another interesting point. Sorcerers, drenched in the Weave as they are, are capable of manifesting spells like Bigby's X, or Mordenkainen's Y. I don't believe that's to say that no sorcerer could manifest that spell before it's "discovery". After all, the theory is that almost anything is possible through the Weave, it's just picking out the right motions, exhalations and components to make it happen.

Thus, what's to say that in a remote elven community, with Green Dragons in its ancestry, someone hadn't manifested what mordern wizard would call "Mestil's Acid Breath" years and years before Mestil actually figured out the formula for wizards to call upon such an affect. Sort of like a simultaneous invention or forgotten precursor. *shrug* Heck, it could be a possibility that as a collective throughout history, Sorcerers by sheer random chance have had the possible access to any spell, and when a wizard says nowadays that he's "discovered a new", he's done so in the same sense that Columbus "discovered" America. Just proves my point that wizards are gluttonous thieves!

Thanks to all for excellent information, this is exactly the kind of lore I was trying to get. It's very much appreciated!

I have a question about magical items and deity rings:

How do you properly get rid of these sort of things? For example:

My Sharessin cleric just found a bunch of Creature of Darkness stones in the Cordor shop. Being that she could discern not only their function but the Sharran rune on them. So, she grabbed them up to get rid of them (ie trashbin). Tyrus has done the same when he found a Ring of Bane being sold.

But it got me thinking: How do you properly destroy a deity ring or a deity-ish item or a magical item?

PnP-disjunctioning, smashing, or melting them generally works wonders. Or if you want to go the horribly complex and troublesome route, having a faithful cleric of an opposing deity call on their patron to destroy/purify/corrupt the item in question might work. Or, depending on the deity being invoked, it might get you smote for wasting their time.

This is my guide for that:

1. Get a DM to oversee
2. Enchant your blade
3. Smite

....it can have negative effects though

lol Both sound ideas XD

Yeah, I figured for Salema at least it would be rather simple to get rid of items like that (being a cleric). I wasn't sure if brute force would work, as that would be Tyrus' option hah

Thanks!

I hear the Cracks of Doom work wonders.

I meant that as a joke at first, but now I'm actually kind of fond of the idea. Take the rings to one of the places on the server where there's exposed lava, and pitch them in. Make yourself a little event out of it... stage a ceremony at the edge. Super fun.

That's actually kinda interesting for an idea

Also, I think requesting a DM for deity ring disposal makes a lot of sense. Forgot to mention that lol

yeah i wouldnt try to do destroy something like that without speaking to a DM first

TormakSaber wrote:

"Fire the pies."

"Firing pies!"

*IGMS*

Lizzie wrote:

"Oh, look, these backwards citified folk call their Black Zap spell 'Negative Energy Ray'. How quaint."

I laughed so hard at these two!

Two questions of my own, firstly the spell Shelgarn's persistant blade: could this spell in theory be applied to any weapon or is the weapon created at the time? Secondly, if its applied to a standard weapon, could it also be applied to a magical weapon? Finally, if the spell is locked to a silly little dagger, could a mage develop a different spell that animates a more sophisticated weapon on a semi-permanent basis?

Secondly, the spell Project Image. The description says that it requires a "line of effect" to be maintained at all times, what consitutes a line of effect? Is it just a fancy way of saying line of sight or is it more lenient?

Dieu_Le_Fera wrote:

yeah i wouldnt try to do destroy something like that without speaking to a DM first

Contrary to popular belief, deity rings aren't really in the foreground of consciousness for most deities. They're sacred items, just as any equipment created by a clergy, but nothing on par with Artifacts being broken which have a high likelihood of attracting the attention of a deity. I've heard this from a DM or two. Again, they're nice, but the deity isn't going to flinch and come after you vengefully from destroying one of their rings, even forgetting that there are hundreds of them in circulation for each respective power.

Now... conducting a ritual in which you invoke your own deity or making a big deal of it, that seems like it might piss them off. You're intentionally making a show of it at that point, perhaps in their mind, mocking them. Now that doesn't mean say for instance Bane will send his hulking avatar to your tiny temple's altar because you tried to cleanse his ring. But I wouldn't be surprised that if you made enough ado about it(say a large public ceremony to destroy it and preach about your own god), that you'd find yourself being tailed by a few Hounds of Xvim sooner or later.

That's what I wasn't sure about, either: if the rings were held in that much esteem by the deities themselves, or if it was more of a symbolic clergy type thing.

Sighphyre wrote:

Two questions of my own, firstly the spell Shelgarn's persistant blade: could this spell in theory be applied to any weapon or is the weapon created at the time? Secondly, if its applied to a standard weapon, could it also be applied to a magical weapon? Finally, if the spell is locked to a silly little dagger, could a mage develop a different spell that animates a more sophisticated weapon on a semi-permanent basis?

Secondly, the spell Project Image. The description says that it requires a "line of effect" to be maintained at all times, what consitutes a line of effect? Is it just a fancy way of saying line of sight or is it more lenient?

Shelgarn's Blade: In theory, yes. See Animate Objects. Mechanically on are server: not really, because that would require us making a custom summon.

Now if you're willing to be flexible, there is kind of a way around this. If some summon you want to reskin is already holding a weapon(ie Pharoah Sentinel's Dire Mace), I don't think DM's would have a problem applying the Null Human appearance to it and letting you say it's an animated dire mace(with the proper RP mind you). Actually, the Sentinel is a good example because it's immune to crits. You're probably want to make sure whatever you reskin is immune to mind and criticals, as animated weapons count as constructs, I believe, and such matches with the RP well. If you have enough expertise and such, I don't think it matters much whether or not the weapon would be magical, though it probably would not be through Animate Objects, but a more comprehensive method, which means figuring out the magical mechanics themselves, not just riffing off of a general-use spell.

Custom Spell question: Yes, exactly, this is what I meant by a more comprehensive method. You can make Animate Objects permanent through Permanency, but if your mage has a specific weapon in mind(which is likely if you want to make this a custom summon), then they'd go about it in a way specific to their needs.

Project Image: Line of effect I believe means more or less a clear line between you and the image, now that I've reread the info for it. It doesn't say it requires constant focus, so I don't believe that constitutes maintained sight. But instead, just that there can be nothing of significance between you and the projected image. No walls, no people moving. Think like a video projector's image.

Thanks Dark,

Dark Immolation wrote:

Line of effect I believe means more or less a clear line between you and the image, now that I've reread the info for it. It doesn't say it requires constant focus, so I don't believe that constitutes maintained sight. But instead, just that there can be nothing of significance between you and the projected image. No walls, no people moving. Think like a video projector's image.

This makes a lot of sense but unfortunately it means that any request around this is too hard to formulate since anyone and/or their numerous dragon/construct summons walking between the mage and the image will effectively end the spell.

As for the question about Shelgarn's, I'd looked at animate objects but since its not a mage spell I wondered how much overlap there would be. The custom spell makes sense but ultimately it would just be a reskin. The weapon would almost certainly be a sword, probably a longsword. I don't see why the summon can't just be reskinned to whatever it is that holds Shelgarn's persistant blade and to switch the dagger for something larger but then I don't know much about the nitty gritty stuff behind reskins. Sorry to wander off on a tanget and thanks for the food for thought.

You can't switch the weapon though, that would be a custom summon, which we don't do.

Shelgarns Blade is a creature equipped with a 1d6 base weapon, a dagger. Changing that weapon to a longsword would not only mean creating a custom creature in the palate(again, which is something we don't do), but it would give you the advantage of the summon having a 1d8 weapons instead. You can't change a summon's equipment, on the skin. And changing weapons is not the same as a reskin, for the reason I just pointed out.

It would be a slippery slope between "make my shalgarn's a longsword instead" and "I want to give my summon my +5 WF greataxe". Would make for too much copied creatures in palate as well as messing up balance.

You're best off finding a creature already in the summon palate that has a weapon you like and making it Null Human. Or settling for a Bottled Familiar that can hold any weapon, but is useless in a fight.

Daggers are 1d4 base.

I want to know more about Chult, Chultans, and Ubtao. The FR wiki is janky because of the fact that, A - it's a wiki, and B - it's full of 4e stuff that's irrelevant on Amia. I'm interested in making a Chultan, and I don't know if I like the RP of being fresh out of Chult or being a freed slave from Calimport better.

Tormak, I'm looking at you for the Calimport information, if that ends up being the route I go.

So, natural lycans as opposed to infected. Is there any lore on if natural lycans can spread lycanthropy? I always assumed not, viewing it as a genetic disease or mutation. Can't pass those along, whereas contracted lycanthropy is more like a virus, spread from fluid to fluid contact.

Is there any lore confirming/denying this?

Naturals can spread it, and naturals created afflicted. A natural can only be a natural if it's inherited though. A natural might infect someone and they'll become afflicted, and that afflicted could pass the gene to create new naturals. Afflicteds can srpread it as well.

As far as sources: the Monster Manual presents templates for both afflicted and natural lycanthrope characters across sseveral animal types, and both afflicted and natural have this supernatural ability:

Quote:

Curse of Lycanthropy (Su)

Any humanoid or giant hit by a lycanthrope’s bite attack in wolf or hybrid form must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save or contract lycanthropy.

TormakSaber wrote:

Daggers are 1d4 base.

Gah, I was thinking about short sword because I was looking at them at the time I was writing the post. But you know what I meant, you pasty genasi, you! :wink:

TormakSaber wrote:

Naturals can spread it, and naturals created afflicted. A natural can only be a natural if it's inherited though. A natural might infect someone and they'll become afflicted, and that afflicted could pass the gene to create new naturals. Afflicteds can srpread it as well.

As far as sources: the Monster Manual presents templates for both afflicted and natural lycanthrope characters across sseveral animal types, and both afflicted and natural have this supernatural ability:

Quote:

Curse of Lycanthropy (Su)

Any humanoid or giant hit by a lycanthrope’s bite attack in wolf or hybrid form must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save or contract lycanthropy.

Na, it's actually the opposite of what Alanna thought. It's actually only naturals who can pass on Lycanthropy. Afflicted lycanthropes are sterile.

Quote:

Curse of Lycanthropy (Su)

Any humanoid or giant hit by a natural lycanthrope’s bite attack in animal or hybrid form must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save or contract lycanthropy. If the victim’s size is not within one size category of the lycanthrope the victim cannot contract lycanthropy from that lycanthrope. Afflicted lycanthropes cannot pass on the curse of lycanthropy.

My Lycanthrope, even though she's afflicted, doesn't realize she can't actually pass it on, technically. I'd like to think that the knowledge of this isn't that wide spread, personally. Funner that way.

O... It seems you're right. All of the templates are natural lycanthropes. They just don't consistently note it in the same place in each template....

So yes, naturals spread, aflicteds don't.

Swallow the Stars wrote:

I want to know more about Chult, Chultans, and Ubtao. The FR wiki is janky because of the fact that, A - it's a wiki, and B - it's full of 4e stuff that's irrelevant on Amia. I'm interested in making a Chultan, and I don't know if I like the RP of being fresh out of Chult or being a freed slave from Calimport better.

Tormak, I'm looking at you for the Calimport information, if that ends up being the route I go.

You'll need the book The Jungles of Chult. It has almost all the info you'll need about Chult related things. Just remember that Ubtao has no power on Amia. He's Chult specific.

Can/would a cleric of Shaundakul wear full plate armor?

I know they prefer leather and sometimes chain but I'm pretty sure there's no actual rule.

I understand the reason for the preference in PnP. Heavy armor reduces max movement speed and as an explorer always on the road that's bad. In NwN full plate doesn't give a penalty, unless you count the check penalty. There is no IC reason a cleric of Shaundakul wouldn't wear it besides emulation. Of course I could be over thinking this or my logic could be way off.

Shaundakuli like light armor because of what they do and stand for, but you can wear full plate. Just like Silvanites like green, Lathandrites like yellow, and Sharran like purple, but they can still wear blue.

Yup, any armor is fine. Just ask Torin.

Ask Torin in game whether or not he feels he has fullfilled his potential Prowess aswell while your at it.

TormakSaber wrote:

O... It seems you're right. All of the templates are natural lycanthropes. They just don't consistently note it in the same place in each template....

So yes, naturals spread, aflicteds don't.

makes... no seeeeenseeee...

I actually agree. I don't like it. Personally, I think it'd make most sense if both could spread it. But alas, we're not Wizards of the Coast writers... Not that I'd care for the job anyhow.

Genetic Lycanthropy and Contracted Lycanthropy is the same condition. Its just that the afflicted are inferior to the natural who bit them in the first place. They have a weaker, previously-owned strain. Only the pureborn is (ahem) virile enough in the curse to pass it along through a bite.

I'm quite glad it works that way, tbh. We'd have the whole server howling in a week otherwise.

Well it makes sense for Amia. *Points at Malar forest*

The Lore Question Thread

Who is online