AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Well, what I meant was that there was likely still people that didn't entirely dedicate their time to magic. There were, afterall, priests in Netheril as well and I imagine there would be craftsmen, merchants, etc. too. All these free people had a degree of magical skill, but not to the extent of the dedicated mages, AFAIK.

Two questions!

Firstly. Assassins use arcane spells and they need intelligence in order to use them much like wizards. So does that mean assassins have and use spellbooks though their focus is much more narrow than wizards? And if so, does that mean they are able to 'research' their own spells? Though I imagine they will take the form of widgets and be something suitable for assassins.

Secondly, I keep getting conflicting answers. Do duergar have their language? Or do they speak dwarven?

Assassins are Intelligence based spontaneous casters. To quote the DMG: "They cast like a bard does". They just use a different stat.

Duergar speak Dwarven, yes, as far as I'm aware.

Genar_Detkasa wrote:

Secondly, I keep getting conflicting answers. Do duergar have their language? Or do they speak dwarven?

I don't know what the standard ruling on Amia is, but what I understand is that duergar speak their own dialect of dwarven, much like drow speak their own dialect of elven. Just as drow is heavily influenced by undercommon, so is duergan.

The Drow language is a far removed dialect of Elven that borrows many words from all the different languages of the Underdark, along with made up terms of their own I'm sure.

The Duergar speak Dwarven. It's not referred to as a dialect of Dwarven, but that's probably done in order to show just how small of a difference there is between Dwarfs speaking it and the Duergar speaking it. I'm sure they do have a few key unique features, but there aren't very many.

One of the bigger reasons might have something to do with the fact that Drow culture is one of chaos, while Duergar is one of lawfulness. Lawful people generally don't deal well with change, they like sameness. Chaotic people generally embrace change, they invite it.

That's a kinda simplified generalization of Drow culture, Gunz.

The actual culture from all that I've read is quite organized. The hierarchy of the houses, the gender roles, who can sell, who can serve, who can do what is all set out by social dictations.

The chaos and strife comes from Lloth and her clergy that preach backstabbing and vying for power at the expense of their kin. Such is the case when the major religion of a LE people is a CE goddess.

Uh.. yeah. Hence my use of the word generally.

We all know Elves/Drow aren't as chaotic as they're made out to be. They're Mary Sues.

Thank you for the answers so far, duergar pretty much speak dwarven then I suppose.

I'm interested to know how assassin magic works lorewise so I know what kind of things they are capable of request-wise.
I had a closer look at the DM's Guide on assassins but it didn't elaborate at all on how assassin magic worked on the loreside of things. On bards the Player's Handbook went along with some kind of music magic that came from the Bard's heart, good bard having nice magic and bad bards having jerk magic. It was mentioned by Gers on page 42 of this Lore thread that bardic magic comes from their bloodline and heritage, hence their candidacy to be a Dragon Disciple.

I'm not sure if any of that could be applicable for assassins.
Personally I suspect the spells for assassin were just slapped on for the sake of variety instead of any real thought given to it. But what is Amia's stance? Previously I had assumed they did it like wizards since assassins are all about the study of murder, hence Intelligence being an important attribute.

The goal of this query is so I know about what sort of RP is expected should I request a spell widget for an assassin of mine.

I am struggling not to give you entire magical theory lesson here, but put simply:

Arcane magic is the will of a magician acting upon the world to affect reality. In order for your force of will to overcome reality, you need some kind of model or pattern to follow or your force of personality must be so great that reality buckles and bends.

Cha-based casters are primarily the latter with a wide variety of individual interpretation (paradigm).

Int-based casters are primarily the former, also with a wide variety of individual interpretation (paradigm).

A wizard operates under the assumption that the more you KNOW about the world, the more under your power it becomes. Knowledge therefore is the vehicle that drives the typical wizard paradigm. You learn about the world, how it is, factually, realistically, and apply this to your spell formulae. Somehow the knowing translates into the doing.

An assassin is a spontaneous Int-based caster. No spellbook necessary, because what the assassin learns are effectively "rotes" - effects of dominating reality with your willpower that are tried and true and work for most assassins. I would rather fancy that assassins spells are a taught/learned thing, like assassination techniques and types of poison. Each one is a kind of secret that carries a lesson or a skill associated with it that must be born in the magician.

How do they view the world? Take a hint from Assassin's Creed. "Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted." This statement alone makes for incredible potential in a magical paradigm. The solid belief helps to erode the roadblocks between casting and effect.

Bear in mind that bardic magic is in no way clear, either. The rules of it are simple, but how it's actually learned is another thing. I'm very skeptical about the whole bloodline thing 3e tries to hint at; it's a sorcerer concept forcefully applied to bards because they couldn't think of a better way to explain spontaneous casting. (Not all bards or sorcerers are eligible to take Dragon Disciple levels.) In previous editions bards have had to learn and memorize their spells just like a wizard, and the history of the world obviously didn't change when editions changed. Therefore it's reasonable assume that at least a good portion of bards still study magical scrolls and tomes to learn their spells, but they differ from wizards in that they've devised (musical?) techniques of memorization which allow them to quickly and spontaneously call upon a number of spells in their repertoire. They are, however, limited in how many they can master like this at once (as per the mechanical restrictions). I'm not saying all bards are like this, though: I'm sure there are also musical/magical geniuses like sorcerers, who create spell effects quite spontaneously with nothing but a feel for their music and its resonance with the Weave. But that's two archetypes of a bard: the scholar and the artist, and there's no reason to prefer one at the expense of the other.

I agree with Yossarin and imagine assassins work something like this, too. They could maybe theoretically learn any arcane spell their Intelligence and training allows them to, but in reality they learn those which are useful to the trade and passed along in their guild/order. I imagine they could learn to cast them like a wizard, but what makes them unique is (again) a unique technique of memorization that lets them summon a spell at a moment's notice.

Last edited by Remal on Thu, Jan 12 2012, 19:39 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Yossarin wrote:

I am struggling not to give you entire magical theory lesson here, but put simply:

Arcane magic is the will of a magician acting upon the world to affect reality. In order for your force of will to overcome reality, you need some kind of model or pattern to follow or your force of personality must be so great that reality buckles and bends.

Cha-based casters are primarily the latter with a wide variety of individual interpretation (paradigm).

Int-based casters are primarily the former, also with a wide variety of individual interpretation (paradigm).

// cuts the rest

Why does this remind me of Mage:The Ascension RP game? :mrgreen:

I dig it. Thanks for the replies, they were a good read. (or several reads)

To clarify, if the assassin was to design a spell, would the (somatic, material or verbal) components they are required to use are focuses they determine themselves to twist reality?

Say, if Assassin 1 researched a spell that causes their enemies to go blind and panic, and the spell required him to squash an eyeball reagent while chanting some ominious words. Would those components be something they came up with themselves to focus and successfully cast their spell? Their own 'technique' that they then can teach to others?

I realise that is more of a general spellsy arcane question, but I want to know if I got the idea right. And apologies if the question is worded awkwardly.

Genar_Detkasa wrote:

To clarify, if the assassin was to design a spell, would the (somatic, material or verbal) components they are required to use are focuses they determine themselves to twist reality?

...Would those components be something they came up with themselves to focus and successfully cast their spell? Their own 'technique' that they then can teach to others?

It's entirely possible to develop a spell that would use a certain component or personal technique. Either is possible, by both wizardly or sorcerous casters. Each type likely goes about researching a spell in different ways, but it is possible for either.

To your example situation, yes, that's one possibility. As an arcane magic user, they could very well create their own spell using their own technique, representative components, and what have you. In the case of a sorcerous caster, this is a likelihood. If you go with a wizardly assassin theme, the custom thing is still a possibility, but they could also learn it from someone else. Perhaps looking through some old archmagi's tomes (after performing a hit on him) they find a spell that would be very useful to them. They could set out to learn it for themselves.

How Bards learn magic is so vague that it's hard to tell. Sometimes it's described in a Wizard-like way, other times in a sorcerer-like way. I think Bard can be either or both styles, personally. I'm not sure if there's a solidified way we look at it on Amia though, so this is just me thinking in text. Yoss or Tormak would likely know if there is a more specific way to view how Bardic magic works for Amia, if it's different from core D&D.

Assassins, I won't even try to pretend I understand or explain. Not my thing at all.

Is there any source on the druidic rituals of ascension?
If not, is there any Amia-made ritual or custom that could be used as the source?

No PC Druid on Amia is capable of elevating a character to Archdruid. Period. Unless a DM plot says otherwise.

Ascension in to what? There are multiple levels of ascension a Druid technically reaches throughout his/her life. There are even names for the type of Druid the person is at a given time. There's actually a long period of time that goes by when a Druid isn't technically considered a true Druid by other Druids. They have to prove themselves and reach a level of power that calls for them being referred to as Druids by their peers.

I have a feeling you might be talking about Arch Druid though. The truth is, there aren't any set in stone ascension traditions in Druidic culture, only generalized ways in which they help each other (or prevent each other) from reaching a certain benchmark. The level of Arch Druid is one of the major benchmarks and indeed the highest most Druids can ever hope to reach.

In the old days, Druids became Arch Druids by fighting the Arch Druid in place before them. It usually wasn't a death match, just a test of power. A trial, if you will. But that has since gone the way of the dodo. Especially in out setting, that old style is simply not the best way to go about things for obvious reasons.

Reaching the level of Arch Druid is always a big deal for the Druid himself or herself, but of course for the circle he or she leads/helps lead. There isn't always a big ritual ceremony, but there can be and each circle have their own traditions of how they celebrate. Some circles might not celebrate at all though and leave it at some sort of introduction or announcement and that's it. It's up to you how you want it to go for your specific circle.

One of the only things that doesn't change too often is how Druid rise in title from aspirant to full Druid. That tradition is very simple, they have a mentor who takes responsibility over them. A master and student type of relationship. The master teaches his underling and even takes responsibly for anything his underling does wrong. Trials are pretty common place as well.

Back to the main point, it's really up to you how you want to create traditions for the Glade. Something very basic and simple or something grand and extravagant. Your only limitations are your Druidic codes and your imagination here.

Remal wrote:

Yossarin wrote:

I am struggling not to give you entire magical theory lesson here, but put simply:

Arcane magic is the will of a magician acting upon the world to affect reality. In order for your force of will to overcome reality, you need some kind of model or pattern to follow or your force of personality must be so great that reality buckles and bends.

Cha-based casters are primarily the latter with a wide variety of individual interpretation (paradigm).

Int-based casters are primarily the former, also with a wide variety of individual interpretation (paradigm).

// cuts the rest

Why does this remind me of Mage:The Ascension RP game? :mrgreen:

Because that's a damn fine game and system. Ars Magica is even more intellectually intense.

Rule of thumb regarding questions about magic, though: make a distinction between fluff and mechanic. There's quite a bit of room to tailor your personal style or belief of magic into whatever form you want it to take, so long as they all follow the same basic mechanics. Nothing about "the way" you do your magic should provide you with any mechanical differences unless you are a DM-run NPC and at that point I'm preaching to the angels, not the choir.

All roads lead to Rome.

That's what you think, Reality Deviant. There is only one Pogrom. :mrgreen:

And yeah, that's best magic system around, both as an idea and mechanically.

Are the Doom Spiders in the Quagmires actual spiders?

I ask because I was told by someone that they are not actually spiders, but I'm not sure what that makes them.
It's something I want to know since I have a good, spider-loving Lolthite haha.

Also, being that the case, would it be easy to discover that they are not true spiders?

I gotta be honest, I've never really gotten the "true spider" deal. If it looks like a spider, walks like a spider, injects enzymes into its prey to liquefy its flesh like a spider, why shouldn't it be a spider?

I always thought "true spider" was just a term made up IC so that Llothies can treasure hunt with the rest of the guys without feeling bad. As far as I know, there's never been an official ruling on "these spawns look like spiders, but are not spiders." And I should hope there wouldn't be. It's a taboo of your culture to kill spiders, why would you even be taking the risk on it? Let's see what your matron thinks upon finding out you destroyed a whole nest of the precious things from foolishly believing they weren't the real McCoy.

I guess it just piqued my curiosity since I began to wonder if they were not creations of some crazy mage or outsiders or some weird thing like that. Going by the descrip, though, they sound like 'real spiders'.

And yes, I keep my Lolthite from killing them, or any spider as well.

TormakSaber wrote:

No PC Druid on Amia is capable of elevating a character to Archdruid. Period. Unless a DM plot says otherwise.

Gunz wrote:

Back to the main point, it's really up to you how you want to create traditions for the Glade. Something very basic and simple or something grand and extravagant. Your only limitations are your Druidic codes and your imagination here.

Well now does this mean that a DM plot has to be organized, or a player's event (with or without DM supervision) would suffice when it comes to The Glade and the reorganization of the leadership?

Here's what I found in the Complete Druid's Handbook:

Quote:

Upon reaching 12th level, a character receives the official title druid, of which a circle never has more than nine. (Lower-level characters, though called “druids” by most, are technically “initiates". A 13th-level druid is called an archdruid. Each circle can have only three archdruids and, as with the druid rank, advancement requires either filling a vacancy or winning a challenge against a seated archdruid.

Such if of course not a case on Amia, since getting level 13 is something we achieve in the matter of hours, but I guess that the main question is, does a druid on Amia ascends to Arch Druid by becoming a leader of the Circle or there must be something specific done (ex. being ascended to Arch Druid by Duir or similar)?

the problem with the glade is that when it was formed it did so on the basis that there would be no arch-druid of the glade so I don't think the lore is there for a certain ritual per say... but its been a long time since i was in the glade *my first character, a cleric of silvanus*...

but that doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't do it or at least try... if you are running the glade now and want to make it into a true circle I say go for it... might take some work but I could see quite a bit of RP around the standing stones in Caraigh to see this done... if the DMs would agree to it of course...

The Complete Druids Handbook is 2nd edition and outdated. Take it with a grain of salt. Being an Arch Druid isn't as easy as reaching level 13. Titles are gained by earning them socially, not mechanically.

As I had told you before, let me know when you plan to do things so I can help you guys. There's nothing that's holding you back here, I just need to know what you guys are doing and when so I can be there. So nothing has really changed.

Dieu_Le_Fera wrote:

the problem with the glade is that when it was formed it did so on the basis that there would be no arch-druid of the glade so I don't think the lore is there for a certain ritual per say... but its been a long time since i was in the glade *my first character, a cleric of silvanus*...

That's actually not true. The original Glade was way before your time. The Glade you knew was the a 2nd or even 3rd generation Glade run by Eldainia and Eowmir. The original Glade started with Theos, who founded them and called himself their Arch Druid. Later, when Theos left, another Druid came in and proclaimed himself their Arch Druid. It wasn't until way later that Eowmir and Eldainia took total control and didn't want to allow an Arch Druid to run them.

Gunz wrote:

The Complete Druids Handbook is 2nd edition and outdated. Take it with a grain of salt.

Well I think that I actually found about the druid's handbook from Willow's thread in the libraries of Amia. Yes, I figured that much of the mechanical lore is outdated, but there are some really, really great ideas, ways of roleplaying a druid, additional spells etcetc there.

Found what I could in there, masters of the wild, arcana unearthed and similar. If you have any other sources please let me know.

Willow's book is strictly IC, mind. That's her perspective of how things are, and is naturally written to rule out certain possibilities that -are- totally possible and legit from a larger perspective. You can use that as an IC source, but never as an OOC one. Which reminds me... I need to finish posting it, I never finished. >.>

I'm not saying not to use the Complete Druids Handbook, but just to use it very carefully and don't take it so literally, that's all.

Come up with your own ideas for how you feel things should be done. You're not going to find much in the Complete Druids Handbook with how to handle a ritual for Arch Druids. They don't talk about any rituals for that at all. You won't find any set in stone rituals in regards to that in any official material. That goes to suggest that rituals tend to be different or not exist in certain circles.

Besides, unless you're changing the way the Glade has been run over the last few years, the Glade technically isn't a real Druids circle (for that matter, neither is the Grove). The Grove is just run by Druids and tends to relate its workings a little closer to traditional styles, where the Glade has historically been more of a Rangers organization. Neither of the groups are traditional at this point, so you don't have to worry so much about wanting to mirror how traditional Groves do things. So long as you're living by your Druidic code and not betraying the ways of your god, you can run the Glade however you see fit.

Not only is the Complete Druid's Handbook 2e (which shouldn't be an issue lore-wise, because history hasn't magically changed between editions) but it's a D&D core product with mechanical tidbits and character ideas. It doesn't really contain lore specific to any one setting, and certainly not to the Forgotten Realms. I found it a fun read but rather unhelpful when I was trying to research all druid lore in credible sources.

The best lore on druid organization is in the 2e FRCS under the class description, and cleric appendix of Faiths & Avatars. The concept of druidism is rather wider in 3e though, with things like druids of Malar (which couldn't have made sense in 2e), and there's good 3e druid lore on specific organizations, but no real overview of the class.

druids of Malar still don't make sense but we roll with it.

Druids of Malar take to embodying the more feral aspects of nature. They make perfect sense. They're one of the counterbalances to the "nurturing protector" druid archetype.

Nature isn't all butterflies and toadstools. Sometimes it's a lion viciously tearing a gazelle in half.

Silvanus embodies that part of nature, actually. Malar embodies more inherently evil acts, rather than natural acts of violence.

The other fury gods (Malar, less so) and Talantar do walk a very fine line as Druids. Their gods preach natures destruction, which is a dangerous position for a Druid. It's not easy to play a proper Druid of those gods. Really isn't. But it can be done.

What I was getting at is that the 3e class Druid is more than the narrow concept of druid in 2e. Hating druids and druidism is part of Malar's dogma, so clearly Malarite druids can't be the same druids as described in the dogma. The extension of the term is different, so its meaning is probably different as well. It's questionable to assume that the traditional forms of organization described in the sources mentioned would apply to Malarite druids who aren't part of the traditional order, for example.

I have seen evil characters wielding weapons with the holy effect glow on it, just curious, isn't there some kinda divine magic that would harm the evil person for even touching the holy weapon?

Nope. Divine damage can come from evil gods or good gods. Plus there's UMD to think about, which essentially allow a PC to "trick" such items that they'd normally not be able to use. Unless an item specificly says on it that it it'd harm an evil type who picks it up, I'd say it doesn't do anything, save perhaps feel clumsy or unwieldly to them. And UMD would trump that even.

Question regarding potions/items/whatever that cast clerical (or paladin) spells:

What happens, since the person isn't technically casting them?
If a person is faithless, would Bless (or any of the divine craft potions/items) not work for them?

Also, in addition, if someone of an evil deity casts Bless, do 'good' people feel 'icky'?

To tie them both in, if a person of an evil deity uses a Bless potion, does it call upon power from their deity?

They are created using the divine powers of their creator. So, whatever God grants the power to the creator of the item is the God where that spells divine energy comes from. The user has nothing to do with the function beyond the getting it to go off by drinking it, doing whatever motion and/or saying whatever words to get the spell out of the item. They're not truly casting, they're more like releasing the spell that was already cast.

That's the gist of what I was thinking.

So I guess, then, that all the unlabeled divine items out there are powered by some mystery deities, huh? XD
Or maybe Ao!

Yes, to the "mystery deities" thing, of course not the Overgod though. But most likely the items were created by clergies that really didn't care too much to have their name or deity on them. Or just didn't find it that big a deal because they planned to share them with allied temples.

If a Lathanderite cleric makes a mace that does 2d6 fire to undead, he can pretty much rest assured whatever it gets used for, his deity is going to be pleased. Same way if a Talosian makes a sonic hammer with lightning only usable by Chaotic. Something's gonna go boom, and maybe that's enough for them.

The items aren't actively "powered by" any deities. Like Gunz said, at creation the power comes from the god channelled through the cleric, but once cast it's technically no different from an arcanely crafted item. They're releasing a spell already cast, and that spell is no longer dependant on its original source once its been cast. The difference between divine and arcane magic is primarily in the source and method, not the effect itself (because both are ultimately the same spells, from the same Weave - a wizard, a cleric and a bard cast the exact same Mage Armor spell despite learning and channeling it differently and under different conditions).

Therefore, mechanically a divine item is no different from an arcane item, be it a trinket, a weapon or a potion. Of course, divine items may be more likely to have additional restrictions placed on them at creation, but even those should theoretically be available to wizards as well if they cared enough. Some special items may be watched by the gods themselves, but that's an exception to the norm.

I agree with Dark Immolation. Selling items is profit for the church, and they probably mostly create and distribute items they approve of in the first place - Ilmatari don't brew poisons and Maskarrans don't sell pendants of Detect Evil/Chaos. When it's not a matter of particularly unusual or dangerous items, I doubt there's even too much control on basic enchanted weapons. But still, I do imagine most items bear some small stamp of origin (despite the bland NWN description not identifying any) - be it a wizard's worshop or a local temple.

makes me wonder if the same could apply to using a raise dead scroll?

So let me get this straight.. say a godless character buys a raise dead scroll and successfully uses it. Does this mean that the magic, whether it divine or arcane, is already infused onto the scroll so anyone with basic knowledge can cast it? Or does it, RP wise, still take a deitie's blessing to do so?

It could be explained off that way... but I will wait for a DM to say something.

Why would a Raise Dead scroll be any different than any other divine scroll?

because until now it was status quo that if someone used a raise dead scroll... it was the god of the one who used the scroll that would pull the fallen from death... this could contradict that.

Dieu_Le_Fera wrote:

because until now it was status quo that if someone used a raise dead scroll... it was the god of the one who used the scroll that would pull the fallen from death... this could contradict that.

I have never heard that being the case.

All I have heard from this thread is that when you use a raise/resurrection scroll/spell, the PC's spirit gets the knowledge of the user's/caster's deity and alignment (and they do not remember that since it happened on the Fugue Plane).

Would a DM be able to let us know the official ruling on what Dieu said (if one exists)?

JoeSkinner wrote:

So let me get this straight.. say a godless character buys a raise dead scroll and successfully uses it. Does this mean that the magic, whether it divine or arcane, is already infused onto the scroll so anyone with basic knowledge can cast it? Or does it, RP wise, still take a deitie's blessing to do so?

I always figured that whatever god's cleric made the scroll that it would be that god's. I could be wrong though

.

of course you don't remember it... but still a god needs to intervene for it to work.

I know, I was simply stating the ruling on what happens when you are being called back to life.

That's different from what you said heh. Just because you know the deity of the person using the scroll doesn't mean your deity is actually answering the call.

Also, if faithless can use raise scrolls because the item is already divinely enchanted then maybe your deity doesn't have to do anything since the spell is being released and not called directly by you? Just trying to explain it. Still want a DM to say something XD

As Iron said, a divinely crafted item in most cases works the same as an arcanely crafted one.

Using a divine item usually has nothing to do with the user and more to do with the crafter. Divinely crafted items don't work off of the user's beliefs, rather the crafter's. Reading a scroll of Raise Dead is no different than reading a scroll of Animate Dead from the user's mechanical standpoint.

The energy, spell, the effect is all already determined and contained within the scroll. All the reader does is trigger it.

Naivatkal wrote:

Dieu_Le_Fera wrote:

because until now it was status quo that if someone used a raise dead scroll... it was the god of the one who used the scroll that would pull the fallen from death... this could contradict that.

I have never heard that being the case.

All I have heard from this thread is that when you use a raise/resurrection scroll/spell, the PC's spirit gets the knowledge of the user's/caster's deity and alignment (and they do not remember that since it happened on the Fugue Plane).

Would a DM be able to let us know the official ruling on what Dieu said (if one exists)?

I believe that Dieu is referencing the ability for characters to refuse a raise. However, that isn't tied into the god of the one raising, but their alignment. To give an example, a follower of Bane with a LN alignment attempts to raise a paladin of Torm (LG alignment). The paladin wouldn't know that it was a follower of Bane trying to raise them, only that the person attempting the raise was LN.

The Lore Question Thread

Who is online