AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - The Lore Question Thread

Page 70 of 126

[ 6275 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1 ... 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 ... 126 Next

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Yurell

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 4:44 AM

Player

Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)

You're the one who asked the question, so I gave my interpretation - it seems ridiculous to presume a spell can be cast by just screaming obscenities and waving your arms about, both purely determined by the caster - if that were so, why do wizards take so long to learn spells?

The fact is, I can create a language that cannot be inhabited by a gag, and it still would not be able to cast spells.

But I would like to hear your arguments as to why the somatic and verbal components can be whatever the caster chooses. "It doesn't say I can't" is not a strong argument in its favour.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

TormakSaber

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 4:47 AM

Player

Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere

Somatics and verbals are not what you choose and my proof of this is the fact that after a spell is invented, everyone else does it the same way.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

Dark Immolation

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 4:53 AM

Developer

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

Quote:

The fact is, I can create a language that cannot be inhabited by a gag, and it still would not be able to cast spells.

I meant that it can be whatever the caster chooses within the parameters that apply to all spellcasting. Chiefly, that verbal components must be said loudly in a clear voice.

It doesn't matter what the language is. A gag effectively prevents a loud and clear voice. Perhaps it can still be intelligible through a gag, I'm not denying that and if you think that's what I'm denying then you're missing my point. All verbal components when said must be loud and clear. It doesn't matter if it still makes sense to whoever's listening.

If the draconic phrase for casting Fireball was Igni Ferroque, and somehow I could articulate the words with a gag, it still wouldn't matter. A gag prevents you from speaking in a loud voice for the most part. Which is crucial of a verbal component.

Last edited by Dark Immolation on Tue, Nov 09 2010, 13:38 PM, edited 2 times in total.

Dark Immolation

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 4:55 AM

Developer

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

TormakSaber wrote:

Somatics and verbals are not what you choose and my proof of this is the fact that after a spell is invented, everyone else does it the same way.

So you're saying there's one and only one way to cast a given spell? I can't say I see the logic in that, given there are so many different spellcasting cultures, languages and types of casting.

Yossarin

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 4:56 AM

Player

Joined: 23 Jan 2006

All I'll say is that you understand the mechanics better when you accept the fact that magic is secretly theater.

Dark Immolation

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 4:58 AM

Developer

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

Just because there are men wearing dresses, it doesn't mean it's theater too, Yoss.

Nivo

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 4:59 AM

Player

Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Location: East of Elsewhere, West of Sometime

Dark Immolation wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Somatics and verbals are not what you choose and my proof of this is the fact that after a spell is invented, everyone else does it the same way.

So you're saying there's only one way to cast a particular spell? I can't say I see the logic in that, given there are so many different spellcasting cultures, languages and types of casting.

The best way I can think of it is variations along a theme.

There may be minor differences in how spells are cast - much to do with tone, inflection, and so forth. However, there are essential components in all spells, regardless of whom or how, that are uniform. This is how a caster educated in spellcraft from a vastly different culture can still recognize what magic another is casting. Regardless of language. Regardless of culture, etc etc.

_________________
Playing:
Marcus Valis

Dieu_Le_Fera

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 9:56 AM

Player

Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Location: Philadelphia

Quote:

Good post! A master wouldn't be able to teach an apprentice if the spells were different for each individual. There are some feats that change subtle things about how a spell is cast like the primitive spellcaster feat which adds a few more semantics and components but doesn't add any time to spellcasting itself. I still think that ever with something like that a schooled wizard would know the spell being cast.

_________________

"It is by the holy beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning, it is by Java alone that I set my mind in motion."

Glyph

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 11:03 AM

Player

Joined: 10 Jun 2010

makes alot of sense considering said language gaps, lack of limb? and other situations. i'm not sure somantic entirely means "do X with your right hand and Y with your left" as much as it means you are free to use your hands, or movement in general.

reminds me of the portfolios amongst other things, seams like an unbreakable aspect of something, that means the same in all languages. for example you could speak the word "invisible" in a thousand languages but essentially the aspect, the meaning, is the same.

ed: also they (wizards etc) only do it exactly the same on nwn, in pnp you could embelish spells in a number of ways, the same as regular attacks are done (ie. "I charge headlong into the hoard of orc" [bullrush]) you could prolong the casting of a spell to activate the metamagics or something fancy the same way with magic.

ed2: i'm pretty sure the whole "means the same in whatever context" is where true-naming came from. that and true naming is part of 'real' magic, from the resources i've seen...(noted 'real' for obvious reasons...)

Silvarus

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 11:12 AM

Player

Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland, Europe

When we exit Faerun and go all multiversey in Planescape the canon is that magic can be cast in many ways that archieve the same results, such as the song-magic of sages in Kalevala-inspired settings, totem based magic of some monstrous realms and the gesture and word based magic of the general settings. These are equivalent and a mage can gain a general understanding of many of them... on the planes.

On Toril we have this bitch called Mystra who kills all the fun with this thing called the Weave, and magic is probably restricted to just the formal common kind, although I have not checked if Faerun has monstrous races that do totem magic or such instead.

_________________
Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips
Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar
Silwe, the elf

Glyph

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 11:17 AM

Player

Joined: 10 Jun 2010

one variant is geometers (wizard varient class, in the complete arcane) they use symbols instead of languages to write spells, and strive to discover the perfect symbols and such to make better sense of magic. and if I'm not mistaken there are alot more variants like this.

and then theres the shadow weave...the only thing specifically banned by mystra is 12th and 11th level spells.

ed: I believe there was a question about totem magic back up yonder

Last edited by Glyph on Tue, Nov 09 2010, 11:18 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Silvarus

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 11:18 AM

Player

Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland, Europe

Glyph wrote:

Holy crap, that is so awesome!

Arcane mathematician, incoming!

_________________
Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips
Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar
Silwe, the elf

Glyph

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 11:22 AM

Player

Joined: 10 Jun 2010

i'm totally stuck between that and alienist, and the latter I honestly don't think I have the DC, nor the dm's the time, to impliment a viable one >_> (also the whole reason i'm taking the 1 rouge is so I can use glyph of warding from a scroll, like a proper geometer should be able to from spells >_>)

Dark Immolation

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 13:16 PM

Developer

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

Dieu_Le_Fera wrote:

A master wouldn't be able to teach an apprentice if the spells were different for each individual.

I don't see your reasoning there. A master could be showing his apprentice the way he casts the spell. His way in particular. Example:

I'm in Statics right now. My first Physics teacher taught me to solve equilibrium problems through Summation of Forces. I learned it that way and the method works just fine. My Statics teacher taught me to solve the same problems through Moments about Axes. It works just fine to solve the same problems and is a bit simpler at times.

Both methods achieve the same result. Some work better for different people, just because the way individuals think about the problems. Sometimes, hell, most of the time, it works best to use a combination of both. And by using both, in the order you prefer to use them, you make your own method of sorts.

If there's more than one way to skin a cat, I refuse to believe there is only one way to cast a spell, given how unimaginably huge the scope of the Weave is.

So are there more ways to cast Tenser's Floating Disk than the way Tenser first devised? I say yes. Perhaps most wizards are familiar with the way he first casted it, but it doesn't mean it is the only way. Just like when some genius figures out an equation that governs something in nature. There are likely other ways to do the same thing, but his way is used because it's been studied more, been found to be reliable, and is just easier to learn than make up a formula yourself. This is true of FR if you just replace "Nature" with "the Weave".

Nivo

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 13:34 PM

Player

Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Location: East of Elsewhere, West of Sometime

I would still say the variations are still along a theme. Just how artists may paint a picture of a bridge differently, depending on what era, culture they lived in as well as individual style. Obvious differences- mostly aesthetic. A painting is still a painting. A bridge is still a bridge. The effect are variations along a theme - and can only vary so much..

Elven mages may be more refined in their casting. Gnomish more.. eclectic. Humans more forceful. To generalize, crudely.

_________________
Playing:
Marcus Valis

Dark Immolation

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 13:54 PM

Developer

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

Nivo wrote:

I will agree with you that a painting of a bridge is a painting of a bridge. But there are probably innumerable ways to draw that same bridge. Do I start with the trusses? Do I start with the landscape? Do I work my way in or out, out or in, counterclockwise, outlines first, colors first, etc, etc, etc.

So again, you're right, a bridge is a bridge. But the bridge is the end result to which many paths exist. In the end, you still get something that lets you walk across it(it's effect), but your method of of creating it in the first place could vary greatly, I imagine. If such is known to be true of the mundane world, then I see no reason it could not or should not be true of the arcane world.

Nivo

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 14:17 PM

Player

Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Location: East of Elsewhere, West of Sometime

True.

But regardless of the ways one may draw a bridge, there are some universal constants in that painting that define it as a painting of a bridge, and not as a painting of something else. Regardless on if you start with the trusses, they are still trusses. Or the landscape, or so on. You are limited by the form you wish to depict, and the technique's ability to display it.

And naturally, there are probably logical and easier ways to go about painting a bridge and landscape. Thus, something of a uniform technique may emerge. With variations on the theme emerging through culture, traditions, and so forth.

The point may be grunting and screaming to invoke magic may be akin to just throwing paint at a board. Its not really art. And its not really a bridge.

...the devil sure is in the details. :wink:

_________________
Playing:
Marcus Valis

Yossarin

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 14:21 PM

Player

Joined: 23 Jan 2006

I have taught you well, my son.

Dark Immolation

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 14:38 PM

Developer

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

You haven't taught anyone anything, Yoss, now back to your cage with you!

I can agree that there may be common motifs and themes, but I don't think I would ever accept that there is one and only one way to cast a spell.

After all, that would mean Spellcraft is just a basic understanding of magic words used in draconic and elven. Something that would be just as accomplish-able with Lore alone. But its obviously not. Unless you're going to say every gnolls, every lizardfolk, every creature in in Realmspace uses the same three-word phrase for Wall of Fire, despite all of said species usually having their own language, different appendages, phonetic-biases and syntax.

I'd much rather imagine it's sort of an understood mixture of both the words and motions that tells you the Rakshasa saying "Umgtr Tru regooorrr" and making jazz hands at you is trying to put your ot sleep.

I guess it comes down to a matter of personal taste. And remember, my main thought here is about Sorcerous casting, not Wizardous. Wizards are pretty square when it comes to casting, but sorcerers not so much. And additionally, the way the PHB explains them as creating, developing, and casting their spells makes me think it's not as straight forward as you're thinking, Nivo.

3.5 PHB wrote:

Sorcerers create magic the way a poet creates poems, with inborn talent honed by practice

I know it's a rather vague line to explain an even vaguer subject, but what I take from that is sorcerers as a whole have multiple means to achieving the same end as a wizard. The wizard says "The dog burns." Most wizards may say that. But any three sorcerers may say "Burns does the dog" or "Conflagration is upon yon canine" or "Puppy go poof", and the result will be the same for all cases.

Last edited by Dark Immolation on Tue, Nov 09 2010, 14:54 PM, edited 2 times in total.

Yossarin

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 14:50 PM

Player

Joined: 23 Jan 2006

It actually comes down to a matter of manifold perspective. Once investigated from multiple angles, you see more of the truth, and until you go through that praxis, you're stuck imposing your own "taste" upon it rather than divining what it actually is.

There is an inherent irony to "what it is", however, that is likely to defeat any logical or argumentative response to the first paragraph in this post.

Nivo

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 15:06 PM

Player

Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Location: East of Elsewhere, West of Sometime

I think we've really gotten into the nitty and the gritty.

I'm not really suggesting that there is one uniform method to cast each and every spell. It is not the exact same words, it is not the exact same hand motions. It is not even the same material components necessarily (suggested by Eschew Material component feat). But, regardless of the flair that is suggested by culture and so forth, each spell has an essential structure to it that is uniform. The flair added - the technique - is a variation on the theme.

I am certain that how Ulrik casts his magic seems different than how Beldor does. Differences in culture, education, magical paradigm and so forth. However, there are certain irreducible details that are uniform. Despite the differences in the casting of a magic missile, there are still key similarities that define it as a magic missile. It is these that make the spells identifiable.

Now, sorcerers are more inclined to eclectic techniques. Wizards tend to have more uniform. But, that is another discussion.

Still. Screaming and throwing paint at a board does not make a bridge. :wink:

_________________
Playing:
Marcus Valis

IronAngel

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 15:20 PM

Player

Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Uh, I don't have much new to contribute. To stay minimalistic and establish some parameters: there are specific ways to cast spells. These ways can be modified with feats (such as leaving the somatic component out), but it's a difficult thing you specifically have to study. New spells usually aren't shaped by the will of the caster but rather discovered. It is not explicitly stated, but it seems there is a group of spells floating around the Weave, just waiting to be found. There are references to forgotten spells that can be rediscovered, in the (deity, IIRC) books. Their specifics are predetermined, and the wizard can alter them only to a limited extent. So no, I don't think you could do "just anything" to produce the desired effect.

However, and this is key: even if we accept that specific methods produce specific effects, it doesn't follow that there couldn't theoretically be an unlimited number of permutations that produce the same effect. Most of them have never be discovered, and would be redundant anyway: why would you recite twice as long and complex a spell to produce the same Fireball you can cast much easier?

That's just a logical possibility, of course. Maybe there aren't unlimited permutations. But there certainly are several methods of achieving the same effect. Traditional arcane spells are one. Divine spells are another: the magic is the same, its execution different. The sorceress in Blackstaff tapped into her magic by recalling scents (though that says nothing of how she cast spells externally). And then we undeniably have a bunch of prestige classes and feats which intoroduce alternative methods of spellcasting. Bardics, Spellsong, rune magic and circle magic are all phenomena documented in the Realms, and there's way more in core books.

I'm still inclined to think there is some element of similarity between these different methods, as Nivo suggests. I wouldn't go so far as to define what it is, because it's not explicitly stated in the source material. Nonetheless, it has to be something because Spellcraft and Analyse Dweomer allow people to recognize magic. (Though I probably wouldn't let Spellcraft do that as a DM if the spell was not of the traditional, textbook variety.)

_________________

On Joon, Kjetta wrote:

The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!

Sun Dog

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 15:37 PM

Player

Joined: 23 Nov 2009

This discussion of Wizards vs. Sorcerer spell casting is right up my alley. I'm trying to figure out how to create a Mystic. I can't decide whether she'd be a Wizard or a Sorcerer. I see her researching symbols and ancient texts trying to divine their hidden meaning and power, and using that for spell casting. But I also feel she would have some innate, intuitive sense of the Weave, and is thereby driven to investigate and learn about these mystic symbols and phrases, because she senses the hidden power they possess.

I really like the Geometer concept, that sounds very fitting for what I'm thinking of. A spell caster who focuses on the use of symbols for casting. Where would I learn more about them?

[What I'm also stuck on is which is easier, mechanically in-game, to play. but that's an issue for the Build Thread.]

So could a Geometer be a Sorcerer, one who uses symbols for spell casting, but does so innately? Or is that a contradiction?

Mystic: Wizard vs. Sorcerer?

Last edited by Sun Dog on Tue, Nov 09 2010, 15:44 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Dark Immolation

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 15:38 PM

Developer

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

@Iron
Ah, well that might be another difference in perspective there, Iron.

I've always seen spellcraft as both definite knowledge and intuitive insight into the Weave. Both Lore, in that you know factual information about the Weave and sort of Animal Empathy-esque, in that the things you don't know factually, you just understand through innate ability or experience.

My reasoning is how Spellcraft can be used to determine the magical properties of items. With enough spellcraft, someone can hand you a smooth, nondescript, large black sphere and you'll look it over for a min or two. You'll find out it casts Call Lightning, Storm of Vengeance, Acid Fog and protects the user from Electric-based spells.

Now the PHB never says -how- you know what it does. It never says -what- you do to figure it out. In this particular case you can't really assume it has any particular markings. But somehow, you'll figure it out.

What I glean from that is Spellcraft can function intuitively. Not every sword with 1d4 fire damage and Bane vs Orc comes with magical writing down the side that tells you that, but it is still assumed you could make out those properties regardless with Spellcraft.

In that respect, the same way I know that sword has orcslaying without any definite knowledge of its crafting methods or who crafted it, the same way I can intuitively discern the motions and words being used by a caster, even if it's not a language I'm not familiar with. It must be an understanding that goes beyond the words and motions used, otherwise Lore and Spot alone would serve as an equal alternative to Spellcraft.

Yossarin

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 15:49 PM

Player

Joined: 23 Jan 2006

Sun Dog, if you come up with an idea for a paradigm/style to pursue and want some more definite feedback, you're welcome to PM me to help flesh out the particulars that others would find boring or distracting here.

IronAngel

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 15:56 PM

Player

Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Sun Dog: I'd go with Wizard if you go for meticulous study of symbols etc. But if you want to emphasize the extatic side of the issue and unlock your inner god through experiential rituals, then sorcerer seems appropriate. Mystics are primarily religious people looking for unity with God, though, so I would've gone Cleric. But I guess you want something leaning more towards the esoteric and the occult, not so much mysticism.

_________________

On Joon, Kjetta wrote:

Nivo

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 15:57 PM

Player

Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Location: East of Elsewhere, West of Sometime

RE: the Mystic idea. I think its rather cool. The short of it is in the symbols it seems. They will derive their understanding of magic through symbols and the innate and mystical power that such things hold. The power of the symbols is innate. The understanding may not be. It sounds like a more wizardly concept. Her 'spellbook' could be a collection of symbols that she reflects upon, etc etc.

Some wizards may even already bend their magic through the use of symbols and mystical concepts, already.

My $0.02

_________________
Playing:
Marcus Valis

-Cloak-and-Dagger-

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 15:59 PM

Player

Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Location: England

Sun Dog wrote:

This character sounds like it could also be a Cleric of Deneir. :idea:

Sun Dog

Posted: Tue, Nov 09 2010, 16:12 PM

Player

Joined: 23 Nov 2009

I've considered a Cleric for my Mystic, but looking at the spells they have access to, they just don't fit my concept. I'm not interested in healing spells at all, but rather arcane spells: controlling energies, creating protective fields and summoning allies.

She'd be a devout follower of Mystra and Oghma, praying to them diligently, but not a priest. I think she'd even feel like they're speaking to her in her visions and hearing them answer queries. But she wouldn't feel compelled to lead a flock of followers or promote her gods' agendas, so a cleric just doesn't seem like a natural fit.

ed:

-Cloak-and-Dagger- wrote:

This character sounds like it could also be a Cleric of Deneir. :idea:

Hm, I like Deneir as a deity my Mystic would follow, thanks for the tip. That sounds even more fitting that Oghma. But I still think she'd be an arcane caster who's a devout follower, not a priest.

Bjorn

Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 23:22 PM

Player

Joined: 13 Feb 2009

An question. It is established thing that faithless cannot be ressurected. However, do people who worship certain set of gods, like for example Seldarine. (as in general, not one god specific) count as faithless?

_________________
I can be found as:
Tess Marbury - Girl from luskan
Erth'dar Songspinner - Drow bard
Celador Moonhelm - Elven merchant
Garambar of Hillsalar Hall - Dwarven sage
Moraina - Grumpy Monk

Dark Immolation

Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 23:30 PM

Developer

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

Bjorn wrote:

Faithless can be resurrected, the thing is they have to be resurrected in like a ten-day though.

When souls die, they go to Fugue, pretty much a purgatory city where they wait for a while for their God to come pick them up and take them to their realm. If no one shows up for the soul in a tenday, the soul gets melded to the wall of the city where they slowly dissolve into the plane.

But I believe a Wish can pretty much bring back anyone. It changes reality, after all.

And no, no, no. If you're polytheistic like most of Faerun's populace, someone will come pick you up. Whichever one most closely identifies with you or your ethos. Even then, it likely wouldn't matter too much, as the Seldarine share a realm, last I check. One picking you up is just as good as any other. You are not considered faithless if you worship a multitude of gods or a whole pantheon.

Yurell

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 0:20 AM

Player

Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)

Within a tenday? Source please.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

Dark Immolation

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 0:38 AM

Developer

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

FRwiki wrote:

Souls can reside in the city for up to a tenday before a divine servant comes to collect them, often completely clueless to the fact that they are dead. During that time, baatezu are allowed to inform souls of their state and bargain with them.[4] Souls are offered the chance to become devils themselves, usually starting as a lemure but having the chance to advance through the devilish ranks, possibly even becoming a pit fiend. This is the main way baatezu propagate. The prospect of becoming a devil may seem abhorrent to good-aligned mortals but those who follow evil deities and those who fear what awaits them in the afterlife are much more likely to take up the offer.

I know it's FRwiki, but it cites 3rd edition campaign setting by Ed Greenwood, and I'm 99% that's the same mechanics I remember. 10 days in Fugue, during which your god or one of his servants may come to claim you and take you to the proper realm. During this time, demons/devils may also talk to you and try to convince you to become a demon/devil. This is especially appealing to False or Faithless who are fairly certain no one is coming to get them or no one is going to resurrect them within the tenday. It's either that, or fade into nothingness in the Wall.

Gunz

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 2:37 AM

Player

Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca

It actually cites "The Edge of Chaos: The Wilds" by Jak Koke. That's an FR novel. Are novels considered a place for source material?

_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth

Yurell

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 2:46 AM

Player

Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)

I wouldn't count a novel as such, since it implies that raise dead won't work after ten days (at least for the Faithless), and I can't recall seeing anything like that. But this would be a DM decision I suppose for this campaign.

Also, I haven't read the book: does the narrator say that, or is it an IC supposition?

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

Dark Immolation

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 4:18 AM

Developer

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

I'm certain a DM has explained this before.

Yurell

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 5:28 AM

Player

Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)

Just a quick double-check:
The citizens of Zanshibon - devils or demons? Their rulers?

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

PaladinOfSune

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 5:31 AM

Player

Joined: 15 Dec 2004
Location: England, UK

Yurell wrote:

Just a quick double-check:
The citizens of Zanshibon - devils or demons? Their rulers?

Demons.

_________________

"Let's unwrite these pages and replace them with our own words."

Dieu_Le_Fera

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 5:37 AM

Player

Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Location: Philadelphia

all hail Paush and his appreciation of beauty!

Abyss is Demons/Hells is devils. Abyssal/Infernal.

_________________

"It is by the holy beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning, it is by Java alone that I set my mind in motion."

IronAngel

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 10:56 AM

Player

Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Novels are as canon as game books. Of course, we have to be critical of any sources we use, and that goes for the FRCS as well as Servant Of The Shard or whatever.

I don't know about raising Faithless, but it makes sense: you wouldn't actually be declared False/Faithless until we see that a god doesn't come pick you up. That doesn't happen immediately. But who knows.

_________________

On Joon, Kjetta wrote:

Yurell

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 11:07 AM

Player

Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)

But no time limit is given on raising the Faithless, which leads to one of three conclusions:
1) They don't go the Wall until they are beyond the ability of portal magics to restore;
2) They can be raised from the Wall;
3) Whoever stated the ten day rule was mistaken;

Of course, there is also the possibility that Kelemvor knows who will be raised and just doesn't send them to the Wall, but that one doesn't sound particularly believable to me.
The alternative to these is that a major rule is missing from every description of the spell, which isn't an alternative I prefer - this would give precedence to other spells missing important pieces of information that one can ad hoc when it suits them.

Who in this novel stated that they stay ten days? Is it Kelemvor (whose word we can probably trust), or a cleric (who may be mistaken) or a random madman? We don't know whose testimony that it is from, so I'd very much like to hear from someone who has read the book, otherwise I'm inclined to take it with a mountain of salt.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

IronAngel

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 11:12 AM

Player

Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland

I don't think anything about Faithless and False is mentioned in the spell description anyway. I'm just reasoning: we know Faithless people can't be raised. We also know gods don't claim their own immediately upon death. So the logical conclusion is that you can't tell Faithless, False and good guys apart in the Fugue until their god fetches or rejects them, and because you can nonetheless raise good guys immediately, it seems odd that you couldn't raise Faithless who are yet to be declared Faithless. Whether or not the tenday rule is valid, it makes sense.

_________________

On Joon, Kjetta wrote:

Yurell

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 11:15 AM

Player

Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)

I seem to have missed that source ... where does it say Faithless and False can't be raised? If they can't, then I suppose then ten day rule makes sense.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

IronAngel

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 11:42 AM

Player

Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland

FRCS, the Afterlife chapter. Once Kelemvor has made his judgement, the False and Faithless can't be raised or resurrected without divine intervention of at least Wish or Miracle scale, and probably negotiation with Kelemvor.

When Kelemvor makes his judgement, however, isn't so clear. Deities come get their own within 1-10 days, so I presume he judges after that.

_________________

On Joon, Kjetta wrote:

Mobile_Svensk

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 11:57 AM

Player

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Location: Awarded most Confused Git of 2014!

New Question about Lycans

_________________
Amia Minecraft Server Ip: vps1602.directvps.nl
NWN Damage Calculator: http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/dnd/
NWN Build Calculator: http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Other.Detail&id=856

-Cloak-and-Dagger-

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 12:33 PM

Player

Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Location: England

Quote:

Curing Lycanthropy

An afflicted character who eats a sprig of belladonna (also called wolfsbane) within 1 hour of a lycanthrope’s attack can attempt a DC 20 Fortitude save to shake off the affliction. If a healer administers the herb, use the character’s save bonus or the healer’s Heal modifier, whichever is higher. The character gets only one chance, no matter how much belladonna is consumed. The belladonna must be reasonably fresh (picked within the last week).

However, fresh or not, belladonna is toxic. The character must succeed on a DC 13 Fortitude save or take 1d6 points of Strength damage. One minute later, the character must succeed on a second DC 13 save or take an additional 2d6 points of Strength damage.

A remove disease or heal spell cast by a cleric of 12th level or higher also cures the affliction, provided the character receives the spell within three days of the lycanthrope’s attack.

The only other way to remove the affliction is to cast remove curse or break enchantment on the character during one of the three days of the full moon. After receiving the spell, the character must succeed on a DC 20 Will save to break the curse (the caster knows if the spell works). If the save fails, the process must be repeated.

Characters undergoing this cure are often kept bound or confined in cages until the cure takes effect.

Only afflicted lycanthropes can be cured of lycanthropy.

Mobile_Svensk

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 12:51 PM

Player

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Location: Awarded most Confused Git of 2014!

You're my knight in shining armour cloak/dagger <3

Mobile_Svensk

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 13:32 PM

Player

Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Location: Awarded most Confused Git of 2014!

What happens when a Demon/Devil dies on Toril?
And what happens when a demon/devil dies in the abyss/The nine hells?

Pony

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 13:46 PM

Player

Joined: 07 May 2005

Devils/Demons can not die on the material plane but are unsummoned/banished. Demons I believe are banished for a long period of time to the abyss, though I read nowhere the same applies to devils.

If a devil/demon dies on the outside planes it is permanently destroyed. They are their souls so it is not like death for a human on the material plane. As far as I know only a wish spell can bring them back from that.

Gondor

Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 14:05 PM

Player

Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Location: Belgium

How canon is the amian monk and the use of ki actually?

_________________

"Unite with the essence of your blade, forge your mind and make it strong, for a blade breaks as fast as it's wielder."
Lo'milmar Cil'in, the Path of Athiyk'VElve

Last edited by Gondor on Fri, Nov 12 2010, 14:12 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Page 70 of 126

[ 6275 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1 ... 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 ... 126 Next

The Lore Question Thread

Who is online