| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 03 Jan 2007 : 03:21:58
Its been stated in the Realms, especially in Ed's books, that female spellcasters seem to really get a better "feel" for the Weave than males do, and that there are subtleties to magic that women can pick up on that male casters don't.
I was just wondering how my fellow scribes would feel about "bloodline" style feats, similar to the feat trees presented in books like Complete Arcane and the Fiendish Codex I, that add certain magical abilities to characters if they take feats, and that these feats add on each other for each feat taken.
The only casters that could take these would be characters that are female, or that have spent time as female spellcasters (like Elminster did).
So what would these feats grant? How would they build on one another? I think this might be an interesting way to portray the female "knack" for the arcane, but how should this be portrayed? I'm interested to see my fellow scribes ideas. |
| 4 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| WalkerNinja |
Posted - 03 Jan 2007 : 20:38:42
I think that its a great idea KEJr. I don't know how I would tackle it. No clue. But a great idea!
I will forego criticizing your idea until I have one of my own on the subject (which I don't foresee). |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 03 Jan 2007 : 18:05:12
Hmm, bloodlines strike me as desendent of. Things like "The 7th daugher of a 7th duaugher" of course could be consided as well.
I not not believe feat system is very conducive to changing parents or sibling history (might be one at charater creation, can only take feat at character level 1).
Subsitution levels might be a better way to go. This allows enhancements as desired (as many feats as you want) though only sponatious spell casters could subsitute (Sor comes to mind quick). It might get too complicated to have SL that can be used by more then one class. Of course there always can be a balance issue, just like a balance issue with feats. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 03 Jan 2007 : 17:46:09
I look at it this way . . . it may not perfectly reflect what was originally intended, but at the same time, the game itself doesn't perfectly model "reality." Part of why I like to do things like this have to do less with giving the players some kind of "neat" ability, but to introduce players that are less likely read the novels and get into the intricacies of the setting to elements and themes from the novels, so that they have at least a vague notion of what other players are talking about, or conjecturing about.
This isn't so much for "power gamers" that don't like to roleplay, because I usually don't end up with too many of those in my groups, but for people that, for whatever reason, have decided that they don't care where they roleplay their characters, but they won't read fantasy if its not Terry Brooks or George R R Martin.
Its not the only reason, as I do like to have "explanations" myself, even if I have to revise them when new lore comes to light, but it also provides a way to translate Realmslore to Gamerspeak, in a way.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 03 Jan 2007 : 08:45:23
I'd make different (or identical) ones for men, but you might not want to tell players that.
Do you find the 3E rules a conducive medium for Realms magic? I can imagine how they could be, but I'd want to tackle some fundamental things before this. I haven't tried because breaking continuities and subtleties down into discrete bits seems the wrong way to go. |
|
|
