That being said, what would y'all think of an optional rule allowing these "divine spellcasters" to cast spells via mysticism instead of a direct godly channel? It would be fairly easy to accomplish, but what are your opinions?
Originally posted by Shugi
Cam's post on another topic got me thinking about variant casters. The DLCS states that druids and rangers get their spells from the nature deities, which leads us to believe that paladins (an "optional" class) receive their spells from a particular good deity. There seem to be instances of magic-wielding druids after the Cataclysm and before Goldmoon's rediscovery of the gods as well.
I would dispute those claims of actual magic-using druids, but that's mostly because I think that slipping them into the setting (by Michael Williams, for example) was a bad idea. The "druids" who helped Gilthanas weren't necessarily spellcasters, either, although it's possible Chislev was quick out of the gate.
That being said, what would y'all think of an optional rule allowing these "divine spellcasters" to cast spells via mysticism instead of a direct godly channel? It would be fairly easy to accomplish, but what are your opinions?
Nothing's stopping you, really. I would suggest adopting the mystic's style of limited actual spells known instead of an open choice from the whole list, but if you were really keen - no problem. I'll continue to assert that pre-5th Age, there wasn't enough mysticism in the world to cast anything more than 0-level spells at best, but it's your campaign.
Cheers,
Cam
If you have spellcasters around prior to the WotL who can cast healing magic, then Goldmoon's rediscovery of the gods is pretty meaningless.
Goldmoon: "Look! I have the power of the gods!"
NPC: "That's nice, but do we really need them? After all, Claudius over here can already heal. I don't know that we even want them around after that nasty Cataclysm business."
Don't get me wrong, if you want druids, rangers, etc. to gain their powers through mysticism in the Time of Darkness, that's fine. Just be careful that your player doesn't bring back the power of healing early, and from a non-godly source. ;)
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Nothing's stopping you, really. I would suggest adopting the mystic's style of limited actual spells known instead of an open choice from the whole list, but if you were really keen - no problem. I'll continue to assert that pre-5th Age, there wasn't enough mysticism in the world to cast anything more than 0-level spells at best, but it's your campaign.
I agree - they'd still follow the mystic rules as far as spells known, and they probably wouldn't receive any domains. Alternately, paladins could choose spells from the good/law domains, while rangers could choose from the animal/plant domains. However, this does harken back to the 2nd edition form of spellcasting.
In addition, this allows for "variant" druids and rangers in the 5th Age, though mystic-paladins and mystic-rangers would be much easier to create on-the-fly than mystic-druids.
Originally posted by Richard Connery
Playing Devil's advocate here: there were already clerics casting healing spells before Goldmoon came long. They were clerics of Takhisis. They'd probably try and keep it a secret, etc. though.
Oh, definitely. The key difference is that the clerics of Takhisis are NPCs in the background, whereas the mystic that Shugi is talking about would be a player character.
With the randomness that can come in gaming, one could accidentally reveal their inner power prior to Goldmoon. Depending on the circumstances, that could have huge ramifications.
I have to admit, though, that this would be a great role-playing challenge. The player would have abilities, but he must keep them secret at all times due to metagame reasons (return of the gods).
It would also be a challenge for the DM if the player role-played the mystic to a T, with the possibility of the DM having to change history a bit. It would be interesting indeed if the Whitestone forces had lost because they embraced mysticism, while the dragonarmies went with the gods.
Personally, I think both options could be quite fun.
Thus, during the 5th Age you had clerics, but no gods. Thus, they learned how to summon their own inner power themselves. It is a simple, yet complete, reason as to why mystics do not show up before the 5th Age.
I had prefered mystics for druids, rangers, and paladins before, but I wasn't old enough to really care about the original modules (having never played them). However, the old fellers don't want their memories spoiled of their old adventures, and want to keep things cohesive without a massive retcon. Y'know, with a little population numbers, I could have that experience as well... ;)
Originally posted by ferratus
Personally, I like the idea that only clerics could summon the inner power to become mystics. Before the Cataclysm, the clerics never bothered, and looked to the gods for power and enlightenment. Just before Cataclysm, all the clerics with the understanding of how to use their own innate power ascended to the higher heavens. Thus, you couldn't find anyone who knew how to use mysticism.
The thought that "only clerics could become mystics" just sounds bad to me... the only ones who could find true faith in themselves first had to have true faith in something else? Bah, I say.
I know that there are retcon issues with introducing mysticism, but it's far from game-breaking if mysticism is relatively contained. Maybe mystic-rangers never had healing abilities, or maybe their list of possible spells known was more limited.
I'm not trying to relegate this option to the 4th Age, either. It can't be too hard to envision 5th Age rangers that rely on mysticism instead of a nature deity.
Healers DID exist prior to the War of the Lance but we're hated and despised and called fakes by the Seekers or insert the cult of your choice. Many were burned at the stake. Those that displayed other powers were hunted down by the Conclave and killed as renegade "wizards." Others that developed the power, but knew of the other cases remained hidden, and then flocked to the banners of the God's for "legitimacy" and protection. So you could play a Mystic desperetly trying to stay alive. Being a healer, but only using mysticism to make herbs more potent and saying that he or she just knows the best ones to pick.
Rosisha
Originally posted by Shugi
The thought that "only clerics could become mystics" just sounds bad to me... the only ones who could find true faith in themselves first had to have true faith in something else? Bah, I say.
For those interested in a bit of extra info on this, look at page 101 of the DLCS for the sidebar that says "Power of Faith vs. Power of the Heart".
I know that there are retcon issues with introducing mysticism, but it's far from game-breaking if mysticism is relatively contained. Maybe mystic-rangers never had healing abilities, or maybe their list of possible spells known was more limited.
I'm not trying to relegate this option to the 4th Age, either. It can't be too hard to envision 5th Age rangers that rely on mysticism instead of a nature deity.
Nothing wrong with doing that at all.
Originally posted by ferratus
Thus, during the 5th Age you had clerics, but no gods. Thus, they learned how to summon their own inner power themselves. It is a simple, yet complete, reason as to why mystics do not show up before the 5th Age.
Thing is, some clerics can't imagine a world without gods. They took a leap of faith, and can't imagine looking within themselves for inner strength.
At the same time, those who would be mystics may have a strong inner strength - so strong, in fact, that they don't need the gods.
I had prefered mystics for druids, rangers, and paladins before, but I wasn't old enough to really care about the original modules (having never played them). However, the old fellers don't want their memories spoiled of their old adventures, and want to keep things cohesive without a massive retcon. Y'know, with a little population numbers, I could have that experience as well... ;)
For the record, this "old feller" has never played the original adventures either (although I wish I had). :embarrass
One of the most important things to consider when writing is continuity. Sure, you could do a retcon and say that sorcery and mysticism were available prior to the Age of Mortals, but how does that affect continuity.
For example, if someone wrote a story about Murry the Mystic who discovers healing magic through mysticism prior to Goldmoon discovering godly magic in Chronicles, then Goldmoon's discovery wouldn't be quite so special anymore. Even if Murry's discovery isn't anything worthwhile in-world, the experience would be cheapened for the reader.
Personally, I think the connection of Chaos and ambient magic is a stroke of genius. It keeps continuity, and provides a reason as to why ambient magic isn't always available.
As always, feel free to change this for your home games if you wish.