AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Hello All,

Exploring the realms of innate power of Arcane wielders (Sorcerers as a class), From what I gather and not delving into my sourcebooks yet, I believe there are three sources of Innate power,

:arrow:

Fey.

Draconic (DD levels help with the transformation)
:arrow:

Fiendish/Devil

Just to start this off on a very basic level. Is there any other canon sources of arcane talent that is within forgotten realms lore?

(I will delve into sourcebooks but its cool to gauge the playerbase first and also inspire some concepts)

The Sorcerous Source is pretty handy. There's the list there.

Thanks ely!

Kudos To Immolation for this!

Seventh Heaven wrote:

Hello All,

Exploring the realms of innate power of Arcane wielders (Sorcerers as a class), From what I gather and not delving into my sourcebooks yet, I believe there are three sources of Innate power,

:arrow:

Fey.

Draconic (DD levels help with the transformation)
:arrow:

Fiendish/Devil

Just to start this off on a very basic level. Is there any other canon sources of arcane talent that is within forgotten realms lore?

(I will delve into sourcebooks but its cool to gauge the playerbase first and also inspire some concepts)

Though thse are three sources that make sense, I have to ask what sources you got these from?

Unearthed Arcana, I believe, has the expanded heritage stuff for Sorcerers! I think DI included stuff from that in his topic, but can't recall for certain and only on lunch so no time to check!

I thought those heritage sources of sorcerous power were a 4e thing?

Unearthed Arcana lists Bloodlines as a different system allowing you to take levels in them. It's not quite about sorcerers, but might be thematically related.

The source of a sorcerers' power is left vague even in the Player's Handbook and Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting seems to make no exceptions to that. Other than dragon disciples, I'd say most aren't in touch with from where they've gained it.

I'm not sure I'd agree that most aren't in touch with the nature of their source. I think that nature would manifest in the sorts of spells they're able to cast. Like, a draconic sorcerer might have lots of evocation fire and flash, a fey sorcerer might have illusions and abjurations, a celestial sorcerer might have weapon enchantments and spellblade buffs, and such like that.

Liz wrote:

.. Like, a draconic sorcerer might have lots of evocation fire and flash, a fey ..

This only makes sense for gold and red dragon ancestry. Silvers and whites would have cold, but from there on the colour/element combination gets, much much more blurred and NWN absolutely lacks the elemental variety to properly represent that.

Celestials themselves have a lot of evocation-based magic as their spell-like abilities, so while I understand you are trying to create flavour, it seems like a needless oversimplification.

Yeah, I was just winging the associations there off the top of my head; they could definitely stand some deeper contemplation. But I think the idea behind them is sound: that a sorcerer could get a pretty good hint of the nature of her ancestor by examining the nature of the spells she's drawn to.

LetumLux wrote:

Unearthed Arcana, I believe, has the expanded heritage stuff for Sorcerers! I think DI included stuff from that in his topic, but can't recall for certain and only on lunch so no time to check!

Complete Arcane or Complete Mage touch on it as well and I think formed the early basis for Lineage based Sorcerous feats..

Here's a question which has always bothered me, which was brought back to my mind yesterday by BoB's post here.

Burningoutbright wrote:

Since your PC is a tiefling, they might look at you sideways since it's fairly common knowledge that having that kind of mixed blood makes you both dangerous and prone to being a sorcerer, which almost immediately registers as witchcraft.

What the serious eff? How does a race with a Charisma penalty and rogue as its favored class get to acquire a reputation as a bunch of dangerous sorcerers? I mean, I know it's not like people are aware IC of the favored class mechanic, or that characters have a numeric Charisma stat and that tieflings take a -2 hit to it. But shouldn't those OOC factors result in it being *less* likely IC that a tiefling would be a sorcerer? Tieflings make for crappy sorcerers! Like, why aren't people all the time thinking like "Oh man, that tiefling! She might pick my pocket and sacrifice my dog to her demon god, but at least she's probably not a sorcerer!"

I'd argue that they are not OOC factors in the first place.

The -2 charisma tieflings get isn't because they didn't manage to duck out from the swing of the ugly stick, but struggling with the sense of self. Coincidentally, this is antithesis to being a sorcerer. Tiefling sorcerers and warlocks obviously do exist, but perform worse when compared against their peers, represented statistically by the attribute penalty.

So I'd agree with Liz that that kind of reputation rather difficult to achieve, especially as they seem to have a knack for sneaking and thievery instead.

Being genetically prone to being a sorcerer doesn't necessarily mean you're prone to being a great one as compared to other cases.

Fey'ri, Wild Elves, and Kobolds have Sorcerer as their favored class, yet receive no bonus to Charisma. So while there might be a good percent of them that are Sorcerers, they aren't by default more powerful sorcerers than say a Drow, Feytouched, or Calishite would be. The state of being a sorcerer and the mechanism that empowers it are two different things. You can have 18 Charisma and not be a Sorcerer, the same way you can have 18 Intelligence and not be a Wizard.

I would agree with Jaws' explanation of a Tiefling's struggle with their sense of self. But I wouldn't say their reputation as sorcerers would be hard to gain. We forget so often that being the best mechanically is not something that gets thought about IC. It often doesn't matter. To your average person, they have no idea if that Sorcerer's Fireball is 1 DC weaker than another hypothetical Sorcerer's. It's still a goddamn fireball, they're still going to "fail" the save, and it's still going to burn down their thatch-roofed house. It doesn't take a good sorcerer to do bad things, as far as any non-adventurer is concerned. And at the end of the day, what Bob stated is ultimately an IC opinion. Might there be more Tiefling Rogues running about than Tiefling sorcerers? Certainly. But which is a normal person more likely to see and remember: the guy who is naturally a better at remaining unseen and inconspicuous, or the guy with Devil horns on his head shooting lightning out of his hands?

You are correct. There is no in-character representation for the difference of a DC, and that's not what I was saying.

You need at least 10-11 charisma for the most minute sorcerous ability to manifest and the -2 penalty puts tieflings behind the curve, reducing the probability of encountering one in the wild.

You might also argue that Faerun is a giant arena for the survival of the fittest where your right to live is frequently contested, so a particularly bad sorcerer would be able to terrorise villagers and whatnot, but likely also suffer a significantly reduced life expectancy.

Whatever the case may be, Amia is ultimately the DMs interpretation of the Realms and what the DMs say usually tends to stick to the wall.

Yeah, I get all that, DI. But "no bonus to Charisma" is not the same idea as "penalty to Charisma." They indicate entirely different things IC.

And I agree that a non-adventurer innocent bystander wouldn't be able to detect the difference between a fireball from a sorcerer with 14 Charisma and one from a sorcerer with 18 Charisma. But, the character herself would know the difference. She'd realize IC that she has far less aptitude for sorcery than a non-planetouched human, and that shortcoming in competence would make her less tempted to pursue that path. Any character who's not utterly brain dead understands her own strengths and weaknesses, and tieflings, being an intelligent lot (+2 Int, even) will nearly universally reach the inevitable conclusion: they suck at sorcery. A few of them might pursue it anyway, but most probably won't. And now we've got a noticeable IC trend. If anything, tieflings' +2 Int makes it seem like they'd be more inclined towards wizardry than sorcery.

I don't think the 'average commoner' would look at a tiefling sideways 'because they might be a sorcerer' (though the witchcraft bit is good). They would look at them sideways because their mixed blood could mean all sorts of abilities, and none of them would be used for good. Just like on the opposite end, aasimars wouldn't get assumed to be sorcerers, though their extraplanar heritage could just as easily manifest itself that way, the average commoner would just know they can do special things most average commoners can't, but their planar heritage means they will use it mostly for good.

I really hate the CHA hit tieflings and genasi take. It doesn't even make any sense. They take a hit on stats that represent their -personal- ability aptitude because other people don't identify well with them. Tieflings and genasi shouldn't have a negative CHA mod, and tieflings (on Amia) don't deserve the level adjustment (with the negative stat mod).

Fire genasi ARE supposed to be known for being sorcerers, but they take a CHA hit AND have fighter (wtf?) as their favored class.

If planar heritage is a reason for sorcerous ability to manifest, there would be more tiefling sorcerers for fluff-logic reasons, even if the rules would seem to contradict that being the reality.

Wiltunians are dumb, so it's likely they think anything strange is a witch. Commoners are stupid as hell
Tieflings are capable of casting innate magic which they normally can't pull off with 8 charisma but NWN doesn't care because NWN doesn't care about a lot of things, like spell school
Tieflings are defined by their charisma penalty just like elves are defined by their dex bonus and dwarves by their con bonus and half orcs by their strength bonus. This isn't a comprehensive list in the ways that +2/-2 is represented, but you have to remember that all of these stereotypes are a reflection of the fact that 99% of the population is supposed to start at 10/10/10/10/10/10
Most tieflings are fuck ugly, but few people here like playing ugly or short creatures (in before people reply to me with their exceptions)
Sorcerous magic has more often than not been defined in D&D as hereditary but it is true that most sorcerers have no clue where it came from, the concept of strengthening your connection to that bloodline is relatively new

Liz wrote:

Here's a question which has always bothered me, which was brought back to my mind yesterday by BoB's post here.

Burningoutbright wrote:

Since your PC is a tiefling, they might look at you sideways since it's fairly common knowledge that having that kind of mixed blood makes you both dangerous and prone to being a sorcerer, which almost immediately registers as witchcraft.

What the serious eff? How does a race with a Charisma penalty and rogue as its favored class get to acquire a reputation as a bunch of dangerous sorcerers? I mean, I know it's not like people are aware IC of the favored class mechanic, or that characters have a numeric Charisma stat and that tieflings take a -2 hit to it. But shouldn't those OOC factors result in it being *less* likely IC that a tiefling would be a sorcerer? Tieflings make for crappy sorcerers! Like, why aren't people all the time thinking like "Oh man, that tiefling! She might pick my pocket and sacrifice my dog to her demon god, but at least she's probably not a sorcerer!"

Because demons and devils do awful voodoo witch magic, so if you're related to them, you must do it too. IT's a bias borne of superstition and fear.

I guess if the answer to why tiefers have a sorcerous reputation is, as Council and Tormak describe, that stupid people are stupid and wrong, then I can buy that.

I remain unconvinced that there's any kind of actual justification for the reputation being based in fact, though.

Stereotypes/racism doesn't always make sense.

They look weird and suspicious though. Dangerous demonic things likely involved with witchcraft and dangerous folk lore - likely to curse you if you cross them and so forth. Full blooded demons/devils are host to a plethora of innate powers though, which could make one think would make it liable their spawn have a tendency for similar innate magic.

Works for me.

Although as long as we're on the subject (and I apologize to Seventh Heaven for commandeering the thread!), why do tiefers have a Charisma penalty at all in the first place? I mean, yeah yeah, sense of self, blah blah. That's good as far as it goes, but it's obviously an explanation retrofitted onto mechanics that nobody really thought through, in order to explain a thing that makes no sense. Demons and devils are some of the most charismatic creatures out there, and it's pretty nonsensical to say that creatures who themselves have absolutely no troubles with their sense of self would give rise to offspring which manifest exactly the opposite. Why would a tiefling have "sense of self" issues, when an aasimar, feytouched, or dragon disciple wouldn't?

(Fun fact: of the 22 types of demons and devils described in the Monster Manual, all but one have average or better Charisma, and fully half of them have Charisma of 18 or higher.)

DnD doesn't always make sense! In 5ed they get +2 cha I believe, so they clearly saw an issue with it at some point.

I believe the 'reasoning' is that their is something simply wrong with them that can be felt/seen - that smell of sulphur - the coal eyes - the uncomfortable sense/aura they bring or whatever rather than issues of self though.

Funny enough but half-fiends even get +2 cha. It's pretty cray.

But, that's also kind of just how it is, and it's a bit late to change it.

The funny thing is the little tiefling traits that Rigela mentions are present or (usually) even more blatant and they're still charismatic... I guess the problem with tieflings is the uncanny valley?

Allow me to quote Races of Faerun..

Races of Faerun, p.126 wrote:

The tieflings are aware at an early age that they are different from the people around them, and often have strange urges, desires, or needs because of their evil heritage.

-

Tieflings live as outcasts. Feared for their evil heritage and often acting appropriately to their ancestry, they learn to keep people at a distance, and hide which makes them different. - Tieflings are bitter folk who expect eventual rejection from even their best friends and easily fall into lives of crime, depravity and cruelty. Tieflings look upon true fiends and other evil outsiders with envy and fear.

I've put the important parts in bold and underlined them, which I feel aptly describe why they are struck with the -2 charisma in the respective edition. All tieflings aren't created in the same stroke, however, so they can definitely be more charismatic but the deck is stacked against them.

Everyone is free to disagree as they will, but I don't believe it nonsensical.

I haven't read the whole thread, but since I'm playing a tiefling on charisma (and one that's meant to be charismatic, and does ALL THE THINGS underlined in bold in Jaws' post) I'll throw my two cents in.

Charisma is indeed a very slippery stat to portray. Each player has his or her own opinion about how it should be rendered. However, independently from the actual RP and the actual discussion about CHA I wholly agree with what has been written in the aforementioned post. Tieflings have a charisma malus for a reason, namely their often uncanny appearance. Fiends in my opinion can be charismatic because they are well-known smooth talkers and not all of them are monstruous in appearance (just think about succubi), but if anything, it's fiends that should receive a charisma malus, not the tieflings who should gain a bonus, or even no malus at all.

Tieflings, even those who actively try to behave, are unpredictable. They constantly sway under the pull of instincts and desires that are not their own. They often sport frightening or otherwordly characteristics that only very special people would deem fascinating, but that would scare the hell out of ordinary people. Also:

"Tieflings are bitter folk who expect eventual rejection from even their best friends and easily fall into lives of crime, depravity and cruelty."

Even charismatic or goodly tieflings will always be internally twisted by fear of rejection, which will be invariably confirmed many many times. This is bound to always put a damper on their ability to be 100% smooth, or if they can, the mask will eventually crack. Tieflings are visually frightening, on top of actually deserving their fame as bitter, unpredictable, somewhat feral creatures. This is bound to influence them deeply, and even a very charismatic or good aligned tiefling (if the latter is truly even possible) will always preserve a mean, bitter or outright dangerous streak that will put a pinch of bitterness in an otherwise sweet mix.

"Racism" against tieflings is about as correct as saying that a tamed crocodile or tiger might one day turn against you. It's about as correct as saying that one day they might claw your face off because they played a bit too roughly. They ARE dangerous. They ARE unpredictable. They ARE inherently mean.

The fact that we play on an island brimming full of hardened adventurers, arcanists who have seen them all and heroes tough enough to be somewhat safe around them is another point entirely. Some people may be morbidly fascinated by these characteristics, or love them in the same way some people who keep large cats as pets do. I'll go as far as pointing out that tieflings or other halfbloods might come across as one-dimensionally comely (and, say, not both scary and fascinating) because they aren't being played "correctly", and the parts underlined in bold are not given the emphasis or space they'd otherwise deserve.

Horns don't make you sexy. They do if the beholder really has a thing for pain and fear, and because they actually -like- to be scared. CHA tieflings should dance a fine line between fear and fascination, barring interaction and history with individuals who, precisely, managed to tame over time.

Edit: Charisma has very little to do with being good looking. Being good looking is a bonus, but not the whole bulk of charisma. Good looking people may have an awful score. Charisma is the ability to inspire, to fascinate, to intrigue, to lie and influence others the way the charismatic person wants -consciously or inconsciously-. Fiends are obviously very good at that. Tieflings, being unpredictable wildcards, essentially insecure, and having a both well deserved and widely shared fame would have trouble being charismatic both because they'd shy away from interaction (or interact instinctively in an aggressive, distrustful, angsty way) fully deserve that malus.

Innate Magic & Sources.

Who is online