Dragonmarks: Arcane Science


Arcane magic is a form of science. There are predictable rules that shape reality, and with proper study and force of will, anyone could potentially perform arcane magic. This is what makes arcane magic the foundation of civilization in the Five Nations: it can be taught, and once learned, it is entirely reliable. Arcane magic involves channeling ambient magical energy—the powers of the planes, the emanations of the Ring of Siberys—and focusing it to alter reality. The components of a spell—like verbal incantations, somatic gestures, and focus items—help this process, but the most important element of spellcasting is mental focus. Though a fighter could perfectly duplicate the words and gestures of a wizard, nothing would happen. You must cast the spell in your mind, harnessing and shaping mystical energy, and this is dangerous and exhausting; this is why most spellcasters are limited in how many spells they can cast each day.

Spellcasting using Intelligence is grounded in knowledge and logic. For these characters, casting a spell is like solving an equation—harnessing and carefully channeling the precise quantity of mystical energy required to produce the effect you’re looking for. A wizard may use words of power and mystic gestures to generate power, while an artificer instead relies on tools. But either way, you fundamentally know what you’re doing, which is why both artificers and wizards can prepare new spells each day. Arcane magic is a science, and you’re a scientist.

Exploring Eberron

The idea that arcane magic is a form of science is a fundamental principle of the Eberron campaign setting. It’s something you see in the everyday magic of Khorvaire in 998 YK. We have airships. There are warforged and sending stones. The streets are lit with continual flame. What’s missing is a clear sense of how we got to this point. Imagine that your group of adventurers travels back in time a thousand years and gets caught up in Galifar’s War of Unification. What sort of magic are people using back then? How has magic CHANGED over the course of a thousand years? We’ve called out a few key developments—the first airships went into service in 990 YK, while the first true warforged were developed thirty years ago. What were other key developments? The streets of Galifar are lit with continual flame… But WHEN did that innovation take place, and what were things like before that?

This is an academic discussion, which is why it hasn’t been covered in detail before. What matters most in 998 YK is how things work in 998 YK. If I’m running a modern-day spy thriller I don’t actually NEED to know the history of electric lighting; I just need to know that there is electric lighting. You might decide to do that time travel adventure, but time travel isn’t an integral part of the campaign, and as a general rule we don’t need to know how magic worked a thousand years ago. But it’s still interesting to consider. Beyond that, understanding how magic has evolved helps us to understand how magic can evolve—what we can expect to see in the future. Beyond this, having a clear sense of the state of magic in Khorvaire helps to understand how magic items and spells fit into the game. The rules tell us, for example, that a broom of flying is an ‘uncommon’ item with a flight speed of 50 feet. But they don’t tell us who—if anyone—makes them in Khorvaire or if they need to look like brooms. Even ‘uncommon’ is primarily a description of how powerful the item is and how expensive it should be, if it can even be purchased; it’s up to us to decide if it’s actually uncommon or if it even exists in the world. People often ask me how to add creatures to the world—Where do tabaxi fit into Eberron? How would you add Illumians?—the exact same principle applies to magic items and spells. The fact that we we have rules for something simply means that we COULD use it in the world; it doesn’t mean that it has to be here.

This is a big topic and it’s going to take three articles to cover it. This article is the most abstract, examining the theory of arcane magic within the world. Later in the month, I’ll write about arcane industry—both the role of magic in general industry, and the industry of magic and magic items. The final article will look at the history of magic in Khorvaire, considering how we got to where we are today and where we could go from here. As always, these articles are kanon—what I’m doing do at MY table, regardless of what’s said or not said in an official book. It’s entirely possible something I say here will contradict some aspect of Magic of Eberron, or something you’ve established in your own campaign, and that’s fine in both cases. Eberron lore is intended to be a source of inspiration, not something that limits you; use what’s inspiring, change what gets in the way.

Threshold’s Wandslinger by Julio Azevedo

Principles of Arcane Science

Arcane magic involves the manipulation of vast, ambient mystical energies that permeate Eberron. These forces are largely omnipresent and invisible, not unlike gravity; they’re fundamental elements of the world, and in the course of time most cultures find some way to harness and manipulate them. Like most forms of science, there are different theories about how this science works, and specifically what force is being manipulated.

SIBERYAN THEORY

Siberyan theory is the dominant arcane tradition of the Five Nations. This asserts that arcane magic taps energies that flow from the Ring of Siberys. This power—sometimes called the blood of Siberys—is the same fundamental force the Progenitors used to shape reality; arcane magic essentially reshapes reality to produce the desired result. Certainly, the blood of Siberys can be used to create a fireball; once upon a time, that same power was used to create THE SUN.

Siberyan magic is in some ways the most scientific approach to magic, and can in a sense be seen as analogous to programming; the wizard is rewriting the code that defines reality. Its invocations are words of power that activate specific energies—fire, vast, distance—while its gestures shape and focus those energies. But ultimately, the forces flow through the spellcaster and it is a mental exertion—both intense calculations and an exertion of will—that generates the change. This explains the various limitations of a wizard, both spell slots and spell level. A wizard can look at a spellbook and understand the theory behind a higher level spell. They can gather the right materials, make the appropriate gestures, say the right words. But if they don’t have enough experience and talent, they can’t perform the mental work required; they understand the concept but they can’t do the work required to produce the result. Meanwhile, spell slots reflect the mental and physical toll of spellcasting. While there is no other effect—spellcasters don’t gain levels of exhaustion from casting spells—the idea is that channeling arcane power takes a toll, and their comes a point where you just don’t have it in you to grasp and shape that power. If your spellcaster is completely out of spell slots, you don’t suffer any penalties, but it still means that you are spent, and that’s something you could choose to work into your roleplaying.

Siberyan theory is the most widespread form of magic, used across the Five Nations and in Aerenal. However, it’s a broad field of magic and there are different techniques within it. The wizards of Aerenal and those of Arcanix both use verbal components that invoke the same, fundamental words of power. However, the Aereni techniques are highly formalized and precise—it’s a highly effective technique, but it takes decades to master. Since most humans don’t have decades, Arcanix helps students develop idiosyncratic techniques—to figure out what resonates with them. This works, but the Aereni find it disturbingly sloppy and haphazard.

The commonly accepted theory is that arcane energy—”the blood of Siberys”—was part of the Progenitors. According to the primal myths, the Ring of Siberys IS Siberys; this energy is simply the residual primordial power of a cosmic entity. This is supported by the fact that siberys dragonshards are highly effective at focusing arcane energies. Many spellcasting focuses use siberys shards in some way; the crystal is obvious, but a staff may have an embedded dragonshard sliver that helps focus power. However, there is an academic faction that asserts that there is no reason to believe that the Progenitors were cosmic dragons or even immortal. These sages believe that the Ring of Siberys might have predated the Progenitors, and that they could have been a trio of mortal wizards of exceptional skill—wizards who used the same basic principles a modern wizard uses to create a fireball to shape a sun. Those who follow this path generally assert that the Sovereigns were either remarkable mortals or that they were simply immortal entities—like the celestials and fiends—created by the mortal Progenitors as part of their vast work. These scholars believe that this shows the limitless potential of arcane magic—that wizards who unlock its greatest secrets could create new worlds or even shape planes of existence.

Siberyan verbal components are grounded in the Draconic language, though there is more to a verbal component than simply speaking in Draconic; ultimately it is about the invocation of words of power that aren’t used in everyday speech. A wizard doesn’t have to understand Draconic to perform magic, but it helps provided deeper insight into the workings of a particular spell.

EXTERNALISTS

The energy of the planes permeates Eberron, and Externalist wizards shape their spells by drawing on this power. Where a Siberyan harnesses ambient energy and shapes that into fire, an Externalist draws primal fire directly from Fernia. The elements of this magic—the components—are similar to those used in Siberyan magic. Words of power summon specific energies and eldritch gestures help to shape those forces, and ultimately it is the mind of the wizard that weaves these elements together and channels the power. But the Externalist asserts that the most effective source of power isn’t the blood of Siberys; it is the energy of the planes.

Primitive Externalist techniques require a direct connection to the planes. Such magic can only be performed in or near a manifest zone or during a coterminous period. This is an important factor in the overall dominance of Siberyan magic; the people of Sarlona discovering that their spells no longer worked in new lands, and developing new approaches. However, the energies of the planes do permeate the world, albeit to a lesser degree… and more important, creatures are themselves tied to the planes. This is most clearly demonstrated when a mortal creature dreams—passing along its innate connection to Dal Quor—but can also be seen in the conscripts of Shavarath and the shadows of Mabar, echoes of mortals in the planes. So sophisticated Externalist wizards don’t require access to manifest zones or gain additional benefits from them (aside from whatever benefit the zone provides to all spellcasters); it’s primarily an academic point that the energy is flowing from an extraplanar source.

Externalist verbal components draw on elements of planar languages; depending on the power being shaped, it could use root syllables from Primordial, Celestial, Abyssal, or even Quori. As with Siberyan theory and Draconic, the spellcaster doesn’t have to understand these languages.

SYMPATHETIC MAGIC

This arcane theory maintains that an effect produced can be magnified; to create a fireball, burn a ball of flammable guano. A secondary aspect is the idea things that have once been in contact maintain a connection—a leaf is still connected to a tree, a lock of hair is still connected to the creature it came from—and magic can flow along this connection. Sympathetic magic still relies on words of power for its verbal components, but its material and somatic components are often quite different from the preceding techniques; rather than tracing sigils in the air, a sympathist wizard might light a match to produce a fire bolt, or plunge a needle into a wax figure to cast crown of madness.

Sympathetic magic isn’t taught at Arcanix. It’s generally seen as a primitive form of Siberyan magic—that the wizard is channeling the Siberyan energy, but using the sympathetic focus as an alternative to the more complex Siberyan techniques. This is effective, but not as versatile; it relies on the ability to create a sympathetic construct of the desired result. As a result, sympathetic magic is often found used by self-taught “hedge mages” or clans or tribes that have stumbled onto these techniques in isolation. Again, they are effective, but practitioners may be limited in their range of spells or ability to incorporate new ideas.

A second form of sympathetic magic is tied to the magical thinking approach to artifice mentioned in Exploring Eberron. Rather than being a different approach to Siberyan magic, magical thinking is actually a form of Externalist magic that draws on the power of Thelanis to temporarily enforce fey logic on reality. The main thing is that this is more often associated with warlocks and sorcerers than with wizards. As a warlock or sorcerer, a character knows a specific trick that always works. A wizard has the ability to change out their spells and to learn from other wizards. Does that seem plausible with this character? Or would they be better represented as a warlock?

Verbal components in sympathetic magic vary based on the powers being wielded. A fundamentally Siberyan approach may use Draconic syllables, even if the caster has just stumbled upon the sounds that produce effective results. Magical thinking could use Sylvan phrases. On the other hand, sympathetic magic can also involve a chant or a poem describing the desired outcome; essentially, it’s a longer and less efficient process that combining three syllables of power, but it’s something someone can stumble onto even when they don’t know those syllables of power.

DOMINION THEORY

Dominion theory walks the line between arcane and divine magic. It has some broad overlap with Siberyan magic, using word and gesture to channel ambient arcane power. However, it asserts that all magic flows directly from the Sovereigns. It is still approached in a scientific manner; the difference between the Vassal cleric and the Dominion wizard is that the cleric asks the Sovereigns to grant a miracle, while the wizard employs formulas that let them draw on the fires of Onatar’s forge or Aureon’s law. The Dominion wizard doesn’t need faith in the same way that a cleric does, which is why their spells are cast using Intelligence instead of Wisdom. But if they see arcane magic as manipulating the pieces of a great machine, they believe that the Sovereigns ARE that machine, and their verbal components generally invoke one or more of the Sovereigns by name. So they don’t REQUIRE faith—but they still have it.

Dominion theorists can be found in the Five Nations, even in Arcanix. However, this theory is usually dismissed as superstition by both Siberyan mages, who say that Dominion spellcasters are simply drawing on Siberyan power and adding unnecessary ritual. While the Sovereign Host is the dominant faith of the Five Nations, the standard vassal tradition incorporates the myth of the Progenitors. Siberyan vassals believe that Aureon (or the Shadow) guides those who use magic, but that Aureon isn’t actually the SOURCE of magic… That Aureon can show the wizard how to create fire with a spell, but that the fire isn’t drawn directly from Onatar’s forge. So many wizards are also faithful vassals; Dominion theory is an unusual extreme.

OTHER TRADITIONS

Siberyan theory is the dominant tradition of the Five Nations. Externalism has significant support and is a respected tradition. Sympathetic and Dominion techniques are fringe techniques, more often found in isolation. But there are many other theories. Here’s just a few…

  • Consensualists say that belief is the source of arcane magic; like Dominion wizards they manipulate that power in a scientific fashion, but they maintain that magic works as it does because people believe in that system—and that it’s possible that a paradigm shift in belief could completely change the laws of magic.
  • Pact magic is an offshoot of Externalism, drawing power not from a plane, but rather from a specific entity (such as an archfey or an overlord). Typically this is associated with warlocks, who are granted the ability to cast specific spells; but it’s possible that a powerful entity could grant a wizard more general access to their power. Like Dominion wizards, Pact wizards will generally call out the source of their power in their invocations.
  • Animists work with spirits, often fey, elementals, or ghosts; an animist might have a minor fire elemental that manifests when called on in the form of fire bolt or burning hands. However, animists are often sorcerers as opposed to wizards; again, the question is whether the animist with burning hands can swap that out for a new spell, or if they only know a few tricks—whether they are using science, or whether they’ve just made friends with an elemental.
  • Prophets are one of the most obscure traditions; they maintain that the Draconic Prophecy is essentially the source code of reality, and while they may not be able to see the big picture they can effect immediate changes by effectively rewriting the present. Again, this is a very rare path well suited to the Scribe wizard presented in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything. If a DM introduces this into a campaign, they’ll need to decide if this form of magic is despised by the Chamber, who see Prophets as parasites on the Prophecy—or whether, in fact, the Chamber CREATED this style of magic and teaches it to their agents.
  • Silver Pyromancers fall between Dominion Theory and Externalists. They draw their arcane power from the concrete source of the Silver Flame, but this isn’t an easy thing to do. The Flame responds more easily to the draw of faith than to scientific manipulation, and Silver Pyromancers generally need both; they manipulate the Flame using scientific principles, but it is still their faith that allows them to grasp the power to begin with.

Most “respectable” arcane scholars focus on the ultimate source of power—as such, sympathetic magic is generally seen as a Siberyan technique, while magical thinking is Externalist.

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

All of this may sound interesting, but what does it actually mean? What difference does it make whether YOUR wizard is a Siberyan or an Externalist? At the end of the day, not much. These aren’t class archetypes; you can be an evoker or an illusionist regardless of whether you’re relying on Dominion Theory or Siberyan. More important, under the core, basic rules your Siberyan wizard can copy a spell from the spellbook of a Dominion wizard; you’re able to adapt the principles of their spell to your preferred style of magic.

However, there’s a number of important things to consider here. The first is that it’s always been a basic, core principle of Eberron that player characters are remarkable and that most NPCs don’t have the abilities of player characters. Most arcane spellcasters aren’t wizards; they are variations of magewright. I’ll talk more about this below, but the key principle of this is that just because your player character can copy a spell from an NPC’s spellbook doesn’t mean that an NPC can. Most magewrights don’t even USE spellbooks; they spend years learning to cast a single ritual. The idea that a PC wizard can just grab someone’s spellbook and say “Mmhhm, mhhm, I see what you’re doing there, yes, I can do that” is supposed to reflect an exceptional aptitude for arcane science. So with that in mind…

  • A PLAYER CHARACTER who sees themselves as an Externalist may be able to scribe a Siberyan spell, because again, they’re so sharp they can just translate it to their style of magic. But an NPC Sibeyrian mage may not be able to copy any spells from the PC’s spellbook; it’s another style of magic. If a DM wants to add more weight to this, they could require the PC to make an Intelligence (Arcana) check (say, DC 8 + twice the spell’s level) to convert it; if they fail the check they need to keep studying, and can try to scribe it again after completing a long rest.
  • The above principle ties to the basic idea that when dealing with NPCs who DO have spellbooks, an NPC wizard might have a narrow focus. The Sulatar drow wizard may have spells entirely related to fire. In THEORY they could learn a spell that generates cold damage, and in theory a Sulatar could become a diviner; but in practice they’re almost always evokers and conjurers and they’ve never developed any spells associated with cold.
  • A DM may decide that non-player characters require spellcasting focuses to perform their magic—that a particular Siberyan NPC can’t cast spells unless they have a Siberys crystal focus, or that a Sympathetic wizard needs their component pouch to perform magic. A wandslinger may need a wand to perform a cantrip.
  • Likewise, while an Externalist or Sympathetic wizard PC can learn any spell and cast anywhere, a DM could say that an Externalist NPC can’t cast spells beyond their particular sphere of influence or that a Sympathetic wizard can’t cast spells unless they’ve met certain sympathetic conditions. For example, you could have a powerful sympathetic NPC mage who can cast bane, bestow curse, or dominate monster… but only if they have a hair, tooth, or nail from their target. PLAYER CHARACTERS are remarkable and can overcome these limitations. But NPCs may be working with more limited or primitive traditions and deal with limitations player characters don’t have.
  • The flip side of this, of course, is that NPCs may be able to produce effects player characters can’t, precisely because they are deeply specialized. In Rising From The Last War we mention that a magewright oracle may be able to cast a form of augury that can look a week into the future. Perhaps the sympathist needs a lock of hair from their victim… but can cast bestow curse on that victim from across town. Again, this plays to the idea that player characters are incredibly flexible—but that NPCs may be deeply specialized in ways that PCs just don’t have the time to master.

So the main point is that “Siberyan” and “Externalist” aren’t concepts that have a concrete mechanical effect. They’re things that can add flavor to a story—whether a wizard calls out the Draconic name of fire and trace a sigil in the air when they cast fire bolt, or whether they strike a match and command their victim to burn! You don’t HAVE to do anything with any of this; it all means exactly as much—or as little—as you want it to.

Wizards and Artificers, Magewrights and Wandslingers

The idea of “Arcane Science” primarily applies to wizards and artificers: Intelligence-based spellcasters whose flexibility reflects their ability to apply scientific principles in new ways. Sorcerers and warlocks may manipulate the same forms of energy, but at the end of the the day they don’t truly understand what they’re doing and are limited in the effects they can produce. A sorcerer has an innate aptitude for specific effects, while a warlock is either taught specific spells or granted supernatural powers by their patron; but two warlocks can’t trade spellbooks and learn each other’s spells. Given that, let’s take a look at the different characters who do use these scientific techniques.

WIZARDS

Whatever your preferred source, the fact of the matter is that there is an invisible, fundamental force that suffuses Eberron—a power that can be harnessed to reshape reality. A sailor harnesses the wind and water. A smith works with earth and fire. As a wizard you channel the fifth element, bending reality to your will.

The basic point of Eberron is that the people of Khorvaire know this power exists and have harnessed it to help in their everyday lives. But most people can’t master more than a few spells. It takes years for a magewright to learn the spells that define their trade; the arcane locksmith can’t just spend an evening reading a book and wake up as a lamplighter. At the end of the day, this is because the magewright has only learned how to cast their few spells; they don’t truly understand the deep principles beneath them. It is this deeper understanding combined with remarkable talent that gives a wizard their full flexibility. A magewright has learned to play a few songs on the piano; a wizard is Mozart or Beethoven, able to envision new symphonies.

With that said, perhaps that’s not how you see your character… and that’s fine. As a wizard you possess talents and flexibility other spellcasters don’t… but that doesn’t mean you fully appreciate your own talent. And let’s face it, at first level you ARE quite limited in your capabilities. It’s remarkable that you CAN copy any spell from a spellbook you find, but at the moment you can only CAST first level spells, and you haven’t found a how lot of spellbooks. So perhaps your evoker operated arcane artillery in the war, or your diviner planned to make a living as an oracle. Here we even hit the limits of the wizard: Magewrights lack flexibility, but they are very good at those few things they do. As a player character, your diviner wizard isn’t quite as good at augury as the magewright oracle; you just can’t seem to push beyond that 30 minute window. So your character could even see themselves as a failure… because you haven’t yet had the experiences that will reveal your amazing potential.

So that’s certainly something to consider in making your wizard. Do you know you’re better than a magewright, or will you be surprised by your limitless potential? Do you believe that you’re a prodigy, or did you expect to be a simple magewright? Do you love exploring the mysteries of arcane science… or is it just that you happen to be remarkably gifted, though you yourself don’t really appreciate how gifted you are? Here’s a few ways to approach a wizard…

  • The Wandslinger. You are an arcane engine of destruction. You take pride in your ability to wield fire and lightning, and you may be as aggressive as any fighter; after all, they can only wield steel, while you have a weapon with unlimited potential. A wandslinging wizard could have the soldier background reflecting a distinguished military career even before unlocking your true power.
  • The Scholar. It could be that you love the idea of magic and you’re fascinated with its potential, but you never particularly expected to, you know, USE IT to blast enemies with fire. This is a way to reflect an older, experienced character starting at first level: you may have been STUDYING magic for decades, but you never actually used it it battle until now and you’re only just learning how to put your abstract knowledge to practical use. So where the Wandslinger struts and is proud of their power, the Scholar might actually be continuously surprised and delighted when they cast a new spell for the first time or defeat an enemy. Sage is a logical background for such a character, but guild artisan also makes sense for the wage mage who thought they were going to be a simple magewright.
  • The Artist. Magic is an invisible force with limitless potential. The Wandslinger sees it as a weapon. The Scholar recognizes it as an invaluable tool. The Artist sees that it is beautiful. They see the wonder of magic, and take joy in the casting of a spell as another might delight in a dance. It could be that the Artist actually seeks to use their magic to entertain; an Illusionist with the entertainer background may already have a following for their remarkable performances (and may have ties to House Phiarlan). Or it could be that they’ve used their magic in battle, but they still delight in the artistry of it; this is a possible path for a Bladesinger. The key point with the Artist is that they may understand the science of magic—but they still take joy in the wonder of it.
  • The Acolyte. Dominion theory teaches that arcane magic is Aureon’s gift. The Acolyte understands the science of it, and they work their wonders with intellect rather than with the sheer force of their faith. But they still believe that the powers they wield are both a gift of the Sovereigns and evidence of their benevolence, and they seek to use these powers as a true servant of the Sovereigns: protecting the weak in Boldrei’s name, enforcing Aureon’s laws, and bringing the light of Dol Arrah to the darkness. Alternately, you could be a Silver Pyromancer, using your faith to weave spells from the Silver Flame. Either way, this is a path for an acolyte or hermit.

ARTIFICERS

Magic is an invisible force that’s all around us. A wizard grasps the power directly, binding it with word and gesture. But it takes deep training even to become a magewright, let alone a wizard… and that’s why we have magic items, tools that can allow anyone to benefit from the power of magic. And a world that relies on magic items needs people to create and repair them—engineers and inventors, the people who develop and maintain the infrastructure that drives modern civilization.

A central difference between an artificer and a wizard is that the artificer uses tools. They use tools both to produce magical effects, and also imbue tools with magical power. The wizard molds magic with word and gesture alone; the artificer creates a wand or potion. Part of the point is that that as a player character, an artificer is capable of jury-rigging temporary versions of the reliable tools we see every day. A wand or a potion is a completed, stable tool. But when an Alchemist artificer uses their alchemist’s tools to cast fire bolt, they may be whipping up an instant, unstable potion. An Artillerist essentially creates a temporary wand, something that only works for them. So in the Artillerist we see the science of the wand at work, and in the alchemist we see the potion. One path of established arcane science that doesn’t yet have an archetype is that of sigilry, the science of scrolls. This is what you see in an artificer who uses calligrapher’s tools as a spellcasting focus; their spells are produced by enscribing mystic symbols, it’s just that it takes more effort to stabilize that power into the final form of a spell scroll.

Page 29 of Exploring Eberron discusses a few traditions of artifice, and these overlap with the broader arcane theories. Cannith Traditional is essentially Siberyan theory: a set of established principles, creating items that draw on the ambient energy of the Ring of Siberys. Planar Influences relates to the Externalist Theory, while Magical Thinking is likely drawing specifically on Xoriat, Thelanis, or perhaps Dal Quor. An Actual Science artificer may be pioneering something entirely new. And this ties to the same point as the wizard: as a player character, an artificer is remarkable. NPCs who perform artifice are functionally magewrights: they may be able to create a specific type of potion or maintain cleansing stones. The Cannith tinker can perform magecraft and mending. But as an artificer you’re not just a a magical electrician: you’re Tesla, or Tony Stark. You are brilliant and unorthodox, and the methods you use—whether you’re creating a temporary infusion or a permanent item, whether or not you recognize your full talent and potential—are a product of your own unique genius. I’ll talk more about this in the discussion of Arcane Industry, but the crucial point is that just because your artificer can do something doesn’t mean that normal people can do it, or that your techniques could be translated to mass production. You’re the genius in your garage, making a working palantir out of coconuts and lint; it MIGHT be possible to translate that idea into a viable product, but it’s not a trivial thing.

Exploring Eberron examines different possible paths for artificer characters, so you can find more ideas there.

MAGES, MAGEWRIGHTS, AND ARTIFICERS

What we’ve said from the start is that most spellcasters aren’t wizards and clerics—they’re magewrights and adepts. The idea of arcane science is that it IS A SCIENCE. It’s a rational, reliable tool, which means that anyone has the potential to master it with sufficient time and training. But that doesn’t mean that anyone can become a wizard or an artificer. Anyone can learn to play the piano, but not everyone can be Mozart. Magewrights devote themselves to mastering specific spells. This devotion pays off in various ways. Magewrights don’t need spellbooks. They cast spells as rituals, even spells that don’t normally have the ritual tag; the drawback is that aside from cantrips, they can ONLY cast spells as rituals. And, as noted, they may be able to cast enhanced versions of spells, such as the augury that can predict events farther in advance. The player character wizards is a brilliant jack of all trades; the magewright is a master of a very specific set of skills.

The NPC wandslinger falls into a similar mold. A typical wandslinger essentially has the benefits of the Magic Initiate feat: they know a few cantrips—usually combat-oriented—and may be able to cast one or two low-level spells on top of that, surprising an opponent with burning hands or a shield. Generally, an NPC wandslinger needs an arcane focus to cast spells or cantrips; again, they are more limited than PCs. This training and techniques have become more common in the wake of the Last War, but they are still more limited than player characters.

But what about NPCs who ARE better than wandslingers or magewrights? What’s the point of a wizard being able to copy new spells from a spellbook if NPCs don’t use spellbooks? First of all, just because MOST NPCs don’t have the power of a player character doesn’t mean that NONE do. The Monster Manual and Volo’s Guide has stat blocks for NPCs with full caster abilities. The point is simply that anyone who has the full abilities of a PC is a remarkable individual. Such people make worthy rivals and foes for PCs; the point is just to recognize that they, too, are remarkable, not common.

And finally there is room for that middle ground: People who have powers far beyond the typical magewright, but who don’t have the full capabilities of a PC class. A professor at Arcanix may have the ability to cast cloudkill. Another may be able to cast summon fiend—but only as a ritual, and with a far greater component cost. Even looking to the NPC caster blocks, you might say that there’s an NPC evoker, and that they do prepare spells from a spellbook—but that, like the Sulatar I mentioned before, they can’t prepare spells that deal with cold or lightning. They have many of the abilities of a PC, but they are still fundamentally limited; they don’t have the flexibility or broad genius of a player character. In my campaign, I call such characters mages. They can have significant POWER, and may actually be able to do things PCs can’t—but they still don’t have the full flexibility of a wizard or artificer.

Q&A

Why is Siberyan Theory the dominant theory? Wouldn’t Aerenal or Karrnath rely on Externalist magic because of their use of Irian or Mabaran manifest zones?

There’s a few things to consider here. The first is that many arcane traditions evolve in isolation. Externalist magic is easier than Siberyan magic if you’re drawing on one specific form of magic. So for example, there were SURELY Externalist necromancers in pre-Galifar Karrnath, because all that Mabaran power is right their waiting to be used. The problem is that you can’t use that Mabaran energy to light a fire or to generate light at all… And further, if you’ve based your system of magic off easy access to that manifest zone, when you go somewhere else you suddenly don’t have that power and your magic doesn’t work. Siberyan energy is universal—it pervades Eberron—and can be used to produce any sort of effect, whether it’s animating the dead, creating a fireball, or generating light. So essentially, it is more reliable and versatile, and thus more widespread. Now, what I’ve suggested is that if you want to PLAY an Externalist wizard, you can say that you’re using more advanced Externalist techniques that draw on residual planar energies or on your personal connection to a plane and thus you don’t lose your magic when you’re not by a manifest zone. But the point is that the more basic forms of Externalist magic DO have those limitations, while Siberyan magic doesn’t.

However, there’s a second point: manifest zones don’t care what kind of magic you’re using. As called out in Exploring Eberron, many manifest zones enhance a particular form of magic. It’s easier to animate the dead in a Mabaran manifest zone, regardless of whether you’re a wizard, a sorcerer, or a cleric. An Externalist draws ALL of their power from the planes; but a Siberyan wizard—or a divine spellcaster, or a warlock—will all still find their abilities enhanced by the energies of the manifest zone. So looking to Aerenal, their overall tradition of magic is Siberyan, but their traditions are also tied to unique rituals that are only possible because of the Irian zones. Their tradition isn’t based on Irian; it just incorporates it. Likewise, modern Karrnathi necromancers rely on Mabaran manifest zones and have created rituals that can only be performed in those zones, but that doesn’t mean that their overall tradition is Externalist; it’s largely Siberyan, with certain rituals that rely on an additional infusion of Mabaran energy.

That’s all for now, and again: this is what I do in my campaign, and if you don’t like it, don’t use it! Arcane Industry and Arcane History will come later in the month. And thank you as always to my Patreon supporters, who chose this topic: articles like this take a lot of time, and I simply couldn’t afford to spend that much time on this without your support. The Wandslinger image above is one of the player characters in my Threshold campaign, which will be starting later this month; thanks against to those of you who have been supporting and participating in that!      

44 thoughts on “Dragonmarks: Arcane Science

  1. How do dragonmarks relate to arcane magic, if at all?

    How does Externalist theory explain a difference between arcane magic that taps into Dal Quor, and the psionics associated with Dal Quor?

    What sort of magic do the daelkyr use? In your Manifest Zone podcast episode on Tasha’s, you mention that both Dal Quor and Xoriat are associated with psionics, but I cannot find much in the Eberron books to support the daelkyr being psionic entities.

    Where do the Ashbound fit into all this? What is their reasoning for loathing arcane magic to the degree that they do? Do the Children of Winter also take issue with arcane magic, inasmuch as your article in Dragon Magazine #418 presents a scenario favorable to the Children of Winter, the death of arcane and divine magic?

    In that same article, you posit that dragons are inherently arcane creatures. What theory on arcane magic do dragons believe in?

    • How do dragonmarks relate to arcane magic, if at all?

      I’ll talk about this more in the articles on Arcane Industry and History, since the dragonmarks and dragonmark focus items play an important role in both.

      How does Externalist theory explain a difference between arcane magic that taps into Dal Quor, and the psionics associated with Dal Quor?

      The externalist theory is specifically a theory associated with arcane magic and doesn’t incorporate psionics in any way.

      What sort of magic do the daelkyr use?

      The exact methods of the daelkyr are by their very nature alien and unlike any mortal techniques. People such as Mordain and the Closed Circle have worked to replicate them, but it’s essentially its own branch of science.

      Where do the Ashbound fit into all this?

      I’m afraid I don’t have time to discuss Ashbound philosophy in this article, but it’s a possible topic for an IFAQ.

      What theory on arcane magic do dragons believe in?

      This article—and the next two—are focused on the Five Nations. The dragons have a very different understanding of magic, in part tied to the fact that they are innately magical creatures; under 3.5 rules, dragons cast as sorcerers, not as wizards, drawing on their own inherent power. I may be able to discuss dragon magic in one of the later articles, but it’s very different from the magical theory or industry of the Five Nations.

  2. Why does Aerenal place so much stock in Siberyan theory, as opposed to Externalist, when Aerenal very clearly relies on Irian manifest zones for its signature undying magic?

    • This article is primarily about the Five Nations; I’ll talk more about Aerenal in a future article. Aerenal DOES employ the energies of Irian in its necromancy; but the energies of Irian don’t help with, say, illusion or divination; Siberyan energy is universal.

  3. Wow, I’ve only had a cursory read through the article yet and this is already fascinating. Thanks a lot for sharing and organizing everything so clearly!

  4. So a wizard seeing a living spell could be like the programmers seeing the Matrix Code and reading it, seeing the magic where it should end but in perpetuance.

  5. This is such a fantastic article that satisfies so many of my niggling little questions about arcane magic! Thank you, Keith!

  6. An incredible article, I’m quite happy you chose to talk extensively about arcane science.
    Do you see syberian theory also as the more widespread one in Korranberg and with Mror’s holds arcane students?
    Finally, what about Atur? (Taking into account that lots of undead take power from other planes and karrnath kind of made an industry out of it). Are they more on the externalist side?

    • Manifest zones are a real, concrete source of power. Siberyan wizards don’t deny the existence or value of manifest zones, and as described in Exploring Eberron, many manifest zones enhance particular types of magic cast within their sphere of influence. These effects enhance ALL magic of the appropriate type, regardless of the theory behind it or, for that matter, whether the caster is a wizard, a sorcerer, or a cleric. The main point is that Externalist wizards seek to draw ALL their power from the planes, while Siberyan rely on the more universal force of the Ring.

      So part of the point is that you could have a primitive (NPC) Externalist wizard who draws on the Mabaran manifests zones to practice necromancy in Karrnath, but when they left the region they’d be unable to cast spells. Meanwhile, the Siberyan can cast spells anywhere, but may be able to produce more dramatic necromantic effects while in a Mabaran manifest zone, because the energies of the zone enhance all forms of magic dealing with the undead.

  7. Hello Keith and thank you for this, very insightful and helpful in flavoring my wizard. A few questions is there a khyberian theory used by cultist of the dragon bellow or would they be more pact based?

    Would a follower of the Shadow such as a Escalation Mage (faiths of eberron) be dominion theory?

    Would a shadow in flame cultist be able to mask their spellcasting to sound like a silver pyromancer? Or is the magic too different?

    • A few questions is there a khyberian theory used by cultist of the dragon bellow or would they be more pact based?
      The Cults of the Dragon Below have almost no monolithic beliefs, and they are extremely diverse. It’s quite likely that there’s A cult somewhere that promotes a Khyberian theory, but that doesn’t mean that it’s logical or accepted. Among other things, just looking to Khyber dragonshards, they are primarily useful for conjuration and binding as opposed to general magic; Khyberian energy has a more specific flavor.

      Would a follower of the Shadow such as a Escalation Mage (faiths of eberron) be dominion theory?

      Dominion Theory includes the Dark Six; Aureon is said to have originally learned the secrets of magic from the Shadow. The short form is that a typical Pyrinean vassal would say that if you’re doing something GOOD with magic you’re using the gift of Aureon, and if you’re doing something BAD with magic you’re succumbing to the temptations of the Shadow. Meanwhile, a devotee of the Shadow would say that this is load of #&$! trying to keep you from harnessing your full potential, and that ALL magic is a gift of the Shadow.

      With that said, you could also have a follower of the Shadow who practices Siberyan magic, but believes that the Shadow guides them in their understanding of it. They don’t think that magic comes FROM the Sovereigns or Six, but they may still believe that the Shadow guides them in its use.

      Would a shadow in flame cultist be able to mask their spellcasting to sound like a silver pyromancer? Or is the magic too different?
      I think the question is whether a cultist who’s not actually drawing power from the Silver Flame could trick someone into believing that they were. The simplest answer is sure, using some form of illusion magic. Perhaps they have an amulet or ring; as long as they’re attuned to this, it gives their spells the same energy profile as those of a Silver Pyromancer. The more complicated answer is to say Silver pyromancers are using scientific techniques to harness the power of the Silver Flame. Faith makes this easier, but unlike a divine spellcaster, it’s NOT REQUIRED. So a talented cultist COULD use silver pyromancer techniques to channel the power of the Flame. I’d just say that they’d have to be very talented to do this; it’s not just something they could teach every cultist.

  8. Historically, who generates the bulk of magical theory and interpretation in Khorvaire, the Arcane Congress or the Twelve? (judging by your take here, the Arcane Congress is the place to be for theoreticians of magic)

    I’m guessing Zil elemental binders are a particular type of Externalists, drawing much of their knowledge from the Giants of Xen’drik?

    • This is a topic that will be addressed in detail in the Arcane History article. But in short, the Arcane Congress is more focused on GENERAL theory, while the Twelve’s primary focus has always been on harnessing and developing the uses of dragonmarks (including the development of eldritch machines and dragonmark focus items). And yes, Zil binding is a form of Externalist magic. It’s INSPIRED by discoveries in Xen’drik, but they’ve made their own innovations.

  9. Neat stuff, and I look forward tothe next two articles. Questions:
    (1) Isn’t it implicit that at least some non-human civilizations used magics similar to what is practiced in the Five Nations, since adventurers prowling demonic, Giant, Dhakaani, etc. ruins can find magic items that they can use? Or should, every so often, a PC party find something that just causes their spellcasters to go, “I know this is magical…but what the heck is it?”
    (2) Back in 3.5e, artificer effects, like say a Light spell, were described as being neither arcane nor divine. Is this something that was never Kanon? Has it gone away in 5e?
    (3) Related to that, in 3.5e, artificers could emulate divine spells (like Healing magics) and even primal spells? Still true? I would assume that at least healing spells are emulatable, since Jorasco heirs can do them.

    • Isn’t it implicit that at least some non-human civilizations used magics similar to what is practiced in the Five Nations, since adventurers prowling demonic, Giant, Dhakaani, etc. ruins can find magic items that they can use? Or should, every so often, a PC party find something that just causes their spellcasters to go, “I know this is magical…but what the heck is it?”

      Sure. The giants of Xen’drik practiced both Siberyan and Externalist magic. The Aereni primarily use a form of Siberyan magic. Dragons and demons are unusual because they are both beings that possess their own INNATE magical power, so they don’t rely on exterior forces in the same way that lesser creatures do. But I think that quite often magic items created by dragons, fiends, or daelkyr should be essentially beyond the understanding of a modern artificer. Even looking to giant magic, the idea isn’t that, for example, the Zil just took Sulat items and used them, it’s that studying Sulat items helped them make their own breakthroughs with elemental binding.

      Essentially, if you think of magic as technology, then think of the magic of dragons and giants as ALIEN technology. Sometimes it may use principles or elements we don’t understand at all. Other times we may say “It’s clearly a fusion reaction, but what’s keeping it stable?”—— IE, we understand the PRINCIPLES, but we still can’t replicate it.

      Back in 3.5e, artificer effects, like say a Light spell, were described as being neither arcane nor divine. Is this something that was never Kanon? Has it gone away in 5e?

      Personally, I’ve always considered artificers to be arcane; to me, the primary definition of arcane magic is that it can be approached in a scientific fashion. However, the main thing is that 5E ultimately makes NO distinctions; it doesn’t have any real concept of “arcane” or “divine”, so these concepts are purely what we make of them.

      Related to that, in 3.5e, artificers could emulate divine spells (like Healing magics) and even primal spells? Still true?

      I’m not in a place where I can try to juggle all the editions simultaneously, I’m afraid; when push comes to shove, I’m going to default to 5E because it’s the current system and the one I’m currently running. And as I said, 5E doesn’t have that sharp distinction… more to the point, cure wounds is on the artificer spell list. But as a general rule, I wouldn’t see a 5E artificer curing wounds by faking a cleric spell; an alchemist would do it by whipping up a healing salve, an artillerist would essentially make a wand of cure wounds, and a sigilist would scribe a sigil of healing.

      So: modern artificers don’t have the same concept of emulation that 3.5 artificers did. With that said, the Maverick archetype I introduced in Exploring Eberron was created precisely to fill this gap, and specifically does get access to the spell lists of other classes — allowing you to play an artificer who can reproduce cleric spells with their artifice.

    • It’s worth noting that the “neither arcane nor divine” thing in 3E is generally considered to exist purely so that an artificer (who doesn’t have to know a spell to make a scroll of it) can’t produce scrolls for the sake of filling a Wizard’s spellbook. When ECS came out, such a thing was already a known exploit with Warlock’s Imbue Item, and Artificer wouldn’t have had to wait till double digit levels and blow a feat to actually use that trick.

  10. How does this work with casters that HAVE been around a thousand years like Vol? Are her ancient techniques more than a match for modern ones? Has she been gradually adapting her designs to the cutting edge of magic theory? Something else entirely?

    Is psionics simply a type of magic, or something else entirely?

    • How does this work with casters that HAVE been around a thousand years like Vol?

      Erandis is only a few thousand years old, but Aerenal is tens of thousands of years old. The dragons are even older. These articles are focused on Khorvaire and the Five Nations; both elves and dragons have their own limitations, which have enabled them to reach great heights, but also prevent them from dramatic, continued evolution. So Erandis primarily uses Aereni and Vol techniques, which even after thousands of years are still superior to the arcane science of the Five Nations; but the Five Nations are improving at an ever faster rate.

      Is psionics simply a type of magic, or something else entirely?

      Psionics isn’t a form of ARCANE magic, which is the subject of this article. It could be a valid question for an IFAQ.

  11. In my Eberron, the royal twins Wrel and Wrey are leading sympathetic magic studies in Arcanix. This article adds an interesting angle if it’s a path that’s otherwise dismissed…

  12. The talk about history of magical advancements and how that might develop going forward makes me think about using new spell advancements as a plot development point, like making a better version of an existing spell. And then the PCs could potentially acquire the methods for doing it or otherwise learn it, treating it kind of like a magic item reward, but a spell. I’d probably wouldn’t do many of these in a game, but the idea would definitely be they are inappropriate for standard character creation, much like flame tongue longsword would be.

    Other question, are dragonshards supposed to be magical in a way that would show up on a detect magic spell?

  13. Well thank you for giving me ideas to refine a few of my arcane characters for sure. I especially like the thematic divide between proper and focused wizardry and the more spontaneous guesswork of sorcery. And the potential for an urchin arcane trickster from Thaliost to be a Dominion/Silver Pyromancer flavour

  14. Prophets looks like a great fit for House Sivis – I love a bit of Logomancy / Old Speech.
    How do you see it interacting with languages that you’ve previously described as “innate”, such as Elvish or Undercommon? What kinds of adventures /hooks would you run around prophets, the prophecy or languages?

  15. Hi Keith! How do you see bards? In 3.5 it is noted that they draw energy from “the music of creation”, are you still down with that?
    I even see them as “unconsciously externalist”, tier to thelanis.
    Still, sometime is weird that they can use scrolls written from wizards.

    • How do I feel about bards? I could write an article about it, and the proof is that I did:
      http://keith-baker.com/bards/

      I think that of all spellcasting classes, bards are the least monolithic in concept. A bard CAN use a musical instrument as a spellcasting focus, but unlike artificers—who HAVE to use a tool as a focus—a bard could use a wand just as easily as a lute, or use no focus at all. So “the music of creation” is one possible story for a bard; one canon version of the Progenitor myth says the three sung reality into being. But I’d say that this would actually be a pretty exotic tradition — similar to a Prophet wizard — as opposed to the norm.

    • So first of all, Externalism and Siberyan Theory are ARCANE theories. Most druids don’t pay any attention to these ideas, because they don’t need to UNDERSTAND what they’re doing to do it; their spellcasting is driven by instinct and will, honed by ritual and tradition. The druid reaches out to nature and nature answers; it’s largely irrelevant to the DRUID whether that force is Eberron or Lammania, because it feels like nature.

      From a practical, mechanical standpoint there is no difference. So it’s about flavor. With that said: first and foremost, Lamannian Externalism is most likely to be found in areas with strong Lammanian manifest zones, such as Lorghalen. Externalism thrives because it’s EASIER than Siberyan magic if you’re right on top of a zone—again, not easier in a way that affects a PC spellcaster, but in the sense of how easy it is to create a functional spellcasting tradition. So first of all, you’re more likely to get Lammanian Externalism in or near a Lammanian manifest zone. Second, Lammanian Externalism is more likely to deal directly with elementals or totems — either summoning elementals or invoking the power of a specific totem beast, which may be one of the great spirits of Lammania.

      By contrast: While it’s called “Siberyan” and the general power of arcane magic is sometimes poetically called “The Blood of Siberys,” the practical definition is magic that draws on the lingering power of the Progenitors. Siberyan theory asserts, for example, that native fiends are the incarnate essence of Khyber. Some natural effects can be performed using the energy of Siberys to, again, ALTER REALITY, but others may draw on the lingering energy of Eberron… but it’s the same basic idea. Compared to Lammanian Externalism it’s less likely to deal with a personified force like a totem; it’s just engaging with the WORLD.

      • Thanks. Which then makes me wonder… are the druidic traditions of the elves derived from the primal power of Eberron, or are they an adaptation of the Lamannian member state of the group of eleven? Eg, did the Gyrderi find their own way to fight back, or did they fight the oppressors with their own magic?

        • are the druidic traditions of the elves derived from the primal power of Eberron, or are they an adaptation of the Lamannian member state of the group of eleven?

          They are two entirely different traditions. The Gyderi and the Siyal Marrain are PRIMAL. Their power is driven by instinct and will; the Group of Eleven were a fundamentally ARCANE society that sought to enforce their will over reality through arcane science. Again, while 5E doesn’t draw a sharp mechanical division between these, they are very different in FLAVOR. The Gyrderi found their power in nature; they didn’t copy giant science.

  16. To what degree would the magic of the Aereni share aspects of the Dominion or Silver Pyromantic traditions? It is explicit that they take a more scientific approach to divine magic, but does that also translate into a faith (at least the relatively scientific approach to it they take) as a component of their arcane science?

    It seems like the Court is roughly analogous to the Flame in the sense that both groups of practitioners know their “god” is an artificial construct with a tangible component you could physically experience (though in different ways of course).

    Do the Aereni view their own divine magic as just Arcane Science + the Undying Court? Or does the element of Transcendent Faith mean there is a qualitative difference?

    • It’s actually the reverse… Not that the Aereni have a divine aspect to their arcane science, but that they used arcane science to create their tradition of divine magic.

      Like the Tairnadal, Aereni culture was formed by an amalgam of elvish cultures from across Xen’drik, both slaves and free elves. Their arcane traditions drew both on the stolen science of the giants and on the remnants of the Qabalrin, who were MORE advanced in some paths than the giants. So they started with a foundation of arcane science, and that helped them envision the Undying Court and bring it into existence.

      Do the Aereni view their own divine magic as just Arcane Science + the Undying Court? Or does the element of Transcendent Faith mean there is a qualitative difference?

      So the wacky twist to this is that the elves know that they NEED faith to sustain the Undying Court. So it’s the DUTY of the cleric to cultivate that deep faith, because the deathless NEED it. So if anything the divine spellcasters of the Undying Court are more deeply faithful than those of the Silver Flame, because they know their “deity” NEEDS that belief… whereas the Silver Flame is older than human or elvish civilization.

      So yes, there is a quantitative difference between Aereni traditions of divine and arcane magic, and the elves UNDERSTAND that difference more clearly than the Five Nations do.

  17. I always liked stories that dealt with the power of belief, so the Consensualist theory of magic is interesting to me, especially if you’re dealing with stories about the Dreaming Dark. In my understanding, mortals have the power of changing the state of Dal Quor through their collective hopes and dreams, while the Quori want Dal Quor to remain stagnant by manipulating mortals into a state of complacency. The Kalashtar want to inspire a change that would cause a new Turning of the Age through spreading compassion, but I wonder if the paradigm shift that Consensualist wizards talk about and the Turning of Dal Quor are linked?

    It also seems like an interesting path for a wizard Seeker of the Divinity Within. Thinking about it now, tying those three concepts together might make for a really interesting campaign.

  18. Great article Keith, thank you! I have a question regarding Externalism; in 3rd edition, I believe in the Player’s Guide to Eberron, it is mentioned that there is a group of spellcasters called Manifest Spellshapers that augmented their spellcasting with the power of the planes. It was mentioned that these people were hunted down by, IIRC, the Arcane Congress.

    Is it safe to say now, given this article, that that would not be the case since Externalism is a genuine theory or arcane magic? Or is there a distinction between Externalism and Manifest Spellshaping that I am missing (or not remembering)? Thanks again!

    • I didn’t create the Manifest Spellshaper, and reviewing PGtE it’s not clear to me WHY they are hunted. The closest sense I can make of it is that they are hunted because they are trying to keep the knowledge secret? This doesn’t make much sense to me, because the concept of using manifest zones to enhance magic is a basic, standard principle of Everyday Magic, and why we have cities like Sharn.

      So personally, I think the Manifest Spellshaper is fine, But **I** can’t see any reason for them to be “hunted by the arcane congress.” Certainly, the Arcane Congress doesn’t OPPOSE Externalism or the the concept of using the planes to enhance magic. If I WAS going to pursue the idea of the AC hunting them, I would want to add something provably dangerous about the techniques being used — a belief that these techniques either destabilized manifest zones or were dangerous to the caster, or something like that. As is, the idea seems half-baked to me.

      • I think the Manifest Spellshaper might actually be a bridge between Siberyan and Externalist; the Grand Unified Theory of Eberron arcane magic.
        As for why they are hunted, it seems they STOLE from the Arcane Congress; Janik did not share his techniques, used Arcane Congress’ resources to come up with it and left (and quite possibly took some of the texts or whatever was used as inspiration with him). Why he fled is left open (and it is suggested that he fled because he thought the techniques were too dangerous)

        • I think the Manifest Spellshaper might actually be a bridge between Siberyan and Externalist; the Grand Unified Theory of Eberron arcane magic.

          To be clear, Externalist and Siberyan Theory aren’t in direct opposition. They’re both practiced and taught at Arcanix. A Siberyan doesn’t deny that Externalist magic WORKS, they argue that it’s an inferior approach. So you can think of it like nuclear energy and solar power, or perhaps like AC and DC current. By contrast, opponents of Dominion Theory and Sympathetic magic argue that those theories are delusional—that they are just forms of Ex or ST with unnecessary trappings added.

          So a tradition that seamlessly combined the two would be significant, for sure, but it’s certainly not UNHEARD of—-as I mention elsewhere, Siberyans still make use of the energy of manifest zones, they just don’t use planar energy as a primary source.

          I agree that the implication is that MSs are hunted because knowledge was stolen. The story still doesn’t sit right with me, because the Arcane Congress is primarily an institute of learning; who are the HUNTERS in this scenario? It’s a little like saying “Cornell University is hunting a group of rogue physicists” or “The CDC is hunting a group of rebel epidemiologists.” Depending on the story, I’d either expect them to put a bounty on MSs or, if it’s in the interests of Aundair, for the ROYAL EYES to be hunting them—but it’s not like the Arcane Congress itself trains and maintains death squads. And beyond that, I can definitely see them putting a price on JANIK’s head, but the idea that anyone who practices the techniques also becomes a target is very odd… UNLESS the principle is that the techniques are dangerous and that it’s a matter of public safety that people practicing these dangerous techniques be stopped.

          Again, there is room for any story in the world. If someone CHALLENGED me to make a story in which Manifest Spellshapers were hunted, I’d say that Janik stole an artifact or plans for an eldritch machine that are a critical part of his research, and that the leaders of the Congress believe that MS techniques have a serious threat of destabilizing manifest zones — something that is invisible at the player level, but that would be disastrous if true. This would explain both targeting of Janik, but also a general need to stop anyone who uses these techniques. But I’d still say the HUNTING is being done by the Royal Eyes as opposed to the Congress itself.

          • I haven’t had time to keep up with this, but thank you for the responses.

            I just skimmed over the section again in Player’s Guide to Eberron. I agree that it doesn’t seem to jive with this. Which is okay, I much prefer the idea that there are different schools of though/science on arcane magic.

            That said, I can see the disciples of Jefan taking things too far in their studies. Perhaps they developed techniques that have even stronger effects, but destabilize planar energies in their vicinity. Nothing useful like a traditional manifest zone, but dangerous planar effects/anomalies by taking externalism too far (maybe something akin to that effect on Athas, I forget the name, but relative to whatever plane they are drawing on).

            Or maybe they are radicals that believe that Externalism is superior to Siberyan Theory, if only all the planes were allowed to properly influence Eberron. Maybe they are trying to unseal Xoriat and undo the harm done to Dal Quor’s orbit so they can fully tap all planar power completely?

            I’m sure there is something to be done if someone were inclined to include this in their game. I was just curious as the treatment in 3rd edition seemed to suggest this was a forbidden art, as opposed to an established and credible branch of science.

            Thanks again for a great article Keith.

          • Well the description in the book does specifically call about “the agents” of the Arcane Congress, not the organization itself. So it could be anything; a bounty, House Thuranni, a large adventuring guild. And the Congress should have access to some organization to help retrieve arcane lore. The theft is not just on Jefan ir’Gannik (I did not remember the name right but the book is right next to me in the library:) ) but on his disciples who would have also been members; newer spellshapers that appear could be interrogated for clues instead of just hunted since they got access to the theory somehow.

  19. Any magical theories akin to Luminiferous Ether that can serve as stock debunked nonsense that were once believed (or at least considered plausible) by a significant portion of experts? Stuff a long dead mage might have left ramblings about.

  20. I’m in the process of detailing a Cannith industrial complex in the Mournland, so I’m very much looking forward to the article on Magical Industry.

  21. Not bad. I’m thinking of a wizard now for my book on Thrane. I’m still having a Kalashtar protagonist. Yes, it’s percolating right now. A shifter wizard or warmage who is trained in Syberist ways of magic.

    I still have 32,768 storyforms to choose from. But I’m having a Kalashtar who is the protagonist — who lost everything — during the Mourning. So he has a hole in his heart, not a broken heart, but a hole in his heart.

  22. This is certainly interesting!

    In a campaign journal, I once saw spell slots being compared to electrons – there’s a limited number of locations for a spell to be in your mind similarly how there’s a limit to how many electrons there can be in a single “layer” and that electrons only exist on certain levels and not in between them.

    Would that be used for most if not all the arcane theories or would only some – if any – use such a way of explaining spell slots? Of course, I doubt most arcane casters know about atoms, but substitute “electron” for “spell slot” and it still works.

Leave a Reply to Falionna Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.