- Location
- Leeds
Mind if I count the unverified assumptions?I'm going to propose a hypothesis on human spellmaking:
When Teclis taught magic to the college he only taught them a very bare bones, pared down version of the curriculum, being both light on theory and including many fewer spells than Hoeth actually had in their libraries. As he was concerned with making the colleges as effective as possible, he made the college spell list mostly out of spells that he thought were very good in terms of power, versatility or teachability, or preferably all three.
As a consequence of that, the results of most human attempts at spellmaking aren't as good as the spells that Teclis taught even if they potentially are as good as the average elven spell in general.
That could result in all sorts of downstream effects that cause the inherited spells from Teclis to have more prominence. It could mean that anyone going into spell creation with the plan of "I'll make an improved version of spell X by tweaking some of the details" quickly runs into the problem that all of the details have already been tweaked in very deliberate ways and most changes will be net downgrades. It could mean that there's a prevailing belief in the colleges that human made spells are less good in general and not worth the trouble to learn or make. It could mean that people who try out spellmaking will tend to have their attempts seem clearly less useful than the spells around them, leading to discouragement from the process. It could mean that when instructors are figuring out which spells they need to make sure to teach people to keep them in living memory and which to put on a scroll and shove into the back of the library they'll tend to choose the second for human spells much more often than elven ones.
- There is a single universal way to quantify how good a spell is.
- That the elves had multiple redundant spells within the same wind that all solved the same problem of which Teclis could select 'the best'. (Sure I agree Teclis didn't teach all of them, but there are was probably never more than one Asqy spell to start a small campfire.)
- Its easier to modify a spell than create a new one and that modified spells retain the same level of 'good'. The only example I can think of for this modification is that LM who made MAP not wind specific, whereas we know Mathilde created 3 spells (2 of which where inspired by other spells)
- That the mages who are modifying spells are somehow unaware of the fact that previous mages where also doing this same thing. Or that they are incapable of critical thinking to observe these effects you are predicting.
- That there is some inherent limit on how much a spells 'parameters' can be tweaked. And all spells can be tweaked within these parameters without reducing the level of 'good'.
- That despite reaching a limit on how to modify spells it some still doesn't become more useful to make new spells.
- That wizards interested in creating new spells are interested in reinventing the wheel rather than creating new spells for problems which Teclis didn't think he had the time to teach.
- That somehow the Colleges are dwindling and there is a struggle to prevent spells from dwindling into existence, and that prioritising 'better' spells is somehow bad.
You've sure invented a lot of problems. I'm not sure any of them are real ones though.
Last edited: