Appalachian Granny Magic refers to a unique form of folk magic that has been practiced for generations in the Appalachian region of the United States. This traditional form of magic is rooted in a combination of European herbalism, Native American beliefs, and African-American spiritual practices. It is primarily practiced by female healers who are known as "Granny Women" or "Granny Witches." One of the key elements of Appalachian Granny Magic is the use of herbs and plants for healing purposes. Granny Women have extensive knowledge of local plants and their medicinal properties. They create potions, salves, and teas using these plants to treat various ailments such as colds, fevers, and digestive problems.
Prepared Spell Retention: Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in his mind as a nearly cast spell until he uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until he abandons it. Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind.
If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind, and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells. A wizard in full plate with access to all the magic you can imagine would be even more broken -- as it is now it s still the best class after 4th level.
They create potions, salves, and teas using these plants to treat various ailments such as colds, fevers, and digestive problems. They also employ these remedies in spiritual healing, believing that physical ailments are often caused by spiritual imbalances. In addition to herbalism, Appalachian Granny Magic incorporates the use of charms, spells, and divination methods.
Arcane vs. Divine
I'm not talking about the roleplaying interpretations of each magic, because that's going to change with each setting. What I mean to ask is this: What is the mechanical difference between the two magic types?
At a cursory glance, arcane magic is capable of "moving mountains." Its effects are overt, distinguishable, and often flamboyant. In raw damage vs. damage for the blasting type (an inferior version of spellcasting) arcane magic always wins, often with twice the damage capacity. Divine magic is more subtle, and has access to healing magic.
Except that's not really the case. As a primary divine caster, Druids are very near to Wizards/Sorcerers in terms of magically making things happen. Druids move mountains, conjure beasts, and explode plants to entangle enemies. Bards are sort of like Druids in the same respect, relying on the more subtle aspects of magic to achieve their goals. Ignoring the fact that bards are capable of casting healing magic (from it's offshoot of the druid class), Bardic magic hardly seems par for classification as arcane.
This is all pretty confusing to me, since arcanists suffer heavy drawbacks in comparison to their divine companions. Few know their entire spell list (beguiler, dread necromancer, & warmage being the exception), and all suffer heavy penalties to their spellcasting capabilities with arcane spell failure. The problem with this, though, is that most of the "best," or most mechanically effective spells exist on both sides of the fence- or at least have mechanical substitutes (command vs. suggestion, entangle vs. web, shield vs. shield of faith).
So really, what's the difference? What question do developers ask when they see a spell that allows them to allot it to one of the spellcasting classes, other than thinking "it's leafy/elemental, so give it to the druids" or "I could see merlin doing this, give it to the wizards"?
The biggest - and only absolute - difference is that divine magic comes from a divine source (a god, a philosophy, nature. ) and arcane magic doesn't.
And the way I see it, spells are put on spell lists mostly on a "does it fit the concept" basis. There probably is some balancing, usually on a concept level, meaning they don't do the "can do all sorts of magic perfectly" concept.
Concerning mechanically substitutes:
Command isn't nearly as good as suggestion (command lasts for one round, and even greater command only lasts a couple of rounds, and you get a save each round), and shield is very different from shield of faith (shield bonus versus deflection bonus, personal versus touch).
Note that while wizards might not be able to wear armour without messing up their spellcasting (unless they stick to light armour and get feats), they have magic at their disposal that can make their armour class almost irrelevant.
Plus, except for the "cannot heal", the wizard's spell list is extremely versatile in general. They can protect. They can buff. They can hex, they cann destroy, they can kill, they can dominate, they can deceive.
Sean FitzSimon wrote:What's the difference?
I'm not talking about the roleplaying interpretations of each magic, because that's going to change with each setting. What I mean to ask is this: What is the mechanical difference between the two magic types?
Divine magic basically always comes with a code of conduct attached. Violate the code, your magic goes away - for a time. They often have a hierarchy they have to answer to. Arcanists never have this problem - they do what they want, when they want, how they want. This might not come up in every campaign, so it's tempting to call it a 'roleplaying interpretation', but there _is_ a defined mechanic for clerics and druids losing their powers.
I think a lot of GMs are pretty lenient with players about it too. Being a cleric or druid shouldn't always be 'don't do X and Y' but also 'DO this and that' as well. Divine casters should always have strong convictions and motivations, or they wouldn't have their magic at all (IMO).
Divine magic is better at dealing with positive/negative energies - healing/restoration and necromancy, where arcane magic is better at using elemental damage (fire/cold/acid/sonic/etc.). Divine magic is better at summoning (or, at least, friendly summoning), while arcane magic is better at dimensional movement (especially astral/ethereal/shadow). Arcane is also better at illusion.
Personally I never really understood the arcane/divine separation. Not from a flavour point of view and not from a strictly mechanical point of view either. I mean. using Helic's examples, Clerics get healing, sure (which should be Necromancy. ) but Wizards get Ray of Enfeeblement, Enervation, etc. and Clerics and Druids alike get some pretty good blasting spells, especially of fire and lightning.
Well, there's a reason I love Arcana Unearthed/Evolved's magic system, I guess, and that is in large part because it gets rid of the arbitrary arcane/divine divide. Instead it splits spells up into "Simple" (things most people with a smattering of magic can cast), "Complex" (things only the dedicated spellcasters can cast), and "Exotic" (very rare spells).
Helic has the right of it - Divine magic has strings attached, and at the other end of those strings is a god. On the plus side, you don't have to be as precise with divine magic: it's your intent that matters more than the precise way you do things. Hence the lack of arcane spell failure.
Arcane magic, on the other hand, has to be precise because you are taking the reigns of the forces of the universe personally.
Bardic magic is really on the cusp of divine and arcane - they are dabblers who pick up a little here and a little there; a prayer from this place and an incantation from that. Most importantly, though, they don't get their power from homage to any particular god. They can pull off healing but they are by no means expert at it.
It's all about balance.
It's all metagame reasons.
The Fluff stuff: Divine comes from Deities with strings attached, Arcane casting methodology is hindered with armor, etc., is all a result of balancing the game over the years.
Think about it -- if you're inventing D&D back in the 70s and coming up with spells, what happens if you only give Druids nature spells, or clerics healing spells? What if wizards really could do everything?
You would create an unbalanced magic system. A wizard in full plate with access to all the magic you can imagine would be even more broken -- as it is now it's still the best class after 4th level.
A druid in that kind of system would be useless in a fight -- the core function of the D&D game. Same with a cleric.
You have to come up with some reasons to diversify the cleric and druid while toning down the wizard -- for metagame reasons.
Think about it -- if you're inventing D&D back in the 70s and coming up with spells, what happens if you only give Druids nature spells, or clerics healing spells? What if wizards really could do everything?
Granny Women possess the ability to communicate with spirits and ancestors, seeking guidance and wisdom from the spiritual realm. They use divination tools such as pendulums and tarot cards to gain insight into the past, present, and future. Appalachian Granny Magic is deeply rooted in the land and nature. Practitioners have a strong connection to the Appalachian mountains and the natural world. They believe that everything in nature has a spirit or energy that can be harnessed for healing and protection. This reverence for nature is reflected in their rituals, which often involve outdoor gatherings and the use of natural elements such as candles, stones, and water. The practice of Appalachian Granny Magic has often been passed down through generations within families. Young girls learn from their grandmothers and mothers, absorbing the knowledge and traditions of this folk magic. However, it is important to note that not all practitioners of Appalachian Granny Magic are female or from the Appalachian region. It is a living tradition that continues to evolve and adapt to modern times. Overall, Appalachian Granny Magic is a rich and diverse form of folk magic that encompasses various cultural influences and beliefs. It serves as a means of healing, spiritual guidance, and connection to the natural world. The practice continues to thrive and be embraced by those seeking an alternative approach to healing and spirituality..
Reviews for "Appslachian Granny Magic and the Art of Manifestation"
1. Sarah - ★☆☆☆☆
I did not enjoy "Appslachian granny magic" at all. The storyline felt disjointed and the characters lacked depth. The magical elements were not well explained and left me feeling confused. Additionally, the writing style was mediocre and did not captivate my attention. Overall, I found the book to be a disappointing read.
2. Mark - ★★☆☆☆
While "Appslachian granny magic" had an interesting premise, the execution fell flat for me. The pacing was slow, and I struggled to stay engaged with the story. The magical elements felt forced and out of place in the Appalachian setting. I also found the dialogue to be unrealistic and at times cringe-worthy. Although I appreciated the attempt at a unique blend of genres, I ultimately did not enjoy this book.
3. Michelle - ★☆☆☆☆
I was excited to read "Appslachian granny magic" based on the positive reviews, but I was sorely disappointed. The characters were one-dimensional and lacked development throughout the story. The plot itself was predictable and lacked any meaningful surprises. The magical elements felt gimmicky and did not add depth to the narrative. Overall, this book did not live up to my expectations, and I would not recommend it.