The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

Branduil

Hero
This is something that's been bothering me in the discussion about the halfling sniper, and I think it deserves its own discussion.

I personally feel like the rules for hiding in 5th edition are fairly clear; if the enemy can't see you, you can use the Hide action. Some special abilities, like the halfling's Naturally Stealthy, allow for exceptions to this general rule. So far, so clear, right?

However, because Hide is not a supernatural ability, it becomes subject to the dreaded unwritten verisimilitude rules. Rules which seem clear per the RAW are now subject to whatever the group decides is believable for heroic characters in a world full of dragons and wizards to accomplish.

Certainly, it's an understandable tendency. However, it often has the unintentional side effect of neutering martial characters in comparison to spellcasters. No one ever forces the wizard to come up with a new situation where he's allowed to cast his Magic Missile spell he has prepared. No one ever forces the cleric to come up with a believable explanation for why he can cast cure wounds a second time during an encounter.

What can be done to counter the tendency for mundane skills to be overshadowed by always-works magic? Is the only solution to say "all skills are magical so characters trained in them can do them whenever the skill says they can"?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

tomBitonti

Adventurer
Isn't always reliable magic countered by limited uses?

A wizard can cast spells a limited number of times. A character can hide as many times as circumstances allow.

Also, magic generally has very specific limitations built into the spell: For example, 3.5E Magic Missile could only target creatures.

Thx!

TomB

Edit: This could be a problem with 3.5E Warlocks, who had unlimited uses of their invocations. This might be a problem in 5E, with more unlimited use spells (cantrips) of greater effect than previously.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
This is one of those issues that is so endemic, entrenched, and unquestionable that it's darn near futile to even talk about it. Yes, D&D has a long, long history of casters being superior to non-casters, and, yes, the fans it hasn't driven away in those decades are not only mostly fine with that, but there's a sub-set of them who are violently opposed to doing anything about it.

...



Isn't always reliable magic countered by limited uses?
No. The /power/ of magic is nominally balanced by limited use, when there is more need for that power than there is magic.

For instance, if a party faces 4 encounters for a total of 12 rounds of combat, and the wizard has 20 combat spells, the limited use is meaningless. If he has only 2 spells, it's very meaningful.

In practice, the limitation only holds up in a narrow range of play. You have to top out at fewer 'daily' resources than you have encounters/day for it to remain really meaningful. For a game expecting 4-5 encounters/day, that'd mean no more than 3-4 slots - at /any/ level. But,for a game with 8 and more encounters, that'd be /too/ limited.

A wizard can cast spells a limited number of times. A character can hide as many times as circumstances allow.
Except in the thread that prompted the OP. The halfling rogue is /supposed/ to be able to hide any time circumstances allow, but when that actually becomes every round (when 'unlimited use' becomes a practical reality), it's somehow unrealistic.
 

Rod Staffwand

aka Ermlaspur Flormbator
I hate to reference 3E in a positive light, but I liked their terminology of mundane/exceptional/supernatural abilities. In my opinion, most adventurer abilities should be classified as either exceptional or supernatural. In other words--things that you and your friends can't do at home, no matter how hard you try or lucky you get.

This should be reinforced in the skill DC table and the description of skill uses. They need to be explicit about the difference between "mundane hiding" and "exceptional hiding" just like they are explicit about the effects of magic abilities (spell descriptions).

Unfortunately, most of the 5E text I've seen so far places the priority on magic. This has long been a problem in D&D. The 1e thief had a chance to "climb sheer surfaces" which, without additional context, people took to mean "climb stuff that can be reasonably climbed" rather than "climb anything".
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
It really comes down to the fact that in D&D the magic is never explained.
Because magic is never explained, there is no frame to reference when magic doesn't work outside of the rules given.

Reality has experience and explanations holding it back.

Knock just unlocks locks, it doesn't summon magic lockpicks. Does invisibility bend light around the target or emit the or emit the same light the hits the other side of the target. No one knows...cause reasons.

Well the wizard knows but they don't tell.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I hate to reference 3E in a positive light, but I liked their terminology of mundane/exceptional/supernatural abilities. In my opinion, most adventurer abilities should be classified as either exceptional or supernatural. In other words--things that you and your friends can't do at home, no matter how hard you try or lucky you get.
EX/SU was a pretty good idea. The description of the martial source in 4e was similar to EX, though, and it didn't help.

This should be reinforced in the skill DC table and the description of skill uses. They need to be explicit about the difference between "mundane hiding" and "exceptional hiding" just like they are explicit about the effects of magic abilities (spell descriptions).
Both good ideas, but I doubt either could have flown in the wake of the edition war.

Unfortunately, most of the 5E text I've seen so far places the priority on magic. This has long been a problem in D&D. The 1e thief had a chance to "climb sheer surfaces" which, without additional context, people took to mean "climb stuff that can be reasonably climbed" rather than "climb anything".
Maybe that's how people took it, but the modifiers in the DMG went all the way up to perfectly smooth, slippery, surfaces sloping /towards/ the climber. That's prettymuch impossible without the right gear, but even at the penalties, a high level thief could do it, some of the time (though, of course, a first level wizard could do it automatically with Spider Climb, if he somehow got stuck with that as his best first level spell).
 

Rules which seem clear per the RAW are now subject to whatever the group decides is believable for heroic characters in a world full of dragons and wizards to accomplish.
The rules do not only describe heroic characters. They apply equally to everyone in the world, unless they have a specific ability which declares otherwise.
 

Agamon

Adventurer
It goes both ways in my games. Fireball won't start any fires, but a tossed alchemist's fire could. Lightning bolt won't shock other people standing in water with the target, but a natural bolt of lightning behaves as naturally occurring electricity would.

Magic is magic. It's not better. It's not worse. It's just magic.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
The rules do not only describe heroic characters. They apply equally to everyone in the world, unless they have a specific ability which declares otherwise.
PC classes prettymuch applied only to heroic characters (and their foes) in 4e and 3e, for instance. 3e had NPC classes, 4e statted NPCs using the same blocks as monsters. Even AD&D had classless NPCs and entries for classless PC-races in the Monster Manual.

I guess we'll have to see if 5e makes PC classes pull double-duty, so every soldier is a fighter and every street urchin a rogue - or if it takes the 3e approach and provides NPC classes, or the AD&D classless approach.
 

I guess we'll have to see if 5e makes PC classes pull double-duty, so every soldier is a fighter and every street urchin a rogue - or if it takes the 3e approach and provides NPC classes, or the AD&D classless approach.
It remains to be seen, but is irrelevant to this case, since it doesn't reference class features. Regardless of how it solves the issue of NPC classes, the whole system of skills and ability checks must remain universal.
 

Remove ads

Top