The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

[Raith5]

We have people losing their minds over DoaM and CaGI because of their perceptions of 1 and 3 above; OMG FIGHTERS ALWAYS HITTING. However, simultaneously in the same ruleset legacy we have all of this "stuff" that says the mundane components of spellcasting (concieving and memorizing formulae, speaking in an opaque, eldritch tongue, and performing the intricate somatic gestures) is hard (presumably more difficult than the 25 % failure rate in freethrows for "good" practitioners) but there is no base % chance to fail to cast a spell (or a failure continuum based on spell level).

Its just a little odd. Its odder still that no one cares about it nor loses their mind with rant after rant decrying OMGHOWCANWIZARDSNEVERFAILSPELLCASTINGWTF!!!? I would think there should be dusk till dawn keyboard mashing and hand-wringing over such perfection in the mundane components of a very difficult craft.

Because of deeply etched historical path dependencies built into the inflexible and curious myths of our beloved game - or something?

More seriously: I would love the see an iteration of D&D which has a deep intersection of the skill system and the magical system but it would require some explanation as to how magic works. I mean some rituals in 4e required skill checks - but it was not fully fleshed out and did not relate to utility spells.

But yeah if the Knock spell enabled the caster to swap their arcana for thievery skill for eg - that would work for me in a more realistic and interesting sense.

 

[Minigiant]

You all are going in the wrong direction.


It is because D&D magic is not explained nor has a frame of reference to base limitations on.

Otherwise I could say invisibly doesn't work now because invisibity runs on moonlight and the eclipse blocks it.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, I never thought of that Manbearcat. it's a good point. Memorization and casting is supposed to be difficult. So difficult that you require extensive training to do it. But, once you've had that training, you absolutely cannot ever fail to succeed in doing it (unless something outside prevents you) every time you try. But a rogue trying to hide, despite his extensive training in it, fails fairly often.

It is a good point. Why is "extensive training" acceptable in one case for automatic success, but not in others?

 

[dd.stevenson]

We have people losing their minds over DoaM and CaGI because of their perceptions of 1 and 3 above; OMG FIGHTERS ALWAYS HITTING. However, simultaneously in the same ruleset legacy we have all of this "stuff" that says the mundane components of spellcasting (concieving and memorizing formulae, speaking in an opaque, eldritch tongue, and performing the intricate somatic gestures) is hard (presumably more difficult than the 25 % failure rate in freethrows for "good" practitioners) but there is no base % chance to fail to cast a spell (or a failure continuum based on spell level).

Its just a little odd. Its odder still that no one cares about it nor loses their mind with rant after rant decrying OMGHOWCANWIZARDSNEVERFAILSPELLCASTINGWTF!!!? I would think there should be dusk till dawn keyboard mashing and hand-wringing over such perfection in the mundane components of a very difficult craft..

I agree that it would be more symmetrical if D&D had a roll-based casting system. (I think it would also be cool; I love the way that idea played out in DCC.)

I don't agree that this has much to do with my response to the OP, which had nothing to say about what the rules SHOULD do, nor about situations where the rules were vague or opaque.

 

[Emerikol]

I see the usual suspects are front and center on this subject.

So magic can do magic things and non-magic cannot and that is a problem? Scratches head.

Even with your pejorative way of viewing it Tony, you are right. I don't want a game that is "fixed" in the way you want it fixed. For me that would be a broken game. Which is why we view 4e differently. You think it fixed things and I think it broke them.

I do doubt there is any real solution where we all play the exact same game. Rules flexibility and modularity would be the only possibility for us to use the same rules book. We still wouldn't be playing the same game. I'd be playing D&D modded one way and others would be playing D&D modded another. The bitter battles that rage which neither side is going to give an inch on ultimately get us nowhere. If I had to play a game you liked Tony, I'd just quit gaming altogether. So folding me into your philosophical tent is not possible. I don't do things I don't find fun.

I believe ideally the solution would be two versions of D&D supported side by side. But right now we are going for the flexibility and modularity edition. I feel like the wizard in many ways has been hammered and many of you are spouting off that it's still dominating the fighter. So I throw up my hands.

Sorry if that sounds rantish. I'm just tired of this fight. I wish there was a happy solution for us all.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Its just a little odd. Its odder still that no one cares about it nor loses their mind with rant after rant decrying OMGHOWCANWIZARDSNEVERFAILSPELLCASTINGWTF!!!? I would think there should be dusk till dawn keyboard mashing and hand-wringing over such perfection in the mundane components of a very difficult craft.

At one time, spells were very easy to interrupt. Casting had to be declared before initiative was determined. The caster couldn't move so much as a step on the round a spell was cast, and a small rock hitting the caster before completion spoiled the spell AND expended it.

ALL of these things were sacrificed on the altar of un-fun. Now we have unlimited casting, nigh uninterruptable casting and yet people are STILL at a loss as to why magic is so good.

 

[Emerikol]

To me...

Mundane is at-will but not 100% certain in many cases.
Magic is a limited resource but in some cases provides more certainty.


Here are the four big cornerstones of class design
1. Martial attack, defense, and damage. - At will, highly reliable, and typically do the most damage in the game.
2. Skills, proficiencies, etc... - Typically these are at-will with chance of failure. Not much at high level and a lot at low level. Do not take away from #1.
3. Magical attacks, defenses, and damage. - Limited Resource. Multi-target. A rare high damage option.
4. Magical utility - Limited resource. Higher reliability. Take away from #3.

I've always felt that if you do not use magic at all that your #1 and #2 should be the best.

 

[TwoSix]

I believe ideally the solution would be two versions of D&D supported side by side. But right now we are going for the flexibility and modularity edition. I feel like the wizard in many ways has been hammered and many of you are spouting off that it's still dominating the fighter. So I throw up my hands.

Ah yes, the harmonious period of 2008-2011, when 4e and Pathfinder were both being actively supported.

Sorry if that sounds rantish. I'm just tired of this fight. I wish there was a happy solution for us all.

Cynicism aside, I do think a happy medium where some people say "Wizards are a little strong for my liking" and other says "Wizards are a little nerfed for my liking" is achievable for 90% of people.

 

[Branduil]

I see the usual suspects are front and center on this subject.

So magic can do magic things and non-magic cannot and that is a problem? Scratches head.

Even with your pejorative way of viewing it Tony, you are right. I don't want a game that is "fixed" in the way you want it fixed. For me that would be a broken game. Which is why we view 4e differently. You think it fixed things and I think it broke them.

I do doubt there is any real solution where we all play the exact same game. Rules flexibility and modularity would be the only possibility for us to use the same rules book. We still wouldn't be playing the same game. I'd be playing D&D modded one way and others would be playing D&D modded another. The bitter battles that rage which neither side is going to give an inch on ultimately get us nowhere. If I had to play a game you liked Tony, I'd just quit gaming altogether. So folding me into your philosophical tent is not possible. I don't do things I don't find fun.

I believe ideally the solution would be two versions of D&D supported side by side. But right now we are going for the flexibility and modularity edition. I feel like the wizard in many ways has been hammered and many of you are spouting off that it's still dominating the fighter. So I throw up my hands.

Sorry if that sounds rantish. I'm just tired of this fight. I wish there was a happy solution for us all.

No, the problem is that magic always just works, while mundane skills have a tendency to be nerfed beyond the written rules by "believability" concerns, making them weaker than they already are.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, the problem is that magic always just works, while mundane skills have a tendency to be nerfed beyond the written rules by "believability" concerns, making them weaker than they already are.

If the written rules wouldn't try to pass off so much gonzo stuff as mundane in the first place we wouldn't have so many issues.

Just because you slap a "martial" sticker on something doesn't mean that it's mundane.

Mundane will be defined by how the regular physics of the game world works. So if your game world has a bit less gravity than Earth then super long leaps and high jumps will be kind of mundane.

If physics don't generally work in your game world like they do on Earth, then this needs to be communicated and explained so the modified meaning of mundane can be understood.