The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

[pemerton]

Though in my heathen nature I must still say I liked 3e more... but I'm a dirty gritty skills lurving type... which is why I loves my GURPS (even if she is needless complicated sometimes).

I like gritty skills in Rolemaster and Runequest (and probably would like them in GURPS, too, if I were to play it), but for me they are a poor fit for D&D in the way 3E grafts them on, because I find their grittiness clashes with other non-gritty parts of the system.

I recognise that others (including you!) have different preferences, and find different combinations and contrasts of mechanics to be appealing or unappealing. I don't see the point of trying to show that one of is "truer" to D&D's tradition than is the other. If we ever have to game together I'm pretty sure we'll find some sort of compromise - until then each of us can play what we like, and post about it on messageboards!

 

[pemerton]

But many parts of D&D magic is unexplained.

<snip>

D&D explains what is done to prepare a spell and the basic of how it they are cast but many spells don't even go more than the very basics of effect.

That reasonable people can say hold the phone, that isn't going to happen without magic is what separates table top play from a video game where one just hits a Stealth Hotkey and moves the character down a clear hallway past the orc guards.

I think both of these responses to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] don't quite address the point.

It's true that many parts of D&D magic are unexplained. But some bits are explained. For instance, you have to wiggle your fingers a certain way. You have to speak certain words in the right way. At least in some editions, you have to memorise some stuff that's hard to memorise.

Why does this not require stat/skill checks from a spell caster, when exactly the same sort of stuff (a bard singing a song, a thief performing stage magic, any PC trying to remember and recall complicated stuff) does require a check? Or in other words, why does a spell caster get auto-success on the purely mundane, physical parts of casting a spell, when martial PCs don't get auto-success on the comparable mundane, physical activities that they undertake?

 

[Sadras]

I'm going wade in here, albeit a little late and despite that my opinion means nothing really, but from my perspective @Manbearcat hit the nail on the head with his post which included the "OMGHOWCANWIZARDSNEVERFAILSPELLCASTINGWTF!!!?" and effectively ended our diatribe a while ago.

I have seen nothing from the opposition since which comes close to countering the points he made. For the record, I am from the opposition. I am one of those that dislike mundanes with mythic/legendary powers. My preference has always been they should be an optional module in the DMG. And I feel the below quote by @Savage Wombat explains my 'unreasonable' logic

Different people have different thresholds for breaking their suspension of disbelief. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there exist gamers who are willing to accept magic and unwilling to accept legendary but non-magical feats.

If you think it's unreasonable of them, sure. If you think it makes for bad gameplay, fine. But this "I just can't understand how anyone could possibly think that way" hyperbolic stuff just hinders the argument.

@ExploderWizard reflected upon how we sacrificed learning spells/spell failure and limited cantrips all in the promise of fun (badwrongfun for some). Hopefully the DMG will bring some of that back as modules to add-on. But in the event they don't, I would rather see a thread where we explore house-rules to bring back learning spells/spell failure.

• Is it a simple Intelligence roll/Arcana Roll respectively?
• How are the DCs determined, in a fair way?
• Do we use D20, which can be painful for spellcasters or switch to %d10.
• How long does it take to learn a spell?
• Can you attempt to learn a spell more than once between levels, if not why not? Is that cheesy?
• Spell failure, do we need another table, or use the sorcerers wild magic on 1's?
• Do you lose the spell if you fail by 5 or more? Is that making things to complex for 5e?
• ...etc

I'd much rather focus on that, since that is moving the debate in the right direction after @Manbearcat's post, IMO. We cant argue for mundane ("realism") and not expect it with our spellcasters but punish the poor rogue on every skill he has or forcing the fighter to make every attack roll. It ain't fair. That's not good compromising.

 

[Hussar]

Different people have different thresholds for breaking their suspension of disbelief. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there exist gamers who are willing to accept magic and unwilling to accept legendary but non-magical feats.

If you think it's unreasonable of them, sure. If you think it makes for bad gameplay, fine. But this "I just can't understand how anyone could possibly think that way" hyperbolic stuff just hinders the argument.

But, for me, it's not hyperbolic. We see absolutely no complaints that a human has sustain more damage than an elephant. That's perfectly acceptable. But, a human being able to hide really well? Bugger that, that's a bridge too far. We have no problems with someone killing a hundred foot long, several tens of tons lizard with a sword, but being able to jump really high or swim really fast? Oh, hell no.

I find the "thresholds" to be extremely self serving and frankly thinly disguised edition warring.

 

[Minigiant]

I think both of these responses to @Manbearcat and @Hussar don't quite address the point.

It's true that many parts of D&D magic are unexplained. But some bits are explained. For instance, you have to wiggle your fingers a certain way. You have to speak certain words in the right way. At least in some editions, you have to memorise some stuff that's hard to memorise.

Why does this not require stat/skill checks from a spell caster, when exactly the same sort of stuff (a bard singing a song, a thief performing stage magic, any PC trying to remember and recall complicated stuff) does require a check? Or in other words, why does a spell caster get auto-success on the purely mundane, physical parts of casting a spell, when martial PCs don't get auto-success on the comparable mundane, physical activities that they undertake?

Because magic is not explained.
All we have is ""Hand motions" + " Say stuff" = "Magic"
But what does a wizard actually do?

To cast a fireball you prepared, do you:

1. Say the Fireball in a mage language and clap your hands?
2. Say a complicated phrase and do complex hand motions?
3. Do complex calculations o the spot then say a complicated phrase and do complex hand motions?

Because I could do 1 when intoxicated, delusional from illness, or distracted by pain. with
But 3? I can't do that perfectly everytime. Especially with a stab wound.

 

[pemerton]

Because magic is not explained.
All we have is ""Hand motions" + " Say stuff" = "Magic"
But what does a wizard actually do?

To cast a fireball you prepared, do you:

1. Say the Fireball in a mage language and clap your hands?
2. Say a complicated phrase and do complex hand motions?
3. Do complex calculations o the spot then say a complicated phrase and do complex hand motions?

Because I could do 1 when intoxicated, delusional from illness, or distracted by pain. with
But 3? I can't do that perfectly everytime. Especially with a stab wound.

If it was (1), then why couldn't the fighter cast a fireball by saying the same word and clapping his/her hands together?

Here is the text from p 29 of Basic D&D:

Wizards are supreme magic-users, . . . [d]rawing on the subtle weave of magic that permeates the cosmos . . . Wild and enigmatic, varied in form and function, the power of magic draws students who seek to master its mysteries. . . . Though the casting of a typical spell requires merely the utterance of a few strange words, fleeting gestures, and sometimes a pinch or clump of exotic materials, these surface components barely hint at the expertise attained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study.​

If the words, gestures, mental states etc require countless hours of study, I think that implies they're not very straightforward. I mean, it doesn't take "years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study" to learn to pick a simple lock, or to shoot an arrow into a stationary target, but these still require checks to be made.

And why does drawing the right clump of exotic materials out of a bag not require a check? When a thief does it (via Sleight of Hand) it does.

 

[Pickles JG]

It's like there were two favorite restaurants in town. Both were nice. One though has gone to ruin and it's the one where you proposed to your wife twenty years ago. If you just want to eat sure you can go to the other restaurant. But there is an emotional and nostalgic attachment to D&D for many people.

This analogy really nails the problem for me. Going to the rubbish restaurant for nostagic reasons is all very well. Forcing other people to put up with crappy food for what to them is no reason at all really is not.

 

[Sadras]

I find the "thresholds" to be extremely self serving and frankly thinly disguised edition warring.

Hussar, that's not fair. Can we not immediately jump to the "edition-warring" conclusion and fire the nuke? Just because someone does not appreciate a certain version or mechanic of the game does not mean its immediate edition warring.

I'm pretty sure that many of the same people on this forum who dislike mythical/legendary powers for mundanes would have told you the same 15 years ago, before 4e came out, but back then they wouldn't have been called out for it.

 

[Minigiant]

If it was (1), then why couldn't the fighter cast a fireball by saying the same word and clapping his/her hands together?

Here is the text from p 29 of Basic D&D:

Wizards are supreme magic-users, . . . [d]rawing on the subtle weave of magic that permeates the cosmos . . . Wild and enigmatic, varied in form and function, the power of magic draws students who seek to master its mysteries. . . . Though the casting of a typical spell requires merely the utterance of a few strange words, fleeting gestures, and sometimes a pinch or clump of exotic materials, these surface components barely hint at the expertise attained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study.​

If the words, gestures, mental states etc require countless hours of study, I think that implies they're not very straightforward. I mean, it doesn't take "years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study" to learn to pick a simple lock, or to shoot an arrow into a stationary target, but these still require checks to be made.

And why does drawing the right clump of exotic materials out of a bag not require a check? When a thief does it (via Sleight of Hand) it does.

It is hard to prepare a spell. That is why you need a spellbook and a decade of teaching or a magic grandma.

But in battle you just finish the spell. Which could be just saying "Finish spell 37" in fake Latin and putting up three fingers then seven fingers.

 

[ExploderWizard]

My own view is that "physics" is not all the helpful as a pathway into the issue. I prefer genre.

When I think of REH's Conan, for example,I don't think of a world governed by different physical laws: REH's Hyobrea is our own Earth. Likewise for Marvel Comics's Punisher: the Marvel Universe is our own world, and so The Punisher is not governed by physical laws any different from ours.

Rather, Conan and The Punisher have capabilities that are to be understood within the context of the pulp/super-hero genre. Part of this is that events which would be near-miraculous or wildly coincidental in the real world - eg falling three stories and walking away, or not being defeated in a solo fight against a dozen enemies - are recurrent events for these genre heroes. If we want the game to model that, we don't need to change the physics; we need to change the odds. That is, PC heroes aren't held to the odds that govern the ordinary processes of the gameworld. They are reliably lucky. This is what a power system (4e) or a Fate Point system (Conan d20, HARP, Burning Wheel, and many other systems) is meant to ensure.

This is at the heart of the issue. D&D is its own genre. It is not pure pulp or superheroic. This is why the game world or setting that is used is so important. The setting sets the level of what is mundane vs fantastic. The ability of the game world to set the tone, and thus the greatest genre influences is one of the reasons why D&D is so awesome.

As a genre, D&D plays a bit with pulp and superheroism but by no means are they the only genre influences. The base genre meme to me is the journey from being nobodies to important personalities in a fantasy setting. There is a bit of horror thrown into the genre mix as well, especially for beginning adventurers. The whole challenge of the game is fairly horrific from a certain point of view. Will you be just another nobody that dies in a dark hole while searching for fame and fortune or will you become powerful and famous? This rather dark genre view was reinforced by the published adventure material. Modules were littered with the grisly remains of previous adventurers who didn't make it, sometimes leaving a bit of treasure behind for luckier adventurers to find.


Not everyone likes to play D&D in the standard mishmash that is the D&D genre. Some like like it more superheroic, more pulpy, more horrific, or whatever.

Ravenloft was D&D with more of a horror twist. 4E was a very superheroic flavor of D&D.

When playing "stock" D&D, I don't play with the assumption that the PCs are heroes. Part of the fun of the game is to see IF they will become heroes or just end up dead in a ditch somewhere.

IMHO if play begins with the assumption of heroic status and the resolution mechanics support that, then the game is actually a supers game as far as genre focus is concerned. The setting may be fantasy, but genre tropes don't lie. I personally don't play D&D for a supers genre fix. I like the base D&D genre which is why I choose D&D in the first place.

This is where dials & switches come in. I think the baseline for D&D should be the default D&D genre. From there, modules to tweak it in a number of different directions can pull itmore toward supers, pulp, horror, or whatever.

Thus we come back full circle on the magical & mundane scale. First define what is normal for the setting. That will tell you what needs to fall in the magical or supernatural bucket.