The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

[Tony Vargas]

The difficulty of magic is represented by the effort required to gain levels of Wizard, and in the older editions, by the minimum Int score required to cast a spell.

The effort required to gain levels of Wizard is /exactly/ the same as the effort required to gain levels in any other class.

5e has no INT score requirements.

Looks like magic is officially easy.

I'm not against letting fighters and rogues do some stuff automatically. If it's a simple lock, then your rogue doesn't have to roll. If the ledge isn't that narrow, then maybe your fighter doesn't need to roll to balance.

So, casters can automatically cast earth-shaking 9th level spells. Non-casters can automatically do things that are trivially easy.

But there's no double-standard?

Also, skills aren't a fighter thing, they're a background thing - everyone has backgrounds.

Non-magical PCs do stuff all the time, without requiring a check.

Sure, everyone does. That's how the 5e skill system works. If the DM decides something is so easy you can't possibly screw it up, he doesn't call for a check. Nothing to do with class whatsoever.

A major strength of the d20 is that you can resolve almost anything with a single die roll, or two at most (with one roll determining success/failure, and the second determining magnitude/damage). It's not something to be sacrificed lightly.

Right now, most spells are simply automatic. Adding a chance of failure on the caster side would still be resolving those spells with only one roll. It could be the same roll as used to attack. At that point, every spell gets resolved with a single die roll - or, at most, two if a save is called for.

Nothing sacrificed.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The effort required to gain levels of Wizard is /exactly/ the same as the effort required to gain levels in any other class.

Right, but the Wizard doesn't gain as many Hit Points or Extra Attacks or anything. Gaining a level of Wizard is hard. It's exactly as hard as gaining a level of Fighter.

It's hard to gain levels. That's why there aren't a ton of high-level characters in the world.

So, casters can automatically cast earth-shaking 9th level spells. Non-casters can automatically do things that are trivially easy.

But there's no double-standard?

Casters can't do the things that non-casters find trivially easy, because they aren't objectively easy - they're only trivial compared to the great skill and talent of the character. High-end rogues have what? +15 to checks, and a minimum roll of 10? With that kind of setup, they can automatically succeed on a check that an untrained character can't even attempt​. And rogues get a lot of skills.

 

[billd91]

So why, then, is a check required to climb or balance (no opponent), to remember stuff (no opponent), to pick a lock or disable a trap (no opponent), etc?

You may notice that the wizard is affected by these as well - particularly the ability to remember stuff (with all of his knowledge checks that need rolling). And in cases in which the magic bypasses the failure, they're designed to be limited use (while the skills allow repeated trials) and often usable on the rogue as easily as on the wizard.

As far as whether you consider climb and balance to have opponents - I would think a climber might consider gravity and the hard ground after a plummet to be in opposition...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right, but the Wizard doesn't gain as many Hit Points or Extra Attacks or anything. Gaining a level of Wizard is hard. It's exactly as hard as gaining a level of Fighter.

So it's not hard compared to gaining a level in any or every other class. I mean, this made sense in AD&D when classes had different exp tables, but not since 3.0.

Casters can't do the things that non-casters find trivially easy, because they aren't objectively easy - they're only trivial compared to the great skill and talent of the character.

Skills are a function of backgrounds. Choose the same background, get the same skills. If something is so easy the DM doesn't call for a roll, it doesn't matter what your class is, just your skill check.

I'm also not opposed, from a playability standpoint, to having spellcaster make a check for things that don't also include opposed rolls - thinks like Knock or Raise Dead. Nor am I opposed to letting a spellcaster clearly miss with a spell, to zero effect, when it can be justified within the narrative.

Since magic can do anything (or face any arbitrary restriction), it could always be justified (or not) in the narrative. We can narratively justify casters having a chance of failing any spell at any time. We can narratively justify them casting only rituals that take at least an hour and must be done under the light of the full moon, starting at midnight.

So playability and balance are the only real considerations when dealing with magic. Well, and genre emulation, perhaps.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It is. You probably simply fall into the statistical middle, you roll adequately. Some people almost always roll hot. I am the opposite. For some reason when I toss the dice the results tend to be terrible. I roll below 9 on a d20 almost 75% of the time.

It's why I try to play characters that either never have to rollt he dice (Wizzies) or can bene stack (Rogues) when I play D&D.

The next time you play ask yourself this question every time you roll: If every my every roll were a failure (or just abysmal for damage), would my character still be "succeeding"?

You need to play more OD&D.

 

[evileeyore]

Every edition of D&D has treated the dice as a purely random element. If your method of rolling produces a noticeably biased result, over a significant sample size, then you're doing it wrong.

Sigh.

It's that you don't even notice your logically fallacy that makes me weep for the future of the human race.

It's certainly possible to hedge your bets if you're "feeling unlucky", but I would not be playing such a probability-based game if I truly believed that my chance of success varied significantly from what the math says.

Unlike you I prefer to do the things my friends enjoy, I just find ways to enjoy it as well. Make a character that can ignore dice rolling (Wizard) or one that can stack bonuses so rolls become "easier' (Rogue).

Or just not play a different system where one can build characters differently.

You need to play more OD&D.

I wish I had my original DM. Two years of gaming and we almost never rolled dice. It was a magical time.

 

[Savage Wombat]

How many DMs assume, for world-building if not rules purposes, that most people could never actually learn magic, and you have to be born with the "talent" in some fashion?

 

[billd91]

How many DMs assume, for world-building if not rules purposes, that most people could never actually learn magic, and you have to be born with the "talent" in some fashion?

Not necessarily born with the talent, per se, but it's a profession more rigorous than most and requires more general social development to support that particular specialization. So the numbers are a lot lower than fighters and rogues campaign wide.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Not necessarily born with the talent, per se, but it's a profession more rigorous than most and requires more general social development to support that particular specialization. So the numbers are a lot lower than fighters and rogues campaign wide.

An assumption undercut by the majority of classes/subclasses being casters and magic being the most effective solution to most challenges. The rules assume magic is rare and mysterious and yet do everything they can to turn it into a utilitarian trump card. Even 5E, which should know better has a whole introductory section that says:

1. Magic is rare.
2. Magic is essential.

Is the ability to wear heavy armor and deal lots of damage in combat rare or essential? Nope. Is the ability to climb walls, open locks or hide in shadows rare or essential? Nope. That's your double standard in a nutshell right there in B&W.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's that you don't even notice your logically fallacy that makes me weep for the future of the human race.

Please explain. I'm having a hard time understanding a fair die as anything other than a pseudo-random number generator.