The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

[Leatherhead]

It suddenly occurs to me to mention that I have a game book somewhere that sets out a very sim version of magic rules. Because it's based on how magic really works in the real world.

... Let that sink in a moment.

It was probably written by someone with a history in cultural anthropology.

 

[Hussar]

Different contexts. A character, whether rogue or not, hiding is hiding in relation to an outside observer. If not, what's he hiding from?
A spellcaster memorizing his spells is not doing something to be affected by an outside observer - unless one is inserted into the situation, something that's an option occurrence. Same, ultimately, with spellcasting. The spell will be successfully cast - unless he gets interrupted by someone.

I would point out that adding in the "outside observer is a 3e and then 4e addition to the game. The game worked just fine without that beforehand.

 

[pemerton]

it's much harder to justify a Fireball, once successfully cast, that fails to have any effect whatsoever on someone in its area.

Since we've decided that we want the wizard to throw around huge explosions, it's hard to come up with a reason why that wouldn't be unavoidable; but any fighter is limited to mere swords and arrows, where it's hard to justify why it would be unavoidable.

Furthermore, magic can do (or be restricted arbitrarily) from doing anything. A magical fireball doesn't have to act exactly like ordinary fire. It could fail to burn someone 'pure of heart' or with 'great courage' (like Sigurd riding through the ring of fire), it all depends on how magic works in that universe (or even for that caster or that spell).

Not only is Tony correct, but Gygax says just this in his discussion of saving throws in his PHB.

And to be honest, it's utterly trivial to justify a fighter's sword being unavoidable: it's unavoidable because the fighter is skilled.

even taking into account my sporadic attention to this forum, I don't recall seeing a thread quite like this before, despite it being relevant to any number of editions. Fun, fun, fun!

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or sincere - if the former please accept my apologies, if the latter then happy to oblige!

 

[Umbran]

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

Rude. Take a few days off for your trouble.

In addition to being incredibly insulting, this is pretty rich coming from a guy who is convinced that, over years of playing D&D and rolling god-only-knows-how-many dice, he falls into anything but the "statistical middle".

Also rude.

Folks, even if someone gets in your face - DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL. 'Cause his being a jerk first will not be taken as an excuse by the moderating staff - you are always considered responsible for your own actions. Do not continue or escalate conflicts - report the post and walk away.

 

[Dannager]

Also rude.

Folks, even if someone gets in your face - DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL. 'Cause his being a jerk first will not be taken as an excuse by the moderating staff - you are always considered responsible for your own actions. Do not continue or escalate conflicts - report the post and walk away.

Sorry Umbran. Moment of weakness.

 

[billd91]

I would point out that adding in the "outside observer is a 3e and then 4e addition to the game. The game worked just fine without that beforehand.

Even in 1e/2e, if you had nothing to hide from, what did it matter? Success and failure were meaningless until your actually had someone to successfully hide from or fail. Sure, you could have had a successful hide in shadows check, but it only really mattered if there was someone to hide from.

 

[Hussar]

Even in 1e/2e, if you had nothing to hide from, what did it matter? Success and failure were meaningless until your actually had someone to successfully hide from or fail. Sure, you could have had a successful hide in shadows check, but it only really mattered if there was someone to hide from.

Well, of course. But, your earlier point was that the difficulty of hiding was set by the fact that there is an outside observer. That's what makes hiding different from, say, casting a spell. Thing is, the difficulty of hiding is not set by the observer in AD&D, but that was something 3e added into the game. It's the same difficulty hiding from a half blind orc as it is a sharp eyed Drow.

The idea that something has to be more or less difficult isn't carved in stone. After all, Batman never fails his hide check when he disappears after talking to Commissioner Gordon. Random Mook #25 doesn't spot Batman. Why? Is he using magic? Is his hide ability a super power? Isn't Batman the archetype for a high level rogue? Considering that in 3e, it's trivially easy for senses to improve faster than a hide check, you could make the argument that a higher level rogue actually has less of a chance to hide than a lower level one.

To be fair, that won't be quite so true in 5e, because stats are capped.

 

[billd91]

Well, of course. But, your earlier point was that the difficulty of hiding was set by the fact that there is an outside observer. That's what makes hiding different from, say, casting a spell. Thing is, the difficulty of hiding is not set by the observer in AD&D, but that was something 3e added into the game. It's the same difficulty hiding from a half blind orc as it is a sharp eyed Drow.

You misunderstand. I didn't say the difficulty was set by the outside observer. The difference between a half-blind orc or sharp eyed drow is a matter of specifics, but it wasn't germane to my post. Hiding is only meaningful in a situation in which there is an opposing viewpoint - someone you're hiding from.

That isn't really there under most circumstances when a wizard is memorizing his spells so it doesn't really matter that the wizard can prep his spells without failure. Some form of opposition could be injected, but it isn't assumed to be there - unlike a character who is hiding where, by assumption, there needs to be some opposition. It doesn't really matter if that opposition is effective or ineffective, the difficultly low or high. The fact that it's there makes the situation not a good comparison with prepping spells - as was mentioned in the post I originally responded to.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We could. We could make you succeed in an Intelligence (Spellcraft) check, with a DC based on the level of the spell, in order to cast any spell. I'm pretty sure that it would be bad for gameplay, though, since it would give most spells two independent chances to fail....

What I was saying is that it's much harder to justify a Fireball, once successfully cast, that fails to have any effect whatsoever on someone in its area.

That's what I'm saying. Part of the disparity between mundane and magical abilities comes from the narrative.

Since we've decided that we want the wizard to throw around huge explosions, it's hard to come up with a reason why that wouldn't be unavoidable; but any fighter is limited to mere swords and arrows, where it's hard to justify why it would be unavoidable.

That's why there's a double standard.

I think we're getting some topic drift, here, so I've quoted both the post that started this fireball digression, and your latest reply.

The original issue was whether there was any potential problem with having casters have a chance of failure when they used a spell, instead of the spell working automatically. We considered the issue of it adding a roll to the resolution process affecting playability - but, between the possibility of using the casting check as the result of any other check called for (like an attack roll), and the fact that spells can already call for many checks (such as saves) anyway, I think we can agree that isn't a major impediment.

Then, you brought up Fireballs and the possibility of it failing to have any effect "once successfully cast" as a possible objection to the idea of such a check.

AFAICT, nothing suggested as a way of implementing such a spell-failure check would result in someone standing, unharmed, in the midst of a successfully cast fireball.

Now we've lost track of that issue, and circled back around to somehow justifying the OP-double-standard with the narrative of magic, yet again, even though, as magic isn't real, and can be narrated in any way desired, there is no narrative foundation for magic being modeled a certain way. Thus, that narrative can be subordinated to game balance and playability.

If, for some reason, we wanted a fireball that had a chance of doing no damage at all, even when successfully cast, it would be trivially easy to narrate it in a consistent way. Magic, just for one instance, could be a matter of imposing will upon reality, and, while the mage could conjure a fireball without much resistance from reality, getting it to actually burn anyone could require overcoming /their/ will, with a strong-willed/courageous enough individual being able to walk through magical flames with no effect. Or, it could be unable to affect the 'pure of heart' or 'righteous' or something else. Or, the flames of a fireball could simply be inconsistent in how concentrated they are in different parts of the affected area, allowing the skillfull to avoid them entirely. Conversely, the area could be filled with magically-inescapable flames that burn anything (even stone, metal, water, disembodied spirits or other flames) and just do a set amount of damage, regardless, and that, too, could be justified by the narrative.

So if narrative justifies a double-standard, that double-standard should be that the narrative of magic is entirely subordinate to balance & playability.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The idea that something has to be more or less difficult isn't carved in stone. After all, Batman never fails his hide check when he disappears after talking to Commissioner Gordon. Random Mook #25 doesn't spot Batman. Why? Is he using magic? Is his hide ability a super power? Isn't Batman the archetype for a high level rogue?

Batman is hardly /the/ archetypal high-level rogue (that'd be Fritz Lieber's 'Grey Mouser,' IMHO - though people also suggest Cudgel the Clever and the LotR hobbits as possibilities) - not even the same genre.

Considering that in 3e, it's trivially easy for senses to improve faster than a hide check, you could make the argument that a higher level rogue actually has less of a chance to hide than a lower level one.

How so? Both use ranks, both require two skills (hide/sneak and spot/listen). The need to make two opposed checks to both hide and avoid being heard stacks the deck against the stealth character (since he must win /both/ to remain hidden), of course, but that's regardless of level.