The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

[Chaltab]

In 4E alone, it wasn't even close to true. In every other edition, it was identical mechanics for whether an NPC or PC could hide from someone - be that a thief-specific skill check, ability check, or skill check.

Wait what? How is that different in 4E? If there's doubt about the outcome, you roll a skill check in 4E just as you'd do in 3E. If your scenario involves the PCs encountering a [young girl, old man] whatever who hid from the goblins in past tense then you fiat that said check was successful in 4E as you do in 3E. I don't know what difference you think exists here, but it sounds to me like you're just trying to wage another edition war by proxy. Please don't do that. This thread is about, a specific rule in DDN and how the OP percieves a double standard on its interpretation.

Now, on the actual topic, isn't the idea that hobbits are so quick and small that that you can be watching them intently and still have a chance of losing them? Because that's basically the whole point of having Frodo take the ring in the first place. If that's a problem for people then they don't really seem to be understanding why people like to play half-lings.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The whole point of a ruleset is that it provides us with as unbiased-as-possible of a resolution for any situation.

Well, within the scope of the game, sure. You don't have to roll to for everything every NPC everywhere is doing, all the time, just the ones that are interacting with or impacting the actual play of the game with their actions.

In 4E alone, it wasn't even close to true. In every other edition, it was identical mechanics for whether an NPC or PC could hide from someone - be that a thief-specific skill check, ability check, or skill check.

Huh? In 4e there was a stealth skill and a perception skill. The character doing the hiding rolled vs a target of the passive perception of anyone who might notice him. A character actively searching for a stealthed character made a perception with the stealth result as the DC. That's it. PC or NPC, classed or monster, trained or untrained, regardless of level. So you picked a /really/ bad example, there.

Apart from having Stealth divided and Perception divided into Hide & Move Silently and Listen, Spot, & Search respectively, and having all checks contested, 3e was pretty similar. (Though, multiple contested checks, any one of which blew the stealth attempt made stealth pretty hard to pull off unless you were just phenomenally better than the guy you were sneaking up on.)

5e's system is also similar.

In AD&D, OTOH, a character trying to hide from or sneak up on another might make special ability Hide In Shadows and Move Silently checks (probably failing because he must succeed at both), or a d20 check to roll under their Dex, or a d6 surprise roll.

 

[dd.stevenson]

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.

Nor do they ask the fighter why he can hit the same enemy twice in the same encounter. I think the magical/mundane double standard is a red herring: it's a stealth/nonstealth issue. Stealth in combat is a particular bugbear, because it's hampered by the fact that D&D combat has no facing rules; thus it's up to the whim of the group whether stealth "sounds good" in that situation.

The proper magical analogue, to my mind, would be to claim that no one ever asks the illusionist why he can fool the same enemy twice in the same encounter with an invisibility spell. And that claim is, of course, not accurate: some groups would allow it, and others would have the enemy ready to throw flour at the spot just as soon as the pesky wizard disappears a second time.

If your group demanded that the rogue, but not the wizard, explain how he fooled the same enemy twice with the same deception, then I would agree that there was a martial/mundane double standard in your group. But that double standard, while it exists, is very, very far from universal--in my experience.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wait what? How is that different in 4E? If there's doubt about the outcome, you roll a skill check in 4E just as you'd do in 3E.

The main difference is where that number comes from, but you're entirely correct in that every edition treats PCs and NPCs identically for the vast majority of situations. Where NPCs are ever​ treated differently, it's usually just to simplify the bookkeeping, rather than denoting them as magically different in any way.

 

[Hussar]

I dunno. When I started DnD bandits were monsters and so were commoners. And the didn't even have a dex score to hide with. That old man hiding from a goblin was resolved completely independently of rules.

 

[pemerton]

Because there is zero in-game difference between a PC and an NPC (aside from what shows up on their respective character sheets), and because we need the resolution to only follow from things that exist within the game-world (otherwise we violate causality), we need rules to determine the outcome without invoking arbitrary bias.

The whole point of a ruleset is that it provides us with as unbiased-as-possible of a resolution for any situation.

Even on its own terms I think this is a non-sequitur. Suppose it's true that there is no ingame difference between a PC and an NPC. And let's grant that resolution can only follow from things that exist within the gameworld. It doesn't follow that the mechanical systems have to be applied in order to avoid "arbitrary biases". For instance, the GM might decide what happens based on a best estimate of how the various ingame causal factors will play out.

When another participant in the game is concerned (eg a player) that person might want to replace GM judgement with a random die roll in order to have a chance of succeeding even if the GM doesn't think it's very plausible. But the NPC has no comparable real-life person with a stake, and so the same concerns about bias against another game participant don't arise.

In prior editions as well, the difference between a PC and an NPC was only in specifically delineated class features, where NPCs were generally level 0 and had no features of note, and PCs tended to be level 1 or higher.

every edition treats PCs and NPCs identically for the vast majority of situations. Where NPCs are ever​ treated differently, it's usually just to simplify the bookkeeping, rather than denoting them as magically different in any way.

This isn't true for OD&D: monsters can open doors without a STR check, and doors stay open for them; whereas for PCs a STR check is needed, and doors swing shut unless iron spikes are used.

This is also true in 1st ed AD&D, and from memory in Moldvay Basic as well.

In 1st ed AD&D, half-orc NPCs attack on the monster table appropriate to their HD; they don't use the class tables, even if they have levels in a class.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not these are "magical differences".

 

[Manbearcat]

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"?

Nor do they ask the fighter why he can hit the same enemy twice in the same encounter. I think the magical/mundane double standard is a red herring: it's a stealth/nonstealth issue. Stealth in combat is a particular bugbear, because it's hampered by the fact that D&D combat has no facing rules; thus it's up to the whim of the group whether stealth "sounds good" in that situation.

The proper magical analogue, to my mind, would be to claim that no one ever asks the illusionist why he can fool the same enemy twice in the same encounter with an invisibility spell. And that claim is, of course, not accurate: some groups would allow it, and others would have the enemy ready to throw flour at the spot just as soon as the pesky wizard disappears a second time.

I think an even more proper analogue would be to ask why do Fighters have to make very mundane Athletics, Endurance, Intimidation, attack rolls against clearly inferior opponents (what-have-you) when Wizards don't have to make Arcana or Spellcasting checks to harness supernatural forces with (presumably) very mundane mental conceptualization and memorization of complex arcane formulas and administration of complex somatic gestures?

I can hit free-throws at about a 75 % clip. Presumably, spellcasting (especially of the more powerful spells) is much more complicated/difficult than developing the muscle memory and coordination intrinsic to shooting a round ball at an elevated, vertical hoop from 15 feet away. However, there is no attendant "check to memorize" and no "spellcasting check" for Wizards. Certainly they don't universally fail at their prospects to cast a spell at a 5 % clip (eg roll a 1 on an attack roll).

The fact that such a spellcasting or memorization resolution mechanic does not exist is not a process-simulation interest, that is for sure.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I think an even more proper analogue would be to ask why do Fighters have to make very mundane Athletics, Endurance, Intimidation, attack rolls against clearly inferior opponents (what-have-you) when Wizards don't have to make Arcana or Spellcasting checks to harness supernatural forces with (presumably) very mundane mental conceptualization and memorization of complex arcane formulas and administration of complex somatic gestures?

I'm not clear on your basis for comparison. The original complaint was that the rogue was denied his most basic, goto, rules-as-written attack option because of verisimilitude concerns; whereas the mage and the cleric were not.

Whether the mage is a great simulation (of whatever mages simulate) seems to be a completely different question altogether.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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"?

Limit magic. 5E has already failed miserably in this regard due to at-will spells.

Once the decision has been made that free reliable magic will be plentiful the mundane must either accept it's place as 2nd fiddle or you can play in a world without consistency where the natural laws of the universe only work part time.

With non-magical occurrences flying in the face of expected normal outcomes, the game world will be as stable as the moon from the classic 1948 cartoon The Cat that Hated People.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm not clear on your basis for comparison. The original complaint was that the rogue was denied his most basic, goto, rules-as-written attack option because of verisimilitude concerns; whereas the mage and the cleric were not.

Whether the mage is a great simulation (of whatever mages simulate) seems to be a completely different question altogether.

The thesis is a simple and familiar one to us all. See the OP:

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.

The implication is:

1) Rules construction should attempt (to whatever degree) to model mundane processes or exploits.

2) Supernatural abilities are exempt from this inclination "because magic."

3) Where rules are opaque or absent, there is an "understandable tendency" to have mundane abilities become "subject to the dreaded unwritten versimilitude rules" when GM rulings on mundane action resolution are made.

Hence my curiosity.

We've had thieves with the most ineffectual basic competency in there speciality possible (such that they are a laughingstock at their profession). So ineffectual that they were a laughingstock at their primary shtick and basically disposable with a standard life expectancy of a few sessions due to grotesque failure rate. We've had Fighters without basic competency in things like Athletics and Endurance such that they fail on trivial tasks.

Also, we've had failure within the mundane components of Wizarding. We've had failure to learn spell percentage. We've had the outright inability to cast in armor and we've had Arcane Spellcasting Failure % in various armors. We've had various concentration and OA mechanics. These add up to meaning that the mundane mental process of spell casting is (and should be if 1 - 3 above are universally applicable) quite difficult and the somatic component in spellcasting is intricate/precise/demanding and burdened by harraassment.

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.