Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The double standard for magical and mundane abilities
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6354016" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I was following your lead in your earlier post and moving my focus from casting to preparation.</p><p></p><p>We know that preparation is hard - because you have to train for years to be able to do it. In AD&D, at least, the flavour is rather Vancian: you have to impress these mystic sigils upon your brain. So why is an INT check not required for success? Why can is the action declaration "I memorise/prepare spell XYZ" an auto-success, whereas the action declaration "I perform stage magic trick XYZ" or "I walk on the tightrope from A to B" or "I hide behind the whatever-it-is" not an auto-success? It's not as if any of those things is harder, within the fiction of the gameworld, then memorising/preparing a spell.</p><p></p><p>Sorry if you think I'm badgering you - I'm not meaning to. It's just that you're the main poster engaging with my argument/analysis!</p><p></p><p>My preference, I think, is for a degree of parity. If martial exploits require checks, then so should magical ones. (And all the resources that get brought to bear to help checks - buffs, inspiration, stats, etc - can apply in either domain.) Or, conversely, if magical exploits are auto-successes, then so should martial exploits be auto-successes.</p><p></p><p>In my discussion with Minigiant the focus has turned to spell memorisation/preparation, but I think there are broader gameplay reasons for making any caster checks happen at casting rather than at the prep stage: if you require checks at the prep stage, and the players fail them, then you just encourage a zero-minute adventuring day as they have another go. So my preference would be for magic checks to happen at the point of casting.</p><p></p><p>4e actually mixes the two approaches I describe above. All characters get some auto-successes (powers, some rituals also for casters), and all characters get some check-required abilities (skills, including p 42, plus some rituals for casters). For me that's a fine way to do it.</p><p></p><p>I've also played a lot of RM, which is all checks all the time. That's fine too, although sometimes the rolling can get a bit much.</p><p></p><p>For me, the bottom line is that the mantra "because it's magic, auto success is OK in a way it's not for martial endeavours" ignores the point that <em>invoking</em> the magic requires mundane performances (of memory, gesticulation, etc) which are just as liable to error/interference as any martial ability, and so could in pricple require checks for just the same reasons. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] says in the post just upthread that when he's raised this in the past he's got little traction. I can say the same thing - I have raised this in the past, most recently I think in discussions of DoaM, and likewise have got little traction. But for me it's exactly parallel. If we're happy with a system which says an action declaration of "I cast this spell by wiggling my fingers and speaking my magic words" can never fail (because the mage is so expert) then I have no problem at all with the system saying that an action declaration of "I cut down this goblin by swinging my sword and chopping its head off" can never fail (because the fighter is so expert).</p><p></p><p>Conversely, those who think players who like DoaM are cry babies who can't stand seeing their fighters fail should be leaping at the opportunity to prove their hardiness by embracing robust casting check mechanics (RM, RQ and BW all give examples that I'm familiar with, but there will be dozens of other systems out there too).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6354016, member: 42582"] I was following your lead in your earlier post and moving my focus from casting to preparation. We know that preparation is hard - because you have to train for years to be able to do it. In AD&D, at least, the flavour is rather Vancian: you have to impress these mystic sigils upon your brain. So why is an INT check not required for success? Why can is the action declaration "I memorise/prepare spell XYZ" an auto-success, whereas the action declaration "I perform stage magic trick XYZ" or "I walk on the tightrope from A to B" or "I hide behind the whatever-it-is" not an auto-success? It's not as if any of those things is harder, within the fiction of the gameworld, then memorising/preparing a spell. Sorry if you think I'm badgering you - I'm not meaning to. It's just that you're the main poster engaging with my argument/analysis! My preference, I think, is for a degree of parity. If martial exploits require checks, then so should magical ones. (And all the resources that get brought to bear to help checks - buffs, inspiration, stats, etc - can apply in either domain.) Or, conversely, if magical exploits are auto-successes, then so should martial exploits be auto-successes. In my discussion with Minigiant the focus has turned to spell memorisation/preparation, but I think there are broader gameplay reasons for making any caster checks happen at casting rather than at the prep stage: if you require checks at the prep stage, and the players fail them, then you just encourage a zero-minute adventuring day as they have another go. So my preference would be for magic checks to happen at the point of casting. 4e actually mixes the two approaches I describe above. All characters get some auto-successes (powers, some rituals also for casters), and all characters get some check-required abilities (skills, including p 42, plus some rituals for casters). For me that's a fine way to do it. I've also played a lot of RM, which is all checks all the time. That's fine too, although sometimes the rolling can get a bit much. For me, the bottom line is that the mantra "because it's magic, auto success is OK in a way it's not for martial endeavours" ignores the point that [I]invoking[/I] the magic requires mundane performances (of memory, gesticulation, etc) which are just as liable to error/interference as any martial ability, and so could in pricple require checks for just the same reasons. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] says in the post just upthread that when he's raised this in the past he's got little traction. I can say the same thing - I have raised this in the past, most recently I think in discussions of DoaM, and likewise have got little traction. But for me it's exactly parallel. If we're happy with a system which says an action declaration of "I cast this spell by wiggling my fingers and speaking my magic words" can never fail (because the mage is so expert) then I have no problem at all with the system saying that an action declaration of "I cut down this goblin by swinging my sword and chopping its head off" can never fail (because the fighter is so expert). Conversely, those who think players who like DoaM are cry babies who can't stand seeing their fighters fail should be leaping at the opportunity to prove their hardiness by embracing robust casting check mechanics (RM, RQ and BW all give examples that I'm familiar with, but there will be dozens of other systems out there too). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The double standard for magical and mundane abilities
Top