"I know the spell to solve the problem!"

[Walking Dad]

"I know the spell to solve the problem" assumes that the problem is static and absolute.

This is just a catchy quote that sums things up.

Yes, you can eliminate the spell. But you can also change the problem or adapt to it.

This is exactly the same dilemma as real-life "magic" (ie., technology) changing the way stories are told in film and novels. The solution is to a) tell stories set in the 1980's or earlier, or b) adapt the story to account for and adapt to fingerprinting and cell phones and Internet (which are different but equally interesting kinds of stories).

Agreed.

In sci-fi, you get to decide whether you want "magic" like teleporting, plasma weapons, spaceships, etc. Good sci-fi asks what kinds of unique stories happen when people can teleport anywhere instead of driving to work? Authors that are afraid of these questions probably shouldn't be writing sci-fi novels.

Star Wars or Mad Max is maybe not Sci-fi, but you can also tell good stories without teleportation. Nothing forces you to incorporate the technology.

In D&D, I personally think the Knock spell is a little metagamey in a simulationist sense when I think about it, but I don't want to insulate the players against interesting magic based exclusively on the fear of stepping on toes and stealing the limelight (it is a factor to consider but not necessarily the primary one).

Magic is IMHO never simulationist and I don't know how the knock spell constitutes as 'interesting magic'.

When you go down that road, you might as well have a rule preventing 2 players from choosing the same class/build in the same party.

I actually know many games who do this. Called niche protection.

I think that if the players want to roleplay a party of 3 rogues, then make a story with many locks (to make them feel justified for choosing 3 thieves) and obstacles that cannot be unlocked (to give them a challenge).

This will work for some systems, but not 3.x, for example. Only one uses the lock DC. The other do aid another vs a DC of 10. No really great skill needed to do this.

If the players want a rogue and a utility wizard, then adapt the story just as well. In terms of game design, plenty of good ways for balancing interesting edgy magic have been suggested that don't throw out the baby with bathwater.

Please define you definition of "interesting edgy magic". Magic that does mundane things but better? Scry and teleport rushes?

 

[JamesonCourage]

When I was designing my RPG, I based it off of the SRD and D&D 3.X. However, no utility spell* survived unaltered. The fact that most lived on is telling, to me. That is, while they may have been altered or toned down in many situations, they remained in the game, which indicates that I think they have a strong place in the game. Some, however, were removed entirely (mostly divinations), but that might be preference seeping through. If I put my mind to it, I'm positive I could reinstate them in a restrained matter, though they would have plenty of restrictions. Just my thoughts on it. As always, play what you like

* I don't use spells in my game, I use a build-your-own-spell system on the fly. To that end, these spells can mimic old spells in how they're used, though there are no hard, set spells likes Fireball or Teleport.

 

[LurkAway]

Star Wars or Mad Max is maybe not Sci-fi, but you can also tell good stories without teleportation. Nothing forces you to incorporate the technology.

Sure, there's no right answer. It's just about what story you want to tell. A spaceship chase through the atmosphere suffers when you have easy teleportation, and the urgent "beam me up" getaway suffers without it. If I was playing a gritty fantasy RPG, it's a different story, maybe with very subtle or rare magic. I always knew D&D as high-magic fantasy.

Magic is IMHO never simulationist and I don't know how the knock spell constitutes as 'interesting magic'.

Well, I specifically wrote that I thought knock was metagamey.

Please define you definition of "interesting edgy magic". Magic that does mundane things but better?

Interesting = not necessarily better but differently and not mundane. Edgy = operates by different kind of 'rules' than for mundane.

 

[Ahnehnois]

To D&D, it's a feature. It advances plot. It's sort of like the "magic" tech solutions that pop up in Star Trek; they work but only because it's Star Trek. Other rpgs shouldn't necessarily have D&D magic, but D&D should.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you look hard enough, you'll find examples of iconic mages from the literature & legends that inspired D&D's creators using utility magic:

" I do not know," replied Gandalf, "But i found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. I could think of nothing to do but to try to put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength."

"What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst in pieces."

Fellowship of the Ring, Bridge of Khazad-Dum

Besides using magic instead of an iron spike to hold a door- said magic being defeated by the setting's version of Knock- he also uses magic instead of flint & steel to create some fire (using pinecones, as I recall), thereby stepping all over Aragorn's Survival skill check...

That utility magic should then appear in D&D is hardly surprising.

 

[Mort]

Everything in the game is ultimately a setting/campaign issue.

You might have a wilderness campaign without any locks and traps. No one would even have to "steal the limelight" to make some of the rogue's skills useless. OTOH, you might have a campaign world where natural antimagic fields are very common, and the wizard would be weaker.

Nothing in the rules says all spells and items are always available. If someone plays his campaign that way and has problems, maybe the rules are not to blame?

Sorry but this is a dodge.

The default rules assumption is easy access to spells via scroll. The core rules assume it (via balance for the monsters etc.). Dragon, Dungeon, and supporting modules were written with the assumption in mind.

You're argument is essentially the same as saying:

3e haste was not unablanced because you didn't have to use it; or

Rogues were not hosed in the Age of Worms campaign (a campaign that centered on undead) because no one was forcing you to play one.

Further,saying "I can change the default assumptions and therefore the rules are not to blame" is essentially saying "I can houserule/Rule O rule x so rule x is not a problem" which is The Oberoni Fallacy.

 

[Hassassin]

Sorry but this is a dodge.

<snip>

Further,saying "I can change the default assumptions and therefore the rules are not to blame" is essentially saying "I can houserule/Rule O rule x so rule x is not a problem" which is The Oberoni Fallacy.

Ok, maybe it was kind of a dodge.

What I mean is that it always falls to the DM to keep everyone challenged - assuming that's what everyone wants. A wizard who can cast knock is no larger (IMO smaller) problem than having a cleric and paladin in the same party. (Paladin's turn undead is worse than Cleric's.)

There are a million ways the rules can interact to make one character better at something another character "should" do according to archetypes. That's, I think, inevitable in anything as complex as D&D and the DM will just have to deal with it.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

The problem with how it used to be done was that magic was fast, cheap and effective.

If the system only allows one or two of the three, it wouldn't be too bad.

In 4E, for example, rituals are effective, but they usually are not fast or cheap.

Actually, this is my constant suggestion to the ritual system in 4E: Quality, Cost, or Speed, pick two.

 

[Mort]

Ok, maybe it was kind of a dodge.

What I mean is that it always falls to the DM to keep everyone challenged - assuming that's what everyone wants. A wizard who can cast knock is no larger (IMO smaller) problem than having a cleric and paladin in the same party. (Paladin's turn undead is worse than Cleric's.).

But Paladins should bring something else to the table, otherwise it's a design flaw of the system - that's the point.

There are a million ways the rules can interact to make one character better at something another character "should" do according to archetypes. That's, I think, inevitable in anything as complex as D&D and the DM will just have to deal with it.

I agree with your larger point, that it is the DMs job to make sure everything works together and overall 3e does a decent job of facilitating that goal.

But the question in the poll was is the ability of magic to easily replace skills a bug or a feature; and my point is that if it is too easy it is a bug.

 

[Hassassin]

But the question in the poll was is the ability of magic to easily replace skills a bug or a feature; and my point is that if it is too easy it is a bug.

Agreed. I just don't think it is too easy (within the core rules).