D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Maxperson]

rogue: "alright i'm going rogue so i can pick all the locks"
wizard: "oh good, that frees up one of my spell choices"
rogue: "...i'm worth a single spell choice to you?"

Or not. Rogue =/= lockpick. That's only one thing a rogue can do. That and it's utterly stupid for the caster to try and be the rogue. The rogue can open 100 locks a day, and silently. The wizard rings a dungeon wide dinner bell each and every time. Wizard = sucky lockpicker.

 

[Minigiant]

Why? Why should a fighter(or any mundane being) be able to accomplish things that a Wish spell can't? Your premise is flawed.

It already can.
Wish can't make you a fighter.

 

[Yaarel]

That's roughly what was said, but it was contradicted by treating psionics like magic and allowing them to be dispelled and rendered useless by anti-magic. Personal psionic power wouldn't be affected by those things.

In 1e and 2e psionic was considered nonmagic.

The 3e Forgotten Realms setting invented the concept of a "Weave".

But the 3e default was, magic and psionic were "transparent", meaning they werent the same thing, but psionic interacted normally as-if magic. When antimagic was able to suppress psionic powers, there needed to be an explanation. Psionic too has a kind of weave, even if it is unrelated to the multiversal Weave. Hence, each psionic has ones own personal weave, an aura around the psionic creature. Antimagic suppresses this aura. (Or as an optional variant, antimagic is unable to suppress a personal weave.)

In 4e, psionic is understood plainly as magic. But psionic had a separate and independent "power source" of magic. In Forgotten Realms, the tradition of a personal psionic weave continued. The personal aura is the psionic power source.

In 5e, Forgotten Realms is the default setting. The multiversal Weave exists, whether by this name or by any other name. However, psionic is officially independent of this Weave, and its source is ones own "mind". A mind emanates its own magic effects.

Similarly, the "ki" is its own source of "magic", independent of the Weave, where antimagic cannot suppress it.

Curiously, in 5e, psionic can do things that are "spells", and psionic can do things that arent, such as Psi Warrior features. Antimagic can suppress the "spells", but it cant suppress the nonspell magic. The psionic magic itself is independent of Weave, and persists despite a void in the Weave.

 

[FrozenNorth]

As to why sorcerers and wizards can’t make their mage hands invisible like arcane tricksters.

Why can't the Wizard or Sorcerer give off a paladin Aura? Why can't they summon a barbarian rage that pulls the spirits of their ancestors to fight beside them? Why can my wizard cast Wall of Force but my sorcerer can't? Why can my bard cast vicious mockery, but neither the wizard or sorcerer can? Why can't they regenerate, use a soul draining kiss, step through shadows, self-resurrect, or any number of things

Just to be clear, I agree that class-exclusive abilities and spells shouldn’t be available to other classes. The point that I’m making is that the nitpicking about whether a fighter can take a certain action because “fighters are mundane” makes AS MUCH SENSE AS arguing that wizards should be able to make their mage hands invisible, since arcane tricksters can do it and they are just casting wizard spells.

The world’s rules are inconsistent, because it is not a simulation of reality but with magic. Fighters can do fantastical heroic things because it is a game of heroic fantasy.

 

[FrozenNorth]

But this is a reality some people do have to deal with, I've seen it a lot, and it's a consequence of the fact that, from the very beginning, D&D's approach to magic has been pretty much "magic can do anything", while trying to keep people without magic more or less grounded when it comes to their abilities.

I agree with your point and will add another. It’s not really fun if, as a higher level fighter, your best strategy in combat is always I run over and hit it. It gets repetitive.

 

[Remathilis]

This is completely untrue. I have done so for the last 41 years. Not once have any of my mundane PCs not been a hero in a game where my allies were supernatural in some way. Not once.

You cut the rest of that paragraph. So I'll offer you a challenge.

Play a session of mid to high level play as a fighter without a single magical item. No +1 sword, no magic armor, no utility items. Further, refuse to be the target of any friendly magic either. None of your allies are under either prohibition. You are completely mundane in a world of magicals.

How well do you think you fair? Depending on the adventure, you could still pull your own weight. But you also could very easily fall behind. Monsters that are resistant or immune to your attacks. Obstacles that are difficult or impossible to overcome without mobility enhancement. Encumbrance enforced without extra dimensional storage. Etc. I wager you end up playing on the backhand, if not outright inefficient.

But sure, let's keep fighters totally mundane and remain in denial that everything special about them came from a treasure chest or a spellcaster's fingertips. Totally dependent on others, but convinced of their own independence.

 

[Yaarel]

Under scrutiny, the concept of a Weave itself seems flawed. Perhaps it is better to delete the Weave from the D&D game.

There are forms of magic that antimagic cant suppress, such as dragonbreath, Altho dragonbreath is "magical", and it is an "effect", the current ruling is, antimagic cant suppress it because the description of it doesnt explicitly say it is a "magical effect". Also, Darkvision is magical. But antimagic does suppress the Darkvision spell but doesnt suppress innate Darkvision. And so on. To rely on the hypothesis of a "Weave" offers no clear way sort out the many ambiguous situations.


It is clearer and simpler to focus on the definition of a "spell". Instead.

• A spell is "the creation of a NEW magical effect, plus its noninstantaneous DURATION, if any".

• A magical effect that has an "instantaneous" duration, no longer has a duration after its casting.

• Any magical effect with a limited duration, such as "until the start of your next turn", "until you complete a long rest", or "for a week", is noninstanteous.

Antimagic can suppress any "spell". Namely, antimagic can suppress any NEW magical effect or any magical effect with a noninstanteous duration.


Simple.


With the definition of a "spell" above, antimagic applies as follows.

Antimagic cant suppress a +2 Sword, because this magical enhancement bonus was instanteous and now the magic effect is without a duration.

Antimagic can suppress the triggering of any new magical effects of magical sword, as well as any ongoing magical effect with a limited duration.

Antimagic can suppress a Fireball spell, because the casting itself is "new" thus its effect is suppressable where overlapping antimagic. The magical fire only exists for an instant, and afterward there is no resulting effect, except for any combustible materials that caught fire and are now burning nonmagically.

Antimagic cant suppress a Create Water spell that was cast outside the antimagic, because the resulting water is nonmagical and no longer has a magical duration..

Antimagic can suppress dragonbreath because it is new. Note, any new magical effect counts as a "spell", regardless of the method of spellcasting.

Antimagic can suppress the Darkvision spell because its effect has a limited duration.

Antimagic cant suppress the innate Darkvision of a creature because this magical effect lacks a limited duration. At some point when the creature exhibited Darkvision it did so instantaneously.

Antimagic can suppress the force of a Wall of Force spell where overlapping because of its limited duration.

Antimagic cant suppress the force of gravity of a demiplane whose duration is unlimited. But it can suppress the force of an Antigravity spell because of its limited duration.


There is no Weave. There are only new magical events, versus old (preexisting, inherent, self-perpetuating) magical phenomena. Antimagic can only suppress the formation of new magical events.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You cut the rest of that paragraph. So I'll offer you a challenge.

Play a session of mid to high level play as a fighter without a single magical item. No +1 sword, no magic armor, no utility items. Further, refuse to be the target of any friendly magic either. None of your allies are under either prohibition. You are completely mundane in a world of magicals.

How well do you think you fair? Depending on the adventure, you could still pull your own weight. But you also could very easily fall behind. Monsters that are resistant or immune to your attacks. Obstacles that are difficult or impossible to overcome without mobility enhancement. Encumbrance enforced without extra dimensional storage. Etc. I wager you end up playing on the backhand, if not outright inefficient.

But sure, let's keep fighters totally mundane and remain in denial that everything special about them came from a treasure chest or a spellcaster's fingertips. Totally dependent on others, but convinced of their own independence.

but is that not more a fault in their design rather than concept though? for what reason should the fighter not have been able to master weaponry and to know the techniques that let their blade peirce the dragon's scales like butter or rend a spirit's form? why can they not simply leap across the chasm like a roadside ditch, or that their flesh has become like iron from a thousand battles?

these things happening without magic would not be out of place in a thousand stories and legends and so too i say they should not be out of place in DnD.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'm not a "scream bloody murder" person. But I do see their point. Magic (in myth and literature, and movies, etc.) does things and solves things like wall climbing, lock picking etc.

Its magic. Of course the wizard would develop a spell to open locks, or spider climb etc. Why wouldnt they? But that viewpoint is a result of what would happen if magic was real, and we are playing a game where its supossed to be fun for all, no matter what class they chose.


Its also weird...wizards can cast wish, but they cant research or create a spell to open locks because...?

BL: I'm not disparaging anyone's view; its a hard thing from both sides, and its been debated for many a year.

I disagree, because your conclusions rely on certain assumptions that aren’t necessarily set in stone.

Why wouldn’t a wizard learn a spell to pick locks? Well, maybe the spell simply allows the caster to use their magic stat to attempt to pick the lock, better than relying on their native lockpicking, but generally easier for the thief to do it. Or maybe you have to commit the spell to a particular spell slot, making it less interesting to take instead of more immediately useful spells. Maybe it requires components that are consumed, so you need to locate or purchase components for the amount of castings you want.

The point is, there are a hundred ways to balance magic against not-magic, The problem isn’t that magic can do what not-magic can’t, but that in addition, there is an unwillingness to balance magic in a manner that is consistent with its power.

 

[Maxperson]

It already can.
Wish can't make you a fighter.

Sure it can.

"You might be able to achieve something beyond the scope of the above examples. State your wish to the DM as precisely as possible. The DM has great latitude in ruling what occurs in such an instance; the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong. This spell might simply fail, the effect you desire might only be partly achieved, or you might suffer some unforeseen consequence as a result of how you worded the wish."

There's nothing there that says no to the wish making the wizard a fighter. Hell, it used to be doable with a 6th level spell. So while an individual DM might say no, another might say yes, making it well within the possibility of the Wish spell.