D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Hussar]

Bigby’s Hand is a better designed game element than the several individual Bigby’s X Hand spells of the past.

I would agree. This is an excellently designed spell. It does very specific things. It's a higher level spell, so, fine, it can do a bit more than one effect. And all the effects are pretty much in line with what you would expect a giant hand made of force to be able to do.

Note, however, that it doesn't let you heal. It doesn't let you scout. It doesn't let you do anything other than what it says on the tin. Allowing it to help the caster to fly is very much outside what the spell is described to be able to do. So, something like Scanlan's Hand of Critical Role fame is outside what this spell can do. And that's precisely the kind of power creep that I see happen whenever you don't nail down exactly what a spell can do. Nothing in the description of Bigby's hand allows the caster to fly.

And this is exactly the problem that I'm talking about. Power creep where the player starts playing silly buggers with spell effects, allowing them to constantly up their power level.

Like I said, we're not going to agree here. I think that you value the creativity aspect of the spell system far more than I do. I want a spell system where effects are VERY strictly worded and a spell effect does EXACTLY what it says on the tin and nothing more. Allowing these free-form style spells only encourages power gaming and power creep IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

Note, however, that it doesn't let you heal. It doesn't let you scout. It doesn't let you do anything other than what it says on the tin. Allowing it to help the caster to fly is very much outside what the spell is described to be able to do.

How far can the hand throw the caster? I mean, that counts as flight after a fashion, doesn't it?

So, something like Scanlan's Hand of Critical Role fame is outside what this spell can do. And that's precisely the kind of power creep that I see happen whenever you don't nail down exactly what a spell can do. Nothing in the description of Bigby's hand allows the caster to fly.

And this is exactly the problem that I'm talking about. Power creep where the player starts playing silly buggers with spell effects, allowing them to constantly up their power level.

Like I said, we're not going to agree here. I think that you value the creativity aspect of the spell system far more than I do.

I also value the creativity aspect of spells, and as DM if I think somehting goes too far I'll shut it down sharp.

I want a spell system where effects are VERY strictly worded and a spell effect does EXACTLY what it says on the tin and nothing more.

While this would be nice, to truly achieve it would mean either making spells very limited in what they can do (boring!) or making each write-up hugely long so as to cover every possible corner case.

Never mind that "exactly what a spell can do" also has to make plausible sense e.g. a fireball should set (or have a good chance of setting) flammable things alight in its AoE.

Allowing these free-form style spells only encourages power gaming and power creep IMO.

Only if the DM lets it.

There can be alternate uses for spells that don't enhance their power per se but are simply creative ways of using what's there. For example, if one rules that Magic Missile is in fact a pulse of force, a caster should be able to shoot one at a door* in order to generate a sound and see if anything comes through the door to investigate. Or if it's ruled that MM generates a visible effect then a caster should be able to fire one into the air as a signal flare or distress beacon.

* - that MM can only target creatures is and always has been asinine IMO.

 

[Hussar]

While this would be nice, to truly achieve it would mean either making spells very limited in what they can do (boring!) or making each write-up hugely long so as to cover every possible corner case

Very limited? Fantastic.

After all, minor image can make knocking sounds. Why should magic missile also let you do that? You want to make a signal in the sky? Have the right spell for that.

Instead of letting players endlessly game the system by taking advantage of loopholes in descriptions which is a huge part of why casters are so much better than non casters, why not close those loopholes?

 

[Lanefan]

Very limited? Fantastic.

After all, minor image can make knocking sounds. Why should magic missile also let you do that? You want to make a signal in the sky? Have the right spell for that.

And that spell would be? (I can't quickly think of a low-level spell that could generate something like a signal flare; Dancing Lights hasn't got either the range or enough brightness to be useful in daylight)

The obvious knock-on effect of this would be the creation of hundreds of very specific one-trick spells, with resulting long-term pressure on the designers to allow casters to know, prepare, and cast a greater number of different spells per day.

The end result would very likely be the same: e.g. at 1st level instead of preparing one versatile spell that I can cast three times per day the game would allow me to prepare three one-trick spells and give me eight slots with which to cast them. It'd just all be more complicated and require more bookkeeping.

Instead of letting players endlessly game the system by taking advantage of loopholes in descriptions which is a huge part of why casters are so much better than non casters, why not close those loopholes?

I'm all about closing loopholes, believe me; but minor pieces of creativity with spells where the spell's actual power isn't increased aren't loopholes, in my view.

I mean, the mirror of this for martials would be to take away any creativity in their attacks unless they had a very specific hard-coded ability that allowed it; and I don't think either of us would want to see that. Don't have the "Chandeliers" feat? Then no swinging from chandeliers for you, good sir, no matter how much you swash your buckle.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And that spell would be? (I can't quickly think of a low-level spell that could generate something like a signal flare; Dancing Lights hasn't got either the range or enough brightness to be useful in daylight)

Oh, that one's easy: skywrite. Level 2 spell. Puts up to 10 words per casting in the sky, concentration, 1 hour duration. Vulnerable to strong winds.

If you merely want a signal of any kind and don't care if it's counted as words or not, it's really not much of an extension to let the pyrotechnics spell produce a firework that could be seen from a moderate distance, though skywrite is still the spell that primarily serves that function.

The obvious knock-on effect of this would be the creation of hundreds of very specific one-trick spells, with resulting long-term pressure on the designers to allow casters to know, prepare, and cast a greater number of different spells per day.

Alternatively: Don't. Just...literally don't do that. Don't make bazillions of spells. Allow magic to be tricksy and weird and have some things it does AMAZINGLY well and other things it just...doesn't do. That, I should think, would make magic feel much more magical--obscure rules for what is and isn't possible--than merely pumping out spell after spell after spell after spell so that magic can still do everything, just in tiny pieces.

The end result would very likely be the same: e.g. at 1st level instead of preparing one versatile spell that I can cast three times per day the game would allow me to prepare three one-trick spells and give me eight slots with which to cast them. It'd just all be more complicated and require more bookkeeping.

No, that's only if we do as you described and then also give spellcasters a zillion spell slots as well. Why not...not? Why not make magic weird and tricksy and require cleverness to use?

This highlights a major cognitive dissonance I see within the OSR community. There is an intense, even burning antipathy for "playing from the character sheet"--except when one is playing from the spell list. Playing from one's spell list is perfectly acceptable, and expanding the breadth and utility of that spell list is never meaningfully criticized. Yet the exact same people who do that so strenuously dislike "playing from the character sheet" or other such phrases when it comes to skills, or feats, or whatever else.

Why does magic get the go-ahead to be able to do a zillion things and never be left without a thing to do, but not non-magic?

I'm all about closing loopholes, believe me; but minor pieces of creativity with spells where the spell's actual power isn't increased aren't loopholes, in my view.

The problem is not "minor" creativity. It's that the creativity is relentless. Every spell is pushed. And, once those new boundaries are established, they're pushed again. And then, once those boundaries are established, they're pushed again.

It's all well and good to say "well just don't let that happen 4head", but that is much, much more easily said than done. It's a never-ending battle. It's--as I have said to you before--constantly pitting DM against player and vice-versa, the former having to be ever more punitive and draconian to prevent abuse, the latter eternally hounding for whatever scrap of advantage they can wrest from the DM's inattention or bargain out of the DM's jealous clutches.

Perhaps, for you, that eternal battle is enjoyable. For a lot of people, it isn't. They would much rather just play/run the game, instead of needing to play Spell Nanny for the spellcaster PCs.

I mean, the mirror of this for martials would be to take away any creativity in their attacks unless they had a very specific hard-coded ability that allowed it; and I don't think either of us would want to see that. Don't have the "Chandeliers" feat? Then no swinging from chandeliers for you, good sir, no matter how much you swash your buckle.

No, see, the problem is, this ALREADY IS applied to martials. Skill usage is run in 5e the way it was in 3e, and I have no idea why it is. Martial characters ARE told that the only thing they can do is a regular attack, unless they have some special feature: you can't cleave unless you have a thing that says you can cleave. You can't decapitate unless you have a thing that says you can. You can't do anything but ordinary, run-of-the-mill attacks unless told otherwise.

Martials ALREADY live in that box.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, that one's easy: skywrite. Level 2 spell. Puts up to 10 words per casting in the sky, concentration, 1 hour duration. Vulnerable to strong winds.

Ah, yes. I have that spell in my game but only Illusionists get it, and Illusionists haven't exactly been a common sight in this campaign (that said, the party I'll be running after this one will have not one but two (part-)Illusionists in it; I think the whole 16-year campaign has only had 4 or 5 in total).

If you merely want a signal of any kind and don't care if it's counted as words or not, it's really not much of an extension to let the pyrotechnics spell produce a firework that could be seen from a moderate distance, though skywrite is still the spell that primarily serves that function.

Fair enough.

Alternatively: Don't. Just...literally don't do that. Don't make bazillions of spells. Allow magic to be tricksy and weird and have some things it does AMAZINGLY well and other things it just...doesn't do. That, I should think, would make magic feel much more magical--obscure rules for what is and isn't possible--than merely pumping out spell after spell after spell after spell so that magic can still do everything, just in tiny pieces.

This is where I look at setting logic and think "Mages have been researching and inventing new spells for how long now? Of course they'll have come up with a spell that does X provided X is a) relatively simple and b) not achievable by an existing spell". And so, to follow the ongoing example, if spells are extremely tightly proscribed in what they can do and there's a need for a spell that can generate a signal flare 'cause no existing spell can do it as a side effect the odds are mighty high somebody has already invented it.

No, that's only if we do as you described and then also give spellcasters a zillion spell slots as well. Why not...not? Why not make magic weird and tricksy and require cleverness to use?

I don't disagree with you here but given the history of the game's development I very much suspect that, due to pressure from the at-large player-base, this would be end result were spell effects to be as tightly reined in as Hussar was suggesting.

This highlights a major cognitive dissonance I see within the OSR community. There is an intense, even burning antipathy for "playing from the character sheet"--except when one is playing from the spell list. Playing from one's spell list is perfectly acceptable, and expanding the breadth and utility of that spell list is never meaningfully criticized. Yet the exact same people who do that so strenuously dislike "playing from the character sheet" or other such phrases when it comes to skills, or feats, or whatever else.

Why does magic get the go-ahead to be able to do a zillion things and never be left without a thing to do, but not non-magic?

I don't mind creative use of "skills" and "feats" either, which is in part why I don't have them codified in my game (other than a few class-specific things such as tracking for Rangers, pickpocketing for Thieves, etc.). With one major exception anyone can try anything, including trying a class-specific skill if not that class, even if you're not very good at it and have sometimes very low or even near-zero odds of success. The major exception is, of course, that a non-caster cannot cast a spell.

The problem is not "minor" creativity. It's that the creativity is relentless. Every spell is pushed. And, once those new boundaries are established, they're pushed again. And then, once those boundaries are established, they're pushed again.

It's all well and good to say "well just don't let that happen 4head", but that is much, much more easily said than done. It's a never-ending battle. It's--as I have said to you before--constantly pitting DM against player and vice-versa, the former having to be ever more punitive and draconian to prevent abuse, the latter eternally hounding for whatever scrap of advantage they can wrest from the DM's inattention or bargain out of the DM's jealous clutches.

Perhaps, for you, that eternal battle is enjoyable. For a lot of people, it isn't. They would much rather just play/run the game, instead of needing to play Spell Nanny for the spellcaster PCs.

Doesn't matter if my character's a spellcaster or not, as a player sooner or later I'm going to push the boundaries of the rules and see what happens.

No, see, the problem is, this ALREADY IS applied to martials. Skill usage is run in 5e the way it was in 3e, and I have no idea why it is. Martial characters ARE told that the only thing they can do is a regular attack, unless they have some special feature: you can't cleave unless you have a thing that says you can cleave. You can't decapitate unless you have a thing that says you can. You can't do anything but ordinary, run-of-the-mill attacks unless told otherwise.

Martials ALREADY live in that box.

To a point, but I think that's fair: a fighter can't intentionally decapitate (which is, let's face it, a pretty major thing to be able to do) without either a feat or an item that grants that ability, same as a wizard can't cast Fly if she doesn't have it in her spellbook and a cleric can't cast Fly at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is where I look at setting logic and think "Mages have been researching and inventing new spells for how long now? Of course they'll have come up with a spell that does X provided X is a) relatively simple and b) not achievable by an existing spell". And so, to follow the ongoing example, if spells are extremely tightly proscribed in what they can do and there's a need for a spell that can generate a signal flare 'cause no existing spell can do it as a side effect the odds are mighty high somebody has already invented it.

What research? Seriously. What research? There isn't a single mechanic in all of 5e that actually addresses that.

You are, as is so often the case in these discussions, using speculation and extrapolation as though they were ironclad arguments. They aren't. You need to actually show where the rules support something like this! Because the tradition I see when I look at this is slavish devotion to the ancients, which, yes, that very much was a Medieval problem. Scrounging up lost tomes from forgotten libraries, rather than pushing the boundaries of knowledge yourself. Hermeticism absolutely was not about scientific-like research. It was about esoterica. Literally, it was arcane study--finding the "secret", "hidden" truths of existence. There wasn't a scientific bone in its body--it just had some superficial trappings of science as we understand it today, due to sharing certain attachments like alchemy.

The Wizards we have are people who zealously, jealously guard their secrets, and if they design a spell at all, you bet your bottom dollar they're going to try to prevent that spell from ever being known by others--unless they get paid handsomely for it or, more likely, get taught an even rarer, even more powerful spell in exchange.

I don't disagree with you here but given the history of the game's development I very much suspect that, due to pressure from the at-large player-base, this would be end result were spell effects to be as tightly reined in as Hussar was suggesting.

I disagree. I think the playerbase-at-large could be quite easily convinced--because the playerbase-at-large is primarily not old-school types. It's new folks who have no fixed idea of what D&D has to be, who can still be persuaded that it can be something other than what it is right at this very moment.

I don't mind creative use of "skills" and "feats" either, which is in part why I don't have them codified in my game (other than a few class-specific things such as tracking for Rangers, pickpocketing for Thieves, etc.). With one major exception anyone can try anything, including trying a class-specific skill if not that class, even if you're not very good at it and have sometimes very low or even near-zero odds of success. The major exception is, of course, that a non-caster cannot cast a spell.

Okay. You need to understand, then, that the way you play the game isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about what's actually in the books, and what is actually done at huge swathes--probably a majority!--of tables right now. It's not "Lanefan's home game which he rewrites to be whatever he desires it to be". It's "5e as She Is Spoke Played". (This is a joking reference.)

Doesn't matter if my character's a spellcaster or not, as a player sooner or later I'm going to push the boundaries of the rules and see what happens.

Yes, but the problem is, the rules for what non-spellcasters can do are almost always ironclad and essentially impossible to push--as you noted below. Cutting off limbs is too powerful. Doing anything particularly tricksy is too powerful, and if it's allowed at all, it requires jumping through a ton of hoops and often clearing multiple checks (a skill check, an attack roll, and giving the enemy a a saving throw)--again, assuming it's even allowed at all, which it almost never is.

To a point, but I think that's fair: a fighter can't intentionally decapitate (which is, let's face it, a pretty major thing to be able to do) without either a feat or an item that grants that ability, same as a wizard can't cast Fly if she doesn't have it in her spellbook and a cleric can't cast Fly at all.

Except that's not what people actually do. Again, people will push and push and push and push and push. "Why can't I use minor illusion to make a symbol in the sky?" "Why can't I use bless to create holy water?" "Why can't I use feather fall to glide across a gap?" "Why can't I..." etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Martial characters simply, flatly, do not get this treatment. I've never--not once--seen a DM allow martial characters to attempt anything half so "creative" as what spellcasters are allowed to do. They effectively rewrite spells constantly, unless the DM constantly tells them no, which then just turns the DM into a Negative Nancy who never allows spellcasters to have any fun, all while making the DM feel like they're being run ragged just trying to not let the spellcasters rule the roost.

 

[James Gasik]

To a point, but I think that's fair: a fighter can't intentionally decapitate (which is, let's face it, a pretty major thing to be able to do) without either a feat or an item that grants that ability, same as a wizard can't cast Fly if she doesn't have it in her spellbook and a cleric can't cast Fly at all.

Isn't this strange though? That to attack a particular part of a foe's body or attempt to shove, shield bash, trip, throw sand in someone's eyes, whathaveyou, that the system demands the existence of a "mechanic" to allow it?

Now I know some will say, "but that's what Improvise Action is for", but bear with me- if the DM allows me to, say, slash at an enemy's face when they aren't wearing a close-faced helm, what almost certainly follows is them creating a mechanic for it, ex nihilo, to allow it. It probably won't be pretty, unless they've given this serious thought, but it's just creating a "stab face" button for a warrior to press.

There are innumerable actions a warrior could perform in real life combat, to varying degrees of success, but the system demands that a button either exist for them or for the DM to create one. Or worse, they are siloed off into class or subclass abilities (Battlemaster Maneuvers, as an example).

I mean, in modern D&D, if I want my archer to have fire arrows, I either need magic or a discussion with the DM, lol.

Now, some people will say, "D&D is not a simulation, combat is abstracted, and you can assume many of these things are happening automatically in combat, they are just not being described or called out as such", which I guess is fine- you could narrate a combat round as a sequence of dirty tricks, gambits, feints, parries, and sidestepping.

However, then we have spells, which are powerful buttons, of which hundreds exist (and over the life cycle of D&D, thousands), for just about every conceivable thing one imagines a spellcaster should be able to do. And their only real limit is that they are limited use actions. And there is no abstraction here, we don't say "oh the Wizard does magic and stuff in the course of the combat round". Instead, each and every thing the Wizard does is a named and fully realized mechanic. Heck, we have some examples from older D&D of the exact actions the Wizard takes to evoke a spell, like spreading both hands in a fan-shape to cast Burning Hands.

But for a Fighter? It's special feature, DM permission, or "I swing my sword. Uh, 17, does that hit? Ok, 9 damage. Slashing, if it matters."

 

[Hussar]

Note, Minor Illusion is a cantrip that would let me make a knocking noise or a signal flare up to 30 feet away. Certainly high enough to be seen.

But the point about specific combat actions is very well made. We don’t allow martials to be “creative” with their actions. But it’s okay for casters to constantly push the envelope of what their spells do?

I mean, good grief, it takes three levels of fighter to become a battlemaster which allows you to do a whopping four maneuvers between rests. Meanwhile a 3rd level caster has three cantrips and four spells. Virtually all those cantrips have more events that any battlemaster maneuver.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Note, Minor Illusion is a cantrip that would let me make a knocking noise or a signal flare up to 30 feet away. Certainly high enough to be seen.

I was thinking more along the lines of skywrite--something that could be seen from miles away, not a couple hundred yards.

But the point about specific combat actions is very well made. We don’t allow martials to be “creative” with their actions. But it’s okay for casters to constantly push the envelope of what their spells do?

I mean, good grief, it takes three levels of fighter to become a battlemaster which allows you to do a whopping four maneuvers between rests. Meanwhile a 3rd level caster has three cantrips and four spells. Virtually all those cantrips have more events that any battlemaster maneuver.

Precisely.