Search results

Doesn't really have anything to do with innate magic

Or just.. fantasy.. https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/fantasy

The hierarchy between magic/technology and mundane ability is not and does not need to be rigidly defined.

And also..really weird.. That spells come in two flavors... 1. Completely impossible, and 2. Automatic Is truly bizarre to me.

The nice thing about there being no frame of reference is that it means that neither the player nor the DM can get it wrong. Supposing guidance is necessary, the same kind of guidance provided for skills could easily apply to spellcasting. The method may be exotic, but the effects are not...

To reply to the edit... Why? The same mechanisms (skill checks) are equally available for spells. Should the DM have less flexibility in dialing up or down how effective spells should be? Edit: Even just narratively.. every Move Earth spell behaves exactly the same way for every caster at...

Fair enough. Perhaps the reply was misdirected. It does seem that some folks in this line of discussion believe otherwise.

Just that we can know the exact distance a Wizard can teleport, how much they can lift with telekinesis. How fast they can fly, the volume of dirt they can move, and 90 pgs of other specific spellcasting adjudication..baked right there into the rulebook, with no wiggle room for DM interpretation...

And yet we have 90 pages of spell definitions..

I get it. I just don't feel a particular urge to satisfy folks who are willing to let the game be unbalanced for the sake of a narrative I don't think they should need. If I were a designer at WoTC, perhaps I'd be more flexible. But if there's one thing that irks me at some folks' attitude...

I'm fully on board for adding martial abilities. I just don't care to see them coded as either magic or mundane when it isn't necessary. Some people seem to think that the fighter must be flavored a particular way to allow for mechanics beyond the basic warrior. I disagree. The Oath of...

And did you come to the game expecting to foil terrorists at Nakatomi Plaza? Or to guide the Starship Enterprise to seek new life and new civilizations? Maybe you expected to guide a low budget baseball team to the playoffs? Or maybe you expected something more..fantastic?

Ummm.. look at the cover.. you know the one..with the mage, the fire giant and the hell hound. Look at the the Table of Contents.. hmm..Wizards, Elves, spellcasting..what do we have here? Read most anything in the Introduction. What other conclusion do you think people are drawing from this...

No you don't. Players know whether they can make fireballs or jump chasms. If you tell them their characters can make fireballs or jump chasms, they will already know that the PC can do things they can't. They shouldn't be surprised by this if they read anything from the introduction to the...

Fair enough. In that case, the coding of supernatural or mundane has no value from any frame of reference. It's either so ubiquitous in the setting and so invisible to the setting participants as to provide no actionable information for the PCs or players. Orr.. It's going to vary from...

Rather than adding a magic tag to abilities within any of the character classes, it seems we could put a warning somewhere..maybe on the first page of the character creation section of the book in big bold letters.. "Characters created using the following rules are intended to be used as...

That saying the fighter can shoot 100 arrows in a round is the bit that matters. Whether it's mundane or magical is an irrelevance.

You don't need a rule for "why" your PC can do something. You only need a rule for "what" your PC can do.

Then it's a valueless label for the characters in a fantasy setting. Using that label, the fighter who shoots 100 arrows in a round can do so for the same reason that casters can cast spells for the same reason that a monk can stin.. But.. Only from a player perspective. The characters would...

I think this presupposes that "Accomplishable in real life without magic" must have a 1:1 relationship with "Accomplishable in a fantasy setting without magic" I don't see this as a necessary (or particularly well-supported ) relationship.