D&D General A puzzle about spell casting in D&D

[TwoSix]

AD&D doesn't have any general notion of a check being required when an action is "opposed", and in 5e as per the passages above the key notion is uncertainty or 'chance of failure. Which brings me back to the OP question - why, of all the feats of manual dexterity performed by characters in the AD&D game, is there one category, namely somatic components, that can be performed flawlessly every time regardless of Dexterity?

Honestly, my assumption would be that in the 5e paradigm, somatic components simply aren't that difficult. Certainly easier than tying your shoes, which is another task you would expect to be reliable and yet still near-impossible if your hands are bound. I mean, with a little training (War Caster feat) you can perform them while wielding a greatsword and attacking a demon. The only valid extrapolation I see from is that the gestures aren't at all difficult to do.

 

[TwoSix]

I mean, how many noncombat conflicts is that 7th level Diviner going to be dealing with that their resource pool and ability to create recharge capabilities is going to be seriously challenged? How many heists (where Levitation and Reduce/Enlarge and Arcane Eye are ridiculously powerful) aren't going to be heavily scouted and aren't going to be the exclusive conflict of the day (with nested and/or fallout conflicts involved)?

I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'm asking for your actual thoughts on this. It seems to me that a highly skilled Wizard player will dominate the trajectory of play with a Diviner loadout like this around 7th level (I've GMed this guy but I don't have as much data with 5e as I do with the other D&D editions).

They do dominate the trajectory of play, no question. Heck, in one of my games I'm playing a homebrew diviner that can only cast divination spells, and that's still enough to be one of the main drivers of play. An actual wizard, played correctly? Yea, they absolutely drive non-combat play (along with other casters, cleric and bard also do a good job here.)

The resource drain is a factor, though, far more than it was 3.X or even AD&D. Even factoring in the divination ability and arcane recovery, 4/3/3/1 isn't a lot of slots. Wands and scrolls are somewhat scattershot in their availability. If 3.X wizards went well above quadratic (they were probably cubic), 5e wizards are more x^(3/2).

 

[Manbearcat]

You're obfuscating your actual point behind needless and ridiculous words like "misappropriation", which I'm pretty sure you're using wrong anyway. Especially considering you're doing this on behind of your apparently psychic understanding of someone else's post.

I know we’re way past this but I just wanted to explain. In the same way that Congress might misappropriate funds meant for x and use it for y, that is what looked to me to be happening in this case. @pemerton ‘s statements were meant for x and a user used them for y (whether the user didn’t understand the point or willfully did this is another question).

What I don't get here is that you nicely identify the problem and then speak very dismissively of what it by far the best solution for it: GM-side content curation.

If you-as-GM don't want a spell in your game then take it out! At the very least, don't allow players to choose their spell received on level-up; make it random. And if a spell is causing problems but you need to keep it in the game for whatever reason, find a way to limit or restrict its use (adding a monetary-value component cost is one simple option).

I didn’t mean curate like that (outside of the game) so sorry for the lack of clarity.

I meant curate in play. Initiate reactive blocks to spell deployment that would dominate play or deus ex machina to retcon gamestate changing spell usage at rate x (where rate x is unpalatable) using the GM’s unique access to offscreen and backstory.

They do dominate the trajectory of play, no question. Heck, in one of my games I'm playing a homebrew diviner that can only cast divination spells, and that's still enough to be one of the main drivers of play. An actual wizard, played correctly? Yea, they absolutely drive non-combat play (along with other casters, cleric and bard also do a good job here.)

The resource drain is a factor, though, far more than it was 3.X or even AD&D. Even factoring in the divination ability and arcane recovery, 4/3/3/1 isn't a lot of slots. Wands and scrolls are somewhat scattershot in their availability. If 3.X wizards went well above quadratic (they were probably cubic), 5e wizards are more x^(3/2).

Thanks for the post!

That’s exactly what I was looking for!

 

[TwoSix]

Thanks for the post!

That’s exactly what I was looking for!

I'm sure other posters will disagree, but I tend to monitor what's pushing play pretty closely, after a decade+ of these conversations. And the best mechanic, by far, to push play is player-facing automatic permissions, which is what a lot of spells are.

 

[Manbearcat]

DW is a different system, of course, and it has a "significant consequence for failure" for each spell cast so requires a check. Your quote doesn't specify what happens if you roll below a 7? Does the spell just out-right fail?

On a 6- in DW, you follow the game’s rules, agenda, and principles.

So on a 6- on a Cast a Spell move, depending upon the context of the present fiction, a cast of Light might be:

* A wild fracas occurs below your Inn Room in the Tavern proper. Seated in bed, you can see the light that typically cascades from the window below has been fully snuffed!

* The blizzard’s freezing wind and obscuring snowfall explodes violently and sustains but Light does not emerge from your fingertips.

* Secretly stowed away in the dark of the Court Mage’s Master Closet, your Light spell flares to life with incredible magnitude! The Court Mage stirs from his desk with “what’s this...” as the wooden joists creak with his approach to the Closet door.

* Your mind is burned with Arcane energies, dizzying you. You take Debility Int (-1 ongoing yo all Int moves).

* Light’s arcane formula vanished from your mind.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm sure other posters will disagree, but I tend to monitor what's pushing play pretty closely, after a decade+ of these conversations. And the best mechanic, by far, to push play is player-facing automatic permissions, which is what a lot of spells are.

Yessir!

 

[pemerton]

I can ride my horse for 6 weeks, flawlessly.

This depends on edition, doesn't it? Some versions of AD&D and 3E have Riding skills. In 3E and 5e horses have CON scores which can come into play to see if they can keep going without tiring.

So I'll be happy to discuss that when y'all admit I'm probably right about the actual answer to this puzzle, that being that Gary Gygax was attempting to emulate a very specific and bizarre type of spellcasting, that of the Dying Earth books, which doesn't feature people just fumbling spells like a putz as a trope (unlike many other takes on spellcasting). My suspicion is that the thinking is the way those spells work means you can't "naturally" screw up the movements - it takes an additional factor (armour restricting movements, other people interfering, getting hurt during the cast, and so on).

Either that or that it's so unlikely with Vancian casting as to not be worth consideration. A similar approach could be found in the old 3.XE Coup de Grace rules where you auto-hit and auto-crit even though obviously IRL, you could screw up such a manuever - it would just be probably less than 5% chance thus not really meriting rolling.

You said before we discuss balance, we need to answer the question of why this is, to answer the puzzle. I believe I have answered it correctly, but literally no-one, including you, has responded on that. AFAICT all the evidence supports my contention. Genuinely I just want someone to say "Okay, you're probably right re: the puzzle, now how to we make spell failure a useful mechanic?"

(I do have some ideas as to how to make a single-roll mechanism work with the spells you mentioned btw, I'm not just being a tease!)

Aren't you just making this up about The Dying Earth? I haven't read much of them, but in The Dying Earth RPG, spell casting requires a roll just like everything else in the system. If the failure is a Dismal Failure then the spell is mis-cast.

Gygax wasn't emulating Vance. D&D spells come from Chainmail. And Chainmail doesn't have any sort of check system, and as a special case doesn't have a check system for casting spells.

 

[pemerton]

Honestly, my assumption would be that in the 5e paradigm, somatic components simply aren't that difficult. Certainly easier than tying your shoes, which is another task you would expect to be reliable and yet still near-impossible if your hands are bound. I mean, with a little training (War Caster feat) you can perform them while wielding a greatsword and attacking a demon. The only valid extrapolation I see from is that the gestures aren't at all difficult to do.

But the rules refer to "an intricate set of gestures" (Basic PDF, p 79).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A wizard can function perfectly fine in a party with Con 10 or 12. Anything more is a Want not a Need in anything other than an optimizers party or white room theorycrafting.

Like I said, by that logic all non-primary stats are "wants". Hell, maybe even primary stats are.