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

[Umbran]

...but there needs to be...

Clearly not, as there isn't one now in the rules, and somehow the world hasn't ended, and sales haven't been in the trash.

For any such ruling, I like to ask a question - while this may satisfy some niggling desire for realism, who is having a better game because that roll was added?

 

[Lanefan]

Clearly not, as there isn't one now in the rules, and somehow the world hasn't ended, and sales haven't been in the trash.

Er...maybe quote a bit more of the post you're replying to so I can see the context...?

For any such ruling, I like to ask a question - while this may satisfy some niggling desire for realism, who is having a better game because that roll was added?

Who's having a better game? Anyone who likes things to be a bit more believable and-or consistent; also anyone who wants the rewards of magic to come with some risk attached. I fall into both these camps, as do many (all?) in our crew.

 

[pemerton]

Because it’s a game, and we continually make short cut.
Weapon user are not bothered by the height of the ceiling, or the presence of their allies.

In AD&D both those things are set out as considerations, via the space required stat for weapons (PHB), and related discussions of how many "figures" can be abreast in a corridor (DMG).

You base your argument on a fluff description, and then want to make play Very harsh for caster. For what reasons, better fluff, better balance, better fun?

I didn't say I want anything. I asked a question.

To me the most obvious resolution of the inconsistency between MUs and thieves would be to develop some sort of automatic success rule for thieves, which would have the additional benefit of reducing thief suckage.

 

[pemerton]

The target already gets a saving throw: it's double jeopardy if the caster has to make a skill check as well.

The target doesn't always get a saving throw. And in any event the saving throw is not normally understood, in the fiction, to correspond to the chance that the caster mucked anything up. This is especially clear in 3E and 5e, where the saving throw is a type of check based on the victim's attributes.

 

[pemerton]

Narratively? Picking a lock differs with every lock, and you have to figure out exactly which motions you are doing as you do them. Spellcasting is much more rote repetition of the same movements.

Gygax tells us that the hand motions for casting a spell "are usually required in order to control and specify the direction, target, area, etc., of the spell effects" (DMG p 40) so they won't be exactly the same every time.

In addition to the point about spells, I have doubts about the lock aspect too. I don't know how to pick locks; but my understanding is that someone who does can typically pick simple locks without too much trouble, considerably more reliably than can a low- or even mid-level AD&D thief.

Similarly for picking pockets. When I was at high school I had a friend who was skilled in picking pockets, and he could do take the keys from your belt pretty reliably without being noticed.

Those other class abilities all have a measure of opposition: No pocket-picking is the same and you're trying to do it without the victim seeing you. When disarming a trap, you're pitting your mind and/or finesse against the designer and situation. When trying to hit someone, they are almost always trying to defend themselves.

Gygax's spellcasting is different: there i no opposition to successfully completing the movements to cast a spell, so it works. In most cases where there would be opposition, such as being struck or grappled while trying to do the movements - you just automatically fail.

I don't think this is right at all. Picking a lock isn't a battle of wits, unless we're in Ocean's Eleven territory. Picking a pocket isn't a battle of wits - it's a rote exercise in manual dexterity.

There is no rule in AD&D or 3E that I'm aware of that says, for instance, if a thief has a ring of X-Ray vision they don't need to check to pick a lock.

 

[pemerton]

Anyway, as others have pointed out, wizards are rolling either for attacks or their targets are rolling saves. Many spells don't require either, but those often don't affect anyone hostile to the caster.

I don't understand what affecting anyone hostile to the caster has to do with it. Picking a lock or disarming a trap or even picking the typical pocket doesn't affect anyone hostile to the caster, but checks are required.

 

[Umbran]

Er...maybe quote a bit more of the post you're replying to so I can see the context...?

Sorry, you wrote it yourself half an hour ago. I didn't think the context would get lost that quickly.

My point is that "need" is part of the typical internet conversation style that leads to polarization of discussions. By bits, things get overstated. Does the game NEED a thing, or do you just want the thing for yourself? How is it "needed" when the game is doing incredibly awesome without it?

Who's having a better game? Anyone who likes things to be a bit more believable and-or consistent; ... I fall into both these camps, as do many (all?) in our crew.

Okay. So, really, this is "I want, for my table" not "the game needs" in any more broad sense. That's all I wanted to establish.

 

[Umbran]

.... considerably more reliably than can a low- or even mid-level AD&D thief.

So, how many ugly letters am I going to get if I point out that Gygax, while instrumental and visionary, was not actually a particularly good or self-consistent game designer?

 

[Krachek]

In AD&D both those things are set out as considerations, via the space required stat for weapons (PHB), and related discussions of how many "figures" can be abreast in a corridor (DMG).

I didn't say I want anything. I asked a question.

To me the most obvious resolution of the inconsistency between MUs and thieves would be to develop some sort of automatic success rule for thieves, which would have the additional benefit of reducing thief suckage.

It is an unsolvable puzzle. Rules have been written 50 years ago, I won’t try to find out the RAI by debunking every sentence. any Interpretation is valid.

 

[pemerton]

So, how many ugly letters am I going to get if I point out that Gygax, while instrumental and visionary, was not actually a particularly good or self-consistent game designer?

It is an unsolvable puzzle. Rules have been written 50 years ago, I won’t try to find out the RAI by debunking every sentence. any Interpretation is valid.

But this rule is not confined to Gygax's AD&D. It's a feature of 3E and 5e D&D. Is there anything to be said for it other than legacy?