Bend, dont break.

[Sunseeker]

In large part what a lot of magic vs mundane arguments come down to is that mundane things must reflect reality, while magical things may break it. At some points in the game, such as creating a demiplane or some such, magic that breaks the rules is fine. However, magic that breaks the rules when applied to mundane tasks quickly leads to situations where magic users are more potent than even the most skilled mundane members of the party.

The most basic issue is that certain spells bypass game systems. Charm Person just walks right around the need for diplomacy. Knock doesn't even notice the need to unlock a door. Wild Shape ignores any need for healing.

Few abilities should break the rules. Nothing shoud simply bypass whole game systems "because it is magic". So what I suggest 5e take to heart is that magic does not by and large, break the rules, it only bends them. Sometimes heavily, sometimes not so much, but simply being able to bypass certain systems "because it is magic" just doesn't fly.

 

[Ellington]

In large part what a lot of magic vs mundane arguments come down to is that mundane things must reflect reality, while magical things may break it. At some points in the game, such as creating a demiplane or some such, magic that breaks the rules is fine. However, magic that breaks the rules when applied to mundane tasks quickly leads to situations where magic users are more potent than even the most skilled mundane members of the party.

The most basic issue is that certain spells bypass game systems. Charm Person just walks right around the need for diplomacy. Knock doesn't even notice the need to unlock a door. Wild Shape ignores any need for healing.

Few abilities should break the rules. Nothing shoud simply bypass whole game systems "because it is magic". So what I suggest 5e take to heart is that magic does not by and large, break the rules, it only bends them. Sometimes heavily, sometimes not so much, but simply being able to bypass certain systems "because it is magic" just doesn't fly.

I think magic just gives another approach to problems.

Charm Person tries to overcome the opponent's mental defenses instead of using diplomacy to get him to do what you want, but it's risky. If the target makes its save, not only have you wasted a valuable spell slot but you may have made the target unfriendly instead of just neutral. Knock shouldn't be an auto-success spell, but having another way to bypass a lock other than a rogue is okay in my book. I don't understand what you mean by wild-shape removing the need for healing.

Also, don't forget that spells are finite. You can try to pick a lock as often as you like, but preparing and casting knock is expending a resource from a limited list.

Basically, I'm fine with spells being different approaches to problems, but I still want them to have a chance of failing, just like mundane approaches do.

 

[GM Dave]

I actually don't think it really is a matter of spells are bad and break rules.

It is more an issue that people are mentally 'locked' into the paradigm of non-magic.

In a world where magic is common enough to have 'adventurers' or even common enough that royal courts include wizards, priests, or similar individuals then there will be changes.

There will be changes in;

law (casting a spell on an unwilling target might result in the loss of fingers)

etiquette (actions that might look like casting spells might be forbidden; familiars might have special seating places; jewelry (rings, necklaces, pouches, might be a forbidden as swords and maces in some places)

defenses (items of detect magic might be common items woven into various types jewelry from rings to earrings to necklaces. The items might be designed like an alarm to start flashing and not stop flashing to signal a person might have been affected by a spell without their permission).

These types of things are really not discussed or examined in the rules and they need to be in the Player's Handbook and the Gamemaster's Guide.

Instead, players are given the hand wave like a super hero comic that says society won't really react to people that can devastate buildings while having battles (I like the Avengers and Transformer movies but in a 'real' world there would be a large amount of fall out for the presence of such people after they rip apart large sections of a few cities).

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think magic just gives another approach to problems.

Charm Person tries to overcome the opponent's mental defenses instead of using diplomacy to get him to do what you want, but it's risky. If the target makes its save, not only have you wasted a valuable spell slot but you may have made the target unfriendly instead of just neutral. Knock shouldn't be an auto-success spell, but having another way to bypass a lock other than a rogue is okay in my book. I don't understand what you mean by wild-shape removing the need for healing.

Also, don't forget that spells are finite. You can try to pick a lock as often as you like, but preparing and casting knock is expending a resource from a limited list.

Basically, I'm fine with spells being different approaches to problems, but I still want them to have a chance of failing, just like mundane approaches do.

Yep.

Also, magic should be able to what the mundane simply cannot do thats why its magic.

Problems arise when magic is too plentiful, and the cost of using it is trivial.

Once magic becomes so cheap and ubiquitous then it is natural to want to reign in what magic can accomplish. To that I say what good is magic if it is just another way to accomplish the mundane?

In order to truly be magical, magic needs to keep being beyond the mundane. This is why its important that magic has costs and limitations.

Part of those costs and limitations is making sure magic is never free. No magical power should be completely at will. Also the idea that a magic user who isn't using magic 24/7 is useless can crawl off and die.

Part of being a wizard is knowing when to use your limited power and when not to. No matter if its memorized spells, or a finite amount of magical energy, fantasy fiction is filled with magic using characters that are miserly with their powers, sometimes to the point that those accompanying them doubt their magical skills completely, at least for a while.

A magic user should be equipped with knowledge of magic, and a broad spectrum of subjects. This should be valuable to a party and make the magic user a contributing member of the group even when not casting spells.


I realize that this is hopeless because self control, and thinking have been declared offically unfun.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yep.

Also, magic should be able to what the mundane simply cannot do thats why its magic.

Problems arise when magic is too plentiful, and the cost of using it is trivial.

...

Part of those costs and limitations is making sure magic is never free. No magical power should be completely at will. Also the idea that a magic user who isn't using magic 24/7 is useless can crawl off and die.

The problem here is that we have a different definition of trivial. To you trivial equates to "At Will". I have no substantial problem with at will for minor effects.

To me the problem with magic being too cheap is something more like the wizard being a Trust Fund Baby. The Sorceror is the worst case. He gets his magic for ... by the RAW he doesn't even need a good night's sleep. He is quite literally paid in magic, and powerful magic at that, for nothing more important than continuing to draw breath. The wizard on the other hand needs to work for his magic. He gets paid a fairly substantial magical income for doing two things - getting a good night's sleep and spending one hour studying. Nice work if you can get it!

And as for being miserly with spells, at the end of the day for a 'Vancian' wizard, it's Use It Or Lose It. Almost the cheapest price possible.

In neither case is there a substantive cost associated to magic. (At Will spells/cantrips are simply putting a chunk of the trust fund into petty cash - it's the big stuff that really matters).

If you want there to be a cost for magic, 5E will be the first edition to do so. You need either a potential backlash for casting any spell, or a significant money and/or hit point cost (as rituals tried) for any spell.

A magic user should be equipped with knowledge of magic, and a broad spectrum of subjects. This should be valuable to a party and make the magic user a contributing member of the group even when not casting spells.

This is why the 3.5 Bard was my favourite version of a wizard - he's a loremaster with limited casting (especially if you make a lot of it coincidental) and a wide skill range.

I realize that this is hopeless because self control, and thinking have been declared offically unfun.

Ah, yes. The Tyranny of Fun. I've not seen that one rear its ugly head for a while. And it's just as wrong now as it was then.

And if you want a game with expensive magic, the only D&D version I can do it well in so far is 4e. With a martial-only party and all magic being rituals, which means they actually cost something in time and resources. Amazing how the version with the cheapest low level magic is the only one to make a real game with expensive magic. But I suppose that thinking about how to have expensive magic and cheap magic in the same game without breaking it with either is the sort of fun that should be banned.

 

[Umbran]

Problems arise when magic is too plentiful, and the cost of using it is trivial.

...

In order to truly be magical, magic needs to keep being beyond the mundane. This is why its important that magic has costs and limitations.

Agreed. Speaking to your note on limitations, problems also arise when magic is too flexible - if you come to the idea that you can accomplish anything you desire with magic, that "magic" is a cure-all, you run into issues that all problems eventually wind up solved with magic.

If your magical paradigm has rules (not necessarily rational, logical, sciencey rules, but rules nonetheless) that restrict how it can operate, you help relieve that burden.

For example, if the only way a mage can produce flame is in huge short gouts, that control in small amounts is difficult, and he or she *cannot* just build an ever-hot, fuelless forge, then that magic is much less useful for mundane industry.

 

[Minigiant]

Magic that almost replicates reality should be plentiful.

Magic that duplicates the limit of reality should be common

Magic that bends reality should be uncommon.

Magic that breaks reality should be rare.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
A magic user should be equipped with knowledge of magic, and a broad spectrum of subjects. This should be valuable to a party and make the magic user a contributing member of the group even when not casting spells.


I realize that this is hopeless because self control, and thinking have been declared offically unfun.

Ok, let's run with this for the moment and see where it goes.

So, the wizard/MU is the fount of knowledge (stepping on the bard's toes pretty hard here, but, fair enough). Ok. The party finds a chamber with a pool and some bones lying around. The wizard uses his knowledge to tell the party that it's quite possible that some sort of ooze creature might be lurking in the pool and, if there is one there, depending on its type, the following tactics are best used.

Ok, great, wizard is useful.

Party investigates the pool, seeing shiny stuff in there that they want to collect, being the jackdaws that they are. Surprise, surprise, there is, in fact, an ooze in the water that swishes out to attack the party. Initiative is rolled.

The other characters make their attacks, being pretty effective because of the wizard's advice. Great. Wizard's turn comes, he says, "pass" because he doesn't have enough spells to actually use one here, and his attack is pretty much inneffective.

Round two, the other characters fight with the ooze, the wizard passes again. The fight is going pretty well, no one is dangerously hurt, the wizard doesn't want to waste a spell.

Round three repeat.

Round four repeat.

Round five, the fighter gets mauled by the ooze (can you actually get mauled by an ooze? Slimed?) and the wizard finally contributes to the combat and drops a spell. The ooze is hurt some, but not killed.

Round six, wizard watches.

Round seven, the ooze if finally dispatched and everyone rejoices.

As a round number, we'll say that this fight took twenty minutes to resolve. Not a bad amount of time. In that twenty minutes, the wizard actively participated for maybe a minute and a half. Everyone else actively participated 100% of the time, since we've actually got rules for allowing people to act out of turn and things like AOO's and the like.

So, did the wizard have fun or not? Was his thirty seconds of contribution before the combat worth sitting around and warming the pines for most of twenty minutes?

I certainly don't think so. There's a very, very good reason why the whole "1 spell per day" thing died twenty-five years ago.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And as for being miserly with spells, at the end of the day for a 'Vancian' wizard, it's Use It Or Lose It. Almost the cheapest price possible.

In neither case is there a substantive cost associated to magic. (At Will spells/cantrips are simply putting a chunk of the trust fund into petty cash - it's the big stuff that really matters).

If you want there to be a cost for magic, 5E will be the first edition to do so. You need either a potential backlash for casting any spell, or a significant money and/or hit point cost (as rituals tried) for any spell.

The costs that I was referring to (and that did exist in older editions) were opportunity costs and consequences. Spell selection matters more when there is no access to wands & scrolls of whatever you want.

Loading up on firepower meant less utility magic was available.

Also, casting some spells did have an actual price associated. Would you spam polymorph if you had to risk that system shock roll? Casting haste every fight doesn't seem so great as it slowly whittles years off your life.

Scry,buff,teleport? You might end up dead encased in solid rock unless you know the area well. You probably won't die so go for it.

It seems there was a cost for magic after all.

 

[slobster]

For me, the problem has always been less that spellcasters have ways to break (or as you descriptively said, bypass) the rules of the game, and more that any spellcaster has ways to break any rule in the game. This becomes a problem when other nonspellcasting classes have a significant investment in mastering a particular subsystem (be it melee combat, stealth, diplomacy etc.) but the spellcaster can trivially beat or skip that subsystem, often for the entire party, and he can do it for everyone at a trivial cost.

So I don't have a problem with spells that break reality and dance around the margins of the rules, I have a problem with spellcasters who have no design constraints on how many of those rules they are allowed to ignore.

I would love to see a system that segregates rule-breaking magic based on your character type. Want to be able to godmode through stealth segments? Play an illusionist, who gets invisibility and therefore the ability to walk through an enemy army without ever rolling a hide check. Want to be a thrall-making diplomancer who never met a social situation he couldn't charm his way through? An enchanter who gets charm and dominate spells. But neither of these would have access to the rule-breaking abilities of the other, or to any other spells that step on the toes of other characters (knock, shapechanging, tenser's transformation, the list is pretty much endless). But don't necessarily get rid of those spells, just segregate them into their own specialist, exclusive character builds.

That way magic can still be powerful, can still bend or break reality, but it doesn't leave the rest of your party as luggage carriers.