Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Casters vs Martials: Part 2 - The Mundane Limit
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8495010" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Well...yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. That clause is the problem. Either you remove the clause, or remove its favoritism toward magic over non-magic. Unfortunately, in general, the same vocal minority complains no matter which horn of this dilemma you choose, as you probably already know. If you remove the clause (so magic is no longer capable of doing <em>anything you can imagine</em> but is instead restricted to a narrower, balance-able subset) they howl that you've destroyed it, that "magic is no longer magical," etc. If you remove the favoritism magic receives over non-magic, they howl that you've let Fighters shoot lightning bolts out of their hindquarters or created "Fightan Magic."</p><p></p><p></p><p>See, this is (part of) why I made my poll thread a couple weeks ago. Does "magic" mean "spells"? Does "magic" mean "anything supernatural whatsoever"?</p><p></p><p>If the former, then you're simply wrong, since it isn't making martial characters into spellcasters, it's just giving martial characters the ability to say some things that happen, to briefly take the director's chair for the action-movie that is the game, to overextend a metaphor--spells are not the only form of declarative ability. If the latter, you're right, but (as I argued to Maxperson and others earlier), <em>everyone</em> is already "a different kind of magic" anyway, because of the wibbly-wobbly healthy-wealthy Ball of Stuff that is hit points, and saving throws (e.g. "dodging" an exploding fireball makes no sense, you can't just physically move so that the heat glides around you except in action-movie logic.)</p><p></p><p>The only way to get what you're saying and have it be meaningful is to say that <em>all</em> declarative abilities are necessarily "magic," and not just...y'know, getting to describe a cool action scene because it would be a cool action scene.</p><p></p><p>We invent fictional worlds for the pleasure of it; the world is a convenience to us, a tool shaped by what we request of it. Why, then, do we request that a popular and beloved subset of the game be forced to live exclusively by the physics of our world (or, rather, a frankly laughably narrow-minded construct substituted for the physics of our world), and another subset be empowered to reject any and all limitations of the physics of our world...and then ask that these two things be equally worthy of playing?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Why should it have a very low success rate? I thought the whole point of the Battle Master subclass was being exceptionally good at reading opponents and having preternaturally good instincts about who/what they are and how they tick (Know Your Enemy). Why can't their battlefield prowess also extend into the field of cold-reading targets to get a pretty high likelihood of pushing their berserk buttons or their deep-seated fears?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Uh....okay. So, you do realize that now that thing you called a strawman isn't, because of this statement? Because now you <em>are</em> saying that <em>any</em> time you force someone to move against their will, it's mind control.</p><p></p><p>Plus? Again, <em>that's what failing a Wisdom saving throw means</em>. (Or, in 4e, successfully hitting its Will defense.) It specifically <em>means</em> that the target <em>does</em> want to, even if only for a moment. You overcame their willpower, tricked or goaded them into a dumb move or feigned weakness that they foolishly tried to exploit. Getting the saving throw <em>was</em> their chance to realize the trick or taunt or feint for what it was. They failed.</p><p></p><p>Do you have similar problems with, say, failing to know a historical fact because your character fails a History check? "No, my character <em>definitely would</em> know this." Or similar problems with being deceived by something you as a player know must be an actor's disguse, but which your character fails to see through by botching the Investigation check? Aren't those things exactly the same--<em>forcing</em> you to be ignorant, <em>forcing</em> you to be deceived, "against your will"?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Seems like another distinction without a difference to me. What choices you're permitted to make have been controlled. Sure, in one case it's narrowed more than the other, but either way, you're taking choices away from the target. And if these things should be supernatural, doesn't that mean 5e is now exactly as bad as 4e was on this score? Worse, even, since in 4e at least it was a tiny subset (IIRC two or three powers) of the vast array of options Fighters might take, as opposed to something <em>literally anyone</em> can get for the price of a single feat (or, with Tasha's, a fighting style)?</p><p></p><p></p><p>On its own, no. But when you have a consistent trend of people doing it--demonstrated by both official modules and everyday DMing--it seems to me that, whether or not it is everyone's cup of tea, it is an accepted reading of the text that creatures in D&D worlds are not required to conform to the psychology that naturalistic creatures of Earth possess. When at least as many people run things "unrealistically" as "realistically," it seems a bit hard to argue that behavioral psychology <em>must always</em> work <em>exactly</em> like it does in the real world, and not (as is the case with many things) up to a coarse abstraction thereof, with occasional hiccups and foibles forgiven because they are part of enabling a gaming experience.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So you can decide if your character would be fooled by a mundane disguise, such as one made via the Actor feat? Or decide if you know whether a character is lying to you, Insight rolls be damned?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Berserker Barbarian, level 10 feature, Intimidating Presence. Berserkers are well-known for being one of the only other subclass to be truly non-magical, since (as the Barbarian descriptive text notes) some Barbarians simply "draw from a roiling reservoir of anger at a world full of pain." Intimidating presence forces a target to make a Wisdom save, and failure makes the target frightened. The target does not get a second saving throw, but the Barbarian can choose to extend the effect as long as the target remains in line of sight and no more than 60' away--without granting additional saves. Nothing in the text indicates that it is magical in nature--meaning, if you assert it <em>is</em>, you must prove it, not simply call it "mind control" because it could make you do something you don't want to do. The rules can tell you what you have to do, even if you'd rather not. That's why they're called "rules."</p><p></p><p></p><p>Or it could be a feint--feigning weakness or distraction or inability, which enemies have every reason to try to exploit (even animals; animals are quite good at capitalizing on brief moments of weakness, it's how most ambush predators feed themselves). Those that you miss with CaGI see the feint for what it is, and wisely stay away; those you hit believe it's a golden opportunity and attempt to exploit it, just as they would exploit an opportunity attack if you trigger it. Or it could be a false turncoat offer, or flashing a bag of coins at greedy mercs, or any other form of <em>temptation</em> that might work on a target. </p><p></p><p>You make your attempt, and the attack rolls (=saving throws) determine whether your gambit works or not, whatever that gambit may be. If the DM feels it is a stretch for a target, they're explicitly empowered by the rules to give situational modifiers (though the respectful thing to do is to tell your player that that's the case), and if the gambit is truly completely unbelievable or goofy, then the DM should candidly just say that, ideally <em>before</em> the player has irrevocably committed to the action. "This guy's unflappable--you know in your bones you won't be able to goad him into approaching you, at least not while he's feeling in control of the situation." And exactly the same thing applies (or should apply) to magical powers; sometimes, even a bit of magic just isn't the right fit to accomplish some task as the situation currently stands. (Hence why you saw <em>both</em> the "they made Fighters into Wizards" canard and "they made magic unmagical" WRT 4e.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8495010, member: 6790260"] Well...yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. That clause is the problem. Either you remove the clause, or remove its favoritism toward magic over non-magic. Unfortunately, in general, the same vocal minority complains no matter which horn of this dilemma you choose, as you probably already know. If you remove the clause (so magic is no longer capable of doing [I]anything you can imagine[/I] but is instead restricted to a narrower, balance-able subset) they howl that you've destroyed it, that "magic is no longer magical," etc. If you remove the favoritism magic receives over non-magic, they howl that you've let Fighters shoot lightning bolts out of their hindquarters or created "Fightan Magic." See, this is (part of) why I made my poll thread a couple weeks ago. Does "magic" mean "spells"? Does "magic" mean "anything supernatural whatsoever"? If the former, then you're simply wrong, since it isn't making martial characters into spellcasters, it's just giving martial characters the ability to say some things that happen, to briefly take the director's chair for the action-movie that is the game, to overextend a metaphor--spells are not the only form of declarative ability. If the latter, you're right, but (as I argued to Maxperson and others earlier), [I]everyone[/I] is already "a different kind of magic" anyway, because of the wibbly-wobbly healthy-wealthy Ball of Stuff that is hit points, and saving throws (e.g. "dodging" an exploding fireball makes no sense, you can't just physically move so that the heat glides around you except in action-movie logic.) The only way to get what you're saying and have it be meaningful is to say that [I]all[/I] declarative abilities are necessarily "magic," and not just...y'know, getting to describe a cool action scene because it would be a cool action scene. We invent fictional worlds for the pleasure of it; the world is a convenience to us, a tool shaped by what we request of it. Why, then, do we request that a popular and beloved subset of the game be forced to live exclusively by the physics of our world (or, rather, a frankly laughably narrow-minded construct substituted for the physics of our world), and another subset be empowered to reject any and all limitations of the physics of our world...and then ask that these two things be equally worthy of playing? Why should it have a very low success rate? I thought the whole point of the Battle Master subclass was being exceptionally good at reading opponents and having preternaturally good instincts about who/what they are and how they tick (Know Your Enemy). Why can't their battlefield prowess also extend into the field of cold-reading targets to get a pretty high likelihood of pushing their berserk buttons or their deep-seated fears? Uh....okay. So, you do realize that now that thing you called a strawman isn't, because of this statement? Because now you [I]are[/I] saying that [I]any[/I] time you force someone to move against their will, it's mind control. Plus? Again, [I]that's what failing a Wisdom saving throw means[/I]. (Or, in 4e, successfully hitting its Will defense.) It specifically [I]means[/I] that the target [I]does[/I] want to, even if only for a moment. You overcame their willpower, tricked or goaded them into a dumb move or feigned weakness that they foolishly tried to exploit. Getting the saving throw [I]was[/I] their chance to realize the trick or taunt or feint for what it was. They failed. Do you have similar problems with, say, failing to know a historical fact because your character fails a History check? "No, my character [I]definitely would[/I] know this." Or similar problems with being deceived by something you as a player know must be an actor's disguse, but which your character fails to see through by botching the Investigation check? Aren't those things exactly the same--[I]forcing[/I] you to be ignorant, [I]forcing[/I] you to be deceived, "against your will"? Seems like another distinction without a difference to me. What choices you're permitted to make have been controlled. Sure, in one case it's narrowed more than the other, but either way, you're taking choices away from the target. And if these things should be supernatural, doesn't that mean 5e is now exactly as bad as 4e was on this score? Worse, even, since in 4e at least it was a tiny subset (IIRC two or three powers) of the vast array of options Fighters might take, as opposed to something [I]literally anyone[/I] can get for the price of a single feat (or, with Tasha's, a fighting style)? On its own, no. But when you have a consistent trend of people doing it--demonstrated by both official modules and everyday DMing--it seems to me that, whether or not it is everyone's cup of tea, it is an accepted reading of the text that creatures in D&D worlds are not required to conform to the psychology that naturalistic creatures of Earth possess. When at least as many people run things "unrealistically" as "realistically," it seems a bit hard to argue that behavioral psychology [I]must always[/I] work [I]exactly[/I] like it does in the real world, and not (as is the case with many things) up to a coarse abstraction thereof, with occasional hiccups and foibles forgiven because they are part of enabling a gaming experience. So you can decide if your character would be fooled by a mundane disguise, such as one made via the Actor feat? Or decide if you know whether a character is lying to you, Insight rolls be damned? Berserker Barbarian, level 10 feature, Intimidating Presence. Berserkers are well-known for being one of the only other subclass to be truly non-magical, since (as the Barbarian descriptive text notes) some Barbarians simply "draw from a roiling reservoir of anger at a world full of pain." Intimidating presence forces a target to make a Wisdom save, and failure makes the target frightened. The target does not get a second saving throw, but the Barbarian can choose to extend the effect as long as the target remains in line of sight and no more than 60' away--without granting additional saves. Nothing in the text indicates that it is magical in nature--meaning, if you assert it [I]is[/I], you must prove it, not simply call it "mind control" because it could make you do something you don't want to do. The rules can tell you what you have to do, even if you'd rather not. That's why they're called "rules." Or it could be a feint--feigning weakness or distraction or inability, which enemies have every reason to try to exploit (even animals; animals are quite good at capitalizing on brief moments of weakness, it's how most ambush predators feed themselves). Those that you miss with CaGI see the feint for what it is, and wisely stay away; those you hit believe it's a golden opportunity and attempt to exploit it, just as they would exploit an opportunity attack if you trigger it. Or it could be a false turncoat offer, or flashing a bag of coins at greedy mercs, or any other form of [I]temptation[/I] that might work on a target. You make your attempt, and the attack rolls (=saving throws) determine whether your gambit works or not, whatever that gambit may be. If the DM feels it is a stretch for a target, they're explicitly empowered by the rules to give situational modifiers (though the respectful thing to do is to tell your player that that's the case), and if the gambit is truly completely unbelievable or goofy, then the DM should candidly just say that, ideally [I]before[/I] the player has irrevocably committed to the action. "This guy's unflappable--you know in your bones you won't be able to goad him into approaching you, at least not while he's feeling in control of the situation." And exactly the same thing applies (or should apply) to magical powers; sometimes, even a bit of magic just isn't the right fit to accomplish some task as the situation currently stands. (Hence why you saw [I]both[/I] the "they made Fighters into Wizards" canard and "they made magic unmagical" WRT 4e.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Casters vs Martials: Part 2 - The Mundane Limit
Top