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
Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XV: The FINAL ROUND)
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: 8846984" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Thank you. Overall, I found your tone perfectly fine; I don't feel you did anything that <em>warranted</em> an apology, but I very much appreciate that you were willing to give one.</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>De gustibus non disputandum est</em>, of course, but there are other factors too. Consider <em>Harry Potter</em>'s magic system. Does its seem non-magical to you? Perhaps you do, though I fear you'd lose me there. But if you don't, why? It's even more repeatable and powerful than 5e cantrips. Or take Gandalf, who lights his pipe with magic all the time, and could do way more if he didn't obey the Valar (and Eru Ilúvatar by proxy.) Given LOTR is a sort of gold standard for "magical" magic, what is the salient difference?</p><p></p><p>Cards on table: I think two factors are at play here. First, you <em>know</em> all the magic--it's all listed in the book. With Harry, half the premise is that <em>he's</em> learning what magic can do; with Gandalf, you don't know his limits. Second, the fact that it's <em>your choice</em>. You are a passive witness of Harry and Gandalf; you actively choose D&D spells.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But this is different. Magic, by definition, breaks thermodynamics and conservation. <em>Our</em> universe's laws just...<em>aren't laws</em> in a universe with D&D magic. The best you get is something like Newton's laws: <em>excellent</em> approximations in "narrow" cases (that is, when not in Einstein town or Heisen-burg, gosh I'm so punny! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />)</p><p></p><p>Breaking physical laws just a little bit vs. frequently is a distinction without a difference. Either way, they aren't physical laws anymore, because that's literally what "physical laws" <em>means</em>, that they aren't broken anywhere.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This I'll grant! But there are wrinkles. Over 100 creatures have (conditional) immunity to nonmagical weapons, and over 280 have conditional resistance. Over 90 have regeneration. Yet if we look at those which have <em>both</em> regeneration and one of those other two...we come up really short, with only five. Two of them are deity-level beings (Juiblex and Tiamat, the latter having no turn-off clause), two (constructs: bone worm and stone juggernaut) don't have a turn-off clause for their regeneration, and only the last ("spirit troll") has such a clause. So...on the one hand, creatures who have all three are essentially non-existent, but creatures who have only one are almost plentiful. This develops into something that is extremely punishing for any party that doesn't have a spellcaster, again creating a situation where it is the spellcaster's best interests that the whole party must align itself around and which the DM must align their whole combat design around.</p><p></p><p>If magic is going to cause this many problems, doesn't that mean we should (a) re-evaluate how magic is done, so it doesn't cause problems like this, and (b) look for ways to let off the pressure, so that players will be encouraged to do the things we <em>want</em> them to do, to have the thrilling, terrifying experiences you're (implicitly) advocating for?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Personally, I think this is an artifact of...let's call it <em>insufficient zeal</em> on the part of DMs and players in describing things, rather than any consequence of the item being magical. Because I can make a totally "mundane" sword incredibly special, and I can make an absolutely unique one-of-a-kind powerful sword <em>really boring</em> if I so wish. That's a power that has never been taken from DMs. Consider:</p><p></p><p><em>As you lift the sword, you instantly feel the <strong>art</strong> that the forgemaster put into its making. The balance is impeccable, even while in the scabbard, which feels almost weightless and yet incredibly sturdy on its own. You draw the blade, and it fair hums as it leaps from its sheath. Gleaming Arkhosian steel, unblemished by the ages. This was no ordinary soldier's blade: it was clearly made for a cavalry officer, as marked by the three cranes, delicately carved into the blade and filled with beautiful sky-blue mythril wirework inlay. Though the sword would be large even in the hands of a full two-meter-tall dragonborn, it is in no way clumsy, and can be wielded single-handed or two-handed as you like. Your skill with a longsword would serve you well with this much more imposing blade; alternatively, you could eschew your shield, and truly bring the pain to your foes.</em></p><p></p><p>Vs.</p><p></p><p><em>It's a +4 Cold Iron Holy Avenger. Probably the only +4 weapon ever made, anywhere.</em></p><p></p><p>Had I reversed these, the latter would have the lavish descriptions that bring an item to life, and the former would have been "it is a longsword that deals 1d10 damage (versatile 2d6), and counts as a greatsword for feat purposes when wielded with both hands." The item being "magical" isn't, and never was, rooted in the <em>mechanics</em> thereof. It is, and always was, rooted in the <em>attention</em> it gets, the descriptions. Meaning, narrative weight, and purpose: these are the things which create "magical" feeling. Mechanics will always be "meh"chanics without that.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's a metaphor for how knock-down, drag-out this sort of conversation becomes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but again, the problem is and has always been that the Wizard's player has <em>some</em> control over whether this happens--and to what degree when it does. Hence, they have every reason, <em>even if they want what is best for the party</em>, to behave selfishly: to set up situations so that they will always have the most spells possible, and to minimize, mitigate, or montage their way out of situations where they don't have any (relevant) spells available. That is the fundamental incentive of the existing Vancian spellcasting rules, and it is an incentive which points <em>away</em> from the intended experience of play, whether one desires Old School "High Gygaxian" murderhole dungeon-heistery or New School "High-Flying Action" fantastical set-pieces, or basically anything else that isn't specifically Casters & Caddies.</p><p></p><p>We <em>can</em> do better--and we can ask WotC to do better. We can ask for a game that doesn't reward players for blowing their entire spell slot load in 1-3 encounters and then expecting a rest. That is an achievable goal. We just need to have the will, and the patience, to pursue it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And there are various ways to encourage players to think in this way. Giving them the incentive to do so--making it not only fun but <em>rewarding</em>--is one of the best ways to accomplish that. Well, that and finding ways to make it so the things the players are enthusiastic about also <em>just so happen</em> (read: framing scenes) to make such "mundane item" stuff the path of least resistance to reaching or seeing the things they're enthusiastic about.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In an absolutely abstract sense, I agree, but D&D magic isn't abstract. <em>Fly</em> is generally useful for anyone. <em>Chromatic orb</em> is a guaranteed spell pick for anyone who can get it, because it's extremely versatile. <em>Invisibility</em> is both powerful <em>and</em> widely-applicable (there's a reason Plato used the Allegory of the Ring.) And with the way 5e does Rituals, you don't even need to sacrifice spell slots to have a number of useful, powerful spells on tap whenever you need them, so long as you have 10 minutes to spare.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Given the significant responsibilities already hung upon the DM's shoulders, I would prefer to mitigate this as much as possible. It is doable.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, but how do you then deal with the players' perfectly legitimate response of "why did this work before, in essentially identical circumstances, but it doesn't work now? How is that fair?" This is another reason why I have such a poor opinion of any rules system which, in whole or in part, advocates for "viking hat" DM theory. In putting emphasis on just how absolutely powerful and unlimited the DM is, the game discourages seeking understanding and consensus, and instead pushes dominance and autocracy. But because players pretty obviously don't like being pushed around or denied a choice, the rules(/advice/etc.) must then emphasize sleight of hand and pretense, an attitude of "I know better than you what you actually want," further separating DM from player and cementing counter-productive power relationships.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay. What about all the non-spell ways to pursue that? How do you keep up a constant, sustained time pressure to prevent such things while still making it remotely plausible? Doing so for a handful of sessions, maybe even an entire adventure, that's plausible. Being under such sustained assault that 3-4 hours of regular resting is totally fine, but 8 hours of resting would be <em>completely unacceptable</em> unless it just cannot be avoided....that's a much bigger ask.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That is something multiple users on this very forum have explicitly (in the case of adding HP) said they like that 5e supports them doing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>"Rug pull" is either the part above, where you allow a plan to work on Session 12 but then forbid it on Session 14 for reasons the players either couldn't know in advance, or which they <em>should</em> have known in advance but because you didn't decide on them until Session 14 started, they "knew" something that (in a Doylist sense) "became" untrue. This is something the 5e DMG supports doing.</p><p></p><p>Illusionism is the DM technique that involves giving the <em>appearance</em> of real choices and consequences for player choices, while actually obviating those choices and giving fixed consequences. The classic example is the "quantum ogre," where the players may choose to go south to the Blue Forest or north to the Black Mountains. They make their choice, and along the way, they are attacked by an ogre. The players will then, quite rationally, think, "<em>Because</em> we went south to the Blue Forest, we encountered an ogre; if we had gone north, we would have avoided it." But this is not true with a DM who practices illusionism, because the DM will put that ogre on <em>whichever path the players choose</em>. This gives the <em>appearance</em> of having choices with consequences, but actually results in a perfectly linear adventure with the only difference being set-dressing. Unlike the previous, where it is more passive support (in the "you literally have to ask your DM if your class features work today, because they might decide they don't" sense), illusionism is much more directly mentioned, e.g. that bit of advice about skipping having a DC entirely and just letting the roll alone determine success (IIRC, it was something like 8 or less fails, 16 or more succeeds, everything in the middle, do whatever you think is best, "<em>your players will never know</em>.")</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not in my opinion. This is, of course, somewhat subjective. But I think it is quite valid to say, "hey, it's real easy to have rose-colored glasses about stuff you've gone through, especially if any concerns that might have come up weren't big enough to be worth mentioning at the time." One of the big foibles of the "never disagree during session" approach is, quite simply, that by the time a disagreement <em>can</em> be broached, things have moved on so much it may not be worth the effort anymore. As a result, issues that aren't addressed when they occur may never <em>get</em> addressed, and it is quite easy to interpret that incorrectly as an <em>absence</em> of issues, rather than deferral-induced abandonment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8846984, member: 6790260"] Thank you. Overall, I found your tone perfectly fine; I don't feel you did anything that [I]warranted[/I] an apology, but I very much appreciate that you were willing to give one. [I]De gustibus non disputandum est[/I], of course, but there are other factors too. Consider [I]Harry Potter[/I]'s magic system. Does its seem non-magical to you? Perhaps you do, though I fear you'd lose me there. But if you don't, why? It's even more repeatable and powerful than 5e cantrips. Or take Gandalf, who lights his pipe with magic all the time, and could do way more if he didn't obey the Valar (and Eru Ilúvatar by proxy.) Given LOTR is a sort of gold standard for "magical" magic, what is the salient difference? Cards on table: I think two factors are at play here. First, you [I]know[/I] all the magic--it's all listed in the book. With Harry, half the premise is that [I]he's[/I] learning what magic can do; with Gandalf, you don't know his limits. Second, the fact that it's [I]your choice[/I]. You are a passive witness of Harry and Gandalf; you actively choose D&D spells. But this is different. Magic, by definition, breaks thermodynamics and conservation. [I]Our[/I] universe's laws just...[I]aren't laws[/I] in a universe with D&D magic. The best you get is something like Newton's laws: [I]excellent[/I] approximations in "narrow" cases (that is, when not in Einstein town or Heisen-burg, gosh I'm so punny! :p) Breaking physical laws just a little bit vs. frequently is a distinction without a difference. Either way, they aren't physical laws anymore, because that's literally what "physical laws" [I]means[/I], that they aren't broken anywhere. This I'll grant! But there are wrinkles. Over 100 creatures have (conditional) immunity to nonmagical weapons, and over 280 have conditional resistance. Over 90 have regeneration. Yet if we look at those which have [I]both[/I] regeneration and one of those other two...we come up really short, with only five. Two of them are deity-level beings (Juiblex and Tiamat, the latter having no turn-off clause), two (constructs: bone worm and stone juggernaut) don't have a turn-off clause for their regeneration, and only the last ("spirit troll") has such a clause. So...on the one hand, creatures who have all three are essentially non-existent, but creatures who have only one are almost plentiful. This develops into something that is extremely punishing for any party that doesn't have a spellcaster, again creating a situation where it is the spellcaster's best interests that the whole party must align itself around and which the DM must align their whole combat design around. If magic is going to cause this many problems, doesn't that mean we should (a) re-evaluate how magic is done, so it doesn't cause problems like this, and (b) look for ways to let off the pressure, so that players will be encouraged to do the things we [I]want[/I] them to do, to have the thrilling, terrifying experiences you're (implicitly) advocating for? Personally, I think this is an artifact of...let's call it [I]insufficient zeal[/I] on the part of DMs and players in describing things, rather than any consequence of the item being magical. Because I can make a totally "mundane" sword incredibly special, and I can make an absolutely unique one-of-a-kind powerful sword [I]really boring[/I] if I so wish. That's a power that has never been taken from DMs. Consider: [I]As you lift the sword, you instantly feel the [B]art[/B] that the forgemaster put into its making. The balance is impeccable, even while in the scabbard, which feels almost weightless and yet incredibly sturdy on its own. You draw the blade, and it fair hums as it leaps from its sheath. Gleaming Arkhosian steel, unblemished by the ages. This was no ordinary soldier's blade: it was clearly made for a cavalry officer, as marked by the three cranes, delicately carved into the blade and filled with beautiful sky-blue mythril wirework inlay. Though the sword would be large even in the hands of a full two-meter-tall dragonborn, it is in no way clumsy, and can be wielded single-handed or two-handed as you like. Your skill with a longsword would serve you well with this much more imposing blade; alternatively, you could eschew your shield, and truly bring the pain to your foes.[/I] Vs. [I]It's a +4 Cold Iron Holy Avenger. Probably the only +4 weapon ever made, anywhere.[/I] Had I reversed these, the latter would have the lavish descriptions that bring an item to life, and the former would have been "it is a longsword that deals 1d10 damage (versatile 2d6), and counts as a greatsword for feat purposes when wielded with both hands." The item being "magical" isn't, and never was, rooted in the [I]mechanics[/I] thereof. It is, and always was, rooted in the [I]attention[/I] it gets, the descriptions. Meaning, narrative weight, and purpose: these are the things which create "magical" feeling. Mechanics will always be "meh"chanics without that. It's a metaphor for how knock-down, drag-out this sort of conversation becomes. Sure, but again, the problem is and has always been that the Wizard's player has [I]some[/I] control over whether this happens--and to what degree when it does. Hence, they have every reason, [I]even if they want what is best for the party[/I], to behave selfishly: to set up situations so that they will always have the most spells possible, and to minimize, mitigate, or montage their way out of situations where they don't have any (relevant) spells available. That is the fundamental incentive of the existing Vancian spellcasting rules, and it is an incentive which points [I]away[/I] from the intended experience of play, whether one desires Old School "High Gygaxian" murderhole dungeon-heistery or New School "High-Flying Action" fantastical set-pieces, or basically anything else that isn't specifically Casters & Caddies. We [I]can[/I] do better--and we can ask WotC to do better. We can ask for a game that doesn't reward players for blowing their entire spell slot load in 1-3 encounters and then expecting a rest. That is an achievable goal. We just need to have the will, and the patience, to pursue it. And there are various ways to encourage players to think in this way. Giving them the incentive to do so--making it not only fun but [I]rewarding[/I]--is one of the best ways to accomplish that. Well, that and finding ways to make it so the things the players are enthusiastic about also [I]just so happen[/I] (read: framing scenes) to make such "mundane item" stuff the path of least resistance to reaching or seeing the things they're enthusiastic about. In an absolutely abstract sense, I agree, but D&D magic isn't abstract. [I]Fly[/I] is generally useful for anyone. [I]Chromatic orb[/I] is a guaranteed spell pick for anyone who can get it, because it's extremely versatile. [I]Invisibility[/I] is both powerful [I]and[/I] widely-applicable (there's a reason Plato used the Allegory of the Ring.) And with the way 5e does Rituals, you don't even need to sacrifice spell slots to have a number of useful, powerful spells on tap whenever you need them, so long as you have 10 minutes to spare. Given the significant responsibilities already hung upon the DM's shoulders, I would prefer to mitigate this as much as possible. It is doable. Okay, but how do you then deal with the players' perfectly legitimate response of "why did this work before, in essentially identical circumstances, but it doesn't work now? How is that fair?" This is another reason why I have such a poor opinion of any rules system which, in whole or in part, advocates for "viking hat" DM theory. In putting emphasis on just how absolutely powerful and unlimited the DM is, the game discourages seeking understanding and consensus, and instead pushes dominance and autocracy. But because players pretty obviously don't like being pushed around or denied a choice, the rules(/advice/etc.) must then emphasize sleight of hand and pretense, an attitude of "I know better than you what you actually want," further separating DM from player and cementing counter-productive power relationships. Okay. What about all the non-spell ways to pursue that? How do you keep up a constant, sustained time pressure to prevent such things while still making it remotely plausible? Doing so for a handful of sessions, maybe even an entire adventure, that's plausible. Being under such sustained assault that 3-4 hours of regular resting is totally fine, but 8 hours of resting would be [I]completely unacceptable[/I] unless it just cannot be avoided....that's a much bigger ask. That is something multiple users on this very forum have explicitly (in the case of adding HP) said they like that 5e supports them doing. "Rug pull" is either the part above, where you allow a plan to work on Session 12 but then forbid it on Session 14 for reasons the players either couldn't know in advance, or which they [I]should[/I] have known in advance but because you didn't decide on them until Session 14 started, they "knew" something that (in a Doylist sense) "became" untrue. This is something the 5e DMG supports doing. Illusionism is the DM technique that involves giving the [I]appearance[/I] of real choices and consequences for player choices, while actually obviating those choices and giving fixed consequences. The classic example is the "quantum ogre," where the players may choose to go south to the Blue Forest or north to the Black Mountains. They make their choice, and along the way, they are attacked by an ogre. The players will then, quite rationally, think, "[I]Because[/I] we went south to the Blue Forest, we encountered an ogre; if we had gone north, we would have avoided it." But this is not true with a DM who practices illusionism, because the DM will put that ogre on [I]whichever path the players choose[/I]. This gives the [I]appearance[/I] of having choices with consequences, but actually results in a perfectly linear adventure with the only difference being set-dressing. Unlike the previous, where it is more passive support (in the "you literally have to ask your DM if your class features work today, because they might decide they don't" sense), illusionism is much more directly mentioned, e.g. that bit of advice about skipping having a DC entirely and just letting the roll alone determine success (IIRC, it was something like 8 or less fails, 16 or more succeeds, everything in the middle, do whatever you think is best, "[I]your players will never know[/I].") Not in my opinion. This is, of course, somewhat subjective. But I think it is quite valid to say, "hey, it's real easy to have rose-colored glasses about stuff you've gone through, especially if any concerns that might have come up weren't big enough to be worth mentioning at the time." One of the big foibles of the "never disagree during session" approach is, quite simply, that by the time a disagreement [I]can[/I] be broached, things have moved on so much it may not be worth the effort anymore. As a result, issues that aren't addressed when they occur may never [I]get[/I] addressed, and it is quite easy to interpret that incorrectly as an [I]absence[/I] of issues, rather than deferral-induced abandonment. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XV: The FINAL ROUND)
Top