Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5828777" data-attributes="member: 70709">I definitely agree that magic shouldn't serve as an all-purpose replacement for any skill, possibly excepting the caster expending some pretty hefty character resources.  A short term replacement that avoids becoming the obvious choice is also fine to me.  Adding big numerical bonuses on checks usually gives me pause because, as I alluded to earlier, an already skilled person could use magic to become unstoppable in a particular area.  (Hence why I favor dice tricks of various sorts that keep the final results of checks in the same range as the base bonus, but make it more likely to achieve near the higher end of that range).  Magic that enhances vs. magic that bypasses existing rules usually have independent balance issues, and I think keeping them separate is usually a good idea unless one can smoothly scale the former to reach the latter in a very controlled way.  I think the d20's uniform distribution generally makes this difficult.For something like Knock, therefore, I'm OK with letting the caster simply replace the Thievery check with an Arcana check that does the same thing (basic functional continuity) as long as it is sufficiently different in the good, fast, cheap sense from normal lock-picking to not cheat the pure rogue.  However, this version of Knock isn't that useful to a person already good at mundane lock-picking, and I think it could be beyond just being a second chance.  For that reason I could see a letting Knock let a person make an Arcana *and* Thievery check against the lock and using the better of the two.  Perhaps the Thievery check can only be used for this purpose if the caster in trained in the skill, to reflect the synergy between magic and mundane in this case.  Either way a pure caster is pretty much are counting on Arcana to get them by, but an arcane trickster with both skills is actually getting some value added for their efforts without making them an auto-opener.Other spells that traditionally obviated what we'd consider skills can find a middle ground in this way, in many cases building on from what 4e did with them with rituals.  I would very much like it, for example, if something like "disguise self" was designed to work in a pinch, but simply could not replace a disguise skill without some serious effort.  A good start, for example, might only allow the spell to disguise the caster as something they can currently see or with which they are intimately familiar.  (Rather like teleport in earlier editions.)  A person who already has the disguise skill, however, might be able to use it to craft more devious or flexible disguises on the fly (since they can direct the spell more firmly), or use both mundane and magical disguises for complementary features.  Higher level versions of Disguise Self might loosen some of these limitations, but mundane disguise rules should be written in such a way that the two are complementary rather than in competition. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> </ul>I think that's a pretty good list of categories.  I was going to go on a mathematical excursion here, but I think I'll save it for a separate thread that I hope to get around to writing.  That is because it is just as much about the sneaking/spotting skills as it is about whether 2d10 or +10 are good implementations of these categories, and because this thread is more about the concept than the details of execution.I'm totally with you here, although I think there is no need to describe mundane equipment as more or less important by character level, since whether equipment is magical or not should be decoupled from level (and I know you feel similarly).  Even in a world with high magic mundane options shouldn't be frowned upon, which I think is what you were getting at.  By extending the reach of the mundane throughout the game it also helps keep back the feeling that magic can become humdrum through overuse, or is simply necessary for every little thing.  If we can make the big things that break the (mundane) rules feel set apart, I think that will support the fight against some of the demystification of magic of the past couple editions.</blockquote>

Verification