Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[Kid Charlemagne]

That's hilarious.

"Hmm, should we have the mage spend whole his day making a single scroll for 425gp, or go out and spend 12 seconds casting two continual flame spells for 50gp each?"

Sounds like typical government buracracy thinking.

What, wizards in your world don't charge money for their skills? I mean sure, the wizard in the party may do it for cost, but if you're comparing labor+materials to materials only, of course the comparison will be off.

I've examined this issue sufficiently for my own uses, over and over. I've never seen a convincing argument that magic would have a serious, world-wide effect. Convincing to me, at least.

 

[Aaron L]

The scroll cost for Continual flame is 425 gp. That should probably be your comparison number. A comparison might be if you could buy a car for $20,000 that runs on gas, or one for $120,000 that never needs gas, which would you buy?

In most cases, the $20,000, because only the very rich can afford the luxury of the $120,000 car. Certainly I couldn't get the more expensive one. The same would apply to a D&D world, I'd expect. 425 gp is about equal to the yearly wage of a skilled laborer - someone with a +6 profession skill eaning 8 gp a week.

I see no reason whatsoever why the scroll cost of the spell should be the basis of the comparison. Please explain why it should be.

 

[Numion]

The point everyone's making is that ubiquitous magical light can be very mood-breaking in a game. Some of us like the notion of medieval feeling cities lit by the guttering flames of torches and lamps. It's just cool.

Magical streetlights...not so much. As an occasional thing, sure. But everywhere? Just doesn't work for me. It's not a verisimilitude problem so much as an atmosphere problem.

What if the everburning torches, um, flickered? Would that be cool?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I see no reason whatsoever why the scroll cost of the spell should be the basis of the comparison. Please explain why it should be.

Because, according the RAW, if you want to get that spell in a useable form, that's what it will cost?

I suppose you could go with the Spellcasting and Services chart in the PHB, in which case it would cost you 150 gp+material costs. Still much more expensive.

 

[Aaron L]

No more humorous than clerics and wizards running around performing free public service

Whoever said the clerics and wizards were doing it for free? Wizards would probably charge the standard fees for doing it, Id assume! They be the technicians of the world.

Magitech is a very real possibility, and can make for an interesting world. But it is not the only possibility, nor is it the only possibility that can be derived logically from the RAW. It is a stylistic difference -- nothing more, nothing less.

At least, IMHO.

RC

Who is arguing against that? Thats completely reasonable. Ive kinda gotten lost through this thread. Magic as technology can follow logically from the rules. It can also not, for several reason (gods, secretive wizards wanting magic kept for the elite, magic hating societies, etc) Its up tp the setting builder to decide which they want, and come up with the reasoning themselves. You can rationalize almost anything.

 

[Quasqueton]

Can you even comprehend how that might change a society?

It's simply mind-boggling to try to carry the RAW to their logical conclusion.

Yep, I can comprehend it, and my game world works with it just fine. And I don't have anything near like the Eberron magitech stuff -- my world is core only.

For instance, the price to enter the Wizard's Guild includes the creation of an everburning torch. This light is passed from the guild to the government as part of its taxes each month.

Quasqueton

 

[Aaron L]

Because, according the RAW, if you want to get that spell in a useable form, that's what it will cost?

Only if you want the spell in a portable form to be cast later.

I suppose you could go with the Spellcasting and Services chart in the PHB, in which case it would cost you 150 gp+material costs. Still much more expensive.

There you go.

 

[Quasqueton]

BTW, Q, you're missing the point. The point is not that magic streetlights cannot work, merely that it does not automatically follow that they would work, or that, if they did, it would be a good idea.

And I've not said anything like that. I just posted the cost comparisons of the mundane vs. magical methods. And then people started talking about mages vandalizing magical streetlights, mages charging unnecessary prices, and gods taking umbrage at the existance of the lights.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

I won't bother with this thread anymore. I've only read the last page or so. I've ignored it for the most part because the whole concept of "Has D&D become too D&Dish?" is like asking "Has Star Trek become too Star Trekish?" I mean, D&D has always been D&Dish.

Quasqueton

 

[JohnSnow]

<Snip comment about magitech not being the ONLY logical/mature/verisimilitudinous result of the RAW.>

Who is arguing against that? Thats completely reasonable. Ive kinda gotten lost through this thread. Magic as technology can follow logically from the rules. It can also not, for several reason (gods, secretive wizards wanting magic kept for the elite, magic hating societies, etc) Its up tp the setting builder to decide which they want, and come up with the reasoning themselves. You can rationalize almost anything.

Umm...Hussar was, actually. He was claiming that per the RAW, magitech was the most verisimilitudinous (to steal his made-up word) result.

Raven Crowking, I, and a few others have been claiming that while that was one feasible result, it wasn't the only (or even most likely) feasible result.

And I've not said anything like that. I just posted the cost comparisons of the mundane vs. magical methods. And then people started talking about mages vandalizing magical streetlights, mages charging unnecessary prices, and gods taking umbrage at the existance of the lights.

Q, if that's the case, I apologize. I had assumed (wrongly) that you were taking up the torch (everburning or not...) of Hussar's opinion. Since you weren't, that makes the critiques irrelevant.

However, all of those things you mention are (IMO) perfectly reasonable possible responses to magical streetlight. Which attitude prevails depends entirely on the persnicketyness (is that a word?) of the gods, and the psychological makeup of your NPCs: something every DM has to determine for his own world (or even something he determines differently for each culture in his world).

For instance, in Greek myth, a titan (Prometheus, btw) was punished for all eternity for daring to give mortals simple FIRE. Just imagine how they would have treated one who provided them magic...

So in that setting, the gods potentially being pissed at magical streetlights is NOT out of line. Just to make a point.

On another topic, someone asked me a question...

What if the everburning torches, um, flickered? Would that be cool?

Umm...it would help. But they're still cool - as in, won't catch things on fire, or keep people warm for that matter. Which a torch does a poor job of, but a somewhat more sizable fire provides both light and heat.

My personal preference is for non-permanent magical light. I wouldn't mind if spellcasters could create cool light and maintain it as he desired. But for them to be able to make permanent glow rocks seems a trifle Nodwick to me.

That gets to the heart of what I was talking about when I started the thread. To me anyway, standard D&D is starting to look suspiciously similar to the parodies of itself. And I don't really think that's a good thing. :\

As always, YMMV.