Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2933341" data-attributes="member: 32164">I think the sky is falling. I'm finding myself agreeing with both Raven Crowking AND Hussar. First, Raven made a point very succinctly...I guess that was the point I was trying to make in the first place. I too wish the designers had set the "default magic level" lower. As Raven says, it's easily modified, but it has to BE modified (and player expectations correspondingly adjusted). I also wish D&D didn't make such a big deal out of the arcane/divine magic thing, but that's another issue entirely (sort of).That's an excellent point. Low level magics are a default result of the rules as written. But to me, and to RC, I think, the larger elephant in the corner is the reason to have a permanent light source - to reduce the PITA factor of dungeon crawling. When the spell was introduced, nobody thought about what its long-term implications on societies would be. They just wanted a way for dungeon crawling PCs to not have to renew their light spells every day. The implications of it came along much later.So we have this enormous elephant that exists for metagame reasons. Since it's a metagame problem, the simplest solution is to metagame it dead by saying "Continual Flame" isn't permanent, just REALLY long-lasting. Long enough that it doesn't affect the PCs (who can cast it the day before any dungeon crawl they take and still have their lights work and a full complement of "spell slots"), but not permanent, meaning no continual flame streetlights. No mountains of continual flame rocks sitting around. Thus is the problem solved. Unfortunately some people think this is heavy-handed.But to some of us, WHY is important. If something exists for metagame reasons, it should have ingame logic too - "verisimilitude" as they say.I agree with you that cheap, permanent spells would change a setting. They should, unless there's a good reason why they don't. So you can either a) change the setting, or b) provide the reason they don't change it.What RC is getting at is, to a large extent, a reason for that based on human nature. That's not in the RAW...exactly. However, there is one line in the DMG that addresses it. It's in the sidebar about "How Real is your Fantasy?" and it says something like "people in D&D react as you would expect people to react - unless the DM says differently." So one of the default assumptions of the RAW is human beings who react like human beings do in the real world. I agree on this. But...The problem is that guilds need to be established in the first place. Religions need to be established. And before you can get social structures, human nature comes into play. Pretend that we don't have a D&D world that's thousands of years old, created with all its systems in place. Pretend it's a real, functional world that develops organically.If nothing has changed, per the RAW, we have druids (and rangers) and sorcerers first. Druids get their power from nature itself, so no formalized religion is necessary. Similarly, sorcerer's magic is inherent, so they don't have to develop practices for accessing magic, they just CAN. Clerics, more or less, arrive when gods do. When the gods arrive is a campaign-specific question the RAW don't address. If they're eternal, they're right there with the druids and sorcerers. And every D&D campaign's a theocracy run by a deity. Assuming they have any interest in doing that. However, if you have less activist deities, then clerics are no more trustworthy than sorcerers. If the gods aren't eternal (or their power is determined by the number of worshipers they have, or whatever), things are a bit different. For now, let's assume less than active deities, or that clerics come later.How does an early society treat these people? The obvious answer is as medicine men, shamans, or gods - similarly to what happened with wisemen in the real world. Now that's a reasonable assumption for a high-level spellcaster, but what about when he's low-level? Then, he's not terribly powerful compared to the fighter types. But as he gets more powerful, he either: a) becomes a threat or b) is smart enough to mind his P's and Q's and make himself somewhat useful to those with power.Eventually, some spellcaster is going to get greedy and abuse his power. It's human nature. He's got power over others. So what happens then?The society would either be dominated by spellcasters, or place strict controls on them. Since the society knows from experience it can't control spellcasters once they get powerful, most authorities would probably opt to control them when they were still controllable. That is, in D&D terms, "when they're low-level."The point is...what happens when beings with special powers show up? At first, it's great. They can do nice things for you and everything is hunky-dory. But the first time they prove untrustworthy, people would probably have a hard time letting anyone practice magic. The potential for abuse is just too great. And the easiest way to handle that abuse is to prevent it from ever becoming a problem.Which means offing not just high-level casters, but low-level ones too. So most spellcasters would be hiding in secret enclaves unless they ran the society. Or, they'd be keeping a low profile and only getting involved very lightly.Like the X-Men, "good" aligned casters would probably work to prevent their "evil" or "selfish" counterparts from abusing those less powerful than them. And, for the most part, staying out of society so as not to be perceived as a threat themselves. They might provide a few marvels to keep the goodwill of the people, but they're probably not going to go overboard with this.Of course, the preceding is really just my opinion. YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification