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="Janx" data-source="post: 5028108" data-attributes="member: 8835">Jack just wrote something long.  A bit longer than my brain wants to read.I think his core point was "control does not mean full understanding" and magic doesn't have to be 100% predictable.  There's some nuances he's talking about.I think the core point the of the original statement was that PCs won't use magic if it isn't reliable.  Except for crazy players.I will accept that as a 1st level fighter, when I swing my sword, I have a 50% chance of doing damage, or there is no effect.I would accept as a 1st level wizard when I cast my flamey spell, I have a 50% chance of doing damage, or there is no effect.I would not play a wizard if the % was worse than the fighter's for similar damage, or if the result was totally random on whether I hit or missed, and what happened each time I cast a spell.Totally random results means that casting a spell isn't likely to solve the problem.  Why cast the flamey spell at my enemy, if most of the time, he doesn't get hurt, and worse, something wierd will happen or harmful to me?  Why cast the unlock spell, when there's a good chance, it won't unlock, and worse, something wierd will happen?This was the problem with the Wild Mage in 2e FR.  It was too random for most players to be useful (and that wasn't that random).Thus, players need control over magic, or the magic isn't a useful tool (which is part of what Jack was pointing out).Hopefully, that's less words than Jack. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification