DreadPirateMurphy
Explorer
I've been reading through the new Rules Compendium, paying particular attention to the sidebars, some of which are really interesting in a rules geek kind of way. Some of them have me thinking about the nature of magic in D&D, and I wanted to explore some of those thoughts here online. Bear with me as I explain my thought process (or don't, if you're bored). This is not intended to be a 4E thread, despite some of my thoughts about the rules, and I haven't really paid any attention to discussions of 4E magic.
What really got me started was Matthew Sernett's discussion (on p. 48) of acid as an energy type. He makes the comment that acid isn't "what you'd normally consider energy from a scientific standpoint." That struck me as a bit of a misperception. Acid certainly has the potential to release chemical energy, whereas I don't think of "cold" as an energy, but rather as a lack thereof. In fact, if there is a standout from the five standard types, I would think it is "sonic." Acid (which in game terms presumably includes things like lye which are actually basic), fire, cold and electricity all primarily cause tissue damage through burns. Sound waves would cause damage through shock waves and cavitation, presumably. Regardless, all of the energy types have the potential to cause deep tissue damage in a way different from crushing, cutting or piercing.
What does this have to do with magic? Well, apart from the energy types, the other thing that causes tissue damage is radiation. In D&D, this is mostly dealt with indirectly in the sense of environmental effects from sun exposure (although D20 Modern and DragonStar both deal with radiation damage directly). What D&D does have, however, is the concept of force effects. Force effects seem to be pure magical energy. The concept of "magic" in D&D definitely describes a tangible energy, as opposed to just, say, a methodology for dealing with the supernatural.
Of course, the analogy between magic and radiation isn't new -- magical mutations caused by exposure are a common trope in fantasy. The idea did occur to me that you could take the idea in a different direction by more strictly applying the analogy...for example, you could say that exposure to magic (e.g., as an adventurer) can lead to a higher incidence of birth defects, but that in some cases a normal baby is born who instead has innate magic as a sorcerer. That negates the need for the idea that your great grandparent got frisky with a giant lizard, and that's why you can cast spells.
In any event, if you see magic as a kind of energy, then what does that say for the difference between energy resistance and spell resistance? Obviously, some mechanic is necessary that handles more than just hit point damage, since spells have various effects.
Side note: the other energy types also, in theory, should have various non-hit-point-damage side effects, ranging from deafness to frostbite to chemical poisoning to cardiac arrest, though the game ignores most of these for the sake of simplicity.
There are actually two mechanics that provide resistance to magic effects. The first is spell resistance, and the second is the saving throw mechanic. In cases where both apply, the effect is similar to the concealment mechanic. As Sernett points out on page 34 of the RC, concealment basically gives you two chances to fail, which isn't as much fun. SR has a similar impact on spell casting. You have to overcome both SR and a creature's save in the majority of cases.
On page 130 of the RC, James Wyatt talks about the 3.x evolution of spell resistance, and how the new SR provides for both consistency and scale. While he is correct that the new system is better than the older ones, he doesn't address why spell resistance exists at all as a separate mechanic. Why not give EVERY spell a save, and make spell resistance a bonus to saves vs. any kind of magic? That would also be consistent and scalable, and it would be more consistent with the concept of energy resistance.
The impact on the system of magic would be that spellcasting would be simpler resolution, and it makes spell penetration more valuable. It would also make it easier to apply house rules. For example, if you wanted to make touch spells more attractive, you could give them an inherent +4 to DC, and ranged touch spells an inherent +2 to DC. Casters then have more of an incentive to put themselves in harms way, and the delivery mechanism factors less into determining the appropriate level of a new spell.
One last thought... On p. 141 of the RC, David Noonan talks about how suffocation is much nastier than PCs expect. It isn't nerfed like falling damage (which Jennifer Clarke Wilkes discusses on p. 52). You could make energy damage much nastier (and energy resistance that much more attractive) by adding ability damage at some defined threshold. Acid and fire would do Cha damage, sonic would affect Int, cold would affect Dex, and electricty would affect Con. The threshold can be whatever makes sense to you, and you could even add a save if you didn't mind the extra dice. Personally, I find systems like Wilkes' husband's system for falling damage overly complex, but of course your mileage may vary.
Thoughts?
What really got me started was Matthew Sernett's discussion (on p. 48) of acid as an energy type. He makes the comment that acid isn't "what you'd normally consider energy from a scientific standpoint." That struck me as a bit of a misperception. Acid certainly has the potential to release chemical energy, whereas I don't think of "cold" as an energy, but rather as a lack thereof. In fact, if there is a standout from the five standard types, I would think it is "sonic." Acid (which in game terms presumably includes things like lye which are actually basic), fire, cold and electricity all primarily cause tissue damage through burns. Sound waves would cause damage through shock waves and cavitation, presumably. Regardless, all of the energy types have the potential to cause deep tissue damage in a way different from crushing, cutting or piercing.
What does this have to do with magic? Well, apart from the energy types, the other thing that causes tissue damage is radiation. In D&D, this is mostly dealt with indirectly in the sense of environmental effects from sun exposure (although D20 Modern and DragonStar both deal with radiation damage directly). What D&D does have, however, is the concept of force effects. Force effects seem to be pure magical energy. The concept of "magic" in D&D definitely describes a tangible energy, as opposed to just, say, a methodology for dealing with the supernatural.
Of course, the analogy between magic and radiation isn't new -- magical mutations caused by exposure are a common trope in fantasy. The idea did occur to me that you could take the idea in a different direction by more strictly applying the analogy...for example, you could say that exposure to magic (e.g., as an adventurer) can lead to a higher incidence of birth defects, but that in some cases a normal baby is born who instead has innate magic as a sorcerer. That negates the need for the idea that your great grandparent got frisky with a giant lizard, and that's why you can cast spells.
In any event, if you see magic as a kind of energy, then what does that say for the difference between energy resistance and spell resistance? Obviously, some mechanic is necessary that handles more than just hit point damage, since spells have various effects.
Side note: the other energy types also, in theory, should have various non-hit-point-damage side effects, ranging from deafness to frostbite to chemical poisoning to cardiac arrest, though the game ignores most of these for the sake of simplicity.
There are actually two mechanics that provide resistance to magic effects. The first is spell resistance, and the second is the saving throw mechanic. In cases where both apply, the effect is similar to the concealment mechanic. As Sernett points out on page 34 of the RC, concealment basically gives you two chances to fail, which isn't as much fun. SR has a similar impact on spell casting. You have to overcome both SR and a creature's save in the majority of cases.
On page 130 of the RC, James Wyatt talks about the 3.x evolution of spell resistance, and how the new SR provides for both consistency and scale. While he is correct that the new system is better than the older ones, he doesn't address why spell resistance exists at all as a separate mechanic. Why not give EVERY spell a save, and make spell resistance a bonus to saves vs. any kind of magic? That would also be consistent and scalable, and it would be more consistent with the concept of energy resistance.
The impact on the system of magic would be that spellcasting would be simpler resolution, and it makes spell penetration more valuable. It would also make it easier to apply house rules. For example, if you wanted to make touch spells more attractive, you could give them an inherent +4 to DC, and ranged touch spells an inherent +2 to DC. Casters then have more of an incentive to put themselves in harms way, and the delivery mechanism factors less into determining the appropriate level of a new spell.
One last thought... On p. 141 of the RC, David Noonan talks about how suffocation is much nastier than PCs expect. It isn't nerfed like falling damage (which Jennifer Clarke Wilkes discusses on p. 52). You could make energy damage much nastier (and energy resistance that much more attractive) by adding ability damage at some defined threshold. Acid and fire would do Cha damage, sonic would affect Int, cold would affect Dex, and electricty would affect Con. The threshold can be whatever makes sense to you, and you could even add a save if you didn't mind the extra dice. Personally, I find systems like Wilkes' husband's system for falling damage overly complex, but of course your mileage may vary.
Thoughts?
