Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 5941272" data-attributes="member: 6690511">Interesting questions, good thread, interesting idea (try putting your table in code tags so it lines up).This is, in my opinion, the toughest question for D&DN to answer. I know this isn't your point, but to me it inexorably leads to the question of what PCs can do vs. what NPCs can do. On the one hand, you could go the 3e route and say "magic can do these specific things, and everyone plays by the same rules." On the other hand, you could go the 4e route and say "magic can do anything, but the PC wizard class can only do these specific things (and no one in the multiverse except you is a member of the PC wizard class)." The latter is convenient in a rounded-corners, Chris Perkins kind of way: It's easy to make up crap on the spot, but it destroys the possibility of a coherent world where magic makes sense (which I guess was the point). I would lean towards the former, as it allows players to make informed decisions based on expectations about how the world works, but rigidly defining magic has all sorts of problems.Maybe the best solution is to have broad statements about what the different kinds of magic can do, then have the playable classes exist within that. Then the DM can play around within that definition, while the players still know what to expect.</blockquote>