Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 6139921" data-attributes="member: 23240">I really like the idea of equating skills' and spells' usefulness. This would make high-level D&D playable for me.It also made me realize that the biggest problem is not that magic can do things that are impossible without it. It is that players got used to magic that re-frames situations and circumvents obstacles, while non-magical means doing the same are hard for them to accept.There's a lot of things that can be achieved without magic, but there will be many obstacles on the way. A typical GM will require many rolls, severely decreasing the overall chance of success or introducing additional complications. Casting a spell achieves the same effect automatically.If the system just judged the difficulty of the final effect, no matter how it is achieved, the power difference between spells and skills would be much smaller. There will still be limitations of non-magical methods, but magic also has its limitations, just different ones.Example 1:A teleportation spell can take you to the other side of a sea or a mountain pass instantly, with one roll and a small chance of complications.A mid-level ranger should be able to guide the party there with a single roll. This roll, if successful, assures that any dangers encountered on the way were overcame or circumvented and that no significant resources were consumed. It's definitely not instant, and takes time dependent on the distance - but, on the other hand, there's no need to know the destination in detail.Example 2:You can magically dominate somebody in combat. There is no direct non-magical equivalent.But you should be able (without spending two whole sessions and a lot of resources) to gather enough information, contact one of BBEG's lieutenants and successfully bribe/persuade/blackmail them into betraying their employer.</blockquote>

Verification