Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The double standard for magical and mundane abilities
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6357737" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>I think we're getting some topic drift, here, so I've quoted both the post that started this fireball digression, and your latest reply.</p><p></p><p>The original issue was whether there was any potential problem with having casters have a chance of failure when they used a spell, instead of the spell working automatically. We considered the issue of it adding a roll to the resolution process affecting playability - but, between the possibility of using the casting check as the result of any other check called for (like an attack roll), and the fact that spells can already call for many checks (such as saves) anyway, I think we can agree that isn't a major impediment.</p><p></p><p>Then, you brought up Fireballs and the possibility of it failing to have any effect "once successfully cast" as a possible objection to the idea of such a check.</p><p></p><p>AFAICT, nothing suggested as a way of implementing such a spell-failure check would result in someone standing, unharmed, in the midst of a successfully cast fireball. </p><p></p><p>Now we've lost track of that issue, and circled back around to somehow justifying the OP-double-standard with the narrative of magic, yet again, even though, as magic isn't real, and can be narrated in any way desired, there is no narrative foundation for magic being modeled a certain way. Thus, that narrative can be subordinated to game balance and playability. </p><p></p><p>If, for some reason, we wanted a fireball that had a chance of doing no damage at all, even when successfully cast, it would be trivially easy to narrate it in a consistent way. Magic, just for one instance, could be a matter of imposing will upon reality, and, while the mage could conjure a fireball without much resistance from reality, getting it to actually burn anyone could require overcoming /their/ will, with a strong-willed/courageous enough individual being able to walk through magical flames with no effect. Or, it could be unable to affect the 'pure of heart' or 'righteous' or something else. Or, the flames of a fireball could simply be inconsistent in how concentrated they are in different parts of the affected area, allowing the skillfull to avoid them entirely. Conversely, the area could be filled with magically-inescapable flames that burn anything (even stone, metal, water, disembodied spirits or other flames) and just do a set amount of damage, regardless, and that, too, could be justified by the narrative. </p><p></p><p>So if narrative justifies a double-standard, that double-standard should be that the narrative of magic is entirely subordinate to balance & playability.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6357737, member: 996"] I think we're getting some topic drift, here, so I've quoted both the post that started this fireball digression, and your latest reply. The original issue was whether there was any potential problem with having casters have a chance of failure when they used a spell, instead of the spell working automatically. We considered the issue of it adding a roll to the resolution process affecting playability - but, between the possibility of using the casting check as the result of any other check called for (like an attack roll), and the fact that spells can already call for many checks (such as saves) anyway, I think we can agree that isn't a major impediment. Then, you brought up Fireballs and the possibility of it failing to have any effect "once successfully cast" as a possible objection to the idea of such a check. AFAICT, nothing suggested as a way of implementing such a spell-failure check would result in someone standing, unharmed, in the midst of a successfully cast fireball. Now we've lost track of that issue, and circled back around to somehow justifying the OP-double-standard with the narrative of magic, yet again, even though, as magic isn't real, and can be narrated in any way desired, there is no narrative foundation for magic being modeled a certain way. Thus, that narrative can be subordinated to game balance and playability. If, for some reason, we wanted a fireball that had a chance of doing no damage at all, even when successfully cast, it would be trivially easy to narrate it in a consistent way. Magic, just for one instance, could be a matter of imposing will upon reality, and, while the mage could conjure a fireball without much resistance from reality, getting it to actually burn anyone could require overcoming /their/ will, with a strong-willed/courageous enough individual being able to walk through magical flames with no effect. Or, it could be unable to affect the 'pure of heart' or 'righteous' or something else. Or, the flames of a fireball could simply be inconsistent in how concentrated they are in different parts of the affected area, allowing the skillfull to avoid them entirely. Conversely, the area could be filled with magically-inescapable flames that burn anything (even stone, metal, water, disembodied spirits or other flames) and just do a set amount of damage, regardless, and that, too, could be justified by the narrative. So if narrative justifies a double-standard, that double-standard should be that the narrative of magic is entirely subordinate to balance & playability. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The double standard for magical and mundane abilities
Top