Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8855007" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Ok, as for whether or not I believe resilient sphere should exist- I don't know.&nbsp; One of the big problems with magic in D&amp;D is that, long ago, someone decided that X spell of Y level can achieve Z effect.&nbsp; Sometimes editions have changed the precise level of a spell up or down but for the most part, these benchmarks are still being used in design, what, 45 years later?Fly, for example, is a 3rd level spell effect.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because it is.&nbsp; And the game is supposedly balanced around people not getting flight until 5th (except when it isn't, of course).&nbsp; See the proposed Dragonborn flight ability.&nbsp; When do they get it?&nbsp; At 5 HD.The game is built upon assumptions about what magic can theoretically achieve, and at what level players should get various effects.&nbsp; But non-magical characters aren't designed the same way.&nbsp; When a Wizard can fly at 5th level, do Fighters and Rogues get flight?&nbsp; Or an ability to counter flight, other than &quot;shoot an arrow at it&quot;?Well Fighters get an extra attack.&nbsp; That's something, I suppose.How often has a D&amp;D game designer sat down and said &quot;you know, maybe magic shouldn't have certain effects?&quot;.&nbsp; Rarely, because if you suddenly made it to where people couldn't summon monsters, or polymorph, or trap people in inescapable magic cages, some very vocal voices will start grumbling, saying you're taking away things important to D&amp;D, to the point that it doesn't feel like D&amp;D anymore.The example here is magic missile.&nbsp; We all know that the spell always hits.&nbsp; When 4e came out, &quot;automatically hitting&quot; wasn't really something that worked compared to other abilities.&nbsp; So it was given an attack roll, and did force damage, and that was fine.Oh wait, no it wasn't.&nbsp; People kept griping that it was &quot;nerfed&quot; and &quot;changed&quot;, and used it as a rallying cry for why 4e &quot;wasn't D&amp;D&quot;.So at a certain point, they revised the power.&nbsp; Now it was an &quot;effect&quot; that did a small amount of force damage.&nbsp; No big deal, right?Except now it no longer interacted with anything that hinged upon it hitting.&nbsp; Or even being properly considered an attack.&nbsp; Ironically, during the season of D&amp;D Encounters where this change was made, the adventure handed out a magic item that gave bonus damage to magic missile.&nbsp; Except, well, lol, it didn't work (I can't remember why, but I think it was worded to cause extra damage when the missile hit it's target)!So what I'm saying is, some of the issues with D&amp;D magic are the result of sacred cows in it's design, assumptions buried in the bones of the game, that no one really understands, because many were arbitrary decisions, but nobody really seems to want to take the magic system apart and rework it.Heck, as an &quot;apology edition&quot;, 5e went out of it's way to bring back as many old staple spells as it could from earlier editions.&nbsp; That's why the PHB has stuff like fabricate, simulacrum, and gate laying around- spells that are known to be problematic, and WotC barely did a thing to reign them in, figuring &quot;well, if someone is running a game at that level, they can figure it out&quot;.Because advice for high level play, let alone high level adventures, don't make money. So I'm not saying that resilient sphere is too powerful.&nbsp; Again, it's effect is orthogonal to how the game is normally played.&nbsp; But maybe we should be going back to the drawing board, and deciding what magic can, or cannot do.Because as the game stand, I think anyone would be hard pressed to say what, exactly, the limits of magical effects are.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8855007, member: 6877472"] Ok, as for whether or not I believe [I]resilient sphere [/I]should exist- I don't know. One of the big problems with magic in D&D is that, long ago, someone decided that X spell of Y level can achieve Z effect. Sometimes editions have changed the precise level of a spell up or down but for the most part, these benchmarks are still being used in design, what, 45 years later? [I]Fly[/I], for example, is a 3rd level spell effect. Why? Because it is. And the game is supposedly balanced around people not getting flight until 5th (except when it isn't, of course). See the proposed Dragonborn flight ability. When do they get it? At 5 HD. The game is built upon assumptions about what magic can theoretically achieve, and at what level players should get various effects. But non-magical characters aren't designed the same way. When a Wizard can fly at 5th level, do Fighters and Rogues get flight? Or an ability to counter flight, other than "shoot an arrow at it"? Well Fighters get an extra attack. That's something, I suppose. How often has a D&D game designer sat down and said "you know, maybe magic [I]shouldn't[/I] have certain effects?". Rarely, because if you suddenly made it to where people couldn't summon monsters, or polymorph, or trap people in inescapable magic cages, some very vocal voices will start grumbling, saying you're taking away things important to D&D, to the point that it doesn't feel like D&D anymore. The example here is [I]magic missile[/I]. We all know that the spell always hits. When 4e came out, "automatically hitting" wasn't really something that worked compared to other abilities. So it was given an attack roll, and did force damage, and that was fine. Oh wait, no it wasn't. People kept griping that it was "nerfed" and "changed", and used it as a rallying cry for why 4e "wasn't D&D". So at a certain point, they revised the power. Now it was an "effect" that did a small amount of force damage. No big deal, right? Except now it no longer interacted with anything that hinged upon it hitting. Or even being properly considered an attack. Ironically, during the season of D&D Encounters where this change was made, the adventure handed out a magic item that gave bonus damage to [I]magic missile[/I]. Except, well, lol, it didn't work (I can't remember why, but I think it was worded to cause extra damage when the missile hit it's target)! So what I'm saying is, some of the issues with D&D magic are the result of sacred cows in it's design, assumptions buried in the bones of the game, that no one really understands, because many were arbitrary decisions, but nobody really seems to want to take the magic system apart and rework it. Heck, as an "apology edition", 5e went out of it's way to bring back as many old staple spells as it could from earlier editions. That's why the PHB has stuff like [I]fabricate[/I], [I]simulacrum[/I], and [I]gate [/I]laying around- spells that are known to be problematic, and WotC barely did a thing to reign them in, figuring "well, if someone is running a game at that level, they can figure it out". Because advice for high level play, let alone high level adventures, [B]don't make money[/B]. So I'm not saying that [I]resilient sphere[/I] is too powerful. Again, it's effect is orthogonal to how the game is normally played. But maybe we should be going back to the drawing board, and deciding what magic can, or cannot do. Because as the game stand, I think anyone would be hard pressed to say what, exactly, the limits of magical effects [I]are[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification