What Magic Would Be Most Realistically Most Impactful?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure, many nations adopted carriers, but that's not the same as grasping their impact or significance. There were still many skeptics in the naval command staffs of Japan, Britain, and the US who underestimated aircraft carriers and felt that naval encounters were won by battleships, including Winston Churchill and a number of the IJN officers, many of whom still followed the older doctrines that viewed battleships as the most critical pieces as part of "decisive battles."

Admiral Yamamoto, however, was a big believer in aircraft carriers, which is why six were deployed for Pearl Harbor and he was disappointed that US aircraft carriers were not in harbor. Pearl Harbor definitely was a game-changer, but that's also the primary reason why the US naval task forces were primarily carrier-centric: those were really the only major pieces undamaged after Pearl Harbor.

Consider this, the first time that aircraft sunk a battleship in a sea battle was not until 1942: Naval Battle of Malaya. The first time that aircraft carrier battle was also not until 1942: The Battle of the Coral Sea. So while aircraft carriers were around since the 1910s, it would not be until about thirty-years later before their impact could actually be observed in the context of actual naval warfare.

Fair points all.

OTOH, the sheer expense of aircraft carriers means they wouldn’t have even been built in the numbers they were by the 1930s with at least a plurality of those in command of the military- or at least, of the major policy and tactics influencers- seeing their potential, and convincing their governments to foot those bills.

 

[Celebrim]

OTOH, the sheer expense of aircraft carriers means they wouldn’t have even been built in the numbers they were by the 1930s with at least a plurality of those in command of the military- or at least, of the major policy and tactics influencers- seeing their potential, and convincing their governments to foot those bills.

We seem to have a side discussion going on the history of naval air power. I'm not sure either side of the discussion is wrong, just brief.

Another point that effected the ubiquity of air power in the inter-war period is that the majority of Naval powers were tightly confined by treaty obligations to only produce weapon systems with certain capabilities and in certain numbers. So in the case of air power, whether or not anyone really believed in it, the major powers would have still invested in air power because treaties limited the numbers and capabilities of pretty much all classes of major combat ships and since there were slots and tonnages in the treaties allocated for aircraft carriers, maximizing your total naval effectiveness meant maximizing your aircraft carriers whether or not you believed that they had a role beyond harassment and scouting. Plenty of US navy leaders even if they still felt that aircraft carriers would never be the major striking arm of the navy, would have allocated for strong carriers simply because the treaty rules - which were heavily based on the fear of a battleship arms race - very much limited battleship technology while leaving carriers much more open to spend money on. Had naval leaders had the option to spend that money on bigger and more capable and more numerous battleships, it's not clear that the carriers would have gotten as much attention (however ironic and absurd this would latter prove to be).

The degree to which this was a very serious controversy can be found in the ups and downs of the career and reputation of Billy Mitchell.

 

[aramis erak]

[MENTION=6779310]aramis erak[/MENTION], I was going in response to the person who was commenting who mapped D&D listed wages vs. D&D listed prices. Anything else is welcome for verisimilitude but not relevant to that specific response.

And I was providing background data that shows your incredulity was slightly off base.

It's also worth noting that the prices in shillings are reasonably close to the D&D OE and AD&D price lists.

The comparison - a single common outfit being 10% or more of annual income - makes the use of magical garments in the 1000% annual income isn't that untoward. Especially since the base labor vs court garments in the 20£ to 30£ range (some 400 to 600 shillings)... a shirt that provided permanent comfort for a few years base-level income is not something that will go unsold - especially to merchants or senior guildsmen. Be almost de rigueur for nobles.

 

[TheSword]

A simple disguise self spell would bring down our entire criminal judicial system. CCTV would be useless, eye witness testimony, even security passes, photo ID. All would become useless just because of the risk of someone using this spell.

 

[Blue]

And I was providing background data that shows your incredulity was slightly off base.

Respectfully, you were not.

You providied non-D&D information that in some ways looked compatible, but was at odds with the labor costs/pricing in the book that we were discussing.

Since the entire point was the ratio of the D&D income to the D&D magic item price, that information was not directly useful and could be misleading.

Sure, some DMs may tweak their economy to match historic, but I was responding to a question about the D&D numbers as provided by the original poster. If you want to debate the book is wrong on labor rates and costs, that's a valid discussion but a separate one.

 

[TarionzCousin]

A simple disguise self spell would bring down our entire criminal judicial system. CCTV would be useless, eye witness testimony, even security passes, photo ID. All would become useless just because of the risk of someone using this spell.

That's where Zone of Truth is useful.

 

[Hussar]

Frankly, depending on edition, Detect Evil is likely the most societally changing spell.

In any edition, you only radiate evil if you have actually committed evil acts - just thinking bad thoughts isn't enough to make a character actually evil. So, anyone that pings as evil has actually committed some sort of very bad act.

Which leads pretty quickly to the horror scenario of lining anyone who pings as evil up against the wall for a quick bout of metal poisoning. Medieval punishments weren't exactly subtle after all. And long term incarceration is a fairly modern concept for anyone that wasn't a noble.

Or, for the more "humane" societies, Detect Evil combined with a Helmet of Opposite Alignment. Yikes, how's that for reforming criminals?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That’s one way to get “clear”.

 

[Darth Solo]

Another silly thread.

Magic could transform the entire world.

The limit of magic is only imagination.

Next thread ---

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Thinking more on the legalese that would come to accommodate spells (Command: “[word that means ‘to tell the entire truth about the situation we are here to discuss without abridgment or any other form of obfuscation]”)

I wonder what other linguistic changes we would see?

Gnomes would be incredible spies, as well. Forest gnomes especially, but Rock Gnomes wouldn’t have the limitations of 5e tinkering being basically not a thing. But mostly, it’s harder to use magic to make them talk, dupe them, charm/dominate them, etc. In fact, in modern style warfare, Gnomes quickly become one of the most frightening races in the game.

I really think that the spells that create fire, water, and cold/ice, and the elemental cantrips+prestidigitation would be what changes the world most. Cleanliness reduces disease, irrigation improves farming, and most of those can be used as ways to generate power.