This is counter-intuitive: if Magic was freeform as well, it would be unlimited in power and scope.
NO it isnt free-form is limited to things of extremity and awesome less than magic.Free-form = power in D&D.
I am saying it deprives martial types of anything but that freeform... but mages they get the same skill free form but also well defined other options.As I have only been saying that 5e appears to allow more freeform style of play, you seem to now be ANGRILY agreeing with me ... so, good?
It is limited to make it limited: if magic was free-form it would be more powerful. If Martial stuff was limited, it would be more limited. As it is free-form, it is more powerful than it would otherwise be.NO it isnt free-form is limited to things of extremity and awesome less than magic.
"Magic is more powerful" - The number of times I have heard DMs cite that is extraordinary since magic is the defintition of extreme.
Why else would it be limited by resource management
Martials have extremely well defined options for killing things quite dead with no resource management, in addition to free-form skill usage.I am saying it deprives martial types of anything but that freeform... but mages they get the same skill free form but also well defined other options.
This, I think, bears some truth. (As well as a Dunning-Kruger effect going the other way.) To which I would say two things:Ever had a DM ask for a series of swimming rolls guaranteeing a drowning process because you know he didnt know how to swim? I have nor is eyeballing the effect of multiple die rolls natural for most people.
This is what I think of when I think of DM improvising free from.
And in D&D land I think of "Just say NO" mentality being disguised because only magic can really do the extraordinary.
I personally love the Dungeon Crawl Classics implementation of spells (and Martial Stunting, for that matter). Skill checks that can cause serious, serious problems for the Caster and his friends.This, I think, bears some truth. (As well as a Dunning-Kruger effect going the other way.) To which I would say two things:
a) It ends up not mattering as much as we think, because playgroups tend to share mentalities/worldviews. (That is, if everyone at the table thinks it should take 5 rolls instead of 1 or 2...its irrelevant to their enjoyment.)* Additionally, it lets different tables play to different motifs ("superheroic" vs "grim", etc.)
a1) I would also recommend D&D drop the "auto-success" aspect of magic/spellcasting. This, I think, is the real mechanical source of the disparity.
b) I would advocate for D&D to adopt some of the newer "clock" tech from games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark (for non-combat activities, anyway.) At least, as I see it, the problem with the current D&D paradigm is more along the lines of a lack of negotiated clarity about what is at risk and what is to be gained from each roll. Since that negotiation is not a part of the default behavior of calling for skill checks.
b1) Yes, 4e Skill Challenges were a not-so-great implementation of such clocks.
*I am part of a group that used to regularly auger through wooden doors "quietly" to spy on the next dungeon room. Apparently nobody else in the group had ever hand-augered a standing door before I got there....."quiet" is not an applicable phrase...."large drumhead" is more apt.
The game isnt giving the player any negotiation tools (resources) in 5e land that I can see.So is it possible that maybe you just have a different view on this? That what you view as crippling (DM and player interaction and negotiation)
Player: "I would like to X"The game isnt giving the player any negotiation tools (resources) in 5e land that I can see.
I just noted about being able to allow a player to improvise a ritual in 4e - and that really that is enabled because of skill challenge mechanics and having cost mechanisms and a process for success.