Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: Baseline Assumptions of Fantasy RPGs
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="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8128768" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Fine, if we are going to go this route</p><p></p><p>It is blatantly absurd to propose anyone can learn to wield a weapon proficiently</p><p></p><p>It is blatantly absurd (and actually by RAW false) to say that Wizards can't wear armor. </p><p></p><p>It is blatantly absurd to say that Wizards are have low health</p><p></p><p>It is blatantly absurd to say that Arcane magic and martial training are mutually exclusive. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Now that we've said everything is absurd, lets go back to thinking this through. Sorcerers you are right, would by default need to have a person born of the blood to use magic. That is definitionally what a sorcerer is. Arcane magic is not only wielded by sorcerers, and both Wizards and Bards are classes about being <strong>taught</strong> to use magic. Not born with it. </p><p></p><p>Therefore, saying that someone must be born with the ability to use magic means they are a sorcerer. A wizard is someone who was born without the ability to use magic, and had to learn how to use magic. That is the point of the class. </p><p></p><p>Can every single person learn every single subject with equal ease? No. But despite the fact that I suck with foreign languages, I could learn it. It would take longer and I would be bad at speaking the language, but I could learn. Saying that people can't learn magic unless they were born with the capability of learning magic goes against the theme of the class and the fantasy involved. You might as well say that every Wizard needs to make a deal with a devil to earn their magic. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but you had to pay those servants, and you wouldn't let your local servant repair a 1,000 gp dress made by an esteemed dressmaker out of rare spider-silks. </p><p></p><p>And no amount of servant washing is going to remove stains like a six-second cantrip would. Think of all those scenes in all those movies where a weddind or party was ruined by the woman getting wine spilled on her dress. Instead of outrage and needing to find a new dress, it takes a 6-second wave of her hand to fix. That is useful. That is something people would want to be able to do. </p><p></p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but a magic steel sword can be a millennia old. </p><p></p><p>Bob the Court wizard isn't a millennia old. And if every city has at least a dozen wizards, then that means learning magic can't be that difficult.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So... basically I have to be beholden to the assumptions made 50 years ago when explaining DnD worlds to people now? </p><p></p><p>If I wanted to talk about the assumptions of Country music, should I talk about the sound of blowing air through a moonshine jug, or should I talk about the songs that topped the records for the last five years? </p><p></p><p>Why am I limited by the assumptions made when the game first came out, instead of talking about the version of the game that exists now in the culture it exists in now. Should I limit any discussion on the assumptions of Science Fiction by stating that we can't stray too far from H.G. Wells? </p><p></p><p>The problem I see is, the baseline assumptions have shifted, but people are refusing to acknowledge that shift in their creation of worlds, settings, and even when discussing the rules. Which leads to dissonance.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah yes, assassins and spies have never pretended to be loyal servants, or paid those servants who are making coppers and "forced to be loyal" large amounts of gold to betray me.</p><p></p><p>I can even expect them t throw themselves in front of arrows like ablative shielding when I'm at a social event without my steel armor and heavy shield. </p><p></p><p>In fact, I can rely on them to go into a room, spy on people, and report back exactly what was said and the facial expressions of the people who said it in real-time. </p><p></p><p>Of course just hiring commoners does every single thing magic can do. Except... not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See my response to Crimson. </p><p></p><p>Nice to know we've settled down to half a decade (5 years) for learning cantrips. Also, do you need a cantrip if your retired Grandfather or Grandmother can teach you? </p><p></p><p>Or heck, since magic is for commoners, why don't you just force a servant who has no choice but to be loyal to you to teach you for coppers. I mean, you are a noble with all that money and proficiencies and a d8 HD, clearly you can just force a mage to obey you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8128768, member: 6801228"] Fine, if we are going to go this route It is blatantly absurd to propose anyone can learn to wield a weapon proficiently It is blatantly absurd (and actually by RAW false) to say that Wizards can't wear armor. It is blatantly absurd to say that Wizards are have low health It is blatantly absurd to say that Arcane magic and martial training are mutually exclusive. Now that we've said everything is absurd, lets go back to thinking this through. Sorcerers you are right, would by default need to have a person born of the blood to use magic. That is definitionally what a sorcerer is. Arcane magic is not only wielded by sorcerers, and both Wizards and Bards are classes about being [B]taught[/B] to use magic. Not born with it. Therefore, saying that someone must be born with the ability to use magic means they are a sorcerer. A wizard is someone who was born without the ability to use magic, and had to learn how to use magic. That is the point of the class. Can every single person learn every single subject with equal ease? No. But despite the fact that I suck with foreign languages, I could learn it. It would take longer and I would be bad at speaking the language, but I could learn. Saying that people can't learn magic unless they were born with the capability of learning magic goes against the theme of the class and the fantasy involved. You might as well say that every Wizard needs to make a deal with a devil to earn their magic. [B] [/B] Sure, but you had to pay those servants, and you wouldn't let your local servant repair a 1,000 gp dress made by an esteemed dressmaker out of rare spider-silks. And no amount of servant washing is going to remove stains like a six-second cantrip would. Think of all those scenes in all those movies where a weddind or party was ruined by the woman getting wine spilled on her dress. Instead of outrage and needing to find a new dress, it takes a 6-second wave of her hand to fix. That is useful. That is something people would want to be able to do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sure, but a magic steel sword can be a millennia old. Bob the Court wizard isn't a millennia old. And if every city has at least a dozen wizards, then that means learning magic can't be that difficult. So... basically I have to be beholden to the assumptions made 50 years ago when explaining DnD worlds to people now? If I wanted to talk about the assumptions of Country music, should I talk about the sound of blowing air through a moonshine jug, or should I talk about the songs that topped the records for the last five years? Why am I limited by the assumptions made when the game first came out, instead of talking about the version of the game that exists now in the culture it exists in now. Should I limit any discussion on the assumptions of Science Fiction by stating that we can't stray too far from H.G. Wells? The problem I see is, the baseline assumptions have shifted, but people are refusing to acknowledge that shift in their creation of worlds, settings, and even when discussing the rules. Which leads to dissonance. Ah yes, assassins and spies have never pretended to be loyal servants, or paid those servants who are making coppers and "forced to be loyal" large amounts of gold to betray me. I can even expect them t throw themselves in front of arrows like ablative shielding when I'm at a social event without my steel armor and heavy shield. In fact, I can rely on them to go into a room, spy on people, and report back exactly what was said and the facial expressions of the people who said it in real-time. Of course just hiring commoners does every single thing magic can do. Except... not. See my response to Crimson. Nice to know we've settled down to half a decade (5 years) for learning cantrips. Also, do you need a cantrip if your retired Grandfather or Grandmother can teach you? Or heck, since magic is for commoners, why don't you just force a servant who has no choice but to be loyal to you to teach you for coppers. I mean, you are a noble with all that money and proficiencies and a d8 HD, clearly you can just force a mage to obey you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: Baseline Assumptions of Fantasy RPGs
Top