Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8130905" data-attributes="member: 6801228">You do realize that just because you call an argument nonsensical doesn't mean it actually is, right? And clearly it isn't incoherent, because people have been responding. Now, I'm not dismissing the noble statblock, but it has no bearing on the point I've been trying to make, which I will repeat. I put forth that the baseline idea that magic is incredibly rare and hard to come by is not really supported by the rest of the game anymore, and that with the other assumptions of the current edition of the game, it would make more sense to see more people like nobles being magic users. I was then told that was ridiculous, because magic is far too hard to learn and nobles would be old men and unable to rule if they tried that. And so I debated that point. And since my point was that shifting the presentation makes sense, showing me that the current presentation does not include spellcasting nobles is just telling me what I already know. In fact, you are just restating part of my premise, and presenting it like it shuts down my argument. And your other point is to just keep telling me that "but player options don't apply to NPCs" which again...  what does that leave us with? There are NPC spellcasters, a lot of them, named after the PC versions, and using streamlined abilities. These wizards have to come from somewhere. By the definition of the class, and yes I know they don't officially have the class, but no one else is a Diviner with Portent except a wizard, so I feel safe in saying that the Diviner with the Portent ability is supposed to represent a similar skill set to a wizard. So, I have an NPC that is supposed to be a streamlined and simplified reflection of a PC, how am I supposed to think about them? Is the Diviner NPC one of the only wizards in the entire kingdom? Well, if I'm playing in an official setting... no. There are massive organizations of NPCs with wizards of all ages, skills, and races. And, they carry similar stories to the PC wizards, similar weight. I can just make up whatever the heck I want, I know that, I'm a writer and a DM, I know that the setting is my tool to use how I see fit, but if I'm going to be told that my interpretation of the baseline of the game is completely wrong, and then my opponents in this discussion detract me by saying "but there are no rules and it is whatever you want"... then you guys have no position to tell me my interpretation is wrong either. Since you think it is, you must think there is something beyond DM Fiat to base our world-building on. But it all seems to be from things that either aren't DnD or are decades behind the times. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Then, if we are talking baseline DnD, they are as common as I've been saying. Maybe more common.Sorry, my pronoun use was poor. Magewrights are spellcasters. The smith who recieves a divine one-time use of magic is not a spellcaster. They aren't using the rules for spellcasters because they are getting a one-time blessing, not spellcasting.It is related to the side tangent on "magic should be mysterious, not like technology which is predictable" DnD magic is predictable. Cast a spell, and the effects of that spell happen. Every time, within the limits we have been told. I used the magewright example because it is also an explicitly NPC spell. Not meant for player use. Circumventing the inevitable rebuttal of "but PCs use different rules than NPCs"And both settings are more magical than I was told was the "baseline" of DnD. I was told it was nearly impossible to teach cantrips in less than a decade. I was told that unless you are born with the ability to understand magic, you can never learn it. These are, according to the people I have been debating, the "baseline assumptions of DnD" the core that everyone has agreed to. Except, for 5th edition? It isn't. And I show supporting evidence, I reference the most general books I can, and I get told that it is basically fiat, that is basically any decision I want, except that the point I put forth was wrong because it went against the baseline. Except, every setting so far has been against that baseline. No one has been able to name an official DnD 5e setting that actually follows this baseline. And if nobody is as the baseline, it isn't a baseline. Can people be taught magic in a reasonable amount of time while still interacting with the world in meaningful ways? Eberron says yes, Forgotten Realms says yes, Greyhawk says yes, Ravnica says yes, Wildemount says yes. But the baseline is no? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So... every official setting is moving against the Baseline of DnD. There is no setting that matches the baseline. At that point, the assumption you have, is not the baseline. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Right, I don't disagree with any of this. Except, that 1st level spells are also not the realm of people at the top of the distribution. The people at the top of the distribution are casting 9th level spells. If I assume a log ten scale (which is ridiculous, but I can do that math faster) the should I assume that cantrips are 10 times harder than equations to calculate the distribution of matter in interstellar start formation regions? If that is the case, then 9th level spells would be 10 billion times harder. We, as humans, seem to be on the verge of understanding the fundamental underpinnings of the universe. We are no longer figuring out calculus, but a unified theory of everything. I think it is far more reasonable to assume our current highest brains are doing with technology what might be comparable to the 3rd level spells, meaning the top of the chart is only a million times harder. And that means that learning cantrips would be... as easy as trigonometry? Maybe basic calculus? Difficult to be sure, but not out of reach for the people who dedicate themselves to figuring it out.</blockquote>

Verification