MC caster fix, Frank style

[MrWaeseL]

That's some good shit, Frank.

[User3]

1086417913[/unixtime]]
Do you see the problem here? Invisibility provides a +20 bonus to Hide. Theoretically the numeric bonuses on the skill and the spell are the same. But from an actual roleplaying perspective, you need to justify any non-magical action and you don't need to justify a magical one. Even if the non-magical pile of bonuses were larger, they'd still be smaller in actual play because the burden of proof and the ad-hoc penalties are always going to be pointing the other way if you aren't using "magic".

The problem is really that we allow magic stuff to be so low in level compared to what the skill can do. Magic is often lower level than the expected counters to it, and that makes magic awesome. Hide is much better at higher levels where everyone has see invisibility up. Its just that at low levels nobody can counter it, so it's awesome and equivalent to an infinite hide skill with always on concealment.

Spells which replace skills are generally way too low in level. Knock for instance is really damn powerful. It totally replaces the open lock skill, and it's only 2nd level. Spells like that just shouldn't exist, or should have some serious drawback, like making a lot of noise or something can be shielded versus knock but not open lock.

There are plenty of creatures of CR 5 and lower that can't beat fly. Plenty of creautures of CR 3 and lower that can't beat invisibility. These spells need to be higher in level, it's that simple.

[Username17]

These spells need to be higher in level, it's that simple.

No it's not that simple. Rogues don't get a +22 out of their Hide Skill at 3rd level, or 7th level even. It's a pretty big deal to have such a Hide bonus at 10th level, and we aren't talking about the expenditure of part of the class features from a single level to geth there either.

The Invisibility example was predicated on people having much larger bonuses than they actually do - or perhaps taking place at a much larger level than is actually needed to perform those actions with magic.

The problem isn't that the spells are able to pull off crap at too low of a level, the problem isn't that the mechanical bonuses on non-magical effects aren't big enough. The problem is that the paradigm is where non-magical actions have to be justified and magical actions don't is unbalanced by definition.

The problem is that when you pull some magic out of your ass it comes out of your ass - and the only way to stop it is with more ass pulling. The problem is that when someone puts up a force cage with magic and your Rogue wants to tear it down with Disable Device, DMs will look you right in the eye and say that is somehow "unrealistic" for you to be able to do that. That's the problem. All the mechanical stuff is simply window dressing. It's throwing broken glass at you after you've already been thrown out a window.

When player A uses magic to do action B, the only way player C can undo that action without scrutiny is to use magic D. Any time he uses any "mundane" ability he gets the fish eye - as if any of us have the slightest god damn clue what principles a force cage effect uses to stay up in the first place!

That's the problem. The problem is that non-magical people are held to different role playing standards than magical people. It doesn't matter what mechanics we write, because non-magical characters still get it in the ass.

-Username17

[User3]

Magic is always going to be able to break the rules. That's why it's called magic. It's not supposed to be held to the same rules as physical actions. I mean, you can conjure stuff out of thin air, or walk through walls, there's little way you're going to be able to do that without magic.

Trying to make physical actions and magical ones on par with each other from a "realism" standpoint just won't work. Not only because it takes the magic out of magic, but because it's not the kind of game most people want to play. I certainly don't want my rogues able to move through a well lit area with no cover and somehow move past an alert guard. It makes no sense, and there will always be stuff that magical characters can do that nonmagicals can't.

People are always going to want explanations for stuff, and to know why certain stuff works and how it works. The more you allow nonmagical stuff to do all these unrealistic things like disarm forcecages, the more the explanation aspect breaks down, and we have no idea what any of the characters are really doing. Distancing ourselves from description is never a good idea if it can be avoided.

The problem is that magic can't be the only counter to magic. Spells have to be balanced in such a way that there are other ways to beat them, and those ways actually make sense.

The first and easiest thing is the saving throw, everything except some damage spells should have them. The fact that forcecage doesn't have a save is what makes it such a bitch. That's the only reason. If it was "reflex negates" then nobody would worry about it.

And magic needs counters that aren't magic. Whether forcecage, web, invisibility or scry/teleport, there should be a way to beat everything, and that way has to be nonmagical and feasable. The spell shouldn't be handed out until its assured that most enemies of that level can counter it.

Magic can break the rules but it can't be perfect. It has to have some drawbacks associated wtih it, especially spells like invisibility, spider climb and knock that outright replace skills.

[Sma]

On a related note, spell preparation is the suck. Seriously.

Being able to cast Animal Messenger, only you can´t still stumps me everytime as an completely arbitrary way of handling spell balance.
Either an effect is fair to use at a level or it isn´t. If it is you may as well use it.
But then I don´t think Shadowrun is complicated at all.

Sma

[User3]

1086649590[/unixtime]]Magic is always going to be able to break the rules. That's why it's called magic. It's not supposed to be held to the same rules as physical actions. I mean, you can conjure stuff out of thin air, or walk through walls, there's little way you're going to be able to do that without magic.

In a high-fantasy game, I have no idea why this should be the case. I really don't. Is there any reason why somebody couldn't have sufficient cunning and foresight (at high enough levels, of course) to have packed a particular item because he felt it might come in handy? In a world with fireball-throwing mages, is it so hard to imagine a hero who can punch the ground so hard it causes an earthquake? Or who knows such powerful secrets of healing and herbal medicine that he can mend mortal wounds? Or find a long-vanished secret door forgotten by everyone?

The issue is not that it's a problem to allow "nonmagical" effects to do "magical" things. The line between magical and nonmagical is completely arbitrary. The problem comes when we get so invested in the idea that something is a magical effect that we shut our imaginations down and forget that what we're talking about here is a game ability -- the ability to have the right item for a particular situation, or the ability to get past a barrier, or whatever -- and not a particular special effect that accompanies that ability. When we remember to look at the effect, rather than the special effect, the problem just vanishes. There's almost no game ability I can imagine that can't be simulated without resorting to "magic" in a sufficiently high-fantasy game, and in a game where you can beat the crap out of gods if you're high enough level, having epic heroes who can pull off Cuchulainnesque feats like throwing a spear and then jumping on top of it in midair is not only possible, but it makes sense.

If I wanted a game where magic was just explicitly better, not just in the mechanics but in the way the game was built around it, I'd play Ars Magica. In fact, at higher levels, a lot of D&D games start to resemble Ars Magica.

[Username17]

It's not supposed to be held to the same rules as physical actions.

Then non-magical actions can't be held to those standards either. Seriously.

The more you allow nonmagical stuff to do all these unrealistic things like disarm forcecages, the more the explanation aspect breaks down, and we have no idea what any of the characters are really doing. Distancing ourselves from description is never a good idea if it can be avoided.

What? So it's OK for one player to take the description, crumple it up into a ball, and throw it into the circular file, but it's not OK for another player to do the same thing? Can you say "double standard"? How about "retarded"?

Spells have to be balanced in such a way that there are other ways to beat them, and those ways actually make sense.

Spells don't make any sense though. By definition. Noone knows how a force cage stays up, so noone can explain how it might come down either. The problem is that you are trying to explain an interaction with something which itself defies explanation! That's like trying to climb a glacial wall with your tongue.

The problem is that magic can't be the only counter to magic.

As long as we are possitting a world in which magic exists and many of the people can't use it, sure. But why is that a sacred cow? Why shouldn't all skills just have magical uses and have everybody be able to tap into the magic which flows around them?

The inbalance comes from the following set of assumptions:

1* Magic can break the rules of physics.
2* Non-magical things interacting with magic still obey normal rules of physics.
3* Only select individuals can emply magic at all.

I'll give you 1, but why are 2 and 3 in there? Is it just because we want to punch people in the stomach when they don't play single classed spellcasters?

Magic can break the rules but it can't be perfect. It has to have some drawbacks associated wtih it, especially spells like invisibility, spider climb and knock that outright replace skills.

Why should it replace skills? Why can't those just be magical uses of skills?

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

:sigh:

I've had this go round before, but you know what: The rules as written assert that each and every class has class features which exceed the limits of our reality.

Barbarian: Can on cue get so angry that their max lift increases by 80%. Eventually get tough enough to survive swimming nekkid through 20 ft of lava.
Bard: Can sing will enough to hypnotize someone into just sitting there.
Cleric: Can command the undead.
Druid: Can run at full speed through a brair patch without ripping her britches. Eventually can turn into animals.
Fighter: Can swing a 15 lb sword just as hard as a guy who can lift 180% more, even assuming that both have as much actual combat experience.
Monk: Has a sixth sense that lets her avoid attacks, eventually runs the 100-yard dash in 5 seconds flat.
Paladin: Can detect the presence of evil, can heal with a touch.
Ranger: Gets to wield weapons in ways impossible to most others without needing the usual superhuman stats for it. Can talk to animals in a way they understand. Eventually can follow tracks while moving at a jog.
Rogue: Can walk unscatched through explosions, can find traps impossible for ordinary folks to find
Sorcerer: Empathic communication with familiar
Wizard: Empathic communication with familiar

You'll note that I didn't bother to include spellcasting, futhermore, you'll note that most of those are available at first level. You'll also note that all of them exceed the limits of what we consider to be "realistic" - a few might not quite be truly impossible, but they are all extreme enough that someone who could perform them in real life would be investigated as a hoax. And you know what? When you are talking about characters with capabilities like that fighting against mythical creatures, notions of reality are a bad way to run the game. Go run at full tilt through a briar patch or try relying on your sixth sense instead of your pads the next time you fence or play tackle football and then come back and tell me that those are any less remarkable than the abilty to put a group of people to sleep with only 6 seconds worth of words and gestures* ?

Now since every player character has abilities which are beyond the scope of realism, it does not even begin to make sense to hold skills to a different standard than spells to satisfy notions of realism.

In the game world, most people are 1st level commoners. A task which someone is who adept at it can only accomplish one time out of 20 is around DC 25. A task which even most skilled people can't ever suceed at is DC 30 or so. A task which is like an all-time world record is about a DC 45 or so. Skill tjeck results of above that should let you accomplish things that noone in the real world has ever succeeded at, like proving the Rieman hypothesis, running a 3 minute mile, hearing hair grow, training a poodle to do your taxes for you or leaping tall buildings in a single bound.

Now I've dealt with this in my game by vastly expanding the scope of skills, for example you can use Heal to revive the dead or Balance on on fogbank - and that's been a partial solution, but Frank's larger point is correct. Even with my houserules, the relative investment of character development needed to do something via magic is generally much smaller than the investment to accomplish the same objective using skills. And there is just no good reason for that.


*(instead of the usual 20 minutes it takes most professors)

[User3]

Why can't class abilities be the unrealistic part of the game, and skills be the realistic part, just like the game was designed?

I have no problem if a rogue takes a rogue-only feat that allows him to nail standing magical effects with a Disable D check, but with the exception of the epic rules which puts the DC very high on a Force Cage, no normal rogue is going to do it. Nor should he.

I have a problem with the a commoner doing to same thing, even on a 20, with a normal skill. A 1st level commoner can cross class with a hook-up feat and a skill focus and masterwork tools and an 18 stat and they can get a check roll of 33 on a roll of 20 and an in-class skill with the same crap can get him a 35. That's not even counting circumstance bonuses, or any of the dozen other ways of boosting a skill check.

So, unless you are comfortable with some of your farmers walking around on fog banks, you need a better system than the skill system.

I recommend the level system, as used in DnD. Remember that game?

---------------------------
On the flip side, fighters and other spell-less classes need abilities that match spells. They don't have to act just like spells, but a 17th level fighter should have effects as powerful as ninth level spells(some of those might be things like Foresight which can be Extraordinary, or a Wail of the Banshee death attack that can be magical.) They should get fewer effects, but get to use them more often.

Magical warriors are OK, as are wickely powerful and skilled warriors. Floating commoners are not OK.

[Username17]

Why can't class abilities be the unrealistic part of the game, and skills be the realistic part, just like the game was designed?

Because that's not how it was designed. The design was that non magical abilities are "realistic" (how I hate that term), and magical abilities are the unrealistic part. Which is reatrded, because not everyone gets magical abilties at all.

Even if we made it so that class features were the unrealistic part, remember that spellcasters get 2-5 of these class features every single level, and that fighters get only one every other level.

At some point, something has to give - either by making the skills and feats massively better than they currently are, or by handing out an entirely separate set of class features to all the people who suck right now.

It's not actually important how you do it, because words like "skills" and "feats" don't actually make any difference in how the game is played, only end results such as what you can actually do with the abilities you get actually matter.

Getting your dick in a pencil sharpener about whether abilities are too powerful or too unrealistic for "feats" or "skills" is retarded. The only real question is whether such abilties are too powerful or unrealistic for "characters". And as long as one character is getting Polymorph Any Object four times a day for picking up one level, and another character is getting "a feat and 2 skill points" for the same level - guess what?

That feat and two skill points had better be just as powerful and unrelaistic as casting PAO four times a day - because that really is the opportunity cost.

-Username17

[User3]

Barbarian Rage and Damage reduction are non-magical and seem pretty unrealistic to me.

I have never had a problem with better fighter abilities, or abilities for any of the other high level guys who are not spellcasters. Feats are a greatw ay to do that(Rogue 14+ can take the Disable Standing Effect feat for those forcecages)

Magic items, in many ways, used to fill that void. Mages don't get any real use out of anything except wands, scrolls, and staffs. A cloak of Flying is useless to a mage who can cast fly, but it adds a whole new dimension to a fighter.

3.X DnD has failed on that front. Making standarized numerical items(I have my +2 natty armor amulet, my +4 gloves of Str, my +2 ring, and my +2 sword and armor and shield) is a big issue that robbed the fighter from using the useful stuff since he used up his GP limit with crap that added to stats and didn't give new abilities.

The mage, on the other hand, got overloaded with a bunch of crap he didn't really need(a +2 natty armor amulet is useless to people who can't survive in combat anyway). A minimum GP value that is seperate for spellcasters and non-spellcasters would be fine with me, ut feats works just as well.

Skills, which annyone can get, even monsters, means that the whole level sytem breaks down.

[Username17]

Skills, which annyone can get, even monsters, means that the whole level sytem breaks down.

Quite the opposite. Skills, unlike feats, spells, or especially monster abilities, are directly level dependent. You must be this tall to ride this ride. Noone can have more than 10 ranks of anything until they have 7 hit dice. No exceptions.

There are CR 1 monsters with Teleport Without Error (Greater Teleport) for goodness sake! That makes the level system break down. Allowing skill ranks to open up new things for you to be awesome at is really the only thing which is actually explicitly level based - everything else is just a matter of whenever you happen to get it.

I mean, you can do the whole thing where you turn into a Werebear, lose a level, get the level back (taking it as a prestige class you suddenly qualify for), and then curing the Lycanthropy and be left with a level of a prestige class with abilities that are supposedly balanced for a character higher level than you are supposed to be. You can pick up a staff or a scroll and use a spell vastly outside your parameters.

But there's no way you can raise your skill ranks above your level - you are pretty much stuck with those. In fact, basing your abilities on anything except your skill ranks breaks the level system.

Hmmmm....

-Username17

[User3]

1086660707[/unixtime]]
Spells don't make any sense though. By definition. Noone knows how a force cage stays up, so noone can explain how it might come down either. The problem is that you are trying to explain an interaction with something which itself defies explanation! That's like trying to climb a glacial wall with your tongue.

Well, if you allow a physical skill to disable it, then you must explain how the interaction works. You have to for it to be a game where you tell a story. You have to know what exactly the guy is doing to take it down. First, so you can select an appropriate skill to do it. If you're attuning your body in such a way to pass through it, then it'd probably be some kind of concentration check. If you're squeezing through the bars, that's escape artist. Whatever, you have to give some explanation as to how something is being done. It's not so much that you can't do exceptional stuff with skills, it's just that you have to be able to explain them in some way.

"He just does it!" works for magic, because well... it's magic. You wave your hands around and chant some words and magic stuff happens, but for skills, this is using tools, physical talent or what not to make something happen. Now we all know what a 20' high jump looks like. It may not be realistic, but we can picture it, and from a storytelling point of view, that's ok for people to be able to do that assuming it fits the flavor of your game. But simply having no explanation for a physical action is not acceptable.

As long as we are possitting a world in which magic exists and many of the people can't use it, sure. But why is that a sacred cow? Why shouldn't all skills just have magical uses and have everybody be able to tap into the magic which flows around them?

This is more a flavor argument than anything else.

Most fantasy worlds don't have warriors actually making magical use of skills. Like Conan, or Lancelot or Aragorn. None of these guys tend to break the rules as far as magic goes. Most of these guys are just men. Highly skilled men, but ultimately just men.

Not everyone really likes having magical heroes. Some people just want a rogue who is that damn silent and that damn good at hiding and can sneak into places. But they don't feel like a thief anymore if they're totally invisible, they feel like the predator. Not everyone wants to be the predator.

Similarly with a fighter, you're no longer Aragorn if you're punching the ground and making the ground shake... cause Aragorn just doesn't do that... the hulk does that. And not everyone wants to play the hulk.

D&D all started because of the LotR. Because people wanted to be elves, rangers, hobbits and fight dragons and orcs. D&D isn't BESM or a superhero game.

If anything magic is out of balance with everything else, and needs to be toned down, as opposed to boosting the skill system so that skill users look like casters and we feel like we're playing Dragonball Z: the RPG.

[Username17]

Well, if you allow a physical skill to disable it, then you must explain how the interaction works.

Horse shit. I only have to explain its interaction with actual things if I have to explain it at all in the first place. If I had to explain how physical interaction could bring it down, I'd have to explain how physical interaction can stop me from moving through it.

But I don't have to explain how my interaction with it keeps me from moving through it - it just does. So I obviously don't have to explain how my interaction can make it stop keeping me from moving through it either.

This is exactly the kind of mouth diarrhea that I've been talking about. There can't be an explanatory double standard. The degree of requirements for explanation have to be the same when it is interacting with me as they are when I am interacting with it. From a relativistic standpoint, these are in fact the same thing.

Most fantasy worlds don't have warriors actually making magical use of skills. Like Conan, or Lancelot or Aragorn. None of these guys tend to break the rules as far as magic goes.

Aragorn is eighty years old and commands the obedience of a legion of the undead. He also knows how to hold magical poisons off by careful application of twigs and chanting.

Lancelot fights side by side with Sir Kay, who is as tall as a tree. Lancelot bests him in physical combat because despite Sir Kay's size, Lancelot is stronger (and able to throw Sir Kay).

Conan, when faced with magical forces holding him away, is able to grit his teeth really hard, and pass through the magic to everyone's surprise.

These people do use magical logic in their skill use. So if you are going to use them as examples of people who don't, your argument leaks like a torn bladder.

-Username17

[User3]

1086761842[/unixtime]]
But I don't have to explain how my interaction with it keeps me from moving through it - it just does. So I obviously don't have to explain how my interaction can make it stop keeping me from moving through it either.

Well, you already know how it prevents you from moving through it. It acts like an impenetrable barrier, like a wall. Now if you allow a certain skill to let you pass through walls, then it'd probably be fine to let it allow you to get by the forcecage (unless forcecage explicitly stopped it, like ethereal travel).

But to have a skill that lets you just pass a forcecage but not an ordinary stone wall, then you have to explain how somehow you can breach a forcecage and not a normal wall, and how you're doing it. I can picture someone bouncing off a forcecage, but I require additional explanation as to how someone can "disarm" one without using magic.

This is exactly the kind of mouth diarrhea that I've been talking about. There can't be an explanatory double standard. The degree of requirements for explanation have to be the same when it is interacting with me as they are when I am interacting with it. From a relativistic standpoint, these are in fact the same thing.

Not really. You trying to interact with it is simply you walking into it, and finding that there's an invisible flat plane of force there. That's all the explanation you need, and we all know what that looks like and can envision it. How exactly you'd get past an invisible wall however is another matter entirely, and that does require some explanation.

There is a double standard, and there always will be. Magical stuff is magic. You don't ask where the rope ladder you just created with major creation came from, you just accept it's there. However if your rogue wants to spontaneously "find" a item that isn't there with his search skill, the DM isn't going to allow it, because you are going to ask where that item came from. Skills help you manipulate the world but they don't break natural laws. You can jump really really high, but you shouldn't be able to fly. Disable device can let you jam pressure plates and remove the triggering mechanism for a spike trap, but it shouldn't let you disarm a featureless magical cage anymore than it should let you knock down a wall, unless that wall has some kind of mechanism that can actually be disabled. There isn't a hell of a lot of mechanism to a featureless flat plane of force.

And most of the time, the thing is that when we talk about various magical uses for skills, we're no longer talking about the same skill. Hide for instance is about training yourself to hide behind stuff, use shadows to your advantage, freeze in the proper spots, camouflage yourself, and so on... now if you somehow change it to being able to disappear from sight, that's no longer hide and shouldn't really be tied to the skill, because we are now talking about another totally different discipline. If you allowed a feat that let you be invisible to people like the Shadow, then that would be fine, but there has to be a distinction because we are talking about totally different abilities. There is no correlation between peeking out from a box and generating a magical invisibility effect and walking in broad daylight. If you're invisible you don't even need to know how to use cover or concealment to your best advantage. There's no conceptual link to the methods.

Extraodinary special abilities certainly have merit, but I don't think they're the domain of skills. It's great to have stuff that isn't spells effect people, like Bene Gesserit voice ability for limited domination, the ability to see invisible objects by concentrating, or the ability to become invisible like the Shadow. They certainly have a place in fantasy, that's undeniable.

But these are special case abilities. Special case abilities that should require either PrCs or feats. They shouldn't be linked to the skill, because they are not the same skill. There's no reason hide skill should help you become invisible. Vanishing from sight and remaining unseen by using cover and concealment are again, two different disciplines. They're no more alike than hiding and blinding your opponent by throwing sand in his eyes. Even though they achieve similar results, they take entirely different training paths.

Aragorn is eighty years old and commands the obedience of a legion of the undead. He also knows how to hold magical poisons off by careful application of twigs and chanting.

And this is fine for a fantasy world, because none of these are unexplained. They're fantastic but they're not inexplicable. The undead were a plot element and they have a reason for being there. As for the poisons, that's just the heal skill.

Lancelot fights side by side with Sir Kay, who is as tall as a tree. Lancelot bests him in physical combat because despite Sir Kay's size, Lancelot is stronger (and able to throw Sir Kay).

Again, pretty fantastic but not something we can't describe.

Conan, when faced with magical forces holding him away, is able to grit his teeth really hard, and pass through the magic to everyone's surprise.

Well these magical forces could just be a repulsion spell that requires a will save to bypass. Iron will plus a successful save. There you go. This one isn't tough at all.

[Sma]

While I agree with the general contention that things shoud be describable, I don´t see how this isn´t possible.
Taking down the Force wall is easy once you know that all you have to do is use this lenght of copper to connect those spots with that slightly rough feel to them, plop says the wall, and is shorted out.
Coming up with descriptions for how those do that semi mystical stuff skills shouldn´t be too hard in most cases.

For the skill Hide opening something along the Hide in Plain Sight, might be more appropriate though.

Sma

[Lago_AM3P]

There is a double standard, and there always will be. Magical stuff is magic.

Why the fuck do we want to do this when in almost every other system and in loads of source material, magic is NOT treated differently than super-skillz and feats or vice versa?

Seriously, dude, 4th level fighters with power attack and a solid stick can in less than 5 minutes beat their way through an iron door.

The double-standard isn't even consistent (the see fourth level fighter), so tell me WHY IN GODS NAME DO WE WANT TO PUNISH PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO PURSUE THE PATH OF STROKING A DM'S LAZINESS?

That's the sort of things powergamers like myself do--take advantage of DM's laziness and expectations to excuse things they normally would not allow. Why the hell do you think the cleric and druid have gone unnerfed for so long, while the fighter-types continue to suck? A big part of it is THIS laziness, and I don't want to let it continue to infect the game system.

I have no idea why anyone would support a system where a 3rd level cleric with the trickery domain and the silence spell completely and utterly shuts out a 20th level rogue in the sneaking department. The whole 'it's magic!' explanation is an oft-employed cariacture we use to lampoon lazy forms of entertainment that don't bother to explain shit, like our comics and movies and crap.

Goodness gracious.

[User3]

1086814989[/unixtime]]I have no idea why anyone would support a system where a 3rd level cleric with the trickery domain and the silence spell completely and utterly shuts out a 20th level rogue in the sneaking department.

The fact that a cleric is unnerfed is simply because magic is too powerful. That has nothing to do with uber skills or anything.

lets face it, even if you do let skills do all this weird crap like disarm forcecages and jump allowing you to fly and so on... magic is STILL going to be better, because you can change your spells around.

Silence is flat out too good as a 2nd level spell. It should be divided into two spells. One to mute enemy spellcasters, and one to make a willing creature silent. That version should obviously take away your own ability to speak and go away when you perform offensive actions or spellcasting.

Magic is better but it should have drawbacks... until it does, magic is always going to be better than skills. I don't care how uber you make them. Because the wizard doesn't have to invest ranks from level 1 to be good at something. He can swap his spells around every day at morning and still do stuff skill users can't dream of, like conjuring crap out of thin air. To try to make skills on par with magic is futile and stupid. This doesn't mean skills can't do more, because there is a lot more uses you can come up with... what it does mean however is that your design goal should not be to put them on par with each other.

If you really want to fix magic, you need to add drawbacks. Every buff spell should be something like iron body, where there are reasons why you wouldn't want to cast it. Invisibility should afflict you with certain penalties, and shouldn't allow spellcasting at all. If you want to cast spells too then you should require the hide skill. Magic needs to be both superior AND inferior at the same time. While the wizard can at the start of the day decide he'd like to be invisible, he shouldn't have the same freedom as a rogue with the hide skill.

We want magic to be different from normal class abilities. This isn't a superhero game and it's never been D&D. If you're playing BESM d20 or mutants and masterminds then you have every right to want magic and superhero powers to be merged. In a fantasy setting, magic is always magic and physical stuff is always physical stuff.

But usually magic just ain't that powerful. Conan could shrug off spells through sheer will, Gandalf couldn't teleport right to Mt.Doom and win instantly. Fantasy wizards generally just aren't as powerful as D&D makes them. Magic needs a nerfing, it's that simple. Hell, we already know the cleric and druid are broken. I mean come on.

[User3]

Sorry about the screwed up quote block above... But the boards haven't been letting me log in for the longest time, so there's no way I can edit it.

[Maj]

Try double checking the time on your computer to see if it's correct.

Double check your password.

Talk to your local friendly admin who can report to Bboy support.

Use the preview button if posting as a guest.

Sign up for a new user name if no other solution can be found.

[Username17]

Because the wizard doesn't have to invest ranks from level 1 to be good at something.

Why is that a sacred cow? Why shouldn't you have to take Summon Monster I before you learn Summon Monster II? Why shouldn't you need to have Diplomacy before you can cast Planar Binding?

Why shouldn't you need to know how locks work before you can magically unlock them?

Why does Magic necessarily allow you to do things despite not knowing anything about how it works? Why is magical power necessarily a substitute for all know-how?

If Magic is problematic because it allows you to do things in spite of having no investment into that thing at all, wouldn't removing that ability make Magic less problematic?

If having ranks in Open Locks let you cast Knock, and was the only way to get that spell, there wouldn't be a problem, neh.

In a fantasy setting, magic is always magic and physical stuff is always physical stuff.

That's just not true. Sir Kay is as tall as a tree. He doesn't have some kind of magical curse on him to make that happen, he isn't descended from Giants. He's just Sir Kay, and happens to have eaten right and trained himself up until he is as tall as a tree. Gandalf runs around with a staff and a sword whupping ass. He also ponders stuff until he can make it shed light, he also can heal the sick and hold the Balrog at bay. Where exactly does "magic" begin or end for him? He can't burn snow, but his ability to read the tongues of Mordor allow him to identify the ring of power.

The distinction between "Magic" and "Physical" is entirely artificial. It simply doesn't exist in the old fairy stories (where the tellers of the tales had little or no grasp of physics to begin with), and really doesn't show up in Tolkien either.

Hobbits are resistant to the lure of dark power. Is that a magical ability? Is it a physical ability? What possible difference does it make?

-Username17

[User3]

1086818167[/unixtime]]
Why is that a sacred cow? Why shouldn't you have to take Summon Monster I before you learn Summon Monster II? Why shouldn't you need to have Diplomacy before you can cast Planar Binding?

You can, but it changes nothing, because spells have little real cost to them, unless you're a sorcerer. A cleric or wizard doesn't give a damn if he has to learn a few prereq spells. Big deal, I'm a cleric I know every spell on my list or I'm a wizard and I just pay a little extra to learn a few new spells. Character wise the cost has increased little to none. Where as the rogue who spent skill points has them basically gone.

Why does Magic necessarily allow you to do things despite not knowing anything about how it works? Why is magical power necessarily a substitute for all know-how?

Sure, you could require open locks for knock to work, and that'd actually be pretty cool. But that's just what I'm talking about where magic gets nerfed. Because that's a pretty strong nerf. If it just lets you use the skill faster in spell form, then it's really not quite as good anymore. But that's also fine balance wise.

If Magic is problematic because it allows you to do things in spite of having no investment into that thing at all, wouldn't removing that ability make Magic less problematic?

Sure. you bet it would.

If having ranks in Open Locks let you cast Knock, and was the only way to get that spell, there wouldn't be a problem, neh.

Right, but then knock would be significantly less useful. I mean if it's just a fast way to pick a lock, then it's not even all that great. It basically ends up just being a severe nerf to the spell, which is what I've been saying all along. Magic needs some nerfing.

Gandalf runs around with a staff and a sword whupping ass. He also ponders stuff until he can make it shed light, he also can heal the sick and hold the Balrog at bay. Where exactly does "magic" begin or end for him? He can't burn snow, but his ability to read the tongues of Mordor allow him to identify the ring of power.

The point is that magic for him doesn't ruin the story. It doesn't make him dwarf Aragorn and the rest of the fellowship so badly that Gandalf just says "Puny mortals, I don't need you to destroy the ring, I'll just teleport there myself."

The D&D wizard would say just that.

The distinction between "Magic" and "Physical" is entirely artificial. It simply doesn't exist in the old fairy stories (where the tellers of the tales had little or no grasp of physics to begin with), and really doesn't show up in Tolkien either.

Hobbits are resistant to the lure of dark power. Is that a magical ability? Is it a physical ability? What possible difference does it make?

That's more a psychological ability, and it doesn't make a big difference where it comes from. Because Aragorn has a good resistance to it too... so we just attribute it to willpower, and the fact that hobbits aren't really interested in acquiring power for the most part. They just sit in the Shire smoking pipeweed and that's it. They don't build armies and take over the world. Based on what we know of their culture, it's very consistent for them to be offered power and turn it down. Of course Gollum is an exception, just like Aragorn is an exception for the race of men.

It's ok for a wraith to walk through a wall and we don't ask questions, but a human doing that better have a good reason as to how he's doing it.

Double standard? Hell yeah. But that standard exists everywhere. If I see a stick of dynamite, I expect it to explode when someone lights the wick. If I see a rusty nail and someone puts a flame to it, I don't expect it to blow up. It's the very same thing.

Dragons and wizards wield fire, ordinary warriors and hobbits don't... at least not without torches or burning oil. This is just the way things are, and try as we might, we all think this way. I don't expect a warrior to nomagically fly without wings anymore than I expect that ordinary rusty nail to explode when I put a lighter to the tip. And when it does, suddenly I feel like something really unrealistic has happened.

Fantasy, unlike anime, is still about suspension of disbelief. In anime, we have absolutely no suspension of disbelief, because we just accept that we are somewhere in make believe land and just watch. There are no laws or anything and cool shit just happens without explanation solely because the writers think it's cool. In fantasy, this generally isn't the case. Good fantasy always has some kind of explanation when stuff happens, and magic is typically what's used to explain the unexplainable.

Stuff is cool in fantasy because there was some development for it, and it didn't come out of nowhere. We expect there are reasons for why things happen. I mean fantasy heroes are awesome and all and we expect them to do cool stuff. Legolas is an awesome archer, Zorro can do all kinds of neat stuff with whip and sword, but they still have limits, real physical limits. If a guy shot Zorro or Aragorn in the heart with an arrow they'd both be dead. We expect that, and if that didn't happen we'd say "omg, that's so lame."

With anime heroes on the other hand, we don't even think that way... Goku could get shot through the heart, and I wouldn't think twice if he happened to survive it.

Now, once you start blurring the line between physical and magical you're moving into anime and comic book land. Where you can actually drop a nuke on top of someone and they survive.

And this stuff has it's place, but personally I don't think that place in D&D. D&D is fantasy, and these things are not fantasy, they're superhero genres.

[fbmf]

1086817540[/unixtime]]Sorry about the screwed up quote block above... But the boards haven't been letting me log in for the longest time, so there's no way I can edit it.

Sorry for the disturbance, folks.

RC, please check the time on your computer, then double check your password, and if neither works, let me know. I'll pull the big guns out.

Game On,
fbmf

[User3]

1086841958[/unixtime]]

RC, please check the time on your computer, then double check your password, and if neither works, let me know. I'll pull the big guns out.

I've done both of those. What happened is I tried to change my password, and ever since I did that I haven't been able to log on. According to the password it's sending me, the password change went through, and when I try to log on it with it, it takes it. Only when I actually go to the board, it doesn't actually consider me logged in.

I'm certain it isn't a problem with cookies because I also tried the cookieless login and like I said it was working fine up until the point where I changed my password. I haven't changed any browser settings in the time I logged out with the old password, and then tried to log in with the new one. And it won't take my old password either.

[fbmf]

I alerted BBBoy Support. I'll let you know what they tell me. I appreciate your patience.

Sorry for the disturbance, folks. Back to the thread.

Game On,
fbmf