Is there interest in a collaborative theoretical foundation for 5e?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Edit (from fourth post): I'm not looking to standardize rules, just build a framework for discussion. A shared language. Ideally, none of this would change how the game actually runs at an individual table, but merely how we talk about the text and its interpretations. I wouldn't expect any of this to be binding on anyone, merely illuminating.

What do I mean by a "theoretical foundation?":

The text of the various books and the official pronouncements of the developers form the facts, the physical laws, if you will, of the game environment. What seems to be lacking is a consistent, mutually accepted framework (or frameworks) for reconciling the various facts with each other, a theoretical foundation for the game.

I find we often argue about rules--some see various interpretations as fact, others as inconsistent, etc. because we're not working from the same understanding of what's happening. We have different, mutually-incompatible definitions of game elements and different mental models of what's actually happening in-universe when someone casts a spell, hits with a weapon attack, etc. A common framework would ameliorate a lot of those disagreements (or at least make it clear where the true disagreements lie).

How can we build one?
I propose that we take a topic at a time--someone can propose a theory. That theory should attempt to do the following:

Make predictions that don't violate the text.
Reconcile the Sage Advice where possible with the text.
Be internally consistent.
Explicitly define (and mark) any words being used in a non-dictionary sense.
Presume good faith and competence on the part of the writers/developers.

Once a theory is proposed, the other participants can proceed to analyze the proposal, pointing out places where it doesn't fit the text, things that it predicts well, proposing alterations, etc.

This back-and-forth should be respectful--tear apart the theories as much as you want. Don't attack the authors. On the flip side, if someone attacks the theory, don't take it as a personal attack against you. "This theory predicts that X, but I believe the text mandates Y because Z" is better than "You're wrong about X."

Citations are useful--page numbers or links to tweets/WoTC documents are best.

In the next post, I'll submit an example theory, the Resonance Theory of Magical Effects, that I created and posted (in a slightly different form) in another thread.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The Resonance Theory of Magic

In my opinion, this model and the resulting theory reconcile RAW and RAI (and answer a whole bunch more questions to boot). Whether or not it is a true model is irrelevant--it's a useful model that allows predictions.

Postulates

The resonance theory of magic and magical effects attempts to explain the differences between spells, spell-like effects, and those abilities that, while supernatural, are not affected by antimagic fields or similar effects. It relies on 5 postulates (assumptions and definitions). They are:

Postulate 1:

Surrounding and permeating all of reality is an ambient field of energy. This goes by different names (the Weave is the default in 5e)--for the purpose of this discussion I will call it the aether.

Discussion: While different areas have different concentrations, very few areas (dead magic zones) are completely lacking this energy.

Postulate 2:

Some individual creatures can concentrate this aether within themselves and use it in various ways. I will call this innate magic--any action that is impossible for a "normal" person in the setting is an example of innate magic.

Discussion: This includes such "non-magical" effects as a barbarian's Rage, a fighter's Action Surge, or a rogue's Evasion. Using these abilities sometimes temporarily exhausts the store of concentrated aether, requiring a period of rest (albeit small) before they can be re-used or limiting the number of successive uses. In other cases, the changes wrought by this innate magic are permanent and inexhaustible.

Postulate 3:

Some individuals (not necessarily the same as those in postulate 2) can manipulate aether by imposing a resonant pattern on it, using stored, quantized personal energy Call these resonant patterns spells and the personal energy spell slots.

Discussion: For minor effects or for very practiced casters, the energy needed to induce these resonances is small enough that it's not worth tracking in game mechanics. These are at-will spells (e.g. cantrips). Spell slots are quantized in non-integer ratios--a second-level slot is not exactly twice as big as a first-level slot and they cannot be spent in pieces--either an entire slot is spent or nothing at all. Up-casting a spell (casting it out of a higher level slot than the minimum required) pumps more energy into the resonance which, for some spells, heightens the effect. Certain spells require a measured release of energy into the resonant pattern--maintaining these requires concentration and the biological necessities that imposes, namely that only one spell or spell-like effect can be concentrated on at a time. Restoring spell slots generally is a slow process requiring sleep, as concentrating aether to refill these slots takes time and the soul's full attention. Practiced casters can sometimes hasten that charging process consciously. While different classes differ on how they learn the resonant patterns (and which ones they can learn), all spell slots are identical.

Postulate 4:

Enchanted items resonate with the aether in a similar manner to spells.

Discussion: The source of the energy used to induce this resonance varies--some from stored, concentrated aether (potions, items with charges), some from the wielder (items that are constant effect). Note that charged items seem to regain their charge only when attuned to an individual--otherwise they'd always be found at full charge. This is because they draw on the wielder's soul to concentrate aether. Some items (non-attunement items) only need to be wielded to operate (as their aether draw is de minimis).

Postulate 5:

Some abilities of innate magic manipulates the aether in a spell-like resonant fashion. This is often specified by using the name of the emulated spell in the description.

Discussion: Other innate magic does not operate against external aether but instead is used inwardly to enhance the body or exhaled in a burst of concentrated elemental force, like a dragon's breath.

Results

Given these postulates and definitions, spells and magical effects are those resonant manipulations of ambient magical energy. They're patterned, and may or may not be of extended duration or cover an extended area. The important thing is the resonant pattern. If that pattern is disrupted, the spell effect ceases (at least for that area).

Result 0: Spells do only what they say.

Fireball doesn't conjure a piece of elemental flame, doesn't heat the air to burning. It creates a resonant effect within the area of effect that creates the same end result. Ray of frost can't freeze a pool of water, because the cold isn't there. It's a resonant effect that fades once the energy disperses. Etc. These may or may not follow the usual laws of physics, but certainly one cannot import physical reasoning unless the spell specifies so. One also should not reference another spell to understand a given spell unless the first mentions the second specifically or by mentioning a larger group of spells (a school of magic, for example). Each spell's text stands alone and should be examined with only the general rules as certain reference.

Result 1a: Counterspell

Counterspell is a counter-resonant pattern. It's a momentary, localized noise burst that takes effect quickly, preventing the resonance from forming if successful. Higher power spells are harder to jam, thus requiring either skill (spell-casting ability check) or more raw power (a higher level spell slot) to counter.

Result 1b: Counterspell and non-spell effects

Counterspell only works on actively-produced resonant effects (i.e. spells) as they're taking shape. You can't counterspell a dragon's breath weapon. That's not a resonant effect. You also can't counterspell an existing effect. That's what Dispel Magic is for.

Result 2a: Antimagic Field

Antimagic Field creates a persistent cancelation field. Any effect that requires a sustained resonance (like fireball, or a magic item) to function is suppressed since the resonance cannot take place within that area. One way of thinking about it is an adaptive damping field (like active noise cancellation) that imposes a pattern that is the inverse of the attempted resonant pattern (effect). This is both complex and requires high power, so it's an 8th level spell that has a limited reach.

Result 2b: Antimagic Fields and innate magic

Innate magic (like non-spell ki, or a dragon's flight, or a dragon's breath) does not require a resonance pattern. Thus it is unaffected by an antimagic field (since damping resonance does nothing against a purely physical, natural effect such as ki-fueled punches. The punches are not resonant, nor is there resonance involved in throwing the extra punch (flurry of blows). The monk is drawing against personal energy to temporarily exceed the normal limits of his body. Dragons keep flying (and breathing) and their breath still works (since the conversion is wild and non-resonant). Barbarians can rage just fine--while this draws on innate magic (because it's not possible for a "normal" person), it is not a patterned effect.

Result 3: Dispel Magic

This is counterspell, except for existing spells and their effects. This pattern disrupts the resonance of stable spells, causing them to end early. It has no effect on innate magic, since it only affects resonance effects.

Test: Detect Magic

This spell does not specify what qualifies as "magic" to be detected. Certainly active spell effects and enchanted items should count (by common usage, if nothing else). If it detects all magic, then everything should light up--the aether is all around and through everything after all. That's absurd on the face, so it must be less than that.

The sidebar (The Weave of Magic, PHB page 205) clarifies that detect magic looks at the ambient field looking for active effects. This fits with the theoretical prediction--active effects (spells and items) resonate with the ambient field, while innate magic doesn't (and so is not inherently detected).

[Sigreid]

No. I see more value in the individual interpretations of tables. It's better than fine to me that it's designed to be run to taste.

That said, those of you who do have interest in standardization, have fun. Just don't expect others to give conclusions any weight.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No. I see more value in the individual interpretations of tables. It's better than fine to me that it's designed to be run to taste.

That said, those of you who do have interest in standardization, have fun. Just don't expect others to give conclusions any weight.

I think that either I wasn't clear or you misunderstood. I'm not looking to standardize, just build a framework for discussion. A shared language. Ideally, none of this would change how it actually runs at a table, but merely how we talk about the text and its interpretations. I wouldn't expect any of this to be binding on anyone, merely illuminating.

[Pex]

In other words, it would have been nice if there were defined DCs for skills.

What you're describing is precisely the problem of 5E. It was on purpose design to be inconsistent from table to table. Some people, like Sigfried, see this as a hip hip hooray feature. It only matters to him what happens at the table he plays. Others, like myself, see this as a terrible flaw. I have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.

Any conclusive decisions that is derived here would only matter for the people here in this thread. It would not be part of the Forum vocabulary unless a super majority agree to it. You want something like the 3E Tier System. (Obligatory: I'm not part of the super majority in support of the 3E Tier System.) I don't see it happening, and as a personal interest will not solve my issue with the game in playing it, namely having to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In other words, it would have been nice if there were defined DCs for skills.

What you're describing is precisely the problem of 5E. It was on purpose design to be inconsistent from table to table. Some people, like Sigfried, see this as a hip hip hooray feature. It only matters to him what happens at the table he plays. Others, like myself, see this as a terrible flaw. I have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.

Any conclusive decisions that is derived here would only matter for the people here in this thread. It would not be part of the Forum vocabulary unless a super majority agree to it. You want something like the 3E Tier System. (Obligatory: I'm not part of the super majority in support of the 3E Tier System.) I don't see it happening, and as a personal interest will not solve my issue with the game in playing it, namely having to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.

That's just it. I find that the underlying design is actually very consistent within itself. There are not defined values for a lot of things, but that's consistent with the basic framework (only impose consistency on consistent things). If you asked a biologist "how tall is a tree," you'd get told that that's a question that can't be answered without more information. Same for trying to impose fixed values (facts) on a variable-by-nature fictional landscape. But that's really irrelevant to the point of this thread.

I care more about understanding what the rules imply about the underlying fictional reality (that's a strange phrase) than about the game-play for this thread. That, and how mechanics interact. I'm looking for more like "what is magic?" "How do we tell if something is magical for the purposes of detect magic?" "Why can class X do Y?"

[DivisibleByZero]

In other words, it would have been nice if there were defined DCs for skills.

I absolutely love how practically every single conversation somehow equates in Pex's mind to relate to how there are no defined DCs.
I mean, that isn't even remotely what PP was saying, and yet Pex's mind went there anyway.
It truly is amusing to me.
:biggrin:

[Arcangel4774]

I like the idea, phoenix, but suspect that many people dont have the ability to match the format you proposed. Maybe a ability is the wrong word... drive perhaps? The structure of your example is beyond the normal scope of how people would normally express the ideas.

The concept of knowledge for knowledge sake is something i always enjoy, however. Whenever i make a claim or point i try to invite people to prove me wrong.

[lunaticfringe]

This is fluff. No thanks I can do that myself. Good luck to you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I like the idea, phoenix, but suspect that many people dont have the ability to match the format you proposed. Maybe a ability is the wrong word... drive perhaps? The structure of your example is beyond the normal scope of how people would normally express the ideas.

The concept of knowledge for knowledge sake is something i always enjoy, however. Whenever i make a claim or point i try to invite people to prove me wrong.

I admit--I'm a theoretician at heart, and a prolix one at that. Blame it on my training in the sciences. But I think there's a lot of value in explicitly laying out the assumptions and definitions that go into things. Without those, you get a lot of violent agreement and semantic quarrels that really are about definitions.

@Lunaticfringe--it's not really fluff in my opinion. Understanding rigorously how we envision a particular effect working (and the consequences of that envisioning) allows us to predict more easily and more consistently how it will affect other game elements. It allows us to reconcile Sage Advice with the text--if we understand (or can reverse engineer) the mental model of the developers, we can understand RAI and the best understanding of RAW more effectively. It also provides a common framework for discussion beyond proof-texting (pulling out of context quotes as weapons) or pure "because I said so."

But I understand if others aren't as theoretically minded as I am.

[8wGremlin]

A very interesting read, I find the underlying consistencies and inconsistencies of magic in any game world or system fascinating.

I'll have a think and see if I can add anything.

[Pex]

I absolutely love how practically every single conversation somehow equates in Pex's mind to relate to how there are no defined DCs.
I mean, that isn't even remotely what PP was saying, and yet Pex's mind went there anyway.
It truly is amusing to me.
:biggrin:

I like consistency.
:smallwink::smallbiggrin:

[Avonar]

I mean...it's kinda interesting? I think I get what you're saying though frankly it comes off as just too many words.

Concise is not a bad thing. Keep it simple. While talk of resonance and patterns sounds fancy, the more I think about it the more it either seems like an overly complicated description of a simpler concept, or something nonsensical.

Not saying any of it is bad, just saying to clean it up a bit. Discussion is best when no one can misunderstand what you're on about.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean...it's kinda interesting? I think I get what you're saying though frankly it comes off as just too many words.

Concise is not a bad thing. Keep it simple. While talk of resonance and patterns sounds fancy, the more I think about it the more it either seems like an overly complicated description of a simpler concept, or something nonsensical.

Not saying any of it is bad, just saying to clean it up a bit. Discussion is best when no one can misunderstand what you're on about.

What parts specifically? The parts labeled discussion are extra--the core of the theory is the postulates. The results are just testing that theory against the RAW and RAI and showing that it explains them.

I'll freely admit to being prolix--I always have been and getting a science degree (where the writing style encourages that) didn't help.

[Avonar]

What parts specifically? The parts labeled discussion are extra--the core of the theory is the postulates. The results are just testing that theory against the RAW and RAI and showing that it explains them.

I'll freely admit to being prolix--I always have been and getting a science degree (where the writing style encourages that) didn't help.

An example:

"Some individuals (not necessarily the same as those in postulate 2) can manipulate aether by imposing a resonant pattern on it, using stored, quantized personal energy Call these resonant patterns spells and the personal energy spell slots."

As you eluded to, it reads more like a complicated scientific theory than a suggestion as to a game world. Remember the audience, this an internet forum for D&D, not a university professor. A suggestion perhaps as how to reword:

"Some individuals can shape their personal stored magic to create spells."

It reads cleaner, its more concise and its easier for everyone to understand. Not everyone here is going to be scientific, and surely the best discussion is one that allows the most varied input? Now I fully believe you are just interested in a potential discussion, however your way of writing can easily sound arrogant, like you are trying to prove your superior intelligence. I do not believe this is what you are doing but things can be misconstrewed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

An example:

"Some individuals (not necessarily the same as those in postulate 2) can manipulate aether by imposing a resonant pattern on it, using stored, quantized personal energy Call these resonant patterns spells and the personal energy spell slots."

As you eluded to, it reads more like a complicated scientific theory than a suggestion as to a game world. Remember the audience, this an internet forum for D&D, not a university professor. A suggestion perhaps as how to reword:

"Some individuals can shape their personal stored magic to create spells."

It reads cleaner, its more concise and its easier for everyone to understand. Not everyone here is going to be scientific, and surely the best discussion is one that allows the most varied input? Now I fully believe you are just interested in a potential discussion, however your way of writing can easily sound arrogant, like you are trying to prove your superior intelligence. I do not believe this is what you are doing but things can be misconstrewed.

I can certainly lose the part about the quantitization of spell slots. It's entirely secondary here.

Would rephrasing it as



Some creatures can expend their stored energy, creating patterns that resonate with the external field to create observable effects. These patterns are spells.


work for you?

The idea of resonance between the caster and the external field is key to the theory--it's what separates spells (and similar effects) from innate magic. Specifying spells as being the patterns that, when fed energy, create the resonance explains why spells don't have to be assigned to spell slots in advance and why different classes learn different spells--they're learning different patterns based on how they approach this whole process.

[War_lord]

It's magic, we don't have/want to explain it beyond a vague winds/weave/whatever. Because if you do, it becomes a pseudo-science, and everything has to follow the laws you make up. RPGs can have magic like that, but you can't backform it.

[Honest Tiefling]

No. I see more value in the individual interpretations of tables. It's better than fine to me that it's designed to be run to taste.

That said, those of you who do have interest in standardization, have fun. Just don't expect others to give conclusions any weight.

I think I agree with this. I don't really enjoy samey-wamey settings. Don't give me a generic setting, give me YOUR setting!

However, this might be an excellent resource to plunder for ideas for settings. Nothing wrong with a bit of setting thievery, after all. But I suggest some sort of condensing somewhere, because that massive wall of text looks interesting, but is a little difficult to shift through. Having more of those? I don't think my attention span would survive.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's magic, we don't have/want to explain it beyond a vague winds/weave/whatever. Because if you do, it becomes a pseudo-science, and everything has to follow the laws you make up. RPGs can have magic like that, but you can't backform it.

I understand that idea, but it rubs me the wrong way. I don't care if the fictional people can't systematize things--that keeps some mystery. But if the writers can't, then magic quickly gets out of hand, leading to setting/rules dissonance and (usually) caster supremacy. Those who are writing new spells (or items, or abilities) should know how things work together so that they can avoid making extra mistakes.

I care that the people who are writing their own worlds understand why magic is the way it is so that it can be consistent (or at least not blatantly inconsistent). It's the idea behind Chesterton's Fence--understand why things are the way they are before going changing things.

[War_lord]

I understand that idea, but it rubs me the wrong way. I don't care if the fictional people can't systematize things--that keeps some mystery. But if the writers can't, then magic quickly gets out of hand, leading to setting/rules dissonance and (usually) caster supremacy. Those who are writing new spells (or items, or abilities) should know how things work together so that they can avoid making extra mistakes.

I care that the people who are writing their own worlds understand why magic is the way it is so that it can be consistent (or at least not blatantly inconsistent). It's the idea behind Chesterton's Fence--understand why things are the way they are before going changing things.

I'm 99% sure that's not the case. There's no unified theory of D&D magic. Forgotten Realms has the weave, 4e had something about knots. But I don't think there's a book at WoTC HQ that Mearls consults before making up a spell, it's a game thing. We could sit here and come up with one, but it'd be a group homebrew, not a divining of the truth.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think I agree with this. I don't really enjoy samey-wamey settings. Don't give me a generic setting, give me YOUR setting!

However, this might be an excellent resource to plunder for ideas for settings. Nothing wrong with a bit of setting thievery, after all. But I suggest some sort of condensing somewhere, because that massive wall of text looks interesting, but is a little difficult to shift through. Having more of those? I don't think my attention span would survive.

Because you asked so nicely :smallwink:, here's the shortened form:



Postulate 1: The aether is the field of energy that surrounds us.
Postulate 2: Innate magic is the ability to "break the rules of nature" in some way using energy condensed from the aether.
Postulate 3: Spells are patterns that resonate with the aether.
Postulate 4: Magic items resonate like spells.
Postulate 5: Some innate magic involves spell-like resonances--these usually use the analogous spell's name in the text.

Result 0: Spells do only what they say and don't necessarily obey "normal" physical laws.
Result 1: Counterspell disrupts resonances as they're forming. Non-resonant effects (such as dragons' breath weapons) aren't affected.
Result 2: Antimagic Field prevents resonance from occurring within the field, much like active noise cancellation headphones. It does not affect non-resonant effects.
Result 3: Dispel Magic wipes away existing resonances.
Result 4: Detect Magic only detects resonances (by default).




I'm 99% sure that's not the case. There's no unified theory of D&D magic. Forgotten Realms has the weave, 4e had something about knots. But I don't think there's a book at WoTC HQ that Mearls consults before making up a spell, it's a game thing. We could sit here and come up with one, but it'd be a group homebrew, not a divining of the truth.


But we can reverse engineer a reasonable facsimile. Even if it isn't what they used (because they didn't have one), a post hoc theory can help homebrewers going forward. Who knows, it might even be picked up by the official team as ascended fanon.

[BeefGood]

A test: use this theoretical foundation of magic to help design something new, a Tolkien-ish staff or ring into which a creature can deposit/store magic power, such that with the thing the creature is more powerful than could have been without it, but without the thing the creature is much less powerful.

[War_lord]

But we can reverse engineer a reasonable facsimile. Even if it isn't what they used (because they didn't have one), a post hoc theory can help homebrewers going forward. Who knows, it might even be picked up by the official team as ascended fanon.

But you'd have to make clear it's total homebrew. I doubt they'd "pick it up", if they wanted a game wide fluff for magic they can just nick the Weave from Forgotten Realms.

[Kane0]

If your goal is to make something that is applicable and understandable across as many forum-goers as possible, may I recommend two things?

1) Clarity and Simplicity.
The concepts to be discussed have to be composed and written in such a way that someone just joining can get a hang of it regardless of age, experience, intellect or vocabulary. Corollary: part of the varied interpretations that happen here is also due to mixing up the fluff from mechanics of the game, disconnecting those clearly will also vastly simplify things.

2) Inventing new terms.
Don't do it if you don't have to. D&D already has half a book full of new terms to learn, there's no point adding to the pile when what we have will work fine. Example Weave/Aether.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A test: use this theoretical foundation of magic to help design something new, a Tolkien-ish staff or ring into which a creature can deposit/store magic power, such that with the thing the creature is more powerful than could have been without it, but without the thing the creature is much less powerful.

I was writing a response to this, then the power flickered and I lost it. I can think of a couple, but the details will have to wait.

Basic ideas:

*a staff you can attune to a spell. When you then cast that spell later, the staff handles concentration (like a tuning fork will hold a resonance for a while) if you spend a charge. You get charges back by spending spell slots on it (minimum level of that of the stored spell).

*A ring that duplicates spells--cast a spell and it copies it at reduced potency. This uses the idea of an echo--it can't replicate the spell exactly, but it gets close enough to have an effect. For balance, this would have to be restricted to only certain types of spells.

Do either of those come close to meeting the test?


But you'd have to make clear it's total homebrew. I doubt they'd "pick it up", if they wanted a game wide fluff for magic they can just nick the Weave from Forgotten Realms.

True enough. I'm more interested in learning from others and maybe giving others ideas than in official recognition or use anyway.


If your goal is to make something that is applicable and understandable across as many forum-goers as possible, may I recommend two things?

1) Clarity and Simplicity.
The concepts to be discussed have to be composed and written in such a way that someone just joining can get a hang of it regardless of age, experience, intellect or vocabulary. Corollary: part of the varied interpretations that happen here is also due to mixing up the fluff from mechanics of the game, disconnecting those clearly will also vastly simplify things.

2) Inventing new terms.
Don't do it if you don't have to. D&D already has half a book full of new terms to learn, there's no point adding to the pile when what we have will work fine. Example Weave/Aether.

1) I'm not really focusing on new players. More on those that want to extend the system to new worlds, items, spells, and such. But clarity is still important and I admit that I'm not always clear in my search for precision.

2) I wanted to avoid both setting bias (my world has no weave, but it does have an ambient field) and also avoid overloading game terms like "magic", especially when defining things. But I get your point.

[BeefGood]

Regarding the energy a spellcaster uses to impose a pattern on the aether (postulate 3) : is that regular energy, that the spellcaster gets from eating food, the same energy that a fighter uses to swing a sword, or is it aether energy?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Regarding the energy a spellcaster uses to impose a pattern on the aether (postulate 3) : is that regular energy, that the spellcaster gets from eating food, the same energy that a fighter uses to swing a sword, or is it aether energy?

Short answer: aether, but from stored reserves, not from the ambient field.

Longer answer: spell slots represent concentrated packets of aether that a spellcaster had stored in his psyche. These are quantized--you can't spend half a packet. Bigger patterns need bigger packets. Cantrips are so practiced and so easy that they need no personal energy, just the training and practice to hit the right resonances (feat or class). Spell slots reset slowly because it takes the soul's attention (during sleep) to concentrate aether and stuff it into the slots.

In any case, the energy needed to invoke a spell is much less than the effect of the spell. Otherwise a caster would be a walking bomb :)

[Honest Tiefling]

Regarding the energy a spellcaster uses to impose a pattern on the aether (postulate 3) : is that regular energy, that the spellcaster gets from eating food, the same energy that a fighter uses to swing a sword, or is it aether energy?

And how does it apply to arcane versus divine magic? Or the three types of arcane magic? (innate, learned, and whatever the hell warlocks are).

Also, would it be possible to get at this energy with blood magic?

[PhoenixPhyre]

And how does it apply to arcane versus divine magic? Or the three types of arcane magic? (innate, learned, and whatever the hell warlocks are).

Also, would it be possible to get at this energy with blood magic?

As I picture it, arcane vs Divine isn't a difference in the actual spells, it's a difference in where/how the caster learns the spells. Divine casters rely on something/someone else to do the actual resonating--the God, nature spirits, or the universe itself (paladins are so confident in their oath that the universe bends to their will). Arcane casters do things more directly. They learn through study, intuition, or by contracted tutoring (warlocks).

In my setting, blood magic is very possible. Sacrifice, especially willing sacrifice, has immense power if it can be channeled properly. At the end of the last age, the gods sacrificed themselves to incorporate Free Will into reality itself, fundamentally changing the universe and abolishing fixed alignment.

I went whole hog into this idea and established that all matter is composed of aether, just in different states of compression. Rituals that condense souls (body and spirit) into refined aether are known to be possible but considered highly evil and dangerous, even for demons.

[Pex]

If it means anything, I admire the goal.

Thumbs up to that.

Cheers

[GreyBlack]

So I'm interested here but I do need to know something; are we talking only through the documented materials? Because even in standard published materials there will be significant variation. Resurrection magic can operate quite differently even between established canon; observe Curse of Strahd compared to the standard PHB. Given those various canon contradictions, how does one sort the supremacy of canon?

[War_lord]

So I'm interested here but I do need to know something; are we talking only through the documented materials? Because even in standard published materials there will be significant variation. Resurrection magic can operate quite differently even between established canon; observe Curse of Strahd compared to the standard PHB. Given those various canon contradictions, how does one sort the supremacy of canon?

In the specific case of Ravenloft, the Dark Powers have an almost limitless ability to interfere with magic in the region as it's functionally a pocket plane controlled by them. Normal rules don't apply.

[GreyBlack]

In the specific case of Ravenloft, the Dark Powers have an almost limitless ability to interfere with magic in the region as it's functionally a pocket plane controlled by them. Normal rules don't apply.

But isn't that a problem? The Dark Powers literally, then, do not operate according to the standard rules set down in canon sources and can violate any and all rules at a whim. Does that not negate, in some larger sense, the ability to create a logically consistent basis for play?

[War_lord]

But isn't that a problem? The Dark Powers literally, then, do not operate according to the standard rules set down in canon sources and can violate any and all rules at a whim. Does that not negate, in some larger sense, the ability to create a logically consistent basis for play?

No, because it's a case of normal magic being twisted by a greater power (within their plane), there's no reason to suppose powerful extra-planar entities have the same limitations as player characters. Within that space they're gods, and gods don't follow the mortal rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So I'm interested here but I do need to know something; are we talking only through the documented materials? Because even in standard published materials there will be significant variation. Resurrection magic can operate quite differently even between established canon; observe Curse of Strahd compared to the standard PHB. Given those various canon contradictions, how does one sort the supremacy of canon?


In the specific case of Ravenloft, the Dark Powers have an almost limitless ability to interfere with magic in the region as it's functionally a pocket plane controlled by them. Normal rules don't apply.


But isn't that a problem? The Dark Powers literally, then, do not operate according to the standard rules set down in canon sources and can violate any and all rules at a whim. Does that not negate, in some larger sense, the ability to create a logically consistent basis for play?


No, because it's a case of normal magic being twisted by a greater power (within their plane), there's no reason to suppose powerful extra-planar entities have the same limitations as player characters. Within that space they're gods, and gods don't follow the mortal rules.

Theories don't have to be universal to be useful. If I were writing a theory of resurrection, it would have a specific caveat about "If the local gods say no, then no." Having a theory allows us to better pin down where it makes sense for the gods to intervene. In the case of ravenloft and the dark powers, they have specific objectives that are reasonably predictable by the players within that restricted sphere.

As a side note, physical theories are often cabined into small zones of applicability. The most famous such issue is general relativity (gravity, big things, space-time) vs. quantum mechanics (very small things). Both are tremendously useful theories that have few known issues within their respective spheres. But if you try to apply one to the other, only nonsense results (infinite amounts of infinitely powerful radiation from moving a cup? I think not). So far, we've not been able to bridge the two--every experiment we've done says "nope--things are exactly as the old theories predict and not like those new theories say." But these two aren't the only competing theories. Most theories are small-scale, but still very useful.

[KorvinStarmast]

Corollary: part of the varied interpretations that happen here is also due to mixing up the fluff from mechanics of the game, disconnecting those clearly will also vastly simplify things. I don't find the introduction of that false dichotomy helpful to this discussion. I understand that some people feel a pressing need to establish such an either / or condition, but I find it not helpful in most discussions of this particular edition of this particular game. The OP's post that led to this from another thread made the point that rules text should be approached as a holistic whole, not fragmented into artificial categories. I tend to agree. That's my two cents on the recommendation, your point on pith and concise language I am in agreement with.

Phoenix, I find your effort commendable, and can only second the recommendation to make the prose cleaner and less prolix. (Man, it's been a while since I've seen that word used correctly in a sentence, good job there. :smallbiggrin: )

FWIW, your line of thought about the resonance theory of magic is achingly close to what is the basis for both my game world and for a novel that never got finished. This was informed by a lot of different fiction I read over the years, and obviously the Vancian model of D&D magic. While I currently try to model D&D spell energy release as "you had to charge up the capacitor, now you release the charge" for the sake of simplicity, that's a fine model for prepared spell casters but we begin to sometimes trip over the fiction when we see some of the takes on the sorcerer.

All spell casting has to be prepared, one way or another, for all of this to fit together consistently. (Hence the prepare model chosen in OD&D in the first place). (I have cited the strategic review before, in the article by Gygax about why that Vancian style model was chosen ... won't do it again here). This leaves me at something of a loss regarding psionics for this edition, but I think it can fit in as I fit it into my various notes on psionics in the fiction I was writing.

I'll offer further comments on your OP later on, and I encourage you to follow this line of inspiration. Some of us have both the wit and the background to handle elevated concepts. Press on! :smallsmile: Others do as well, but as noted would prefer not to invest the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't find the introduction of that false dichotomy helpful to this discussion. I understand that some people feel a pressing need to establish such an either / or condition, but I find it not helpful in most discussions of this particular edition of this particular game. The OP's post that led to this from another thread made the point that rules text should be approached as a holistic whole, not fragmented into artificial categories. I tend to agree. That's my two cents on the recommendation, your point on pith and concise language I am in agreement with.


I think that there are distinctions between directly-mechanically-relevant text and indirectly-mechanically-relevant text, but that the "fluff" should strongly influence our understanding of the "crunch" and vice versa. Taking any sentence (or worse, phrase) in isolation leads to weird things happening.



Phoenix, I find your effort commendable, and can only second the recommendation to make the prose cleaner and less prolix. (Man, it's been a while since I've seen that word used correctly in a sentence, good job there. :smallbiggrin: )


Yeah, I need to work on my verbosity. It's a family trait. Never use a big word where a diminutive one would do and all that. :smallbiggrin:



FWIW, your line of thought about the resonance theory of magic is achingly close to what is the basis for both my game world and for a novel that never got finished. This was informed by a lot of different fiction I read over the years, and obviously the Vancian model of D&D magic. While I currently try to model D&D spell energy release as "you had to charge up the capacitor, now you release the charge" for the sake of simplicity, that's a fine model for prepared spell casters but we begin to sometimes trip over the fiction when we see some of the takes on the sorcerer.

All spell casting has to be prepared, one way or another, for all of this to fit together consistently. (Hence the prepare model chosen in OD&D in the first place). (I have cited the strategic review before, in the article by Gygax about why that Vancian style model was chosen ... won't do it again here). This leaves me at something of a loss regarding psionics for this edition, but I think it can fit in as I fit it into my various notes on psionics in the fiction I was writing.


One of the goals of my setting (and related work) has been trying to make a "kitchen-sink" setting actually work and have reasons why things are the way they are. That is, instead of adapting the system to the setting, I was adapting the setting to the system. Having an underlying theory of how all this works has made it much easier, especially when talking about the origin of various species (none of which use the default descriptions from the MM or PHB). I have a whole racial taxonomy of various species. Turns out goblins were the key. The answer to the question "what are goblins, and how are hobgoblins and bugbears related to them?" turns out to solve all the other "why are there so many vaguely humanoid intelligent races?" questions.

I think the division between spell slots (packets of energy that don't care about the individual spells they're used on or the class features, etc.) and spells (patterns that you feed energy through) accounts for a lot of the differences between the casting classes. Each class learns and casts differently, but the patterns are part of reality, so a fireball's a fireball. It's how they get access to them and how they apply that pattern that differs.

Psionics...I haven't thought much about. Mainly because they're lacking in-text and so I don't have much to build on. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.



I'll offer further comments on your OP later on, and I encourage you to follow this line of inspiration. Some of us have both the wit and the background to handle elevated concepts. Press on! :smallsmile: Others do as well, but as noted would prefer not to invest the time.

Thanks!

[BeefGood]

obviously the Vancian model of D&D magic. While I currently try to model D&D spell energy release as "you had to charge up the capacitor, now you release the charge" for the sake of simplicity, that's a fine model for prepared spell casters but we begin to sometimes trip over the fiction when we see some of the takes on the sorcerer.

All spell casting has to be prepared, one way or another, for all of this to fit together consistently. (Hence the prepare model chosen in OD&D in the first place). (I have cited the strategic review before, in the article by Gygax about why that Vancian style model was chosen ... won't do it again here).

I'd welcome a brief description of the Vancian model, if you wouldn't mind. If as you imply, it's the basis for D&D magic, then I guess I already know it in a sense, but still it would be useful to have a description of the forest, abstracted from the trees.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd welcome a brief description of the Vancian model, if you wouldn't mind. If as you imply, it's the basis for D&D magic, then I guess I already know it in a sense, but still it would be useful to have a description of the forest, abstracted from the trees.

The classic Vancian model was (roughly) as follows:

1) Preparing a spell meant casting the spell except for a trigger word, phrase, or component. This took a long time.
2) Each spell prepared was like a bullet--use it and it's gone. Thus, you'd have to know how many fireballs you want that day.
3) Spells are black-boxes--no one knows why they work, just that they do.
4) Spell slots were just that--slots in your memory like spaces in a gun's magazine. You could fit X 1st level, Y 2nd level, etc.

Of course this has issues with spontaneous casters (like sorcerers). Since that distinction is completely obliterated (no more preparing spells to a slot), 5e only has the trappings of a vancian system--spell slots and levels, with spells that stand alone as atomic units.

In the original source material, even the best casters could only hold a few (4-5 at very most) spells at a time. Spells were rare, and almost impossible to create in these decaying times.

[BeefGood]

I was writing a response to this, then the power flickered and I lost it. I can think of a couple, but the details will have to wait.

Basic ideas:

*a staff you can attune to a spell. When you then cast that spell later, the staff handles concentration (like a tuning fork will hold a resonance for a while) if you spend a charge. You get charges back by spending spell slots on it (minimum level of that of the stored spell).

*A ring that duplicates spells--cast a spell and it copies it at reduced potency. This uses the idea of an echo--it can't replicate the spell exactly, but it gets close enough to have an effect. For balance, this would have to be restricted to only certain types of spells.

Do either of those come close to meeting the test?


It's a start, but it's missing, or not explicit about, the idea that some portion of the creature's power has been permanently transferred to the object. Using the resonance/aether model it seems to me that a creature could always go back to the aether and get more power.
Actually, let's just say for the sake of argument that the Ring cannot be expressed in the resonance/aether model. That would be a useful result of the model, right? The model permits some magic stuff and doesn't permit other stuff. That's useful.
That said, if you have further thoughts about describing the Ring in the resonance/aether model, I'd like to hear them!

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's a start, but it's missing, or not explicit about, the idea that some portion of the creature's power has been permanently transferred to the object. Using the resonance/aether model it seems to me that a creature could always go back to the aether and get more power.
Actually, let's just say for the sake of argument that the Ring cannot be expressed in the resonance/aether model. That would be a useful result of the model, right? The model permits some magic stuff and doesn't permit other stuff. That's useful.
That said, if you have further thoughts about describing the Ring in the resonance/aether model, I'd like to hear them!

The resonance model predicts that power per se comes from the strength of the resonance, not from the individual. A more powerful caster has

more spell slots
more patterns ready for use
a better ability to accurately resonate (and thus effects harder to resist/more accurate).
Special training/talents that influence things (e.g. agonizing blast)

not necessarily more power. They have more (and bigger) options and can apply those options more effectively.

That implies that the theory predicts that items like the One Ring require something else (probably the ability to induce separate resonances independently).

My (rough) working model for such items is that it involves distilling one's own soul down and keeping it in an item. This provides more focused power, but more risk. The soul-fragment that's in the item can act somewhat independently (allowing 2 concentration spells, for example) or allow a more-perfect resonance (on that one spell), but is a non-regenerating piece of the actual sentience of the creature and has a will of its own.

Another option for explaining the One Ring (equivalent) would be that the item is powerful in its own right but risks dependency. You get so used to taking the shortcuts enabled by the ring that your skills on your own get rusty. Call that the auto-tune corollary :smalltongue:.

[Puh Laden]

Is this thread meant to introduce the concept of "coming up with models of how things work for fantasy worlds that fit with the rules and then debating them" and to host a variety of different models to be debated or is it to introduce the concept and provide one model to be discussed with the hope that future topics in the same vein will be created?

Because I have one regarding Wisdom versus Charisma: Wisdom is just awareness -- whether internal or external. Wisdom saving throws against charm effects are not "willpower" but self-awareness -- whether or not you recognize thoughts and feelings overcoming you as being your own or fabrications. By realizing the feelings brought on from charm person being cast are not your own, you become disillusioned and are able to come to your senses just as recognizing an illusion for what it really is makes it fade. This is why saves against possession are Charisma-based; it actually is related to willpower.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is this thread meant to introduce the concept of "coming up with models of how things work for fantasy worlds that fit with the rules and then debating them" and to host a variety of different models to be debated or is it to introduce the concept and provide one model to be discussed with the hope that future topics in the same vein will be created?

Because I have one regarding Wisdom versus Charisma: Wisdom is just awareness -- whether internal or external. Wisdom saving throws against charm effects are not "willpower" but self-awareness -- whether or not you recognize thoughts and feelings overcoming you as being your own or fabrications. By realizing the feelings brought on from charm person being cast are not your own, you become disillusioned and are able to come to your senses just as recognizing an illusion for what it really is makes it fade. This is why saves against possession are Charisma-based; it actually is related to willpower.

Either? Both? I don't actually care one way or another. I was kinda thinking like the monster manual thread--talk about one until people are done, talk about a different one, maybe interleaving the two. But really I just want theoretical discussions however they come :smallsmile:.

I like that theory (and it matches roughly with my gut instinct).

To be a bit more precise, you're proposing that
1) Wisdom measures awareness of reality.
2) Charisma measures willpower (force of will).

Is that correct?

One way to test this is to look for all the WIS saves (and ability uses) and the CHA saves (and uses) and see if they map nicely onto an awareness / willpower distinction. Now of course some (most?) effects may involve both awareness and willpower, but it's the dominant factor that controls the save.

[Puh Laden]

Either? Both? I don't actually care one way or another. I was kinda thinking like the monster manual thread--talk about one until people are done, talk about a different one, maybe interleaving the two. But really I just want theoretical discussions however they come :smallsmile:.

I like that theory (and it matches roughly with my gut instinct).

To be a bit more precise, you're proposing that
1) Wisdom measures awareness of reality.
2) Charisma measures willpower (force of will).

Is that correct?

One way to test this is to look for all the WIS saves (and ability uses) and the CHA saves (and uses) and see if they map nicely onto an awareness / willpower distinction. Now of course some (most?) effects may involve both awareness and willpower, but it's the dominant factor that controls the save.

That is basically correct, though I wouldn't limit Charisma to willpower, I would also have it, of course, measure charisma. Or to be more precise, Wisdom checks measure external awareness, Wisdom saving throws measure internal awareness, Charisma checks measure charisma, Charisma saving throws measure willpower.

[Millstone85]

Wisdom checks measure external awareness, Wisdom saving throws measure internal awareness, Charisma checks measure charisma, Charisma saving throws measure willpower.That makes a lot of sense. I would also word it as such: Wisdom checks measure external awareness, Wisdom saving throws measure internal awareness, Charisma checks measure external influence, Charisma saving throws measure internal influence, a.k.a. self-control or willpower.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That makes a lot of sense. I would also word it as such: Wisdom checks measure external awareness, Wisdom saving throws measure internal awareness, Charisma checks measure external influence, Charisma saving throws measure internal influence, a.k.a. self-control or willpower.


That is basically correct, though I wouldn't limit Charisma to willpower, I would also have it, of course, measure charisma. Or to be more precise, Wisdom checks measure external awareness, Wisdom saving throws measure internal awareness, Charisma checks measure charisma, Charisma saving throws measure willpower.

Let's apply this theory to a set of spells and see what comes.



5th-level enchantment

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

You attempt to beguile a humanoid that you can see within range. It must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by you for the duration. If you or creatures that are friendly to you are fighting it, it has advantage on the saving throw.

While the target is charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same plane of existence. You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as “Attack that creature,” “Run over there,” or “Fetch that object.” If the creature completes the order and doesn’t receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability.

You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the actions you choose, and doesn’t do anything that you don’t allow it to do.

During this time you can also cause the creature to use a reaction, but this requires you to use your own reaction as well.

Each time the target takes damage, it makes a new Wisdom saving throw against the spell. If the saving throw succeeds, the spell ends.

At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a 6th-level spell slot, the duration is concentration, up to 10 minutes. When you use a 7th-level spell slot, the duration is concentration, up to 1 hour. When you use a spell slot of 8th level or higher, the duration is concentration, up to 8 hours.


The spell specifies "beguiles" and imposes a Wisdom saving throw. This is a synonym of "seduces" or "deceives" (in this context). This seems to fit the theory--you're not overpowering their will, you're making them believe that they want to, that they're acting of their own will. It's a sneaky domination, not a forceful one. It has advantage if it's being attacked by your allies--this makes sense since "why do I feel friendly toward that person when his buddies are trying to kill me?" makes it easier to make the connection to outside interference.

The no action commands fit as you're inserting thoughts into their head in their own mental voice. They think its what they want to do. The action part is more direct, but doesn't go against the theory--the control is already established and the theory speaks to how it's established, not what it can do.

The repeated saving throws when damage is taken make sense--"why am I doing this painful thing again? Why did I think it was a good idea?"

As far as I can tell, this test strengthens the theory. I like it.