PDA

View Full Version : Common Sense Solution to Magic Vs Steel



Singhilarity
2008-12-07, 11:10 PM
Ask yourself:

Which will you recover (regenerate) from more easily?

Vast burning, across the surface of your skin

OR

A cut tendon.



It's considerably more simple to heal a surface wound that cuts varying layers of the epidermis,
then it is one which severs to the bone, or the gouging of an eye.


With discression and appropriation, the DM can easily allow more precise attacks, and non-regeneratable damage to melee/other weapon users, granting them other layers of effectiveness, ergo a valuable role, quite different from the mass crowd control/death dealing/magic blasting spell craftians.

Naturally there are other factors, which I predict many, enjoying the waves of their own hubris (as they ought) will try and destroy my "ignorance" by exposing, as the true light, to me, the reason why they continue to feel the game sucks... and will carry on not having as satisfying gaming sessions.

I found the technique described above as suitable as I find it logical, and I wanted to share, as well as hear feedback.

Enjoy yahselves,
and may your DMs never Jump the Shark.

The Glyphstone
2008-12-07, 11:16 PM
The problem with this is that we don't have magical healing in real life. A Cure spell could easily knit a wound in moments that would take months to heal naturally, and such would easily be explained as 'it's magic'.

The bigger problem, however, is that this is actually a detriment to player characters in disguise. When PCs get into a fight, most times it is to the death (of the enemy), except in the rare cases when a monster is intelligent enough to flee but the players are not yet high enough level to kill it before it would do so. Thus, such a rule would most have an effect against the party as a result of being attacked with enemy meleers - and since it'll probably be the melee fighters of the party getting those hits, they'll be less happy, not more.





Naturally there are other factors, which I predict many, enjoying the waves of their own hubris (as they ought) will try and destroy my "ignorance" by exposing, as the true light, to me, the reason why they continue to feel the game sucks... and will carry on not having as satisfying gaming sessions.

It seems like you're just saying anyone who doesn't like your suggestion is DOIN IT RONG - I'm misunderstanding you, right?

Flickerdart
2008-12-07, 11:17 PM
Finger of Death penetrates a lot further than steel. Don't think about that mental image for too long. Blasting is not the best strategy, and trying to counter it doesn't address the issue. Spellcasters attack weak saves, not hit points. Accuracy or damage doesn't matter with, say, Dominate Person.

NecroRebel
2008-12-07, 11:18 PM
Problem:

It is already vastly more difficult to heal the damage caused by a weapon than the damage caused by a spell because weapons deal vastly more damage than a spell at any given level of experience and/or optimization.

Power Attack bonuses, Strength bonuses, enhancement bonuses on weapons, weapon properties, multiple attacks per round, and various other bonus types make it so that a melee attacks deal many times the damage that a mage can.

Mages are overpowered because they don't have to deal damage. Ask yourself this: what is more difficult to recover from, a deep flesh wound to the chest, or your soul getting torn out? Fighters do the former, but wizards do the latter.



Also, you seem to feel that people who see flaws in the game can't enjoy it. This view is itself flawed; people would not play a game that they did not enjoy, but those who play it most (and, by extension, enjoy it most) are those who have the most time to see flaws.

Mastikator
2008-12-07, 11:19 PM
I don't understand. Is the non-magic character's player supposed to plea to the DM to get extra precision and non-regenerable damage or other effects?
Or are there some mechanics?

mikeejimbo
2008-12-07, 11:20 PM
Also, why wouldn't magic be able to inflict more than just surface wounds? There is a spell that turns the target's blood into water. And don't forget about other kinds of spells. How easy is it to heal "drained life force" from enervation? Or what about mind control?

Captain Six
2008-12-07, 11:35 PM
There will never be common sense solutions to magic vs steel because it will be on the fly house-ruling and will generally be seen as being ****ish. If you want magic weaker than make magic weaker numerically. Double the time it takes to add new 'd6's to a fireball, halve the saves needed to resist effects (Trust me, the players will still get them high enough) and ban any saveless, touchless spells. This would cripple the mage classes but at least they know what they are getting into from the start. I played a rogue in a no-magic 'realism' campaign and was endlessly told I couldn't use my own skills to do unrealistic things. The vague "I'm going to make rulings on the fly to keep realism" didn't help stop me from trying rogue but if he went through and told me what I could and could have done from the start I might have been able to live with it better, or said screw it and been a fighter. Either way everyone would have been happier.

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-07, 11:36 PM
It seems like you're just saying anyone who doesn't like your suggestion is DOIN IT RONG - I'm misunderstanding you, right?

UR DOIN IT RONG!

jcsw
2008-12-07, 11:41 PM
What about Avasculate? You know, the one which turns the person's very circulatory system on him.

CthulhuM
2008-12-08, 12:22 AM
Ask yourself:

Which will you recover (regenerate) from more easily?

Vast burning, across the surface of your skin

OR

A cut tendon.

Cannot... resist... nitpick... too strong!

So, uh, yeah, in real life, burn injuries are actually some of the nastiest you can receive. A cut tendon can be repaired much more easily than severe burns across a large portion of the skin. It's the difference between one surgery and wearing a brace for a bit and spending months in the hospital under intensive care in a sterile room while undergoing repeated skin grafts.

Optimystik
2008-12-08, 12:31 AM
Cannot... resist... nitpick... too strong!

So, uh, yeah, in real life, burn injuries are actually some of the nastiest you can receive. A cut tendon can be repaired much more easily than severe burns across a large portion of the skin. It's the difference between one surgery and wearing a brace for a bit and spending months in the hospital under intensive care in a sterile room while undergoing repeated skin grafts.

Yeah, this guy beat me to it. Flawed analogy is flawed, OP.


Finger of Death penetrates a lot further than steel. Don't think about that mental image for too long.

Brain bleach! BRAIN BLEACH!!!

LurkerInPlayground
2008-12-08, 12:51 AM
We're honestly comparing swords, which nobody here actually knows anything about, to fictional supernatural powers?

I mean, how hot is a fireball really? Is it just slightly less hot than a blast furnace? Or is about as hot as your average bonfire?

Maybe it's just simpler to point out that fighter 20 sucks under the rules, as written. But I guess that's been discussed to death already.

What was your point again?

Optimystik
2008-12-08, 01:10 AM
We're honestly comparing swords, which nobody here actually knows anything about, to fictional supernatural powers?

To quote Arya from A Song of Ice and Fire: "Stick them with the pointy end!"


I mean, how hot is a fireball really? Is it just slightly less hot than a blast furnace? Or is about as hot as your average bonfire?

I'd lean towards blast furnace, since a bonfire would be 1d6. Just sayin'. :smallwink:

LurkerInPlayground
2008-12-08, 01:12 AM
I'd lean towards blast furnace, since a bonfire would be 1d6. Just sayin'. :smallwink:
Yes, but then we get into a silly discussion how it engulfs an entire persons body. So it could reasonably be a bonfire but but applied to every vulnerable surface.

We could also say that the fire is especially magical.

Kizara
2008-12-08, 01:26 AM
OP: Make usable mechanics and you might have something.

You don't actually have a "solution" until you can make it work; right now you have an 'idea'.


Right now you are almost trolling, as you are basically saying "If you don't like my perfect 'solution' then you are playing the game wrong!" It's doubly humorous as your idea is actually half-assed and little more then theory.

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-08, 01:35 AM
To quote Arya from A Song of Ice and Fire: "Stick them with the pointy end!"

To quote Don Diego de la Vega (Zorro): "We have a lot to work on."

Optimystik
2008-12-08, 01:50 AM
Yes, but then we get into a silly discussion how it engulfs an entire persons body. So it could reasonably be a bonfire but but applied to every vulnerable surface.

We could also say that the fire is especially magical.

A fireball has other things going for it - force of impact, rapid expansion, burns 'mana' as fuel (with trace amounts of bat****)... so it isn't all "Sarda did it!"

Starbuck_II
2008-12-08, 09:18 AM
A fireball has other things going for it - force of impact, rapid expansion, burns 'mana' as fuel (with trace amounts of bat****)... so it isn't all "Sarda did it!"

But it has no pressure. How does that even work?

Quietus
2008-12-08, 09:44 AM
But it has no pressure. How does that even work?

Magically, of course.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-12-08, 10:21 AM
Regarding the fireball: the other end of the scale is that immersion in lava deal 20d6 damage. So what's the temperature difference between a pit of lava and a blast furnace?

And, yeah, there's no damage from impact, as the fireball creates no pressure. It's all burn damage.

Singhilarity
2008-12-08, 01:04 PM
Glyphstone:

That's an interesting point.
It's simple enough to rule, however, that a decent degree of focus on the magic followed by rest is necessary to heal damage of that calibur...

(I did not mean to imply that those who disagreed with my rule would enjoy the game less, I meant to imply that those hell-bent (or even minorly bent) on not enjoying a game will find ample reason to do so)


True, Flikerdart - and then it all comes down to what sort of monster you're fighting, doesn't it. One would hope to focus a caster's attention on preventing external (certanly no less threatening) calamity when faced with only one bigger monster, and destroy a couple goons in a bigger squad... Or any variable in between. I'm all about the versatility of casters, but they'll never match the sheer awesome of the Stoic, Blade-wielding Badass.


NecroRebel:

Indeed, dude. That soul Ripping Spell'd better come at a fairly high price, though - be it usable only a minimal number of times a day, or with a lengthy casting time and risky procedure. But then, please, make the Paladin angry at you, gain coin in the Devil's economy, and keep on rocking. I encourage it!


Mastikator:

The DM is supposed to use enough savvy and tactile description to make it really suck for the monster who just got cleaved.


mikeejimbo: Well, naturally... as with all things in life, there's no clear and 100% ever-effective method. (Quoth Hassan I Sabah...)
This post related to some magical effects (Fire/Lightning/Acid) and, say, Regenerating Creatures (although yeah, Trolls don't regenerate with fire, says the rules... I'm sure that's true for various species, but the last ones "the party" fought didn't seem to mind it (different bio-region))... It's skin seemed to recover without difficulty... as soon as you could see it's foot dangling from the tendon, though, that faculty seemed to cease, or at least, slow down. It sure stopped bleeding quickly *watchout for it's fist!*) /my mind in its operation


Captain Six:

The idea is not to limit options but to create more opportunities for the players to have an amusing experience.
Sometimes that means limiting their ability to do something (run vertically up a wall because they're moving fast enough...) to keep a consistent universe that they can familiarize themselves with. But it's also a universe filled with unexplained dungeons, magic, and monsters. They're *heroes* (or anti-heroes, or villains... or adventurers) and letting them have heroic moments - which include HUGE danger for MASSIVE payoff (the town didn't die! Congratulations! Yes, the Mayor will even let you sleep with his daughter, although he gives you a dubious look for asking)

**** ego-centric DMs who want to make something awesome at the cost of the players amusement. It *is* bloody challenging though


CthuluM:

Right, but this is not real-life.
Let's take away Wolverine's Adamantium, for just a moment.
Now let's throw acid across his skin - the wide, but not deep, damage to the topmost layer of skin will hurt and suck and scar and possibly, were it real life, be a real pain. (sorry, pun)

Cut down to the bone of his hand though? Yeah the healing capabilities will start kicking in immediately - but it's gonna take a lot longer to re-connect severed veins, muscles, possibly ligaments, and other tissues than it will to regrow the surface layers.

I'm glad you know about this in real-life. May you never be faced with a situation that you need to use it - but I hope it serves you well if you are.


Lurker:

My point, the one that just punctured a lung, is that a well landed cleave will not just "DO DAMAGE" - it will damage specific things. Like Muscles, and Organs. And those don't recover easy.

I'm still training with my swords, and my brother's begun forging Knives, if not swords.

I refer you to Stupendous Man's response.


Kizara:

Yae and nay.
People have quite certainly misconstrued the last sentence of the post. I don't find it surprising, but I will refer you to my response to it at the beginning of this post.

Yes, it's a barebones husk of a hypothesis.
Why?

Because the Rulebooks are Source Material, not Gospel. (I point you to my signature)

Captain Six
2008-12-08, 07:35 PM
The idea is not to limit options but to create more opportunities for the players to have an amusing experience.
Sometimes that means limiting their ability to do something (run vertically up a wall because they're moving fast enough...) to keep a consistent universe that they can familiarize themselves with. But it's also a universe filled with unexplained dungeons, magic, and monsters. They're *heroes* (or anti-heroes, or villains... or adventurers) and letting them have heroic moments - which include HUGE danger for MASSIVE payoff (the town didn't die! Congratulations! Yes, the Mayor will even let you sleep with his daughter, although he gives you a dubious look for asking)

**** ego-centric DMs who want to make something awesome at the cost of the players amusement. It *is* bloody challenging though

I'm sorry but it felt that your reply barely touched the point of mine mine. Also how can you create more opportunities by limiting them? Even worse limiting them on the fly? If my skill points/class abilities/feats say I can run up a wall my character knows it's well within his ability to run up a wall. If I'm told I can't expect me frustrated and my character confused as to why the laws of reality suddenly alter when it comes to his abilities. Expect him to start devoting a lot of time finding out why. Limiting magic can be done the same way ("sorry, fireball just doesn't work at x level of humidity") but it's just as annoying for the mage as it is for the expert/warrior. What I said was limitations to any class should be brought up from the start of the campaign and not when they suddenly matter.

If you are willing to outline every "common sense" solution you will be using then fine. Don't expect people to use common sense in D&D, players assume the physics outlined in the PHB are valid. Or else everyone would wield crossbows and always make called shots to the face and expecting auto-death no matter the enemy's HP. Having random bouts of "real life" shoved into D&D is kind of like a kick to the crotch that I have had bad experiences with myself so I'm not to keen on letting someone propose they do just that without voicing myself.

Collin152
2008-12-08, 07:54 PM
What about Avasculate? You know, the one which turns the person's very circulatory system on him.

It's only a flesh wound!

Doomsy
2008-12-08, 08:23 PM
Historical fallacy to your common sense solutions.


Melee wounds and all wounds in general were more fatal in ages past not due to their efficiency but due to infections or general poor medical knowledge and techniques. In general combat was a lot messier and less clean than we think it is. People tended to be crippled or mortally wounded and had to be put down at the end of the fight with mercy killings more than being killing outright by damage, and if they survived with wounds they had to deal with infections like gangrene and worse. A heavy body burn was almost a death sentence if you didn't have luck and good medical care, since the chance for infection was insanely high. It was possible to survive, but you were going to have to be insanely lucky, surviving both shock, the damage, the infections, etc. And given the lack of reconstructive surgery you didn't have much to look forward to. The scar tissue would sharply limit mobility, let alone how you'd end up looking.

D&D skips over so much realism that even modifying physical melee really does not help that much. We're talking about a game where a single cure X wounds spell can take you from on deaths door to running around and slicing off kobolds heads again instantly, with no permanent scarring, side affects, recuperation time, or anything else.

Kizara
2008-12-08, 09:57 PM
Glyphstone:
Kizara:

Yae and nay.
People have quite certainly misconstrued the last sentence of the post. I don't find it surprising, but I will refer you to my response to it at the beginning of this post.

Yes, it's a barebones husk of a hypothesis.
Why?

Because the Rulebooks are Source Material, not Gospel. (I point you to my signature)

Stop trying to be controversial with cracks like "Because the Rulebooks are Source Material, not Gospel." which aren't even relivant.

Make your bloody system, outline how you would use it, and then ask for opinions/critique.

Until you do, all you are doing is fanning an argument for its own sake, and that is commonly called trolling.

Singhilarity
2008-12-08, 11:49 PM
VI: If you have feats to run up walls, run up walls.
If you have the *idea* to run up walls, roll high.

You can create opportunities by limiting them very simply;

If they can't solve it through suggested method A, it means they will have to find an alternate solution.
Depending on the intelligence they go about this task with, the DM has ample opportunities to reward the players.

Even a Catch 22 that will result, say, in the temporary loss of Druidic abilities, (and sometimes these scenarios really do exist. Pulling them off effectively can be a major high point) should include ample avenues to make it worth the player's while to keep adventuring and re-claim their abilities (now shinier than before)


If you are willing to outline every "common sense" solution you will be using then fine. Don't expect people to use common sense in D&D, players assume the physics outlined in the PHB are valid. Or else everyone would wield crossbows and always make called shots to the face and expecting auto-death no matter the enemy's HP. Having random bouts of "real life" shoved into D&D is kind of like a kick to the crotch that I have had bad experiences with myself so I'm not to keen on letting someone propose they do just that without voicing myself.

Is a very valid point.
Fireball at this humidity - no.
Fireball underwater - iffy.

What about "difficulty with somatic component because of underwater"?
In my mind, it's valid, unless you've got sufficient ranks in Swim.

All about personal play style, really.
And the fact that the DM is making a game for players to play.
In the same sense that Scrabble is considerably more amusing when you *can* use proper nouns, but the puritans don't want it called Scrabble... if whatever games I end up running, based off of inspiration and basic structures provided by Dungeons and Dragons (that some other people, themselves, developed) then fine, I guess I don't play DnD.

In cases of arguments:
If the players can provide an adequate justification (and, where appropriate, back it up with the Roll) then I'll let them do it - unless a very specific reason stands why that cannot take place, clear, and universally defined in my mind.

If they use the excuse "This is what the Books say", I will A) Point out that we're not in Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or wherever else the descriptions of strange acts of magic, physical feats, and heroic skills were recorded, they're in *this* universe, that I spend plenty of my own free-time developing.

B)
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.
Leonardo da Vinci " (Yes, I'm aware of the potential for hypocrisy, therein, mind you, the implication is that the authority is that of anothers, rather than one's personal, experientially earned, authority)

Also:
I absolutely agree. Limitations to a class should be brought up at the onset - or as soon as the DM remembers (and the later you delay it, the more lenient you have to be with the players, fair's fair...)


Doomsy: Excellent point.
I can't wait to have players get their wounds infected... I know a Marsh where exactly that sort of thing might happen...

As for Cure Wounds, I do have my players require some time to recoop if they don't want to re-open the wound, and move at a slower rate... IF the wounds were severe enough. If reduced to ~1 hp by bludgeoning say, the bruises suck, but they're quick to heal (require a 5 minute breather perhaps... "looting the corpses time") - if they dropped to 1 hp by being impaled with a Halberd, they're gonna require at least an hour before they're back at full strength... they can get up and walk around after a brief sit down, even carry their gear (providing it's not a heavy load)... but any exceedingly strenuous activity might require a roll.

That's just how I like to play.
I'm up for other systems, but, as I said above, putting appropriate limitations and constraints on a scenario can prompt all sorts of ingenuitive responses.

My initial post wasn't intended as an omni solution, merely food for thought.
It seems fairly not well received - the idea itself is still something I'm fleshing out, personally, as it is. (I think I've been forever corrupted by MERP, and it's beautiful tables...oh percentiles)


Kizara:

I have no intention of trolling, nor do I intend to fan arguments, although I do enjoy good discourse, and, like many, I do relish in the opportunities it provides for idea development.

I re-read your initial post, and you spoke very truly - this does exist merely as the barebones, and not a complete system. (Again, however, I do refer you to the Blake in my Signature - also, an exceptional Antero Alli quote "Answers are anti-improvisational sedatives.")

The so-called "crack" "Rulebooks act as Source Material, not Gospel" remains entirely true to my personal philosophy, particularly related to DMing.

I realize that this forum does relate to Dungeons and Dragons - had I intended to modify 1st, 2nd, A, 3, 3.5 or any other version of the game, I would have included the such in the topic.

I find meta-system approaches to Dungeon Mastering far more interesting than Negotiating the Confines of Someone Else's Rules (particularly if they're not even present!)

You do speak correctly in that I shouldn't have called it a Solution... but I remain, at present, at a loss for a more apt topic title.

I do apologize if my behaviour has offended you, I actively seek to avoid frustration, though I do not shy from confrontation.

Systematizing my ideas seems, in some senses, effective, in other senses, totally counter-productive to why I play DnD in the first place (to escape the confines and limitations of other people's rules, and instead develop a rich, interactive, collaborative world within the imagination)

I have no intention of "fanning" this further.

But I am interested in some of the ideas that are surfacing regarding realism...
and eating them up.

Thank you, forum folk, for the responses and all.

The Glyphstone
2008-12-09, 12:03 AM
As long as your players are informed about these changes ahead of time, it's not such a big deal as if you just pull them out retroactively. The first is a homebrew world, and if they agree to play in your game, they know what they're getting into. The second is just poor DMing skills.

You also didn't seem to address my second point earlier, the bit about it being a detriment to PC's. The "Magic vs. Melee" debate is mostly PC-centric, focusing on how the casters in a party will almost always outstrip or be more effective overall than the meleers. Adding in penalties or lasting wounds for weapon injuries will end up penalizing the melee warriors of the party more, because they're far more likely to be taking those hits the enemies are dishing out. It could even potentially unbalance the game further in favor of magic, as most people will want to play casters or other ranged specialists (and by extension, a logical and versimilitudistic(?) world will likewise have its NPCs tend towards ranged combat) because it's much safer for them, and they have better odds of killing their enemy without taking damage in return.

Blood_Lord
2008-12-09, 12:22 AM
Is a very valid point.
Fireball at this humidity - no.
Fireball underwater - iffy.

What about "difficulty with somatic component because of underwater"?
In my mind, it's valid, unless you've got sufficient ranks in Swim.

I know this may sound crazy, but maybe, just maybe, you could use the actual rules for those things.


If they use the excuse "This is what the Books say", I will A) Point out that we're not in Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or wherever else the descriptions of strange acts of magic, physical feats, and heroic skills were recorded, they're in *this* universe, that I spend plenty of my own free-time developing.

Except that you are assumably playing with a given system of rules, and it is not Greyhawk that allows Wizards to cast spells, it is the rules of the system you are using.

And the same goes for any other ability they might possess.

If you say, "Why should I let you cripple a huge group of enemies with your spells like that?" I will respond: "Because that's what my character does, that's how he was designed to fight, and it says right here that he can do exactly that."

No one should have to justify their character doing the things that make him that character and not someone else.

Singhilarity
2008-12-09, 01:16 AM
Glyphstone:


You also didn't seem to address my second point earlier, the bit about it being a detriment to PC's. The "Magic vs. Melee" debate is mostly PC-centric, focusing on how the casters in a party will almost always outstrip or be more effective overall than the meleers. Adding in penalties or lasting wounds for weapon injuries will end up penalizing the melee warriors of the party more, because they're far more likely to be taking those hits the enemies are dishing out. It could even potentially unbalance the game further in favor of magic, as most people will want to play casters or other ranged specialists (and by extension, a logical and versimilitudistic(?) world will likewise have its NPCs tend towards ranged combat) because it's much safer for them, and they have better odds of killing their enemy without taking damage in return.

True that... true true, that... I can't believe I failed my spot/search check. No items for me. Thanks for pointing it out. (So much to read and respond to)

Lots of truth in your statements, and something to consider.

Suddenly armor (and it's materials) becomes a rather more valuable piece of equipment, I guess, eh?


Blood Lord:

(To clarify (I read what I typed and I'm not sure I communicated clearly) - There's no problem with casting a Fireball in high humidity, there's an iffyness to casting it underwater - The succeeding on a spellcraft check to shoot a blast of steam is entirely appropriate - I would cause a hinderance to *all* spellcasting requiring a somatic component, unless the caster had sufficient ranks in swim, however... as I said.)


Except that you are assumably playing with a given system of rules, and it is not Greyhawk that allows Wizards to cast spells, it is the rules of the system you are using.

And the same goes for any other ability they might possess.

If you say, "Why should I let you cripple a huge group of enemies with your spells like that?" I will respond: "Because that's what my character does, that's how he was designed to fight, and it says right here that he can do exactly that."

No one should have to justify their character doing the things that make him that character and not someone else.

It's not Greyhawk that allows magic users to cast spells - it's magic within Greyhawk, that behaves according to the physics of Greyhawk, as described by the book that people have poured time and energy into.

Things might, can, and do, work differently in different places - like Gravity on different planets, say. Or, y'know, physics, in different universes.

I appreciate Rules as Written because it saves me a lot of time and effort in crafting them myself.
The people who wrote the rules had the good fortune of doing it as a group, and getting payed for it. Lucky sods.

I'm not binding myself to their suggestions though.

The question is not "Why should I let you cripple the group of enemies like that", it's "Justify to me (the source of this Universe's physics) why it will cripple them, given these environmental conditions."

If your answer is "It was written in a book somewhere"...
the blatant "physical reality" (for your character) will proceed as normal.

If you can convince me with a pleasant justification like "Given that they're standing in a slight depression in the ground, and I can see a vent from the subterranean tunnels that are filled with highly flammable gasses that you described earlier, which is why I didn't kill our entire team at the time with a fireball, and that gas may be heavier then air - therefor would accumulate in the lower spot where the enemies have foolishly located themselves, thus allowing my fireball to engulf the entire group in charcoal-crispy incinerated goodness"

I would say "I hope you remember to warn your charging allies with a yell that the whole area is about to go Kablooie" :smallwink:

See Da Vinci Quote.

Blood_Lord
2008-12-09, 02:08 AM
Blood Lord:

(To clarify (I read what I typed and I'm not sure I communicated clearly) - There's no problem with casting a Fireball in high humidity, there's an iffyness to casting it underwater - The succeeding on a spellcraft check to shoot a blast of steam is entirely appropriate - I would cause a hinderance to *all* spellcasting requiring a somatic component, unless the caster had sufficient ranks in swim, however... as I said.)

It's not Greyhawk that allows magic users to cast spells - it's magic within Greyhawk, that behaves according to the physics of Greyhawk, as described by the book that people have poured time and energy into.

Things might, can, and do, work differently in different places - like Gravity on different planets, say. Or, y'know, physics, in different universes.

I appreciate Rules as Written because it saves me a lot of time and effort in crafting them myself.
The people who wrote the rules had the good fortune of doing it as a group, and getting payed for it. Lucky sods.

I'm not binding myself to their suggestions though.

The question is not "Why should I let you cripple the group of enemies like that", it's "Justify to me (the source of this Universe's physics) why it will cripple them, given these environmental conditions."

If your answer is "It was written in a book somewhere"...
the blatant "physical reality" (for your character) will proceed as normal.

If you can convince me with a pleasant justification like "Given that they're standing in a slight depression in the ground, and I can see a vent from the subterranean tunnels that are filled with highly flammable gasses that you described earlier, which is why I didn't kill our entire team at the time with a fireball, and that gas may be heavier then air - therefor would accumulate in the lower spot where the enemies have foolishly located themselves, thus allowing my fireball to engulf the entire group in charcoal-crispy incinerated goodness"

I would say "I hope you remember to warn your charging allies with a yell that the whole area is about to go Kablooie" :smallwink:

1) Spellcraft check to cast fire spells in water. Use those rules.

2) There is no reason to limit casting, since the rules make it very clear that you can cast just fine under water, and that it does not limit the ability to perform somatic components at all. I suggest you follow those rules, because they are better then the alternative.

3) It's the abilities of the character that are written on their character sheet that allow them to do those things. If they can't do the things they are specifically stated to be capable of, then there is no point.

4) The reason they are crippled is because I cast Stinking Cloud. Therefore they must make saves or be nauseated. No ifs/ands/or buts about it.

Khanderas
2008-12-09, 02:41 AM
There are things Magic can do that Steel cannot.
There is nothing Steel can do that Magic cannot.

Therefore there will never be a Common Sense Solution to Magic Vs Steel in 3.5 DnD.

Zer Kaizer
2008-12-09, 02:49 AM
Ask yourself:

Which will you recover (regenerate) from more easily?

Vast burning, across the surface of your skin

OR

A cut tendon.



It's considerably more simple to heal a surface wound that cuts varying layers of the epidermis,
then it is one which severs to the bone, or the gouging of an eye.


With discression and appropriation, the DM can easily allow more precise attacks, and non-regeneratable damage to melee/other weapon users, granting them other layers of effectiveness, ergo a valuable role, quite different from the mass crowd control/death dealing/magic blasting spell craftians.

Naturally there are other factors, which I predict many, enjoying the waves of their own hubris (as they ought) will try and destroy my "ignorance" by exposing, as the true light, to me, the reason why they continue to feel the game sucks... and will carry on not having as satisfying gaming sessions.

I found the technique described above as suitable as I find it logical, and I wanted to share, as well as hear feedback.

Enjoy yahselves,
and may your DMs never Jump the Shark.

You can't live without your skin, and the burns you describe often destroy your skin. Without your skin, your body is exposed to the elements and every nasty bug in the air. Needless to say, you wouldn't last long.

Zeful
2008-12-09, 03:02 AM
Ask yourself:

Which will you recover (regenerate) from more easily?

Vast burning, across the surface of your skin

OR

A cut tendon.

I have a different question.

Which is easier to learn:
Wielding a sword effectively?
A Bow?
A system of equations that are shared across all practitioners of the system and written in the same way, but still require intense research or the person who wrote them sitting next to you telling you what is what?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-09, 03:08 AM
Glyphstone:



True that... true true, that... I can't believe I failed my spot/search check. No items for me. Thanks for pointing it out. (So much to read and respond to)

Lots of truth in your statements, and something to consider.

Suddenly armor (and it's materials) becomes a rather more valuable piece of equipment, I guess, eh?


Blood Lord:

(To clarify (I read what I typed and I'm not sure I communicated clearly) - There's no problem with casting a Fireball in high humidity, there's an iffyness to casting it underwater - The succeeding on a spellcraft check to shoot a blast of steam is entirely appropriate - I would cause a hinderance to *all* spellcasting requiring a somatic component, unless the caster had sufficient ranks in swim, however... as I said.)



It's not Greyhawk that allows magic users to cast spells - it's magic within Greyhawk, that behaves according to the physics of Greyhawk, as described by the book that people have poured time and energy into.

Things might, can, and do, work differently in different places - like Gravity on different planets, say. Or, y'know, physics, in different universes.

I appreciate Rules as Written because it saves me a lot of time and effort in crafting them myself.
The people who wrote the rules had the good fortune of doing it as a group, and getting payed for it. Lucky sods.

I'm not binding myself to their suggestions though.

The question is not "Why should I let you cripple the group of enemies like that", it's "Justify to me (the source of this Universe's physics) why it will cripple them, given these environmental conditions."

If your answer is "It was written in a book somewhere"...
the blatant "physical reality" (for your character) will proceed as normal.

If you can convince me with a pleasant justification like "Given that they're standing in a slight depression in the ground, and I can see a vent from the subterranean tunnels that are filled with highly flammable gasses that you described earlier, which is why I didn't kill our entire team at the time with a fireball, and that gas may be heavier then air - therefor would accumulate in the lower spot where the enemies have foolishly located themselves, thus allowing my fireball to engulf the entire group in charcoal-crispy incinerated goodness"

I would say "I hope you remember to warn your charging allies with a yell that the whole area is about to go Kablooie" :smallwink:

See Da Vinci Quote.As a player, the rules of the game are the laws of physics for the world. My character would have a very good idea of what any action of his would cause to happen. Changes to those mean the rules the world exists under have suddenly stopped working. Can you see why this would be something to avoid?

horseboy
2008-12-09, 12:49 PM
Problem 1: You're assuming that magic can only deliver the equivalent of a 1st degree burn. A bad cut can flay a muscle. A bad burn can cinder it completely. You also appear to not believe that a mace can break a bone.

Problem 2: That's not the problem with magic in D&D. It's not "what's harder to get over, being cut or being burned" but what's harder to get over, being cut, or being turned to stone, or having what the hell ever it is that Enfeeblement does to your muscles that they no longer work, or being stunned and blinded by glittercheese, or completely loosing control of your body.

Eclipse
2008-12-09, 02:36 PM
I was recently thinking of ways to make fighters, among other melee classes, more effective in D&D. Of course, the general answer is usually use ToB, but given what this thread is about, and that I wanted a different solution, I thought of something different.

Specifically, what if variant rules were taken a bit further, and class features could be traded for a certain point value of BESM (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/animesrd.html) (also known by some people as Anime d20) attributes (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/animesrd/Attributes.htm).

Obviously, this would need to be thought out very carefully, and not all of them would be appropriate for a game of D&D. Depending on the style you're going for, it could even be that none are appropriate.

That said, if you were to go through and pick attributes that could replace various class features, you'd end up with a set of variant abilities such that at each level, you could choose which abilities you want to take from that set.

If anyone wants to design something like this, bear in mind that a feat is worth two character points in general.

Fighters would be a special case, in which, rather than trading class abilities for attributes, they'd be trading fighter bonus feats for attributes, so a list of appropriate attributes that could be taken in place of bonus feats would have to be made. Tweaks might also need to be made as well.

For instance, perhaps a barbarian or dwarven defender could trade DR for Regeneration, albeit at a slower rate.

Fighters could use bonus feats to gain special attacks, linked to their weapon use, to cause various status effects, normally something only casters can do.

These are the easiest examples I can think of off the top of my head, and other replacements might be harder to come up with.

It's also possible that you feel non-spellcasting classes are outclassed enough, that they deserve extra power. If this is the case, you could give them CP in addition to their normal class powers to spend on attributes per the revamped classes here (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/animesrd/Classes.htm). The D&D stuff starts close to halfway down the page. Sorry the formatting is messed up, I couldn't find the original SRD online though. If someone else has a link with better formatting, feel free to share it.

Of course, these were designed with the intent to give D&D classes balance, then play them using the BESM ruleset, so you might find a need to tweak them a bit to bring them back to D&D. Also, these were designed with core rules in mind, so it doesn't take into account things like cleric DMM: Persist cheese.

Just a bit of a long-winded thought on how to boost the melee classes a bit though.