Conjuration includes teleportation, so you could teleport away a large quantity of air, creating a vaccuum contained in the orb. When the orb bursts, air rushes to fill the vaccuum and creates a sonic blast.
Oh yeah still haven't come up with a good explanation for conjuring sonic - maybe you conjure up the center of a thunderclap? Noise is just moving particles.
igi
Nice. I say what he says.
Oh yeah still haven't come up with a good explanation for conjuring sonic - maybe you conjure up the center of a thunderclap? Noise is just moving particles.
igi
Q - How does conjuring work?
A - It works just fine, thank you.
I think you guys are going a little overboard in trying to explain things, like magic, that have and need no explenation.
Ultradan
Yeah agreed that this turned into a rant pretty quickly. And I'm not in any pain. Or angry or anything like that. I mentioned them at the beginning because it was an irritant (the purpose of my thread here keep in mind) and I waas wondering If anyone else agreed.
I'm not trying to push my veiws on anyone. I think my interpretation of the magic system is pretty spot on with what the books suggests but.....
A. I might be flat out wrong
and
B. Who follows all the rule books to a T anyway? (not I)
I wasn't trying to just repeat my point over and over again I kept trying to explain WHY it bothered me since I got the feeling lots of people thought I had a problem with the balance, which was not the case. I simply like what the books did with magic, and I do not like it when the suppliments seem to disregard that to make something new. Plus I just do not like a few things in them, personal preferences thats all, but I will still explain why.
If you do not like the discussion thats fine just stop posting and I'll stop posting my rebuttle. And yeah when it comes to debates I have a well of unending energy, it is always worth it.
As to why I do this? I just like to debate, I see it as a fun way to learn and on these boards I often find myself defending a point only to be swayed from it by someone with a better point.
Oh yeah still haven't come up with a good explanation for conjuring sonic - maybe you conjure up the center of a thunderclap? Noise is just moving particles.
igiQ - How does conjuring work?
A - It works just fine, thank you.
I think you guys are going a little overboard in trying to explain things, like magic, that have and need no explenation.
Ultradan
Maybe, but I find the enterprise fun personally.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Maybe, but I find the enterprise fun personally.Oh yeah still haven't come up with a good explanation for conjuring sonic - maybe you conjure up the center of a thunderclap? Noise is just moving particles.
igiQ - How does conjuring work?
A - It works just fine, thank you.
I think you guys are going a little overboard in trying to explain things, like magic, that have and need no explenation.
Ultradan
Agreed. Even if I don't particularly like the D&D system of magic schools, I like to debate the mechanics of magic. By the way Sexi, I recommend taking a look at Ars Magica to see a really solid magic system with relatively well defined metaphysics. If you're not familiar, the basic set up is as follows:
Magic in Ars Magica is composed of verbs and nouns. There are 5 verbs and 7 or 8 nouns (it's been a while since I've played). The verbs are Create, Manipulate, Transform, Destroy, and Perceive (except, they're all in latin for flavoring reasons). The nouns are your basic 4 elements, animal, mind, images, magic and body (body is the human version of animal). All magical effects are composed of a noun verb combo. A fireball would be Create Fire (Creo Ignam in Ars Magica speak). Counterspelling would be Destroy Magic (Perdo Vim). Anyway, it's a great system and worth checking out if you are drawn to D&D because of magic. IIRC, Monte Cook (or is it Skip Williams? One of the architects of 3e) is one of the creators of Ars Magica and the influence of that system on 3e can also be seen in things like the stat bonuses.
To be fair, I remember clearly from a thread (somewhere, that part is no longer clear) that WotC made a few peculiar decisions regarding arcane school assignments to preserve balance between specialty wizards.
Play balance is more important than consistency. I have little problem with that.
I don't know if this is the explanation for orb spells and the like, though.
Regard,
Jack
|
Yeah agreed that this turned into a rant pretty quickly. And I'm not in any pain. Or angry or anything like that. I mentioned them at the beginning because it was an irritant (the purpose of my thread here keep in mind) and I waas wondering If anyone else agreed.
I'm not trying to push my veiws on anyone. I think my interpretation of the magic system is pretty spot on with what the books suggests but.....
A. I might be flat out wrong
and
B. Who follows all the rule books to a T anyway? (not I)I wasn't trying to just repeat my point over and over again I kept trying to explain WHY it bothered me since I got the feeling lots of people thought I had a problem with the balance, which was not the case. I simply like what the books did with magic, and I do not like it when the suppliments seem to disregard that to make something new. Plus I just do not like a few things in them, personal preferences thats all, but I will still explain why.
If you do not like the discussion thats fine just stop posting and I'll stop posting my rebuttle. And yeah when it comes to debates I have a well of unending energy, it is always worth it.
As to why I do this? I just like to debate, I see it as a fun way to learn and on these boards I often find myself defending a point only to be swayed from it by someone with a better point.
Like I said, I'm not trying to censor you. But you are quite, um, emphatic. And I'm not sure what you want people to say - there doesn't seem to be much debate as you don't accept anything much, in terms of the rules issues, that is suggested.
As it happens, I understand exactly where you are coming from. It does seem a bit duff to have some fire spells which are affected by SR amd some not. I also think I get your point of view - these things matter in your game, because that is the way you play it. But I also think that the issue is precisely that - the way you play your game, not the rules themselves. I don't think that you have grasped my point in this regard. If the rules balance, as you say, then there isn't really an issue apart from personal taste. And taste is, well, personal.
I'm sorry if I offended you - that wasn't my intention and I apologise. But I do think that the exchange serves to highlight more our different approaches to the game, rather than problems with the rules, per se.
If you question the impact of a new spell on your game give it to a sorcerer - or the equivalent, let him use it against the party, then it can't really fall into the parties hands.
Or if it gets out of hand steal or damage the wizards spell book (not a ploy used often enough in my opinion) in the world of the game they would a HOT commodity for rogues - most Wizards don't take the time or want to expend the resources to make a back up, or do much to protect them (though a few do)and as to damage well books are easy to mess up.
Similarly, if its a new spell, make your Wizards research it don't just make it available in the local magic shop. If they want to take at as one of the spells the are developing in their free time - say no, PHB or approved spells only.
I personally don't care much about the internal logic of spell schools - its a game not an actual physics analogy - and its more important for all of the schools to be balanced for the specialists than for it to resolve into a clear window on how magic "really" works, though I concede it is sometimes fun to debate such. But I think part of the point is to have, for example some fire spells that beat certain resistances and some that don't. Thats why somebody went to the bother to write different spells - other wise you could boil it down to generic fire spell I II and III, add nifty description to taste.
But I achieved my peace with games organization of magic awhile ago, though it is not my ideal picture of how magic "should" work (like anyone cares about poor Kyr's opinion). However having come to peace with the system I find it is much easier to manipulate, create cool items, spells, etc.
Sorry tangent.
Most of the spells have there uses at certain levels in certain scenarios, and most of them are pretty balanced but are hugely useful or useless in certain settings - which are controlled by the DM not the good folks who develop mechanics and worry about spell balance. Most of the spells I don't like are ones that I perceive as just goofy in their description, but when I look at their net game effect, in general they sacrifice some punch for the aesthetic, gutsnake springs to mind.
The reverse is true to you don't have to look at the spells in the PHB as boring basic spells - a magic missile was described in a post on another thread as a stream of flowers for one caster, I like when the missile attack as the casters totem animal - it doesn't have to be the same generic magic missile. Most people don't go into detailed specifics because it slows down the game, confuses the DM and other players, and frankly because it requires effort.
When I get a new book I look to see which spells add value, that is plug holes where spells didn't really exist before, those are few and far between, and those spells (which to my own tastes) have really cool descriptions (or based on their name I can develop what I think of as cool descriptions.
Though I conceed I should probably look at what the ramifications of different metamagic feats would do to them.
As for non spell stuff from new books - feats, PrCs, well many of the PrCs are IMO goofy, the description lame, and the abilities - well I would rather have just a simple feat progression, but I am not every player and the books try to SOMETHING to appeal to all styles of play but I don't think that even the most conceited writer would think that their offerings would appeal to EVERY style of play. And all of the published stuff - to me at least seems balanced enough for me to envision it working in somebodies game, not necessarily mine, but thats okay, doesn't mean its broken, I may even think it is stupid - but not unbalanced or disruptive (manyshot falls in this school - I mean please). Thats the great thing about the new game it provides choices.
Be strong enough to say no and industrious enough to think through how it would play out in your campaign.
Rambling over.
|
|
Aubrey, I like the new avatar. Very malformed!
FH
Thanks - the last guy wasn't malformed, merely a bit pervy looking. This is a real - um - improvement.
Re the issue of orb spells and SR (these have hijacked the thread a bit - maybe a moritorium on these might be worthwhile after this) I was thinking about the whole issue on the drive home from work just now. I think the problem arises from trying to justify the rules of the game, and in this instance spells, like they represent physical laws. While I applaud any attempts to make the game seems rooted in a "fantasy reality", the fundamental issue is that the rules for spells are entirely arbitrary. Not just the orb spells - all spells. And SR, the issue that is being considered here, is particularly arbitrary.
What does SR represent? Why do some monsters have SR and others not? Is there a fundamental aspect of a creature that gives it SR? Outsiders? Well, some do, but plenty of non-outsiders do too. Dragons? Well, only at certain age categories - it suddenly switches on at (if memory serves) Young Adult. Why then? What do yuan-ti, and mindflayers have in common that they have SR? Why not lizardmen? Why not octopods?
SR is a purely metagame phenomenon. It is there to make some creatures a bit tougher than they would otherwise be - to give them a bit of added poke, up the CR, and make them tougher to kill. It is an issue of game design, not biology, not physics, not metaphysics. And it is derived as a mechanic from the god/bad old days of 1E and 2E, when game balance mattered not-a-jot.
So trying to defend from first principles a position where certain spells should or should not be affected by SR is likely to tie you in knots. OK - so what is the different between a conjured orb of fire and a fireball? Well, they are both spherical, they are both fiery. The fire for an orb is "conjured", the fire for a fireball is "evoked". Where does "evoked" fire come from? The same place "conjured" fire comes from? If not, where? So why, for the sake of argument, should a fireball be subject to SR? It's fire, right? That's hot burning gases, not anything intrinsically magical - so why should you be immune to something hot that it evoked but not something hot that is conjured - or, in the same vein, something hot that you get hit with or fall into, like a pool of lava.
The more you try and treat the rules re spells (and SR is probably a really good example) like they actually represent physical laws, the more you run into issues like these. The rules are silent on issues like these, because the designers, basically, don't care about issues like this much. You can't alter the laws of physics by adding a new law, or rewriting them in an errata, but you can do exactly that with the rules of D&D (the Laws of Thermodynamics - 3.5E: doesn't really work). This just underlines why it is difficult, and a bit pointless, to try and say why some spells are "wrong" and others are "right".
And so, without wanting to upset anyone, the issue with the orb spells for Sexi is more emotional that rational. He (sorry - I'm assuming you are a he) doesn't like them because they don't feel right, but the argument is difficult to really address because the rules are entirely arbitrary. You don't like them for the SR issue - I don't care about the SR issue, or I can accommodate it in mt "world view" of how a D&D universe might operate. Both points of view are valid. But we can't have a satisfactory debate about it because neither of us can actually be defeated on the issue: the rules are mutable, so they can accommodate every point of view.
I was just becoming a bit concerned that the debate was becoming a bit sterile, because the problem isn't solvable in terms of the rules. The rules are just made up on a whim by game designers, so arguing about whether SR should be a factor just takes one arbitrary rule and compares it with another arbitrary rule.
So if you are serious about wanting a magic system that really, really attempts to make some sort of sense, I would suggest you have an awful lot of work to do to rejig the basic concepts of how magic works - in terms of physics and laws. Even stuff like SR, saving throws, schools of magic, energy types, positive energy, negative energy, magic items, psionics, mind-control, summoning, the planes, and so on and so on. It's a very big deal, and pretty intimidating when you think about it - which is why I shy away from the problems and accept the game as it is.
As before - I would not want to devalue your (Sexi's) views and contribution. And, as I said above, I think it is a very strong roleplaying gambit to try and see the magic system as rooted in some sort of physical laws within the confines of the fantsy world (albeit that it unravels if inspected too closely). But I think, because the problem is not succeptible to truly rational analysis, that the debate is going nowhere (though it is fun to expound from one's lonely garrett - so please only consider my "enough already" comment as being in a light hearted vein). And I don't think that the full implications of your position are necessarily immediately apparent to you, with the the can of worms that it opens up.
But hey - maybe I just think too much.
Sexi, I'm with you on the Orb spell issue but I'm tired of hearing about it from everyone on this thread. So, here's a bone that I have to pick with a lot of books.
Certain prestige classes (frenzied berserker comes to mind most readily) seem to be merely super-powered versions of basic classes. The DMG states that PrCs are supposed to make PCs with unusual feat/class combinations more powerful. The mystic theurge class is for cleric/wizard PCs that NEED a boost in relative power to be on par with mainstream PCs. Classes like Frenzied Berserker seem to be made to boost the power of a basic barbarian PC who is already powerful enough; the class requirements include a base attack plus 4 feats that are great for any basic barbarian.
So that's my beef with the new books, though only with certain classes. Most PrCs I like because they reward PCs that make unusual feat/class decisions instead of rewarding mainstream/cliche decisions.
Yes the whole evocation vs conjuration thing is about game balance.
Evocation spells usually are automatic hits but have saves and SR.
Conjuration usually require hits and saves but have no SR.
See, it balances (kinda).
Anyway that is how my group and I get around it.
But I appreciate Aubrey's POV that this is all just game design. And it is magic - magic is not necessarily logical. Is it really logical to create a mansion out of nothing to live in for a night? NO! It is magic.
igi
EDIT - maybe consider SR to be spell armour class? Maybe when you do a ranged touch attack with an orb you bypass the spell armour but when you auto 'hit' with a fireball it has to penetrate the spell armour. Anyway just food for thought.
Sexi, I'm with you on the Orb spell issue but I'm tired of hearing about it from everyone on this thread. So, here's a bone that I have to pick with a lot of books.
Certain prestige classes (frenzied berserker comes to mind most readily) seem to be merely super-powered versions of basic classes. The DMG states that PrCs are supposed to make PCs with unusual feat/class combinations more powerful. The mystic theurge class is for cleric/wizard PCs that NEED a boost in relative power to be on par with mainstream PCs. Classes like Frenzied Berserker seem to be made to boost the power of a basic barbarian PC who is already powerful enough; the class requirements include a base attack plus 4 feats that are great for any basic barbarian.
So that's my beef with the new books, though only with certain classes. Most PrCs I like because they reward PCs that make unusual feat/class decisions instead of rewarding mainstream/cliche decisions.
I think that the underlying problem is we've gotten the idea that every PC should be allowed access to every PrC just because it's in the rules. Wasn't the original idea of the PrC is that it's a DM's tool--allows you to come up with new and interesting NPCs, whether friend or foe? And that players have to get DM approval to work toward a prestige class--i.e., it has to 1) fit into the DM's campaign world and 2) be appropriate for a PC. Rule one must be strictly enforced in this era of gazillions of prestige classes.
I think a frenzied berserker might make an interesting adversary, once or twice, in a campaign-appropriate situation. But the fact that a frenzied berserker is likely to kill one of his buddies every second or third melee makes him an extreme liability to a party. I would be very leary about allowing a PC to play such a character in my game. And if I'm a fellow PC when the guy goes ape-s*** on his buddies, I will defend the rest of my comrades with lethal force--and I hope you don't expect me to run over and use magic to put your intestines back inside you while you're still raging.
There are a number of PrC's that I would put off limits to PCs in my campaign, for this and other reasons (e.g. sorry, that doesn't exist in my world.) And I would want to read the PrC description carefully and have a week or two to consider my answer, if it's one I'm not already familiar with. That said, I'm willing to entertain requests, and will usually do so favorably if you present an interesting character concept that fits the campaign and is not too likely to interfere with the rest of the players' roleplaying fun.
P.S. Has anyone got a count of the number of 3.5 prestige classes published in "official" sources? It must be several hundred by now.
DIE, COMPUTER SCUM!!! Sorry, it just ate my post, even as I was writing it. Grrr.... What I was saying:
I will not attempt to lend my two cents to the orb spell question without opening/continuing to spill the can of worms. Can he do it? Let's watch!
Sexi and I both share the opinion that D&D magic has a sort of metaphysics to it, as reflected by the mere existence of the schools of magic. These rules aren't just abitrary; they seem to have been developed with/to explain the existing magic and give a sense of how it operated, which is important for designing new spells and internal consistency. (Remember, consistancy goooooood.) Would you balk at an Enchantment spell that summoned a horde of iron golems? I hope so.
So long as the facts of what exists in the game matches the in-game explanation, there's no problem. However, simply assuming the designers made something for an issue of game balance is dangerous, as the brilliant *cough cough* folks at WotC have already demonstrated their game-balance ignorance in splendid fashion (see Frenzied Berserker). Therefore, it is important to look over both game balance and the in-game explanation to make sure things make sense, so that there is consistancy. (Remember, consistancy goooooood.)
The definition of the schools are not so convoluted or mystifying as some seem to think. Conjuration makes physical material, or calls it (including creatures) from somewhere else. Evocation creates energies (as defined by D&D, see PHB for clarification). These are basic tennants set out in the core rule books, and they make sense, and by and large, the core rulebooks are consistant with themselves. (Remember, consistancy goooooood.) If they weren't, then it would be obvious that the rules really didn't mean anything, and then you're left with a rousing game of cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, whatever, take your pick.
Now, here comes the Complete Arcane, which introduces spells (the now-infamous orbs); spells that create energy, but are classified in a group that is supposed to create matter. That's not consistant. Is it balanced? Yes, I suppose, except that now it removes some of the difficulty of the choice in choosing Conjurer or Evoker, and I personally think that when people sweat choices like that, the game is good.
Back on topic, the Orb spells aren't true to the underlying priniciples of the game set out in the PHB. Could they conjure lava and thus be conjuration? Yes, and I like that idea, and will probably use it to justify the spells myself. But, as written, it is obvious that they create energy, and there is no mention of any physical "shell." It is a blatant violation of that clearly stated in the Book Upon Which All Else is Based, the Player's Handbook. This can only be explained as the designers seeking to make an energy spell that bypasses SR.
This is annoying. I repeat: This is annoying. That's simple, isn't it? I'm pretty sure that's all Sexi was saying; "This ticks me off, what suppliments tick you off?"
Everything else is people taking his statement out of context, him clarifying, restating, etc., in a cycle of misunderstanding.
So, please, stop. :) Thank you.
Now, as far as SR itself is concerned, to start a new topic, I personally don't have a problem with it as far as in-game explanations go. Part of magic's metaphysics, as I see them, includes the possibility of things being resistant to those pseudo-laws and forces. I think it is a very literary element and adds quite a bit of flavor to the game while being very close to some of the key concepts that have been around for a long time.
Why do some things have it and not others? It's part of the metaphysics of magic, which we can't know, but are still easy to "believe in" so long as they remain consistant. Some things have "evolved", or even been endowed with, a resistance to magic. I have no problem accepting that in an in-game fashion, and don't view it as overly heavy-handed or arbitrary.
But that's just me.
On the topic of PrCs, I absolutely love one that makes an otherwise poor choice good, or expands on a subsystem that is otherwise underplayed. For example, if there was a PrC made that focused on Sunder attacks, and their augmentations and such, I would ahve no problem with it.
What I DO have a problem with are things like the aforementioned Frenzied Berserker, which are not meant to balance a choice or present an alternate, interesting system of trade-offs, but simply amplify the existing powers of a class with little-to-no REAL take for its give. I've personally DMed and 8th level Frenzied Berserker, and I can say from experience that making its Will save high enough to not risk killing the party is not a difficult task, which removes the main balancing factor of the class too easily.
Not only that, but now you have the player focused on Will saves, so affecting him with the class's supposed weakness, mind-affecting spells, is not so easy. Don't forget the effective +4 it gets to Will saves from rage AND frenzy.
I enjoy the fact that, with all the PrC that are floating around, you can meet an NPC and not be able to know anything about his abilities judging by his appearance, gear, etc. I appreciate that, used sparingly and wisely, they add awesome chances for roleplaying a character who possesses lost or rare lore, which actively reflects in my game abilities. However, I can do both of those rather effectively with little more than the core rulebooks, as well. Therefore, I do not see the need for, nor appreciate the overabundance of PrC. I don't dislike them, but I would simply like to see their quantity reduced and refined back to more of what I believe their core intent to be: Augmenting otherwise poor choices or providing interesting, balanced trade-offs.
However, it is difficult to simply go around saying, "No, you can't do this, because I don't like it." I have players that can argue points in excellent fashion, or sometimes just fatiguing fashion, and I must say that I do not enjoy arguing with them about such a thing.
It also raises an interesting conundrum: they play this game to have fun, just as I do. They take PrCs to enhance their fun, just as I detail backgrounds and stories that they will likely never know/remember/care about, all to enhance my own fun. What gives me the right to say that my idea of fun is better than theirs?
Certainly, the fact that I am consuming my time and energy to make the game, which as I stated in another thread, I do feel, and I believe rightfully so, that it is MY game, as I am the one putting in virtually all the energy to making it. This gives me much more say in the process, and actually, if taken to extreme, it is within my power to make any call I want and do anything I want. That's a long established power of the Dungeon Master. However, to enact it too frequently is to become a tyrant.
So, the question becomes, and I would truly like advice on this, how to DIPLOMATICALLY convince players to stay away from options such as the dreaded (in more ways than one) Frenzied Berserker, without being a tyrant?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sexi and I both share the opinion that D&D magic has a sort of metaphysics to it, as reflected by the mere existence of the schools of magic. These rules aren't just abitrary; they seem to have been developed with/to explain the existing magic and give a sense of how it operated, which is important for designing new spells and internal consistency. (Remember, consistancy goooooood.) Would you balk at an Enchantment spell that summoned a horde of iron golems? I hope so.
So long as the facts of what exists in the game matches the in-game explanation, there's no problem. However, simply assuming the designers made something for an issue of game balance is dangerous, as the brilliant *cough cough* folks at WotC have already demonstrated their game-balance ignorance in splendid fashion (see Frenzied Berserker). Therefore, it is important to look over both game balance and the in-game explanation to make sure things make sense, so that there is consistancy. (Remember, consistancy goooooood.)
The definition of the schools are not so convoluted or mystifying as some seem to think. Conjuration makes physical material, or calls it (including creatures) from somewhere else. Evocation creates energies (as defined by D&D, see PHB for clarification). These are basic tennants set out in the core rule books, and they make sense, and by and large, the core rulebooks are consistant with themselves. (Remember, consistancy goooooood.) If they weren't, then it would be obvious that the rules really didn't mean anything, and then you're left with a rousing game of cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, whatever, take your pick.
Sadly, the history of the game does not support your argument. I'm sure an older-timer will chime in when I make a misstatement, but basically the history of the school system is as follows:
1e: I don't think the school system eevn existed. Instead, there were two different arcane spellcasters - the magic user and the illusionist. The illusionist was balanced against the magic user (insofar as balance existed in the game then), not against the other schools. Cleric and druid spells did not have schools.
2e: The illusionist is no longer a distinct class, but instead is one option available as a specilialist (similar to the 3e system). The spells are grouped into schools and there is an attempt to balance them against each other. Cleric and druid spells do not have schools, but do have spheres that are similar to schools.
What you should note from this history is that the magic school system was not an integral part of the game. It began as a separate class (the illusionist), which spun off the rest of the schools, which in lead to the current system. It has been tinkered with in each edition for balance reasons. It was not created to be a holistic magic system as found in other rpg's (Ars Magica, Mage, etc). It was an ad hoc system thrown together around the illusionist. So yes, it is convoluted and non-sensical. It does not fit the cleric or druid spells very well and it does not have very good boundaries between schools. The school system is an afterthought bolted onto the game, not part of the original framework. Any argument that proceeds from the premise that magic in D&D is based around some unified theory of magic using the schools is incorrect.
The core rules as they stand do a good job of grouping the spells into these unweildy legacy categories, but there are still a good number of spells that are not in the right school or do not fit very well in any school (see prior posts). You might as well argue that it makes sense for there to only be 7 levels of cleric spells rather than 9 or that there should be 9 levels of wizard spells because that just makes sense with the way magic works. Sure, I can explain why there are 9 levels of spells (each level is based upon a rune, and the ability to draw that rune unlocks a whole new level of power) but that doesn't mean that 9 levels is the best way to express the gradual increase in a spellcaster's power.
Saern wrote:
How to DIPLOMATICALLY tell a player that he/she cannot be a Frenzied Berserker. (paraphrased)
For most reasonable players, I think it is enough to say 'no you can't be a FB/munchkin PrC'. Even if the player balks at the DM restricting their options, a calm explaination of your opinions regarding the particular class should satisfy the player.
And then there are the unreasonable players. In this case, there is no diplomatic way to be a tyrant. Sometimes players will simply not listen and no amount of 'beating around the bush' or 'letting him down easy' will be diplomatic enough to prevent that player's whining and moaning. Feel the tyrant; walk as the tyrant; be the tyrant.
TS
Sexi and I both share the opinion that D&D magic has a sort of metaphysics to it, as reflected by the mere existence of the schools of magic. These rules aren't just abitrary; they seem to have been developed with/to explain the existing magic and give a sense of how it operated, which is important for designing new spells and internal consistency. (Remember, consistancy goooooood.) Would you balk at an Enchantment spell that summoned a horde of iron golems? I hope so.
So long as the facts of what exists in the game matches the in-game explanation, there's no problem. However, simply assuming the designers made something for an issue of game balance is dangerous, as the brilliant *cough cough* folks at WotC have already demonstrated their game-balance ignorance in splendid fashion (see Frenzied Berserker). Therefore, it is important to look over both game balance and the in-game explanation to make sure things make sense, so that there is consistancy. (Remember, consistancy goooooood.)
The definition of the schools are not so convoluted or mystifying as some seem to think. Conjuration makes physical material, or calls it (including creatures) from somewhere else. Evocation creates energies (as defined by D&D, see PHB for clarification). These are basic tennants set out in the core rule books, and they make sense, and by and large, the core rulebooks are consistant with themselves. (Remember, consistancy goooooood.) If they weren't, then it would be obvious that the rules really didn't mean anything, and then you're left with a rousing game of cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, whatever, take your pick.
Sadly, the history of the game does not support your argument. I'm sure an older-timer will chime in when I make a misstatement, but basically the history of the school system is as follows:
1e: I don't think the school system eevn existed. Instead, there were two different arcane spellcasters - the magic user and the illusionist. The illusionist was balanced against the...
When did I say that the spell schools have existed in previous incarnations of the game?
This past weekend, my father and I went to clean out the apartment of an uncle of mine who recently passed away, and I was amazed to find, in his closet, buried away, a 1978 reprint of the ORIGINAL boxed set from '74. It's not worth anything, as it was already opened and the box worn, but the dice are there and everything. I was amazed at the differences between the editions; I knew they were existed and were extreme, but still, actually reading the text itself is shocking to someone who's never played anything but 3.x. I'm thinking of building a shrine around the set. :) Anyway, the point here is that I am aware of the lack of a school system in older editions.
Aside from that misunderstanding, I am in concurrence with you; the modern school system does an admirable job of classifying spells, though there are bugs. I mainly see this in necromancy, where there is no unified, or even loose definition of what negative energy is like or capable of, other than "pertaining to undead as their power source." Almost every other spell, however, makes very good sense in the school it is currently placed in, in my opinion.
Purely out of curiosity and the feeling that you're on to something that I've missed, can you name some spells that you feel don't make sense where they're at, and why?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sexi and I both share the opinion that D&D magic has a sort of metaphysics to it, as reflected by the mere existence of the schools of magic. These rules aren't just abitrary; they seem to have been developed with/to explain the existing magic and give a sense of how it operated, which is important for designing new spells and internal consistency.
This is what I am responding to. You and Sexi are incorrect that the D&D magic system has a sort of metaphysics to it. The D&D system is based around specific magical effects that were later grouped into the schools. The spells are not the product of the schools, rather the schools are the products of the spells. It is an important distinction because once you realize that the spells came first you can appreciate that the school system doesn't work as well as a system where the schools came first. The schools are arbitrary.
(generally though, I agree with what you say about the rules and I think you both are fighting the good fight by trying to get the schools to make sense. I also like it when the magic system is internally consistent and think that is a gooooood thing. I just don't think the D&D system is well set up because it was created in reverse. There isn't a meaningful mechanical division between evocation and conjuration that is worth keeping track of. I particularly like your comment about cowboys and indians and have to frequently bite my tongue on that issue when people talk about muchkins v. True Roleplayers.)
Purely out of curiosity and the feeling that you're on to something that I've missed, can you name some spells that you feel don't make sense where they're at, and why?
All healing spells. Creation is a stupid school for them to be in (necromancy is probably the most sensible school, and they were in the necromancy sphere in 2e.) What are you creating? Bits of flesh? There's no reason why every evocation spell can't be a creation spell (the fact that you summon the material from another plane and not your own plane is irrelevant to the game mechanics). Mage armor should be evocation if evocation is the school of force, it should be abjuration if abjuration is the school of protection, it should not be conjuration at all. Cause fear should be in enchantment. I don't know where animate rope should be, but transmutation doesn't make any sense. Darkness should be an illusion, not evocation. Shatter should probably be transmutation. Magic mouth is a ward and should be abjuration. Ditto phantom trap. Not sure where knock should be, but not transmutation. Ditto rope trick (planar travel should be conjuration, not evocation). Whispering wind is arguably an illusion.
Do I need to go on? Sure, you can make an argument for why these spells are in the school they are in, but it's not obvious or cut and dried. Sean K. Reynolds has examples on his website of spells that are in different schools based on the same effect that show how easy it is to manipulate the schools. He takes the fly spell and recasts it for different schools. For necromancy, you grow wings. For conjuration, you create an air elemental to carry you. Etc. The point is that the school system doesn't do much mechanically and there is substantial overlap. If you are going to create categories for magic, you could at least do a better job of making them distinct and making them intuitive.
Good points. Ok, so they can be broken easily. Simply changing the "fire" in "Orb of fire" to magma has the same effect and makes perfect sense from the in-game explanation, while leaving it purely as "fire" creates a problem for the latter.
But thank you for recognition of our efforts! And we'll keep on playing magic like some sort of pseudophysics created by quantum physicists on crystal meth! Huzzah! :)
|
|
Good points. Ok, so they can be broken easily. Simply changing the "fire" in "Orb of fire" to magma has the same effect and makes perfect sense from the in-game explanation, while leaving it purely as "fire" creates a problem for the latter.
But thank you for recognition of our efforts! And we'll keep on playing magic like some sort of pseudophysics created by quantum physicists on crystal meth! Huzzah! :)
I think all of us would LIKE the magic system to make sense - it would really add to the experience if it did.
I think all of us would LIKE the magic system to make sense - it would really add to the experience if it did.Good points. Ok, so they can be broken easily. Simply changing the "fire" in "Orb of fire" to magma has the same effect and makes perfect sense from the in-game explanation, while leaving it purely as "fire" creates a problem for the latter.
But thank you for recognition of our efforts! And we'll keep on playing magic like some sort of pseudophysics created by quantum physicists on crystal meth! Huzzah! :)
Thats why we do it. Because we are getting darn close.
Radiant Servant of Pelor. At first it was one of my favorite Prestige classes. However now having one in a campaign of mine I am beginning to realize that the radiant servant just turns a normal cleric of pelor into a clericx2. But their are no significant drawbacks to the class. The one in my campaign still does everything a normal cleric of Pelor does he acts as a defender, heals, maybe steps into melee if the need arises, and turns undead. But with RS of pelor levels he now acts as a defender, HEALS!!!!!!!!!!!(que the heavenly choir), steps into melee if the need arises, and TURNS UNDEAD!!!!!!!!!(Pelor himself joins the choir with a drum solo)
Now I have to make an undead that is around 4 Cr's higher than their level to make it immune to his turning. If he could not turn it, it would kill the party.
I think the Radiant Servant is fairly easy to balance, however, as they are the ULTIMATE mortal servants of Pelor, and thus should be held to extreme religious obligations and such, which would overall balanace the fact that they are, in the eyes of undead, just a nuclear bomb of positive energy goodness.
I play a RS of Pelor in a friend's campaign. Probably the only reason I'm not a healing/turning powerhouse is because the DM makes all undead either too weak to provide XP or immune to turning. Oh, and monsters/NPCs deal out truly massive damage for which my improved healing abilities barely make up for. In a normal campaign though I would agree that the RS of Pelor is just a cleric squared.
TS
Thats why we do it. Because we are getting darn close.
Radiant Servant of Pelor. At first it was one of my favorite Prestige classes. However now having one in a campaign of mine I am beginning to realize that the radiant servant just turns a normal cleric of pelor into a clericx2. But their are no significant drawbacks to the class. The one in my campaign still does everything a normal cleric of Pelor does he acts as a defender, heals, maybe steps into melee if the need arises, and turns undead. But with RS of pelor levels he now acts as a defender, HEALS!!!!!!!!!!!(que the heavenly choir), steps into melee if the need arises, and TURNS UNDEAD!!!!!!!!!(Pelor himself joins the choir with a drum solo)
Now I have to make an undead that is around 4 Cr's higher than their level to make it immune to his turning. If he could not turn it, it would kill the party.
Hey Sexi have you checked out my listing on Enworld? The frenzied beserker and Radiant Servant were 1st and 2nd on the list. It has other PrCs that may throw up red flags. Hope no one thinks I am trying to push my thread, I was looking for other insite and I thought the response was great and an looking to share possible problems with others.
I think all of us would LIKE the magic system to make sense - it would really add to the experience if it did.
Of course, it doesn't really matter if it DOES make sense based on any kind of chemical/physical/temporal/spacial or any other -al rationale based on modern science. It's just something to talk about...kind of like the essay on "Did Endor Survive the Explosion of the Death Star?" (if anyone saw that). Someone spending way too much time and effort fiddling with something that doesn't need an explination.
As ever,
ACE
|
|
I think all of us would LIKE the magic system to make sense - it would really add to the experience if it did.Of course, it doesn't really matter if it DOES make sense based on any kind of chemical/physical/temporal/spacial or any other -al rationale based on modern science. It's just something to talk about...kind of like the essay on "Did Endor Survive the Explosion of the Death Star?" (if anyone saw that). Someone spending way too much time and effort fiddling with something that doesn't need an explination.
As ever,
ACE
That probably describes most of us. :-)
Isn't the RS of Pelor the class that allows you to fire either Sunbeams or Searing Light as a Spell-Like ability (a seventh level spell) during the duration of your glow?
Its pretty cheesy to blind someone when they fail a Reflex save DC 28 (or higher).