D&D General The Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard Problem

[Minigiant]

Got it, thanks for the example!

First, I like a system like this.

Second, I would still have the attacks "deal damage". One thing about Hit Points being abstract is they can represent a creature's decreasing morale. In your example, the first attack disarms the giant (the damage is demoralizing for losing its weapon), the second shoved down (the damage is knowing you are more vulnerable), and third shove back (damage is the giant is pushed out of position and increases vulnerability).

Since "hits" don't have to actually hit (the damage is the target avoiding lethality), I think such a system still works. With cumulative hits, the pressure against the target mounts, allowing you to do more "impressive maneuvers/effects".

Well if hits that deal damage continue the chain, I might have to increase the number of hits to do effects. On not since your chain can be ruined by rolling a 5.

Any ideas for the missing Dragonstrikes' effects? I made all the Metallic ones based on their secondary breaths. But I's stuck on the Chromatics. I was doing it more based one the dragon's personality (AKA big dumb white just deals damage). Might branch out to a new thread.

 

[Celebrim]

His point is that D&D is not D&D

My D&D is the one with fire elementals, ghouls, and giant spiders that can climb as well or better than their tiny brethren. All three of those things violates the laws of physics in this universe, something you brush aside. I'm not the one selectively sensing the D&D universe. I'm not the one that needs to hold my nose and grin nor close my eyes to an issue because I'm not trying to defend the indefensible, that the D&D universe is realistic and runs on the laws of physics except when otherwise specified. It's always otherwise specified. It's not just one or two things.

Your D&D is the one where you keep trying to shoehorn the laws of physics into a world that clearly doesn't function by them. What's really interesting is the rationalizations you go through to do that. When I point to the fact that giant spiders can climb walls as proof that they have mundane magic, that is to say they are obeying the laws of physics of the D&D universe, you reject that to the point that you insist in your version of D&D they don't climb walls because it would break physics. You refuse to consider an explanation for the giant spider climbing the wall that suggests the physics of the D&D universe are the mystical rules that magic runs on.

Yet with the fire elemental or the ghoul, you are clearly not even attempting to use the laws of physics to explain that while simultaneously claiming that they aren't "magic".

that fighter is just getting super lucky or has a god cushioning the fall or whatever so that he survives. He's not actually falling uncontrolled like a human in our world is. If he was, at 100 feet he would splat regardless.

Yet when confronted by a different problem that suggests the laws of physics aren't in play, you feel perfectly free then to suggest a magical solution to the problem that whenever a human falls, they are being cushioned by a god or getting super lucky. Where is your proof that free fall in D&D has never been free fall? Your ad hoc explanation is fine, I have no problem with it, but it directly contradicts the very assertion that you bristled at initially and seem to have forgotten you are defending. Here we have a fighter that has done nothing but physical and non-magical training using magical means to survive falling, something you insisted didn't happen. So how do we know a fighter with nothing but physical training doesn't get similarly lucky or have similar divine aid when he jumps a great distance or strikes the top of a mountain?

I can provide a simpler explanation to all of this - the laws of physics as you know them in D&D don't apply to world of dragons, ghouls, fire elementals, and 20th level fighters. The exact laws of physics it conforms to are never explained explicitly but can be reasonably inferred to be the ones believed in by the sort of people that believed earth, fire, water, and air were elements. And if you do infer that, then the entire fantastic world of D&D is explained through that, because the D&D world and fantasy worlds generally run on the conceit "what if the myths are real".

 

[Maxperson]

My D&D is the one with fire elementals, ghouls, and giant spiders that can climb as well or better than their tiny brethren. All three of those things violates the laws of physics in this universe, something you brush aside.

Giant spiders maybe. We don't really know if fire elementals might exist somewhere else, and as for ghouls, we have zombies in other species already. Why not ghouls?

I'm not the one selectively sensing the D&D universe. I'm not the one that needs to hold my nose and grin nor close my eyes to an issue because I'm not trying to defend the indefensible, that the D&D universe is realistic and runs on the laws of physics except when otherwise specified. It's always otherwise specified. It's not just one or two things.

Soooooo, your argument is different argument than the one you've been talking about today. Different physics =/= magic or supernatural. Different physics can allow spiders and giants to exist, but it does not make them magical. The game even says that these are mundane creatures and not magical ones. Magic has meaning in D&D and it ain't "everything."

Your D&D is the one where you keep trying to shoehorn the laws of physics into a world that clearly doesn't function by them.

For the most part D&D does function by them. A few things are slightly different, like huge creatures being able to survive, but by and large, things function approximately the same.

When I point to the fact that giant spiders can climb walls as proof that they have mundane magic, that is to say they are obeying the laws of physics of the D&D universe, you reject that to the point that you insist in your version of D&D they don't climb walls because it would break physics.

I like more realism that D&D offers. That's me. D&D physics is not mundane magic, though. It's not magic of any sort. Only magic is magic. Had you argued D&D physics differs a bit from our own, then okay, yeah. But you didn't and your arguments didn't imply that you were arguing physics. Diamonds, dirt, air, wind, etc. are not D&D physics and you called them magical.

Yet with the fire elemental or the ghoul, you are clearly not even attempting to use the laws of physics to explain that while simultaneously claiming that they aren't "magic".

Because in D&D they aren't magic. This is fact. I don't need to justify their existence by our physical laws, because I'm not even close to attempting to mirror the real universe.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:

• the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
• the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect

In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type

This is how they explain it in the Sage Advice Compedium, two types of magic, only the latter is affected by Anti-Magic Field and similar stuff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, he's not. You are arguing that obviously magical or supernatural things are not, like ghouls. Your desire to win the argument has lead you to ignore the goal of the exercise. You aren't interested in finding a solution to the problem, in no small part because you don't believe there is one. Anything that smells of challenge to your gaming worldview you seem to need to confront, even when you could simply ignore the discussion. You aren't helping to find a solution, you're just being a pain in the neck.


Right, the thing that is obviously not mundane we'll handwave for gaming sake. The thing that is obviously supernatural we'll call mundane because that's truly D&D.

Right...

I would say hit points are less supernatural and more narrative. A necessary evil.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is how they explain it in the Sage Advice Compedium, two types of magic, only the latter is affected by Anti-Magic Field and similar stuff.

Very true, but the background magic he's describing applies to clearly otherwise impossible things, like dragons and the fact that the square-cube law has no teeth. It isn't meant to apply to humans, or normal animals, or indeed anything that does exist in the real world.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Very true, but the background magic he's describing applies to clearly otherwise impossible things, like dragons and the fact that the square-cube law has no teeth. It isn't meant to apply to humans, or normal animals, or indeed anything that does exist in the real world.

I don't see why it wouldn't if magic is truly part of nature and physics as they're saying. PCs can definitely do things that are impossible in real life, even ignoring the HP stuff.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Very true, but the background magic he's describing applies to clearly otherwise impossible things, like dragons and the fact that the square-cube law has no teeth. It isn't meant to apply to humans, or normal animals, or indeed anything that does exist in the real world.

So what? He's "wrong" about extrapolating diagesis within the rules of a game? Really?

So I want to try to tackle the linear fighter/quadratic wizard problem under my own terms. This is going to take a while. I realize as I sit down to write this that I could require 20 pages to even describe what I’m thinking.

What is wrong with this? Why is it so important for you and @Maxperson to shout him down? Why are to trying to stop this conversation? What is so threatening about this? The two of you are not the Guardians of Dungeons and Dragons. If you don't like it, don't participate. What's going on here will in no way change the structure of the game in any way other than the seeds of house rules. It will not affect you in any way beyond the degree of your participation.

There are a number of posters here who hare off in some wild tangent that I disagree with. If it's something I feel compelled to comment on I ask some clarifying question and perhaps some polite criticism. And then I stop. At least, that's my goal. I don't necessarily agree with Celebrim, but the discussion may provide the kernel of an idea that I develop in my own way. And it would be a lot easier if you stopped arguing for the sake of contrariness.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't see why it wouldn't if magic is truly part of nature and physics as they're saying. PCs can definitely do things that are impossible in real life, even ignoring the HP stuff.

But D&D doesn't say that. It has never said that. That's my point. If you want it to be that way, go for it! But any rules generated using that premise are homebrew.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So what? He's "wrong" about extrapolating diagesis within the rules of a game? Really?


What is wrong with this? Why is it so important for you and @Maxperson to shout him down? Why are to trying to stop this conversation? What is so threatening about this? The two of you are not the Guardians of Dungeons and Dragons. If you don't like it, don't participate. What's going on here will in no way change the structure of the game in any way other than the seeds of house rules. It will not affect you in any way beyond the degree of your participation.

There are a number of posters here who hare off in some wild tangent that I disagree with. If it's something I feel compelled to comment on I ask some clarifying question and perhaps some polite criticism. And then I stop. At least, that's my goal. I don't necessarily agree with Celebrim, but the discussion may provide the kernel of an idea that I develop in my own way. And it would be a lot easier if you stopped arguing for the sake of contrariness.

I'm not threatening anyone. I am asking them to accept that their premise, while plausible and absolutely playable, is not directly supported by the text of any version of D&D, and is instead their personal interpretation. That's all.