Quote from: Sigmund;543622How can magic be "internally consistent"? It has no existence outside your head. What you find "internally consistent" is not by default what I find "internally consistent" without some real world baseline to compare to. In the end we are in fact talking about games here. While I want some effort made to provide some sort of system for magic in my fantasy RPGs, I still realize it's all make-believe. Magic does what I say it does in my games. It does it how I say it does it. Same goes for your games. Given that, why is it so hard to pretend that magic missiles can only damage certain things? We seem to have no trouble pretending dragons could fly or that ghosts could see, why is magic missile such a stumbling block all of a sudden?

Well we all have our foibles

Mine is Magic needs to be consistent. Effectively I want the rules of magic to be such that anyone can create a spell that fits with the system and doesn't break it, through following its internal rules.
I would to be honest prefer magic to be explained as a set of rules rather than a set of effects that derive from those rules but one sells books and is IP protected and one takes ages to use in play so meh.

I want explanations in the game world for how dragons fly, I want to know what binds a ghost to the world and what happens when you exorsise one.
To aid my SoD magical effects need to be explainable to me if I accept the base axiom that magic exists and works.

Good fantasy fiction obeys this tenent where its the Will and the Word in the Belgariad, binding demons in Stormbringer, taking potion class in Harry Potter or one Ring to Bind them all in LotR, or the various types and fucntions of magic seen in Master of the 5 magics.

anyway just me.

Anyone want to opine on why despite the orisons and cantrips Turn Undead is a 1st level spell ?

Quote from: jibbajibba;543629Anyone want to opine on why despite the orisons and cantrips Turn Undead is a 1st level spell ?

They specifically wanted that way. They did not want to be a class feature this time around. Interesting choice and I can see the reason why they did it. Because they have listened to people like myself that want clerics not to be wizards so their magic works far more like a sorcerer which is more palatable.

They are trying hard to make which God you follow a very important choice without being unfair or to make something like killing undead be a baseline ability for the God of Fertility or Farming where it doesn't make a lick of sense but still have the ability available to all for a reasonable cost.

Quote from: jibbajibba;543487So it can now now used as a creature detector

The spell always used to just work against creatures, didn't it?

Has anybody ever had this 'creature detector' function actually come up in play?

I'm wondering.  Frankly it never occurred to me.

Quote from: VectorSigma;543641The spell always used to just work against creatures, didn't it?

Has anybody ever had this 'creature detector' function actually come up in play?

I'm wondering.  Frankly it never occurred to me.

True, but it's the fact that now it's at-will makes it a non-stop-magic-missile-for-whatever tool.

Typical WotC -
1. Start with desired game effect - Mages having the ability to do damage every round without resorting to mundane means.(this here is the false first principle)
2. Create Rules to that effect - the new MM
3. Use metagaming rules classifications and jargon to make the spell work ONLY for the intended effect - Target: Creature
4. If you're lucky, get a fluff blurb that actually makes some form of remotely associated sense.  Note: This is the first time that any form of association, setting integrity etc is even taken into consideration and the people that write the text blurbs aren't the people that write the rules.

Quote from: VectorSigma;543641The spell always used to just work against creatures, didn't it?

Has anybody ever had this 'creature detector' function actually come up in play?

I'm wondering.  Frankly it never occurred to me.

Historically the spell description does target creatures, but a lot of DMs would let it be used for other purposes.

The point really is just that a flexible spell you can use once a day is fine a spell you can use constantly for various effects is problematic. Letting it "detect life" as a side effect might well replace an actual spell.

Quote from: Planet Algol;543575"Generally" in genre fiction, "beginning" wizards are not shooting rainbows and cotton candy at will or using a mage hand to pull down big boobed women's tops.

You're reading the wrong stuff.

JG

I'm surprised no one has asked:
What happens if I cast Magic Missile into the darkness?

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;543648I'm surprised no one has asked:
What happens if I cast Magic Missile into the darkness?

JG

Why don't you try it?

Quote from: jibbajibba;543628Well we all have our foibles

Mine is Magic needs to be consistent. Effectively I want the rules of magic to be such that anyone can create a spell that fits with the system and doesn't break it, through following its internal rules.
I would to be honest prefer magic to be explained as a set of rules rather than a set of effects that derive from those rules but one sells books and is IP protected and one takes ages to use in play so meh.

I want explanations in the game world for how dragons fly, I want to know what binds a ghost to the world and what happens when you exorsise one.
To aid my SoD magical effects need to be explainable to me if I accept the base axiom that magic exists and works.

Good fantasy fiction obeys this tenent where its the Will and the Word in the Belgariad, binding demons in Stormbringer, taking potion class in Harry Potter or one Ring to Bind them all in LotR, or the various types and fucntions of magic seen in Master of the 5 magics.

anyway just me.

Heh, once again, fair enough Still, it seems simple enough to cobble together a "plausible" reason for why magic missiles can only hit "creatures".

Quote from: jibbajibba;543645Historically the spell description does target creatures, but a lot of DMs would let it be used for other purposes.

The point really is just that a flexible spell you can use once a day is fine a spell you can use constantly for various effects is problematic. Letting it "detect life" as a side effect might well replace an actual spell.

I agree with ya here JJ. While I support using at-will cantrips for wizards, and might include a very minor damage spell, magic missile would not be it. Maybe a minor version of the "arcane missile" that required a to-hit roll would be ok, but magic missile wasn't broken, so IMO it doesn't need fixed.

Quote from: Marleycat;543653Why don't you try it?

"There's an Elf in front of you."

Quote from: James Gillen;543671"There's an Elf in front of you."

Did you have to pick my favorite race to play? Well, besides a 3e style Awakened cat turned sorcerer.

Quote from: Sigmund;543666I agree with ya here JJ. While I support using at-will cantrips for wizards, and might include a very minor damage spell, magic missile would not be it. Maybe a minor version of the "arcane missile" that required a to-hit roll would be ok, but magic missile wasn't broken, so IMO it doesn't need fixed.

There are more than a few ways to "fix" it. No combat cantrips or slowing the progression further, capping at lower dice, doing both, halving the range.

If you make it a roll to hit it actually either needs to stay exactly the same or more powerful and playtest feedback told them it wasn't liked.

Quote from: CRKrueger;5436431. Start with desired game effect - Mages having the ability to do damage every round without resorting to mundane means.(this here is the false first principle)

Oh you.