It's well known that I don't have much time for magic generally in roleplaying games. I avoid magic-using classes in games that structure themselves that way, I opt not to take magic powers in favour of more skills and other mundane stuff in more allocative systems.

I also tend to avoid fantasy in general, preferring historical, as the presence of magic often leads to lazy worldbuilding. We either get what is basically a pastiche of a period of history, but magic is present with little thought on how it would impact societies; or we get random fantastical shit thrown around with little thought or justification beyond "a Wizard did it".

Anyway, it was in a discussion about the logistical aspects of overland travel in games that someone raised the point that most of those things are basically irrelevant when you have magic that can make the problem go away. Where magic becomes the default solution to every constraint, and it becomes merely a question of whether you have the ability/resources to use that magic, or can be creative enough with the way you use it to solve it. The worst excess in this regard I've seen is The Dresden Files RPG, where Thaumaturgy can literally do anything with enough time and creative use of resources.

Worse still when mages make anyone with mundane skills surplus to requirements because you can just use magic to achieve the same thing that took them years of focus and practise. D&D 3.x is the worst example of this trend, but is by no means unique.

When that utility is permanent, it feeds into another dislike of mine: magic items. They can become little more than magic-tech gear where characters are more about assembling an optimal panoply of gadgets than anything else. Not to mention where keeping hold of that sword your character's grandfather used becomes the bad choice.

And into one more: meta-magic. When there are spells which extend, augment, enhance or otherwise improve other spells, all they do is invite abuse.

If I have to suffer magic at all, I want it of the slow ritual kind that only does weird stuff you can't achieve through mundane means. Or flashy and instantaneous, but still doing things you couldn't achieve with time and effort at a skill.

So there we have it.

I tend to agree.  Always great to be playing a thief that needs to roll to pick a lock (having a chance of failure) when Beardy McTwiddlethumbs can wiggle his eyebrows and just make it happen.

As to the second point, Earthdawn has/had a thing to make your weapons better because you were awesome and it was your weapon.

Quote from: Kiero;860586Worse still when mages make anyone with mundane skills surplus to requirements because you can just use magic to achieve the same thing that took them years of focus and practise. D&D 3.x is the worst example of this trend, but is by no means unique.

Generally, that's only a problem when you're playing with arseholes. But it's a favourite target for whiners, probably because they game with/or are, arseholes themselves.

I've yet to play a single game of any edition of d&d where the MU memorised spells to usurp the Thief, if there was one in the party. We've played groups where there is no thief. Then when its needed, the MU memorises those spells. They're meant as alternatives, not some kind of weird mechanism for people to screw each other over with.

Quote from: Kiero;860586Where magic becomes the default solution to every constraint, and it becomes merely a question of whether you have the ability/resources to use that magic, <...> D&D 3.x is the worst example of this trend, but is by no means unique.

Well, true if 10th level wizards (who are lucky to know all the relevant spells) are found in every corner of the world where every village has at least a 9th level cleric to raise dead PCs, and such.

Nobody has got an obligation to run a fantasy campaign setting that way. In my games, magic-users are rare and secretive (better not attract thieves, witch-hunters, tyrannic nobles who want you to work for them, and supernatural creatures), and generally of low levels (i.e. 6th level or less); then, most village priests cannot cast spells anyway. So, 99% of the population must solve their problems through mundane means only. I don't care if 9th level PC wizards can teleport or fly over chasms; because they first spent months of playing the game (at lower levels) having to use a horse and/or a bridge like everybody else. Once they reach 9th level, they have become rare heroes who deserve to cheat obstacles with sorcery...

The GM has the control over what his/her campaign setting looks like. You can have a reasonable amount of sorcery, no obligation of having spells and magic-items flood the world.

Since I play a mage alot I actually like certain utility spells. Light and Continual light were ones the group allways had me memorize and/or cast before heading out. Detect magic was the other. If there wasnt a thief in the group then occasionally I'd grab knock or detect traps if it was availible.

In one game I was for all intents and purposes playing a non-com henchman the group had stocked up only on utility spells. Followed at the back and mapped. And ocasionally was called forward to negotiate with something.

Utility spells though are not the be-all-end-all of adventuring to make the thief cry and quit forever. Up until the advent of at-will cantrips a mages stock was limited. A thief can search for traps and lockpick all day. My mages can not.

With the current 5e group I am in Kefra's druid is filling in as the groups thief without resorting to any magic at all. In the group I am DMing for the Nox's sorcerer is doing the same thing. I dont think he has any utility cantrips. But I do not have his character sheet handy so can not check.

In any case this thread comes across as yet another "I hate casters! Casters break the game! Casters make my rogue cry!" yadda yadda.

Sorry to burst your bubble. But I've never seen casters superceede another class to exclusion. I am sure it can be done. But someone setting out to void another class is indicated of a problem with the PLAYER. Not the game or the class.

There is something just plain wrong about a player who lives to simply nullify the abilities of a fellow team member. From a practical standpoint its stupid because spending resources duplicating another team member detracts from a wizard contributing as much as they could as an actual wizard.

So big deal, with all your specialized magical training you can do what the rogue can do on a limited basis. Wow. Not impressed. We could have used a web spell right about now but you had to show the rogue how cool it was to open a lock by wriggling your fingers instead.

I tend to agree in many ways. I can enjoy games with magic, as long as the magic is interesting and has interesting effects. I don't like it when it actually removes interesting elements from play, or just adds buffs to make people better than everyone without buffs, or overpowers most things or becomes necessary or ubiquitous. I probably have various other gripes.

In particular, powerful healing magic (or any way to easily/quickly heal up all damage) removes what could otherwise be an interesting risk and consequence of using violence.

But I have found it fairly interesting at times, too.

I think things that make magic limited, unpredictable, unreliable, etc. can be a decent way to counter magic that gets overused in most of the above ways. Rarity, unpredictable effects, magic item breakdown tables, magic items that wear out if overused, interesting critical failure tables, magic and monsters that can detect magic use at a distance ... those can at least make it a choice with tradeoffs, when to use magic or not.

Quote from: Skarg;860610I tend to agree in many ways. I can enjoy games with magic, as long as the magic is interesting and has interesting effects. I don't like it when it actually removes interesting elements from play, or just adds buffs to make people better than everyone without buffs, or overpowers most things or becomes necessary or ubiquitous. I probably have various other gripes.

I generally want magic to be difficult, dangerous and unpredictable... mysterious. I've grown a bit annoyed with ubiquitous spells like Light and Detect Magic... or at least they way they're implemented... because they suck a degree of atmosphere out of a situation... often just to avoid some 'boring' aspect of the game that isn't straight up combat.
Similar to how many folks ignore grimoires, spell components or encumbrance or keeping track of arrows/food/torches... even though those can all generate fun plot hooks and complications.

I find that many discontents are solved simply by making magics mostly unique or occasional, rather than routinely replicated. This happens to be the general rule in the literary source material behind FRP.

The Cleric's (and Dwarf's) ability to Find Traps not only predated the Thief at least in terms of publication, but originally the Thief had no special ability in that regard. The Magic User's Knock spell likewise came earlier.

In my view, the Thief's use a PC class was mainly something to keep the non-humans from getting stuck at normal level limits. Nonetheless, all sorts of parties were viable; there was no rule that one HAD TO include X, Y or Z. The latter problem is an artifact, an emergent property of the "monolithic party" game form.

Quote from: Simlasa;860633I generally want magic to be difficult, dangerous and unpredictable... mysterious. I've grown a bit annoyed with ubiquitous spells like Light and Detect Magic... or at least they way they're implemented... because they suck a degree of atmosphere out of a situation... often just to avoid some 'boring' aspect of the game that isn't straight up combat.
Similar to how many folks ignore grimoires, spell components or encumbrance or keeping track of arrows/food/torches... even though those can all generate fun plot hooks and complications.

I agree, especially with the bolded part.

I'd say that, generally speaking:

I prefer magic to not be rendered as technology.
I prefer magic to not be inexhaustible (I'm looking at you, infinite cantrips)
I prefer more emphasis on utility magic rather than on pew-pew magic.

So, while I wouldn't say I agree with Kiero's dislike of utility magic, I find I'm sympathetic to the gripes about magic items and what I feel is the comic book-ification of magic.

Quote from: One Horse Town;860597Generally, that's only a problem when you're playing with arseholes. But it's a favourite target for whiners, probably because they game with/or are, arseholes themselves.

I've yet to play a single game of any edition of d&d where the MU memorised spells to usurp the Thief, if there was one in the party. We've played groups where there is no thief. Then when its needed, the MU memorises those spells. They're meant as alternatives, not some kind of weird mechanism for people to screw each other over with.

This.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;860608There is something just plain wrong about a player who lives to simply nullify the abilities of a fellow team member. From a practical standpoint its stupid because spending resources duplicating another team member detracts from a wizard contributing as much as they could as an actual wizard.

So big deal, with all your specialized magical training you can do what the rogue can do on a limited basis. Wow. Not impressed. We could have used a web spell right about now but you had to show the rogue how cool it was to open a lock by wriggling your fingers instead.

And this.

One thing that occurs to me is that I don't mind utility magic but I don't think it should be easier to do common tasks with magic.  "You summoned the prince of demons to make you a cup of tea?"  

"Well, certainly, I didn't want to be bothered getting up."

Quote from: Phillip;860698The Cleric's (and Dwarf's) ability to Find Traps not only predated the Thief at least in terms of publication, but originally the Thief had no special ability in that regard. The Magic User's Knock spell likewise came earlier.

In my view, the Thief's use a PC class was mainly something to keep the non-humans from getting stuck at normal level limits. Nonetheless, all sorts of parties were viable; there was no rule that one HAD TO include X, Y or Z. The latter problem is an artifact, an emergent property of the "monolithic party" game form.

A quick glance at OD&D shows no thief at all in the core 3 books. The dwarfs detect ability was limited to certain types of stone and earthworks. The thief shows up in Greyhawk and has its classic spread of thieving abilities.

As for thieves being to bump demi-humans. I dont see any multi-classing aside from the elfs dual-classed ability. So the thief can not be a cover for the level limits as a demi-human PC still will have to choose a class.

At a glance it looks more like the thief was a sort of formalizing of the till then mostly freeform thieving arts. A response to letters asking how to do this or that? One of the original players wanting clarification? Im sure someone has a tale to tell of the thief's genesis.

Quote from: David Johansen;860714One thing that occurs to me is that I don't mind utility magic but I don't think it should be easier to do common tasks with magic.  "You summoned the prince of demons to make you a cup of tea?"  

"Well, certainly, I didn't want to be bothered getting up."

Except that literature has exactly this fairly frequently. The progenitors of the cantrips. Little utility spells to do minor things like sweep the floor, do the dishes.

What I dont particularly like are adventuring utility cantrips which supercede another class. Which 5e has none of. And in 5e the only thief-like spell is the cleric/druid/ranger find trap, and the bard/sorcerer/wizard knock spells for example. And those both predate the existence of thieves in D&D.