Quote from: David Johansen;861178You're just using it wrong.  Cast at the free due to skill level you can move a lot of earth in an hour or a day.  Trenches, earthen works, pits, hills.  If you've got a few other spells to remove the risk you can use it to undermine the dirt below the battle field so it'll collapse when the enemy charges.

No, it's not a blast an area spell, but it can really make a mess with a little preparation.

But then I've also seen earth to air used on the walls on either side of a castle gate.  But my older brother is a civil engineer so I've seen a lot of dirty tricks.

Yes as a utility spell it is great especially at zero mana cost. Although you still got a problems with the 1 in 216 chance of the spell backfiring and the 1 in 46,656 chance of a demon appearing as a result of said backfire.

But what I am talking is direct combat application. Pointing the proverbial finger and causing something really bad to happen to a lot of enemies. D&D magic has that in spades, GURPS magic not so much.

However the diversity of GURPS spells means it can be put to creative use especially if you have the time to prepare or think the problem through.

On military magic: Those spells are provided in the basic game handbook because the basic game is about martial undertakings. It does not mean that there are no birth control spells out in the world; if the DM has a reason for one to be found in a monster-infested dungeon, then the DM can simply put it there.

If players want more spells, then there's more of an issue in defining them and gauging game balance. When publishing was a significant real-world cost, the lack of demand for books of "ordinary life enhancing" spells was prohibitive. Today, there's nothing to stop someone from solving the shortage as opposed to just bitching about it.

Without that, or a DM's preparation of such for his or her campaign, there remains the players' freedom to create their own spells with the 'research' rules.

Quote from: Ravenswing;861102Which is something of the standard.  Most systems do have magic that works that way: predictable, repeatable, reliable.

And that's what makes the most sense.  I agree that mysterious/powerful/perilous is a popular literary trope.  Where I differ is in believing that almost no one would really learn such magics, in a realistic world.  If I've got a 1-in-20 chance of blowing myself up through casting a spell, that's grotesquely too risky for anyone with a smidgen of common sense, even barring the probability that your average apprentice wizard would kill himself before graduating.  And if I've got a 1-in-100 chance of razing a city block every time I cast a spell, the mere knowledge of sorcery would be a capital crime in every civilized land.

You're assigning much more common sense to humanity as a whole than I'd give it credit for;).

So yes, if magic worked, at all, but was dangerous? It would be the domain of risk-takers, which is, historically, not such a rare thing.
It would also help explain the other literary trope, the one of wizards as recluses that people try their best to avoid. Said trope makes no sense in the reliable magic systems, you want those guys to be your friends instead:)!

And yes, the one in 20 number is not an example of good statistics in any system I can name, DCC included:D.

Quote from: nDervish;861203It's not difficult to reconcile:

The academies teach magic which is predictable, repeatable, and reliable.  But it also takes hours (or days) of preparation to work out all the correct astrological correspondences, lay out appropriate wards, and perform the proper ritual.

Of course, adventurers rarely have that kind of time and need to get spells off in a handful of seconds, or maybe a minute, tops.  To do that, you have to estimate, cut corners, or outright make shit up on the spot, which introduces a risk that you'll make a mistake and not have the safeguards in place to compensate for it, so then you get the 1-in-20 or 1-in-100 chance of melting your own face off.  It may be grotesquely risky, but, when there's an orc horde about to run you down, those odds are a lot better than your chances of surviving their assault.

Another couple of elements (though perhaps implied by "astrological correspondences"): place and materials. "First, get three feathers from the Winged Serpent of the Paps of the Moon, and take them to the Toe of the Night Mare ..."

There's no reason specific spells cannot co-exist with generalized ones.

Quote from: Simlasa;861192Except that I'm not trying to 'win sympathizers' or convince anyone to share my tastes... just stating my preferences and agreeing with the OP... oh, and arguing with Ravenswing's suggestion that any one approach to 'magic' makes more sense than another.

I feel I understand your complaint: when formulaic and easily accessible, and without the potential for failure, something mystical seems lost.

I'm one of the few people who loved 2e's Cleric's Spell Failure chance for lower WIS. I also loved how Cleric spells were not necessarily granted 100%, depending on alignment adherence or even deity whim. I liked how the DMG gave XP for casting a spell furthering your deity's designs.

These were all things that placed what seemed like Priest magic advantage into the realm of the ineffable and thus exotic. Sure, you could just pray to get what you want and had an expansive list to immediately choose from, and without needing an expensive spellbook either, and many Priest spells weren't as relatively attached to arcane, expensive, and obscure material components in comparison to Wizard spells. But there was always that element of the mysterious, the unreliable, the inscrutible because it was attached to the games of divinity.

Gods don't have to explain themselves in a manner immediately understandable to their worshippers. Supplicants have to chase Their reasoning, not the other way around. Wisdom was there to help the mortal agent intuit a greater logic, and it was easy to get it wrong.

But people often discarded all these soft (setting) tethers in favor of strict hard (mechanical) tethers. End result is people ignored this layer of mystery to the Cleric. And further they got pissy that the Wizard was losing out so they sought parity by removing more and more of their restrictions and challenges.

And thus we get things like 3e, the Caster Edition.

Quote from: Simlasa;861192oh, and arguing with Ravenswing's suggestion that any one approach to 'magic' makes more sense than another.

That one is an easy one to win at least. :cool:

Dark Sun, Birthright and Red Steel are three TSR settings that come to mind as tinkering with the idea of risky magic use in one way or another.

Quote from: Phillip;861237It does not mean that there are no birth control spells out in the world; if the DM has a reason for one to be found in a monster-infested dungeon, then the DM can simply put it there.

Dragon had a few articles on these. Things like household spells and more often Household Cantrips that grew out of apprentices desire to make their daily cleanup chores easier.

Then there are the ubiquitous Aerial Servant, Faithful Hound and later Phantom Steed spells which are pretty handy utility spells for off-duty use.

Quote from: estar;861224Yes as a utility spell it is great especially at zero mana cost. Although you still got a problems with the 1 in 216 chance of the spell backfiring and the 1 in 46,656 chance of a demon appearing as a result of said backfire.

But what I am talking is direct combat application. Pointing the proverbial finger and causing something really bad to happen to a lot of enemies. D&D magic has that in spades, GURPS magic not so much.

However the diversity of GURPS spells means it can be put to creative use especially if you have the time to prepare or think the problem through.

Preparation is the best place to win a battle.  Invisible abatis are another great magic trick.

Quote from: David Johansen;861330Preparation is the best place to win a battle.  Invisible abatis are another great magic trick.

I like the way you think.

Quote from: Phillip;861237On military magic: Those spells are provided in the basic game handbook because the basic game is about martial undertakings. It does not mean that there are no birth control spells out in the world; if the DM has a reason for one to be found in a monster-infested dungeon, then the DM can simply put it there.

If players want more spells, then there's more of an issue in defining them and gauging game balance. When publishing was a significant real-world cost, the lack of demand for books of "ordinary life enhancing" spells was prohibitive. Today, there's nothing to stop someone from solving the shortage as opposed to just bitching about it.

Without that, or a DM's preparation of such for his or her campaign, there remains the players' freedom to create their own spells with the 'research' rules.

Well said.  I think the research rules aren't used enough.

Also, Gary really, really LOVED Dying Earth.  A lot.  A whole lot.  He didn't just use the "semi Dying Earth" style magic because it was easy to incorporate in the game system, he ALSO used it because he loved it.

Quote from: AsenRG;861240You're assigning much more common sense to humanity as a whole than I'd give it credit for.

More common sense than I assign to gamers, anyway.

But actually, that's not fair.  It's a completely different paradigm of risk.  What's the worst that can happen to a PC wizard who horribly botches a spell?  He dies?  Gee, too bad.  The player then pulls out a fresh sheet of paper and starts to roll up the next character.  No biggy.  Depending on the system and how the GM runs things, you might not miss as much as five minutes of action.

And in a campaign, and with a bunch of players, that doesn't give a shit about a workable, verisimilitude-based society, that's okay.  For the rest of us, we want rather more thought put into it.

Quote from: Phillip;861237On military magic: Those spells are provided in the basic game handbook because the basic game is about martial undertakings. It does not mean that there are no birth control spells out in the world; if the DM has a reason for one to be found in a monster-infested dungeon, then the DM can simply put it there.

I strongly, strongly disagree.  The "basic game" is NOT about "martial undertakings."  The "game" is about whatever the players want it to be about, and no one should have to point out the staggeringly obvious fact that forty years into this hobby, there are quite a few campaigns out there that aren't about monster-infested dungeons.  In many a campaign, combat is uncommon, and the problem solving that goes into scenarios involve solutions that aren't about inflicting hit points of damage.

Quote from: Omega;861322That one is an easy one to win at least. :cool:

Dark Sun, Birthright and Red Steel are three TSR settings that come to mind as tinkering with the idea of risky magic use in one way or another.

Hollow World screwed with magical reliability, and outright negated several spells.

Ravenloft also screwed heavily with magical reliability, negated quite a few, had domains turn some off or warp others, and brought in the concept of potential moral hazard for some atop of all of it.

Dragonlance had a cool setting historical spate where clerical magic was all but gone (except for plot-onium novels intervention). They also had a variety of lunar influences on schools.

And the 800 lbs gorilla Forgotten Realms was strewn with Mythals where magic routinely screwed up with wild magic floating about.

That's easily a majority of the extant TSR settigns. Magic was habitually dangerous, unreliable, and contingent on setting environment for much of the game up unto the year 2000. And then something happened... :rolleyes:

Quote from: Phillip;861237On military magic: Those spells are provided in the basic game handbook because the basic game is about martial undertakings. It does not mean that there are no birth control spells out in the world; if the DM has a reason for one to be found in a monster-infested dungeon, then the DM can simply put it there.

Over time the D&D game as expressed by rules became more and more about martial undertakings.

From a magical standpoint it didn't start out that way. If you look at the OD&D magic user spell tables then you will see the ratio of direct military type spells vs. generally useful exploration based spells is fairly low.

1st level: 2/8 ratio of military vs. exploration. Sleep and Prot. from Evil are the only 2 direct spells of that type.

2nd level: 0/8. All these spells are more about exploration.

3rd level: 7/14. This is the first spell level where we even get close to an even ratio of military vs. exploration magics.

4th level: 4/12

5th level: 6/14

6th level: 5/12

I am counting all wall spells as military even though they have other uses.

As time went by, more and more spells designed primarily to defeat foes were added to the spell lists due to the popularity of a violent play style.

Overall though, only 24 out of 68 base spells are primarily about defeating enemies, and some of those have other non-combat utility.

Quote from: Simlasa;861192. oh, and arguing with Ravenswing's suggestion that any one approach to 'magic' makes more sense than another.

In one sense you are right but a point can be made if the rule mechanics for magic doesn't follow from the premise of the setting along with the premise of the setting doesn't reflect the impact of magic as stated by its rules. I think that is valid point to criticize a game or setting for.

However when it comes to a game like D&D where the core rulebook is meant to be a toolkit to handle a variety of settings. I think arguing about how much its magic system make sense is pretty useless. There is nothing to measure it against.

Quote from: Ravenswing;861442And in a campaign, and with a bunch of players, that doesn't give a shit about a workable, verisimilitude-based society, that's okay.  For the rest of us, we want rather more thought put into it.

I agree with your sentiment however what people fail to consider that there is a time component to verisimilitude. That for a given reality with a specific form of magic campaigns can be set in different time periods.

For example Ebberon is has advanced further along its timeline than most D&D setting to the point where magic is a form of technology.

So even if magical system could be used for a magical Renaissance or a magical Industrial Revolution, it doesn't automatically follow that campaigns using said magical system have to be set during those time periods.