PDA

View Full Version : A more realistic look at Magic in D&D



Dark_Stalion
2007-04-05, 08:48 PM
Ok, I'm sure that this has been done before, but it's the middle of the night and I got one of those urges, you now, where you have to write something otherwise you wont be able to sleep. Anyway, enough of the chatter, let the madness begin...

What follows is an attempt to rethink how magic works. Currently in D&D spells most often do one thing and are very rarely affected directly by previous spells. There has been a trend recently, and I am thinking specifically of Complete Mage here, to try to make magic more realistic, to think about the consequences of casting one particular spell after another. I am of course referring particularly to the feat Energy Gestalt [Tactical] and the spell Incendiary Slime. Both of these make sense, far more sense than the individual, almost meaningless, nature of the traditional damage spells. Everything has a consequence and usually far more consequences than are thought of. Of course when someone is frozen they will be hurt, maybe even loose feeling in their fingers, but if they are then the target of severe vibrations in the form of a sonic attack then might not their frozen fingers fall off or shatter (or worse think of the man in Alien Resurrection who was on the receiving end of a blast of super-cooled liquid nitrogen or some such and left his arm attached to the wall before falling to pieces).

This got me thinking. What would be the actual effect of D&D magic in the real world? There are feats somewhere (probably complete arcane, though I’ve never been able to get hold of a copy) which allow you to have explosive fireballs. Surely a fireball itself is explosive. You see these television dramas where people are blown backwards by a completely natural fireball, no metamagic involved. Also grease is generally a hydrocarbon of some sort and therefore highly flammable. It is therefore natural for there to be a possibility that it might catch fire if subjected to extreme heat. So why have a separate spell that does and one that does not. Clearly balance is an issue; a spell that can cause area of effect damage over a period of time at first level is likely to raise some eyebrow, but it does break down belief in the system.

What I want to do is to turn magic, something usually divided black and white into damage spells and utility spells, into something far more in depth and developed further than it has in D&D supplements (or at least the ones I have read). Players tend to think of spells in ways which would make any fantasy writer cringe. “Which will do the most damage” is far more important in the gaming world than “which would be the most appropriate to use?” I would like to see far more tactical use of magic than is often seen, where people don’t just throw any old spell one after another into the fray. I would like to see people thinking about the repercussions of using a particular spell in conjunction with another. This I hope will create more colour and depth in the game rather than create too many rules which will bog down combat in sessions. I hope that everything I write is common sense and so will be fairly obvious to anyone who intends to implement it into their game and in time I would like to develop a shorter and neater version of this that uses a kind of unified theory, something I am hoping will emerge from this thread. Do not be annoyed if I do not agree with your view. This is more of a personal aesthetic of mine and I am developing it for other people out there who are like me in this respect. I, for example, am not keen on psionics, though some say it is a more realistic approach to magic than the traditional D&D arcanists. This does not mean it is a bad system, it just means that it does not fit in with my personal tastes for my fantasy worlds.

So here I am suggesting some variant rules on how to handle certain types of spell and spell combinations. I have started with some basic rules and definitions which I think are appropriate and then taken a general look at the elements and how they would affect one another with respect to these definitions and terms. I will later take a look at the various *skin spells (barkskin, stoneskin, etc) among others as a prime example of spells which do not fully represent the true effects they describe. I will try to imagine the results of turning your skin into bark, stone, and maybe other substances such as metal and adamantine as higher level versions and apply these effects to D&D rules.


General Definitions and Rules


Wet: A subject is deemed wet if they are wet by conventional means (such as being exposed to rain, dunked in a river, etc.) or if they have been the subject of acid or cold damage up to one round previously.


Brittle/Fragile: A weapon damaged by extreme temperatures (cold or fire) is liable to become brittle if metal, or fragile if wooden. When in this state and not actually destroyed every time it makes contact through a successful attack or connecting with armor (natural or otherwise) or shield (see section on AC


AC: I think it is important on some occasions to determine what part of your AC actually prevented the attack from succeeding, such as with Brittle and Fragile weapons. Here is my idea:

Take the attack roll and compare it to the AC broken down into Touch, Armor modifier, shield modifier and Natural Armor modifier. If the attack roll would have been negated by the touch AC alone then the attack was dodged and did not connect. If it would not have been negated by touch, but would have been negated by touch & shield combined then the attack was diverted by the shield. If it would not have been negated by touch and shield, but would have been negated by touch, shield and armor combined then the attack was diverted by the armor. Anything else would have been diverted by natural armor. My reasoning goes that when you fail to dodge an attack you try to counter with your shield. If that fails you rely upon your armor and if that fails you can only hope that your hardened skin, if you have any, will deflect the blow. Thus a skilled fighter may be able to hit a rogue, but the rogue may still be able to counter by using his armor to deflect the blow.

Weapons and area damage: Some so called elemental damage is likely to damage weapons and some do not. Fire is fairly likely to damage wood, but after a certain temperature (represented below by a damage resistance) it will also affect metal, the opposite is true of cold. Acid will affect both weapon types equally. Electricity is likely to just be conducted through both, though it is more likely to damage wood as it is less conductive and so absorbs more of the energy. Sonic is similarly ineffective against both weapons, with a higher likelihood of damaging metal due to its more rigid structure, but is able to shatter brittle and fragile weapons as though they had just succeeded on an attack. It is possible in some cases to attempt a reflex save to shield a weapon against an elemental area attack, though doing so may provoke attacks of opportunity or even prevent a reflex throw to save the character themselves under certain circumstances. The damage reduction only applies to Area of Effect damage, specifically spells which are described as affecting everyone within their area, not spells targeting the weapon itself as this is more intense and channelled straight into the weapon itself rather than absorbed by the environment. Also the reductions are very general, referring to basic non-enchanted weapons. It is likely that magical weapons would be hardier. They are certainly aloud their own saving throws, though not reflex, notably. Masterwork weapons would probably be tougher or better tempered as well, able to withstand the elements more.



Elemental modifications


Fire Damage: Have a chance to set person or equipment alight and therefore continuing to deal damage in subsequent rounds unless smothered or put out. Dries the subject. Wooden weapons have resistance 20 to fire and are burnt and fragile if damaged but not destroyed by it, giving them a chance to break upon use; metal weapons have 50 resistance to fire damage after which they start to melt.


Cold Damage: More effective against wet targets (such as having been damaged by an acid spell) those with “hard” skin which have taken damage (even if the damage has been negated by the damage reduction). This reflects the nature of water expanding when frozen, causing cracks to widen in hard materials such as stone. Wets the subject for one round after. Weapons are only damaged if specifically targeted. Metal weapons have 20 resistance to cold and become brittle and have a chance of shattering if cold damage is dealt to them and immediately shatter if their hit points are exceeded; wooden weapons have 50 resistance to cold after which they also become brittle and have a chance to shatter.


Fire and Cold Damage: When cold damage is done to a subject up to a round after the subject has sustained fire damage the cold damage is reduced by a half/third/quarter/? of the damage dealt by the fire and visa versa (fire damage being applied to a subject after it has been damaged by cold). This represents the thawing out or cooling down of the subject before the spell can do damage.

Furthermore, when a cold spell is cast on someone who is taking continuous damage from being set alight by a fire spell or is on fire from other means (such as being smothered in burning oil) the cold damage negates the fire damage and the fire damage negates the cold damage. If both created an equal amount of damage then neither does damage and the subject is no longer on fire (though they may subsequently be set on fire again providing the fire damage sustained overcomes the reduction caused by whatever put out the fire) though the subject is wet, the fire having melted the cold. If the fire damage outdoes the cold damage the subject is still on fire, though will take reduced damage the next turn as though the cold damage had been applied in full (it will deal normal damage – a half/third/quarter/? of the damage the cold would have done previously). If the cold damage outdoes the fire damage then the subject is deemed wet and there is no damage penalty for


Electrical Damage: More effective when subject is wearing, carrying or made of metal, wet or has been damaged by cold up to and including one round previous. Less effective if subject is wearing non-conductive material or is standing near conductive material. Metal swords will conduct the electricity well and so it takes a high current (damage) to heat the weapon enough to do damage, hence they have Resistance 50 to electrical damage. Wood is less conductive and so heats up quicker, meaning it has a Resistance of 30 to electricity.


Sonic Damage: More effective if creature is made of had material, such as a stone golem. Less effective if creature is amorphous or lacking structural integrity, such as a water elemental. Sonic vibrations are more damaging to metal weapons (which only receive a 30 reduction to sonic damage) than wooden weapons (which have a 50 reduction to damage) as metal is more rigid than wood.

Acid Damage: More effective against dry subjects as already wet subjects tend to allow the acid to become weaker as it dissolves throughout more fluid. Leaves subject wet for 1 round until it evaporates and continues to deal damage during that time. All basic weapons have resistance 20 to acid as it has to be highly corrosive just to hurt someone.


If you have got this far I must comend you for your diligent reading. However I would ask some questions of you which you no doubt are straining at the leash to answer anyway, but I'll ask them just to make sure. You don't have to answer any if you don't want to. You are even welcome to heckle me from the back. :wink: Just not too loud please

1) Does this make any sence? Have I gone completely mad and contradicted myself somewhere or contradicted basic source material where I didn't seem to intend to?
2) Are the resistances right? I am thinking for the higher ones, 50, being arround melting point for your standard steel weapons. Clearly gold or copper weapons will be lower melting point and others will be higher and so perhapse a table is required to represent the different metal types and magical enhancement bonuses.
3) Have I missed out anything glaringly obvious from my analysis so far?
4) What spells would you like me to look at in particular and what sorts of other changes would you liketo see to the basic D&D arcane and divine magc system?

DS

Roethke
2007-04-05, 08:56 PM
It sounds very good, and for a tactics-heavy game, this could add a lot of depth. For myself, as DM, though, the bookkeeping involved would make me cringe, particularly for a face-to-face game

Play-by-post, if you've got players who are into it, and willing to put in the effort, could be fun.

Now, a big piece that's left out (I think) is how magic weapons and special materials affect the damage resistance. You mention it, but players slagging their loot (or having their own weapons slagged) would be a pretty big barrier to overcome. It would make the wizard think twice about unleashing massive, damage, which is good.

Desaril
2007-04-06, 11:12 AM
I agree with most of your initial premises/observations about magic. I believe that most of our concern arises because we live in world "ruled" by science and physics. It is difficult to "unthink" the basic notions of how the world works. Even when we accept the plausibility of magic to modify (or ignore)real-world physics, we still want it to "make sense" in accordance to our science based reality.

The hard part is incorporating all that realism into a "game". On the basic level, may players may not want to do all the mental gymnastics your ideas incorporate, because it's too much work. Some players like the tactics/problem solving aspects your system would provide. We encounter the same problem with disarming traps (it's easier to simply roll a d20 and add your disable device ranks, but it's more realistic to describe exactly how you sneak past the spiked pit floor trap). Similarly, it's simpler to use the Diplomacy skill than to actually roleplay talking your way past the guard.

On the more cynical level, WOTC wants D&D to be palatable to an early teen audience. They want to attract the pre-teen sci-fi/fantasy geek (including me). Making it too complex may make it a turn off.

As to your "rule" suggestions, I think that in trying to emulate the current mechanics, you make your idea unnecessarily complex. I believe that everthing you spoke about could be handled by a GM call. It's common sense that tf you're wet, you take less damage from a fire attack and more from a cold attack; and I think in any mature group the players will accept the GMs call on that. It may not be entirely consistent, but I think it will acheive your desired results without all the additional complications.

If you want to develop rules, I would suggest that you look for suggestions/inspiration in futuristic or superhero games which usually involve more "real world" science.

Lastly, if you don't want to alter the way players act/make decisions, but you simply want to justify the current system, I suggest the following: most literature/games assume that magic operates on principles parallel to physics, but that magic bends some of those rules. Therefore, in the presence of magic, real physics are distorted and don't work like "normal". In some settings, the presence of magic disrupts technology (or they cancel each other out). Under such circumstances, a non-explosive fireball is plausible, because physics is temporarily "suspended" by the presence of the spell.

elliott20
2007-04-06, 01:05 PM
oh man, this is like a death trap for catgirls.

trust me buddy, you don't want to go down this road. Especially when you start moving away from that and start going into things like, "how does wish work?".

Were-Sandwich
2007-04-06, 02:12 PM
I think this idea has merit, but not for D&D. A more free-form magic system is needed.

Matthew
2007-04-08, 09:05 PM
Yeah, I think the above posters are mainly right about this.

It is interesting, though, because what you are looking to do is codify things that can, as Desaril points out, be handled by DM fiat. This is very much in keeping with the approach of D&D 3.x, but in order to implement it successfully, the mechanics have to be as smooth and simple as possible. It would no doubt require an extensive incorporation with the current D&D Magic System (which makes up a huge segment of the rules).

Kel_Arath
2007-04-08, 09:57 PM
looks interesting, but i dont think that electricity works quite the same way as you depicted. if you aim the electrical attack at a person, it would not affect the weapon so it doesnt even need the resistance (because the electricity would simply not go to it). and if you aim for the weapon, then it would apply. though that might be in reference to area attacks, dont know.

Beleriphon
2007-04-09, 01:14 AM
I'd make a few suggestions. Firstly that being wet helps against heat and not against cold. If you are wet cold actually does less damage in the short term since some much energy is drawn from the water none is drawn from the wet object. Conversely making something wet and them heating it can actuallyl cause more damage, particularly in the vein of a D&D fireball which must exend huge amounts of energy nearly instantly. This would cause not only the initial blast, but also flash boil the minimal amount of water on your body cause more damage.

Of course my suggestion is just to go with the simple route, say damage is dealth regardless of current saturation levels and just deal with it as is.

Something else to keep in mind is that if you have a metal weapon, say a sword, and are standing on the ground then any electrical based attack will hit the sword, trasfer to your body, and then in the ground. The sword itself shouldn't really take any damage.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 05:19 AM
You're putting the cart before the horse here. It's true that the D&D rules don't take into account the actual physical effects of being - say - burned, frozen, or covered in acid, but neither do they take into account the physical effects of being hit with swords or shot full of arrows.

It's ludicrous to complain that (say) a fireball doesn't make your weapon more brittle but not to worry about the fact that a blow from a greataxe doesn't affect your armour in any way whatsoever.

D&D just isn't that sort of system. It's a highly, highly abstract system. Fireballs don't set anything on fire, axes don't cut anything in half.

sikyon
2007-04-09, 08:42 AM
Too many variables to consider, you're going to have to start saying things like "Oh, sure, for metals cold makes them brittle. But wait, only Base-centered cubic metals typically demonstrate brittle-to-ductile transition temperatures, while Hexagonal-close packed is always brittle anyways and face-centered cubic is usually just ductile in Charpy testing" (yeah I've got a materials science exam today).


I'd make a few suggestions. Firstly that being wet helps against heat and not against cold. If you are wet cold actually does less damage in the short term since some much energy is drawn from the water none is drawn from the wet object. Conversely making something wet and them heating it can actuallyl cause more damage, particularly in the vein of a D&D fireball which must exend huge amounts of energy nearly instantly. This would cause not only the initial blast, but also flash boil the minimal amount of water on your body cause more damage.

Something else to keep in mind is that if you have a metal weapon, say a sword, and are standing on the ground then any electrical based attack will hit the sword, trasfer to your body, and then in the ground. The sword itself shouldn't really take any damage.

And, of course, you'll get disagreements. For example, I'm going to disagree with the poster above. I'm gonna say that if you're wet and exposed to cold, then the cold IS going to draw heat off the water first, but then that cold water's gonna draw off heat from your body. And because water is a much better conductor of heat than, say, leather, you're actually gonna lose heat faster. In the same vein, I have no idea what flash-boiling will do to someone, but the fact that the water is allowed to boil and carry off the heat anyways seems better than just letting the heat hit you. Boiling water being tossed on you is hot, but water evaporating off you feels cool.

So.........

Jayabalard
2007-04-09, 08:46 AM
On the more cynical level, WOTC wants D&D to be palatable to an early teen audience. They want to attract the pre-teen sci-fi/fantasy geek (including me). Making it too complex may make it a turn off. Perhaps the pre-teen sci-fi geeks have changed quite a bit since I was one, but back in my day we would have far preferred a more realistic approach; (cue grampa voice) there were 73129 rules to cover Magic Missle alone, and that's the way that we liked it!

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 08:46 AM
And, of course, you'll get disagreements. For example, I'm going to disagree with the poster above. I'm gonna say that if you're wet and exposed to cold, then the cold IS going to draw heat off the water first, but then that cold water's gonna draw off heat from your body. And because water is a much better conductor of heat than, say, leather, you're actually gonna lose heat faster. In the same vein, I have no idea what flash-boiling will do to someone, but the fact that the water is allowed to boil and carry off the heat anyways seems better than just letting the heat hit you. Boiling water being tossed on you is hot, but water evaporating off you feels cool.

So.........


Or disagreements like this: water is actually a really lousy conductor of heat.

But either way it's completely ludicrous. If your character is hit with a fireball hot enough to reduce iron to slag, being slightly wet (or not) will not make the blindest bit of difference. It's like suggesting that taking your shirt off will make you more vulnerable to a gunshot, because the bullet won't have to penetrate the fabric.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 08:48 AM
Perhaps the pre-teen sci-fi geeks have changed quite a bit since I was one, but back in my day we would have far preferred a more realistic approach; (cue grampa voice) there were 73129 rules to cover Magic Missle alone, and that's the way that we liked it!

Agreed, as long as by "realistic" you mean "actually completely unrealistic, but reflecting their poor understanding of physics".

Jayabalard
2007-04-09, 08:51 AM
Agreed, as long as by "realistic" you mean "actually completely unrealistic, but reflecting their poor understanding of physics".No, it meant a pretty good understanding of physics... being a sci-fi geek back then meant that you had read through a good chunk of the Heinlein/Asimov/Clark/Niven/etc library and had a pretty good understanding of physics, and even some of the math to actually figure out some of the problems.


Or disagreements like this: water is actually a really lousy conductor of heat.Water is a much better conductor than air.

sikyon
2007-04-09, 08:53 AM
Or disagreements like this: water is actually a really lousy conductor of heat.

But either way it's completely ludicrous. If your character is hit with a fireball hot enough to reduce iron to slag, being slightly wet (or not) will not make the blindest bit of difference. It's like suggesting that taking your shirt off will make you more vulnerable to a gunshot, because the bullet won't have to penetrate the fabric.

Sorry, I meant it had good heat conduction into it from other things. My bad (excuse is exam).

Roethke
2007-04-09, 08:56 AM
Or disagreements like this: water is actually a really lousy conductor of heat.

But either way it's completely ludicrous. If your character is hit with a fireball hot enough to reduce iron to slag, being slightly wet (or not) will not make the blindest bit of difference. It's like suggesting that taking your shirt off will make you more vulnerable to a gunshot, because the bullet won't have to penetrate the fabric.

Actually, that's only a slight exaggeration. Consider the
Leidenfrost effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect

I've seen photos of a guy dipping his hand into water, and subsequently into molten lead. Of course, the melting point of iron is significantly higher than that of lead.


All that being said, such things are difficult to keep track of in D&D.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 08:58 AM
No, it meant a pretty good understanding of physics... being a sci-fi geek back then meant that you had read through a good chunk of the Heinlein/Asimov/Clark/Niven/etc library and had a pretty good understanding of physics, and even some of the math to actually figure out some of the problems.

But usually coupled with a complete inability to work out what things actually translate to in the real world.

Take, for example, the assumption in the original post that being "wet" (as a result of being targeted by an Acid spell) would make you more resistant to Fire magic. All perfectly good science (acids are aqueous solutions, water doesn't burn) but it's completely ludicrous to conclude that the amount of moisture which might or might not remain on your body following a hit from an Acid Arrow would significantly offset the damage from a fireball.

It's standard geek logic: I have a *fact*, therefore any conclusion I reach based on that *fact* must be *true*.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 09:00 AM
Actually, that's only a slight exaggeration. Consider the
Leidenfrost effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect

I've seen photos of a guy dipping his hand into water, and subsequently into molten lead. Of course, the melting point of iron is significantly higher than that of lead.


All that being said, such things are difficult to keep track of in D&D.

But that only works if you're completely coated in water, and only for a couple of seconds. The point is that it's not "realistic" to say that being wet should make you take less damage from a fireball, and it's *certainly* not realistic to say that being hit with an Acid spell should make you wet and therefore reduce the damage you take from a fireball.

Jayabalard
2007-04-09, 09:14 AM
But usually coupled with a complete inability to work out what things actually translate to in the real world.

Take, for example, the assumption in the original post I'll refer you back to my post to remind you that I was referring to "sci if geeks back in my day", and how they had a good understanding of science and would have an interest in a more realistic magic system. So your example doesn't really apply... it wasn't posted by a "back in the day sci-fi geek"


But that only works if you're completely coated in water, and only for a couple of seconds. The point is that it's not "realistic" to say that being wet should make you take less damage from a fireball, and it's *certainly* not realistic to say that being hit with an Acid spell should make you wet and therefore reduce the damage you take from a fireball.fireball only lasts for a few seconds; being completely soaked in water should help. Being soaked in acid should help a little from the temperature and burning (fire protection) and also hurt, as the heat would increase the acidic reaction.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 09:18 AM
I'll refer you back to my post to remind you that I was referring to "sci if geeks back in my day", and how they had a good understanding of science and would have an interest in a more realistic magic system. So your example doesn't really apply... it wasn't posted by a "back in the day sci-fi geek"

But that's exactly my point. They'd be interested in a magic system which to *them* appeared more realistic, but which was actually totally unrealistic and happened to include some physics words. Geeks haven't changed much.

[Edited to add]

Take, for example, your insistence that being completely soaked in water should help against a fireball, or that the heat from a fireball should increase the rate of reaction from an Acid Arrow. It's nonsense, particularly since Damage is an abstract concept anyway.

Jayabalard
2007-04-09, 09:29 AM
Take, for example, your insistence that being completely soaked in water should help against a fireball, or that the heat from a fireball should increase the rate of reaction from an Acid Arrow. It's nonsense, particularly since Damage is an abstract concept anyway.Correction: Damage is an abstract concept as it currently works by RAW in D&D. Other systems have much more realistic rules for it; there's no reason that D&D cannot be modified/houseruled to have more realistic rules for damage, ones that present a more believable and consistent game world.

some of the ideas presented fall into that category; acid should deal damage over time, not instant damage, fire should cause things to burn, etc.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 09:43 AM
Correction: Damage is an abstract concept as it currently works by RAW in D&D. Other systems have much more realistic rules for it; there's no reason that D&D cannot be modified to have more realistic rules for damage, ones that present a more believable and consistent game world.

No, but once you start down that path you wind up writing The Riddle of Steel. Which is as realistic as it gets (at least that's what the author says in the introduction) and is still, in fact, not particularly realistic.

You just can't design a game system which realistically recreates, in pen and paper form, the feeling of having a piece of steel cleaving into your skull. If you really wanted a realistic damage system, you'd want to have a game in which you were wired up to electrodes that caused you terrible bone shattering agony if you took so much as a hit point of damage.

Jayabalard
2007-04-09, 10:08 AM
No, but once you start down that path you wind up writing The Riddle of Steel. Which is as realistic as it gets (at least that's what the author says in the introduction) and is still, in fact, not particularly realistic.

You just can't design a game system which realistically recreates, in pen and paper form, the feeling of having a piece of steel cleaving into your skull. If you really wanted a realistic damage system, you'd want to have a game in which you were wired up to electrodes that caused you terrible bone shattering agony if you took so much as a hit point of damage.Lets not be absurd, eh?

Sci-fi geeks don't add in a requirement to actually feel the acceleration (or lack thereof) of a ship in order to read a book about space travel, or to be shot in the head by a rail gun, or nuclear tipped missile in a battle scene... but we expect the book to realistically portray that space travel, weapons, etc.

Likewise, sci-fi geeks don't want a fireball spell to set their hair on fire in real life while they're playing the game... but they'd like the fireball to actually function in a realistic manner in the game, consistent with how we know that fire acts: it burns dry things better than wet things; it burns paper, clothing and hair better than wood and flesh; etc.

Nor do Sci-fi geeks necessarily want pure, and precise realism... just something more realistic than the standard D&D RAW.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 10:35 AM
Lets not be absurd, eh?

The whole concept of realism in RPG combat is absurd.


Sci-fi geeks don't add in a requirement to actually feel the acceleration (or lack thereof) of a ship in order to read a book about space travel, or to be shot in the head by a rail gun, or nuclear tipped missile in a battle scene... but we expect the book to realistically portray that space travel, weapons, etc.

Books are very different to RPGs. In a book you have absolute control over what happens. You can spend six days researching the exact blast pattern of a nuclear explosion in deep space in order to write a scene right. You can't do that in an RPG.


Likewise, sci-fi geeks don't want a fireball spell to set their hair on fire in real life while they're playing the game... but they'd like the fireball to actually function in a realistic manner in the game, consistent with how we know that fire acts: it burns dry things better than wet things; it burns paper, clothing and hair better than wood and flesh; etc.

None of which requires actual rules.


Nor do Sci-fi geeks necessarily want pure, and precise realism... just something more realistic than the standard D&D RAW.


But that would still be precisely zero realism.

Real physical injury resulting from armed conflict or natural, or supernatural phenomenon is not quantifiable. Are you any more dead from an axe to the head than from a knife to the gut? Or for that matter if you choke to death on a fishbone? Does a fractured tibia hinder your actions more or less than a ruptured pancreas?

brian c
2007-04-09, 10:47 AM
If fireball spells in D&D set character's hair on fire, all adventurers would be bald. And that's just not fun. Leather armor and robes would be pretty much out too; my point is that realism might be cool in theory, but when you actually play a realistic system it's drastically different from D&D. Some people, like myself, don't mind the lack of realism.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 10:49 AM
If fireball spells in D&D set character's hair on fire, all adventurers would be bald. And that's just not fun. Leather armor and robes would be pretty much out too; my point is that realism might be cool in theory, but when you actually play a realistic system it's drastically different from D&D. Some people, like myself, don't mind the lack of realism.

Bald and dead, since if the fire acted like real fire it would be pretty much instantly fatal to any person who came into contact with it.

Jayabalard
2007-04-09, 10:49 AM
The whole concept of realism in RPG combat is absurd.

Books are very different to RPGs. In a book you have absolute control over what happens. You can spend six days researching the exact blast pattern of a nuclear explosion in deep space in order to write a scene right. You can't do that in an RPG.Nope, it's not absurd in the least. We have people in game, they have arms and legs, they walk from place to place unless they have something that allows them to go beyond that (horses, ships, spells, etc), being hit with fireball hurts you rather than making you more healthy, swords/axes/etc hurt you rather than make you more healthy, armor gives protection, things fall down (unless overridden by spells), people produce goods and services and exchange them, often using money or other abstract concepts.

There's lots of realism in the game.

beyond that, what does your argument have to do with the price of tea in sri lanka? Or for that matter, what do they have to do with the discussion at hand: That some people want more realism in their RPGs?

If you don't want more realism, that's all well and good, but what is your purpose in posting on a thread to come up with alternative rules for those who do want more realism? I sounds like you have nothing to actually contribute.


But that would still be precisely zero realism.

Real physical injury resulting from armed conflict or natural, or supernatural phenomenon is not quantifiable. Are you any more dead from an axe to the head than from a knife to the gut? Or for that matter if you choke to death on a fishbone? Does a fractured tibia hinder your actions more or less than a ruptured pancreas?Were any of those things that have been proposed to bring more realism to the game? Or are they just another strawman perhaps?

How about: Can you quantify that dry things are more likely to catch fire than wet things? was that perhaps one of the things suggested? Isn't the answer to that "yes"?


Bald and dead, since if the fire acted like real fire it would be pretty much instantly fatal to any person who came into contact with it.Michael Jackson lived through it, did he not? in a world without magical healing no less. So have many other people.

Roethke
2007-04-09, 10:53 AM
I figured I'd pipe in a bit, and add my two cents.

I think you're conflating 'realism' with 'self-consistency'. The latter is necessarily part of the former, but it doesn't work both ways.

You're right, any RPG system is Garbage-in, Garbage-out. You have ridiculous premises, and you get ridiculous conclusions.

However, there's certainly a sort of game which attempts to model the world, and whose aim is to treat those ridiculous premises as fact, and hang what conclusions you can on them, often to a high level of detail. Take the Civilization or SimCity, the computer game, or Chess vs. Stratego, vs. Axis & Allies, vs. The slew of german-produced, highly detailed wargames.


One isn't better than the other, it's just a different level of abstraction, resulting in a different feel for the game.

Coming back to D&D,

'Why roll dice?" By the abstraction argument, you might as well have a story-telling game.

What the OP was going for was a higher level of detail and self-consistency. As myself and subsequent posters have indicated, it looks like it's a fun exercise, but not really worth the effort from a gameplay perspective.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 11:05 AM
Nope, it's not absurd in the least. We have people in game, they have arms and legs, they walk from place to place unless they have something that allows them to go beyond that (horses, ships, spells, etc), being hit with fireball hurts you rather than making you more healthy, swords/axes/etc hurt you rather than make you more healthy, armor gives protection, things fall down (unless overridden by spells), people produce goods and services and exchange them, often using money or other abstract concepts.

There's lots of realism in the game.

None of which is backed up by game mechanics.


beyond that, what does your argument have to do with the price of tea in sri lanka? Or for that matter, what do they have to do with the discussion at hand: That some people want more realism in their RPGs?

That those people are doomed to disappointment.


If you don't want more realism, that's all well and good, but what is your purpose in posting on a thread to come up with alternative rules for those who do want more realism? I sounds like you have nothing to actually contribute.

My contribution is this: none of the rules modifications suggested increase realism. Several of them reduce realism. This is true of virtually all attempts to introduce realism into RPG mechanics. You can not invent a simple system of mechanics which realistically represents anything real.


Were any of those things that have been proposed to bring more realism to the game? Or are they just another strawman perhaps?

Yes, they were. You said you could modify D&D to make its damage system less abstract. If you remove the abstraction you have to say "this fire causes third degree burns".


How about: Can you quantify that dry things are more likely to catch fire than wet things? was that perhaps one of the things suggested? Isn't the answer to that "yes"?

No. "More likely" is not quantitative, it is qualitative. It becomes quantified when you say "the chances of a dry object catching fire when exposed to a fireball are XX%"


Michael Jackson lived through it did he not? in a world without magical healing no less. So have many other people.

That was mundane fire. Plain old 1D6 damage fire. Magical fire is some ten times more intense. A 5D6 fireball (the weakest sort that can actually exist) will do a minimum of five hitpoints of damage, and an average of seventeen. This is enough that most normal humans *will* be killed outright by it. Since we are demanding "realism" it follows that what will kill a first level commoner will kill a fifteenth level Barbarian, since their bodies work the same way.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 11:08 AM
I figured I'd pipe in a bit, and add my two cents.

I think you're conflating 'realism' with 'self-consistency'. The latter is necessarily part of the former, but it doesn't work both ways.

You're right, any RPG system is Garbage-in, Garbage-out. You have ridiculous premises, and you get ridiculous conclusions.

However, there's certainly a sort of game which attempts to model the world, and whose aim is to treat those ridiculous premises as fact, and hang what conclusions you can on them, often to a high level of detail. Take the Civilization or SimCity, the computer game, or Chess vs. Stratego, vs. Axis & Allies, vs. The slew of german-produced, highly detailed wargames.

But that's the thing, none of those games are remotely realistic. They may feel "right" but they don't realistically model what would really happen.



One isn't better than the other, it's just a different level of abstraction, resulting in a different feel for the game.

Coming back to D&D,

'Why roll dice?" By the abstraction argument, you might as well have a story-telling game.

What the OP was going for was a higher level of detail and self-consistency. As myself and subsequent posters have indicated, it looks like it's a fun exercise, but not really worth the effort from a gameplay perspective.


Ah, you see I'm saying a little more than that. I'm saying that not only is not not worth the effort from a gameplay perspective, but that it is also actually less realistic and less consistent than the rules as they stand.

Jayabalard
2007-04-09, 12:22 PM
None of which is backed up by game mechanics.Really? Lets look at it item by item.
We have people in game
-Look at the players handbook, the section on character creation; it certainly looks like there are what (in the real world) we would call "people" in this game.

they have arms and legs
-view the images in the character creation section; additionally, the two weapon fighting, and unarmed fighting rules make some mention of these appendages.

they walk from place to place unless they have something that allows them to go beyond that (horses, ships, spells, etc),
flip through and read the rules on movement, I think all of these forms of movement are covered at least briefly.

being hit with fireball hurts you rather than making you more healthy,
-Read the description of the fireball spell; it deals damage, rather than healing people. That looks like a pretty straightfoward game mechanic to implement that.

swords/axes/etc hurt you rather than make you more healthy,
-Yup, looking at the rules, the mechanics say that you try to hit people, and then if you hit you deal damage, based on the weapon; none of them heal the person that you hit as far as I can tell.

armor gives protection,
-in D&D, we call this Armor Class (AC); I think there's even a variant rule where it gives something like damage reduction.

things fall down (unless overridden by spells),
-Look up the rules on falling damage; also look up the rules on the reverse gravity spell.

people produce goods and services and exchange them, often using money or other abstract concepts.
-Check out the section on buying equipment, and the section on crafting items; they even set example prices that people charge for those items.

So... what is the reasoning that is used to show that none of those were backed by game mechanics?


That those people are doomed to disappointment.Not unless they expect a perfectly realistic game; as long as they are just looking for "more realistic than the current D&D RAW" they have a pretty decent chance of being satisfied. See below re: strawman.


My contribution is this: none of the rules modifications suggested increase realism. Several of them reduce realism. This is true of virtually all attempts to introduce realism into RPG mechanics. You can not invent a simple system of mechanics which realistically represents anything real.A bonus to save, or a blanket reduction to damage (or % of damage) is not a particularly complex rule... nor does everyone demand an utterly simplistic set of rules.

There are at least a few people who wouldn't mind a slightly more complicated ruleset if it gave them a more believable world.

nor does it require any rules at all, as long as you have a GM who makes common sense rulings and has players that enjoy that sort of game.


Yes, they were. You said you could modify D&D to make its damage system less abstract. If you remove the abstraction you have to say "this fire causes third degree burns"."less abstract" is not the same thing as "not abstract" ... it just means that you add more levels of detail and remove some levels of abstraction.


No. "More likely" is not quantitative, it is qualitative. It becomes quantified when you say "the chances of a dry object catching fire when exposed to a fireball are XX%"The mechanics abstract the way that fire deals damage that by having you roll dice to determine the damage, and by rolling a saving throw; reducing the damage dealt to reflect a situation where the fire isn't as damaging is an appropriate change that results in a mechanic that is more consistent with reality: something that is wet that is exposed to fire is less damaged than something that isn't, or even not damaged at all.


That was mundane fire. Plain old 1D6 damage fire. Magical fire is some ten times more intense. A 5D6 fireball (the weakest sort that can actually exist) will do a minimum of five hitpoints of damage, and an average of seventeen. This is enough that most normal humans *will* be killed outright by it. Since we are demanding "realism" it follows that what will kill a first level commoner will kill a fifteenth level Barbarian, since their bodies work the same way.No it was obviously a technological fire, so it was probably 5d6; Michael Jackson is obliviously a high level bard, so he had enough HP to survive it. <sarcasm off>

seriously though... burning hair is burning hair, it doesn't matter if it's caused by sparks, or a torch, or magic fire; having hair be flammable doesn't mean that people will always be "Bald and dead, since if the fire acted like real fire it would be pretty much instantly fatal to any person who came into contact with it." It's simply not always the case in the real world, so it wouldn't always be the case in the game world.

The thread topic is "more realistic" not "perfect realism" so you can drop the "you're demanding perfect realism" strawman anytime. As far as I've seen, no one on this thread has mentioned it except you.

Theodoxus
2007-04-09, 01:29 PM
This is enough that most normal humans *will* be killed outright by it. Since we are demanding "realism" it follows that what will kill a first level commoner will kill a fifteenth level Barbarian, since their bodies work the same way.

Except that's not at all what HPs represent. A 15th level barbarian has learned through a lot of practice to turn formidable damage into mere scratches. In essense, they have a mechanic for evading the brunt of the fireballs damage - it's called Hit Points.


couple things regarding the OP: Magic in D&D doesn't work that way. Fireballs aren't simply little propane filled glass spheres that spark on contact. There is no concussive force. It's more closely in concept to a mini portal to the Elemental Plane of Fire is opened for a micro second, bathing everyone in a 20' radius from the point of origin to the mighty hellish flames of that plane. It's instantaneous flash heat damage. It's more akin to swiping your finger through a candle flame fast enough to not get singed. The MAGIC of it causes the damage - the theory is probably along the lines of 'the original wizard who created the fireball thought that 'fire' would be the most impressive form of energy to deliver a ball of destructive energy'. If it was the actual fire that caused damage - as in real world physics fire, it would create a concussive force, it would catch items on fire, it would last probably a full round at the least, it would have a lingering damage over time component, and it wouldn't be allowed to be modified by feats such as elemental mastery.

Turn a fireball into an acid ball and tell me it doesn't have a soaking effect... because according to the RAW, it doesn't. That right there, is proof that fireball doesn't operate in the realm of real world physics.

The absolutely most realistic way to look at Magic in D&D is exactly how it is proposed by those learned scholars who, you know, wrote the books and made money off it. Magic doesn't operate by physics. It might look like it on the surface, but that's mearly illusion - either because the original creator of a specific spell was hampered by their own belief system, or because it helped them create different types of spells.

Take two classic evocation spells: Fireball and Lightning bolt. Arguably, the two most cast spells by wizards since their invention. Also equally arguably the two most quivocated spells in existance... "which do I take first?" was a question long heard round many tables by wizards finally getting to 5th level.

Fireball - 1d6 per level, aoe - nice big spread of damage over a decent sized area. Lightning bolt - 1d6 per level, straight line spell - awesome for stacked opponents and dungeon hallways - even better if you can rebound it off a wall. As I mentioned above, the fireball could just as easily been 'frostball, acid ball, lightning ball, sonic ball' or what have you. Lightning bolt could have been 'bolt of flame, ice lance, acid stream, sonic burst' or somesuch. The original mages took the elemental energy form most easily conceived of when creating their spells. Natural lightning comes down in a bolt, arcs around, does a lot of damage, has a sonic boom tied to it, and generally scares the bejebus out of commoners. Fire is iconic in its power to provide both help and harm. Who wouldn't, when courting the vast unformed power that is magic, begin with those two very primal forces of nature?

But the magic doesn't produce these energy types - it simply creates magical damage. 1d6 per level. That's all it does. The mage determines what it'll look like, and who/what it'll affect.

It's been my premise that magic doesn't need to be nearly as complicated as it's made out to be. Thousands of spells that the majority of are simply slightly more powerful or modified versions of others. There are only 8 schools of magic, and each school only truly needs one spell - their signature spell, which can be modified to handle whatever situation the caster finds themself in. But I also fell in love with Mage: The Ascention for World of Darkness, and so take this with a grain of salt.

That all said, if you simply look at magic as existing beyond the bounds of physics, it simplifies itself without adding craptons of additional rules that could only be easily relegated by a computer on the fly.

Theo

Jayabalard
2007-04-09, 01:44 PM
Fireballs aren't simply little propane filled glass spheres that spark on contact. There is no concussive force.I'm not sure that's actually in the rules, is it? it seems to contradict what I recall from the spell description, that you summon forth a small pea sized beat that detonates into a ball of fire with low roar... Not much pressure isn't the same as no concussive force.

Changing it so that part of the damage is due to the concussive force isn't too far fetched, nor is it all that complicated


That all said, if you simply look at magic as existing beyond the bounds of physics, it simplifies itself without adding craptons of additional rules that could only be easily relegated by a computer on the fly.I agree, that makes it simpler. I just don't agree that simpler is necessarily better; I prefer a system of magic that is more consistent than that.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 04:48 PM
Really? Lets look at it item by item.
We have people in game
-Look at the players handbook, the section on character creation; it certainly looks like there are what (in the real world) we would call "people" in this game.

Not a rules concept.


they have arms and legs
-view the images in the character creation section; additionally, the two weapon fighting, and unarmed fighting rules make some mention of these appendages.

Not a rules concept.


they walk from place to place unless they have something that allows them to go beyond that (horses, ships, spells, etc),
flip through and read the rules on movement, I think all of these forms of movement are covered at least briefly.

They're still not rules concepts.


being hit with fireball hurts you rather than making you more healthy,
-Read the description of the fireball spell; it deals damage, rather than healing people. That looks like a pretty straightfoward game mechanic to implement that.

Actually, as another poster points out, what being hit with a fireball does is reduce your ability to reduce the severity of injuries. Fire doesn't burn in D&D, it just causes hitpoint damage, indistinguishable from any other form of hitpoint damage.


swords/axes/etc hurt you rather than make you more healthy,
-Yup, looking at the rules, the mechanics say that you try to hit people, and then if you hit you deal damage, based on the weapon; none of them heal the person that you hit as far as I can tell.

Nor do any of them hurt the person they hit. Mostly they just reduce the quantity of "hitpoints" that person possesses. Hitpoints are a resource which bears no relationship to your state of physical health.


armor gives protection,
-in D&D, we call this Armor Class (AC); I think there's even a variant rule where it gives something like damage reduction.

Armour gives protection, but not in the same way as armour in the real world. Armour in the real world gives protection by physically interposing itself between an incoming blow and your body. Armour in D&D gives protection by dint of a magical property called "Armour Class" which is always either wholly effective or wholly ineffective.


things fall down (unless overridden by spells),
-Look up the rules on falling damage; also look up the rules on the reverse gravity spell.

Falling damage only underlies the difference between falling in the real world and falling in D&D. Falling from high places in D&D is seldom fatal.


people produce goods and services and exchange them, often using money or other abstract concepts.
-Check out the section on buying equipment, and the section on crafting items; they even set example prices that people charge for those items.

But nobody produces them. People just use their Profession or Craft skills to conjure gold from thin air.


So... what is the reasoning that is used to show that none of those were backed by game mechanics?

The fact that none of them are backed by game mechanics, and the ones that do relate to game mechanics are actively undermined by the game mechanics.


Not unless they expect a perfectly realistic game; as long as they are just looking for "more realistic than the current D&D RAW" they have a pretty decent chance of being satisfied. See below re: strawman.

No, what they will get is "more complicated and no more realistic".


A bonus to save, or a blanket reduction to damage (or % of damage) is not a particularly complex rule... nor does everyone demand an utterly simplistic set of rules.

It is not a complex rule, but nor is it a realistic rule.

And that's the exact problem. All of the ideas people suggest to make the game more realistic not only make the game more complicated but also fail to make the game more realistic. Not fail to make the game "perfectly" realistic, fail to make the game more realistic, at all, in any way.


There are at least a few people who wouldn't mind a slightly more complicated ruleset if it gave them a more believable world.

Ah, but more believable isn't the same as more realistic. If you find a world in which being wet makes you more able to survive a fireball spell more believable that's fine. But you're not making things more realistic, you're making them unrealistic in a way you think makes sense.


nor does it require any rules at all, as long as you have a GM who makes common sense rulings and has players that enjoy that sort of game.

"less abstract" is not the same thing as "not abstract" ... it just means that you add more levels of detail and remove some levels of abstraction.

Either you have abstract damage or you don't. Either you track abstract "hit points" or equivalent, or you treat every wound as a distinct entity.


The mechanics abstract the way that fire deals damage that by having you roll dice to determine the damage, and by rolling a saving throw; reducing the damage dealt to reflect a situation where the fire isn't as damaging is an appropriate change that results in a mechanic that is more consistent with reality: something that is wet that is exposed to fire is less damaged than something that isn't, or even not damaged at all.

I don't like to do the "fixed your typo" thing, but your last sentence should have read:

"something that is wet that is exposed to fire may be less damaged than something that isn't".

It's like suggesting that clothing should count as armour, because it might take some of the force out of an attack.


No it was obviously a technological fire, so it was probably 5d6; Michael Jackson is obliviously a high level bard, so he had enough HP to survive it. <sarcasm off>

seriously though... burning hair is burning hair, it doesn't matter if it's caused by sparks, or a torch, or magic fire; having hair be flammable doesn't mean that people will always be "Bald and dead, since if the fire acted like real fire it would be pretty much instantly fatal to any person who came into contact with it." It's simply not always the case in the real world, so it wouldn't always be the case in the game world.

"Technological fire" would be napalm.

It is frankly stupid to insist on fireballs behaving like "real" fire, but not to actually worry about anybody actually ever being burned by it.


The thread topic is "more realistic" not "perfect realism" so you can drop the "you're demanding perfect realism" strawman anytime. As far as I've seen, no one on this thread has mentioned it except you.


Actually, nobody has mentioned it except you. I'm not talking about perfect realism, I'm talking about any quantity of realism whatsoever. It is not realistic for a character who is "wet" to take less damage from a fireball spell. I'm not saying it's not "perfectly" realistic, I'm saying it is not realistic at all. It is in fact less realistic than having wet characters take same damage as dry characters.

Jayabalard
2007-04-09, 05:27 PM
I never claimed that they were anything other than examples of realism that appears in the game. Interestingly enough, there are game mechanics/rules that cover all of those things, which seems sufficient to show why "None of which is backed up by game mechanics" is false; while the rules may not model reality perfectly, they are intended to have a certain amount of realism. The game designers of D&D get some of it right, but there's always room for improvement.

It's another interesting strawman, but that's all it is.


something that is wet that is exposed to fire may be less damaged than something that isn't Unless the fire is enough to incinerate both of them the may is not necessary. Take 2 pieces of identical wood; soak one submerged in water; expose both to the same amount of fire; the non-wet one will be more burned than the soaked one. Even if the fire is enough to incinerate both of them, the wet one will take longer to fully burn (ie, it takes more fire to deal the same fire damage).


Ah, but more believable isn't the same as more realistic. If you find a world in which being wet makes you more able to survive a fireball spell more believable that's fine. But you're not making things more realistic, you're making them unrealistic in a way you think makes sense.A more realistic world is a more believable world, and that is what we're interested in; if you're not, then I don't understand what it is you expect contribute to the thread except for "nay-saying"; you're doing that fairly well.


"Technological fire" would be napalm.Or burning black powder, or burring phosphorous/magnesium/other metals in fireworks... etc. Anything based on TL4 or above.


It is not realistic for a character who is "wet" to take less damage from a fireball spell. <snip> It is in fact less realistic than having wet characters take same damage as dry characters.I guess we have a different concept of reality. In my world (meaning, in real life), with the exceptions of reactions that convert water into hydrogen gas, water helps prevent things from burning. That's why people wet down their roofs and yard when there are fires in the area. Historically, I seem to recall that wooden ships would wet down their sails and deck to prevent fires on the ship and to make the ones that did start do less damage.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 05:37 PM
I never claimed that they were anything other than examples of realism that appears in the game. Interestingly enough, there are game mechanics/rules that cover all of those things, which seems sufficient to show why "None of which is backed up by game mechanics" is false; while the rules may not model reality perfectly, they are intended to have a certain amount of realism. The game designers of D&D get some of it right, but there's always room for improvement.

It's another interesting strawman, but that's all it is.

There are game mechanics which are tangentially related to some things, but that's all. There is no "things fall down" game mechanic.


Unless the fire is enough to incinerate both of them the may is not necessary. Take 2 pieces of identical wood; soak one submerged in water; expose both to the same amount of fire; the non-wet one will be more burned than the soaked one. Even if the fire is enough to incinerate both of them, the wet one will take longer to fully burn (ie, it takes more fire to deal the same fire damage).

Okay, now take two people, throw some water on one of them, and then hit them both with a flamethrower. Does the wet guy really have a better chance of survival?

There is a world of difference between being "soaked in water" and being "wet".


A more realistic world is a more believable world, and that is what we're interested in; if you're not, then I don't understand what it is you expect contribute to the thread except for "nay-saying"; you're doing that fairly well.

Since what you consider to be "believable" is in fact unrealistic (like your belief that being wet makes you more capable of surviving a magical fireball), this is manifestly untrue. You are confusing "complicated" with "realistic".


Or burning black powder, or burring phosphorous/magnesium/other metals in fireworks... etc. Anything based on TL4 or above.

Umm ... you realise that black powder and phosphorus are going to burn at different temperatures, right?


I guess we have a different concept of reality. In my world (meaning, in real life), with the exceptions of reactions that convert water into hydrogen gas, water helps prevent things from burning. That's why people wet down their roofs and yard when there are fires in the area. Historically, I seem to recall that wooden ships would wet down their sails and deck to prevent fires on the ship and to make the ones that did start do less damage.


And in my world a splash of water doesn't do anything against the magical equivalent of Napalm.

Jayabalard
2007-04-09, 05:51 PM
Okay, now take two people, throw some water on one of them, and then hit them both with a flamethrower. Does the wet guy really have a better chance of survival?yes.... not much, but yes. And even if they are both killed, the one who was soaked takes less damage, even though it's still enough to be lethal.

Like I said, "Unless the fire is enough to incinerate both of them the may is not necessary"


Umm ... you realise that black powder and phosphorus are going to burn at different temperatures, right?Yes... so does paper, and wood, and linen, and magnesium, and coal, and plastic, and flour, and gasoline... I'm not sure what your point is though.


And in my world a splash of water doesn't do anything against the magical equivalent of Napalm.I've never claimed anything about a splash of water...I think I've specifically said soaked pretty much every time. Fireballs don't stick to you, so it's hardly an equivalent to napalm

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-09, 06:04 PM
yes.... not much, but yes. And even if they are both killed, the one who was soaked takes less damage, even though it's still enough to be lethal.

But that's the thing. If they're both dead, how do you tell which one took more damage? Was either one ever going to survive? No. Would either one have survived if they had been more "experienced"? Well maybe, if they had managed to jump aside they would have had a chance, so does being wet make you more likely to jump aside?


Like I said, "Unless the fire is enough to incinerate both of them the may is not necessary"

The "may" is necessary because the fire actually *is* likely to be hot enough to incinerate both of them, and because the wood might not actually be "soaked" it might be merely "wet".


Yes... so does paper, and wood, and linen, and magnesium, and coal, and plastic, and flour, and gasoline... I'm not sure what your point is though.

My point is that "black powder" does not automatically qualify for special magic "Technological Fire" damage bonuses.


I've never claimed anything about a splash of water...I think I've specifically said soaked pretty much every time.

Yes, you have, which is just as much a straw man as any of the arguments you have so casually dismissed. The original post defines "wet" as a game mechanical state which a character obtains by being the target of any cold-based or acid based spell, or by getting "wet" by mundane means. There is a world of difference between being "soaked in water" and being "wet."

McDeath
2007-04-09, 07:51 PM
And for my next trick, I will condense a discussion of the nature of magic in D&D into a few sentences:

Suspension of disbelief, not realism.
Realistic magic = Army intelligence.
A lot of well-thought-out stuff here.
The DM can do anything, as long as it makes the game better.
Your gaming group, your group's rules.

Jayabalard
2007-04-10, 11:37 AM
Yes, you have, which is just as much a straw man as any of the arguments you have so casually dismissed.Please quote my text where I, not the OP, stated "a splash of water", or even just "wet". While the OP has some good concepts, I did say that they needed refinement, and my examples all were all about a pretty specific case where a character that is soaked in water would take less damage from a fireball than one that is totally dry.

being completely soaked in water should help" my first post on the subject after the sci-fi-geeks-back-in-my-day posts, which was a direct response to you using the same language ("completely soaked") that you used.

if you didn't make so many sweeping generalizations, used less strawman arguments, and instead stuck so something valid and on topic, I wouldn't be so casually dismissive about your arguments.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-10, 12:05 PM
Please quote my text where I, not the OP, stated "a splash of water", or even just "wet". While the OP has some good concepts, I did say that they needed refinement, and my examples all were all about a pretty specific case where a character that is soaked in water would take less damage from a fireball than one that is totally dry.
my first post on the subject after the sci-fi-geeks-back-in-my-day posts, which was a direct response to you using the same language ("completely soaked") that you used.

There is a big difference between a block of wood, which absorbs water, being "completely soaked" and a person being "completely soaked". And again that's the problem with game mechanics.


if you didn't make so many sweeping generalizations, used less strawman arguments, and instead stuck so something valid and on topic, I wouldn't be so casually dismissive about your arguments.


I'm not using straw men, I'm just using arguments you don't like. And game mechanics are all *about* sweeping generalisations, which is exactly why you can't make rules in an RPG realistic.

If you say "something soaked with water takes 10% (or 1D6, or whatever) less damage from fire-based magic" you create a new rule which is no more realistic than the old rule, because the actual effects of being wet (or "soaked" or whatever) vary hugely from situation to situation. So you go one way or the other. Either you compile a list of situational modifiers to fire damage based on degree of saturation, or you just ignore it. The middle ground gives you zero increase in realism for a non-zero increase in complexity.

Jayabalard
2007-04-10, 01:46 PM
So, does that mean you couldn't find that place where I made a claim about a splash of water? Arguing against something that I didn't claim in order to more easily refute it... I think there's a term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) for that style of argument.

The line of mine that I quoted is in reference to a person who is soaked in water, not a piece of wood. "But that only works if you're completely coated in water, and only for a couple of seconds. " (your statement); you generally refers to a person, and would only refer to a piece of wood if you're talking to a tree. My claim is that a fireball only lasts a few seconds (probably a second or less)... so "being completely soaked in water should help." (my statement).

It's a non-zero increase in complexity (extra rules) for a non-zero increase in realism (water helps prevent burning). Sounds like an acceptable trade off to me. If you don't find it interesting, or worth the effort, you're free to play by RAW instead...

Dark_Stalion
2007-04-10, 06:25 PM
I admit that I haven't read all of the posts yet (infact I'm barely half way down the first page) yet I am seeing a hell of a lot of off topic posts. By these I mean the ones saying "we don't want more rules," "D&D is fantastical so don't try and bring real life into it", "D&D is realistic enough," and "If you start making D&D more realistic where do you stop".

If you had bothered to read the OP properly in the first place you would have realised that I am writing this for people who want a cirtain amount of extra realism in their game and to make magic more varied and less predictable than before. Therefore I'm suggesting various additional rules which are OPTIONAL as they are clearly not everyones idea of how it should work (see OP). At the moment they are nothing more than suggestions and trying to make them out to be anything more than that is not what I was aiming for this topic to be about. Also taking it to the level where you need a PHD in molecular physics to understand the game is not an option unless you are playing with other people who have similar knowledge, reducing the usefullness of any rules put forwards under such assumptions (ok, I exaggerate, but you get my drift). I am attempting to create some extra rules based on comon sence and everyday observations than on specific scientific formulas or even fact particularly. D&D is a game of cliches and common fantasy from which DMs and players choose their subset of rules and varients to form their particular world. I am just trying to add some extra options.

I am hoping to come up with a simple varient rule too govern the elemental reactions, but have not had much time lately to think on this. Most likely it will take the form of a diagram rather than a written set of rules. My OP also stated that I was hoping to see some other suggestions on spells and rules you personally have been thinking of along this vein and you might want to contribute.

Glancing further down I do notice some valid arguments on the OP which I am pleased to see and I heartily encourage these. Please continue
with these.

Lastly my reasoning behind the water (and ice attacks) reducing the damage caused by fire was that the water requires energy to evaporate. Some of that energy is removed from the energy that woould have damaged the person subjected to the fire. If some of that energy is then transfered back to the person from contact with the steam then there is no actual increase in the damage caused to the person, just a decrease in the reduction. As most of the evaporated water wont return the energy to the person then it is safe to say that it is a minor reduction and can be discounted. As for boiling a large body of water the creature is imersed in with a blast of fire from a fireball or similar then there clearly is a different rule required.

DS