Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Horseshoe_Hermit 09-10-07, 10:49 PM	I would just like to get a sample of players' and DMs' opinions. I say opinions because my interest is really in your perceptions. Please answer my questions. Alright, let's jump right in: 1. Which of the following sets of spells do you feel Bestow Curse "belongs with"? a) Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Endurance b) Haste, Slow c) Magic Weapon Do you think of Bestow Curse as really manifesting a "curse" as this thing, though supernatural, that really exists? Or, do you think "curse", as used by the people in the DnD universe, is more like the terms "influenza," "stomach infection" and "delirium"? 2. Please place each of Jump and Expeditious Retreat with one of the following spell sets. a) Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Endurance b) Haste, Slow, Feather Fall If you find Jump and Expeditious Retreat dissimilar in a way such that you would be dissatisfied classing them together, please describe or explain that perception. Thank you for your time and honesty.
Vegepygmy 09-11-07, 02:04 AM	1. b) Haste, Slow Do you think of Bestow Curse as really manifesting a "curse" as this thing, though supernatural, that really exists? Or, do you think "curse", as used by the people in the DnD universe, is more like the terms "influenza," "stomach infection" and "delirium"?More the former, I guess. 2. b) Haste, Slow, Feather Fall (for both)
Seeker95 09-11-07, 08:27 AM	1. b 2. b
goawayugh 09-11-07, 12:19 PM	1) b 2) b What sort of dispute are we helping you settle here?
Horseshoe_Hermit 09-11-07, 01:02 PM	What sort of dispute are we helping you settle here? The sort that hasn't happened yet. I'll wait for a few more respondents. Thank you again.
Nom 09-11-07, 07:31 PM	1. Which of the following sets of spells do you feel Bestow Curse "belongs with"? a) Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Endurance b) Haste, Slow c) Magic WeaponNone of the above. It's classified as Necromancy, while the others are Transmutations (except endurance, which isn't in the PH). The transmutations magically augment your body (or your weapon) to perform better in some aspect. bestow curse strikes you with a supernatural blight that manifests itself mechanically as one of the listed penalties. Do you think of Bestow Curse as really manifesting a "curse" as this thing, though supernatural, that really exists?Yes. Or, do you think "curse", as used by the people in the DnD universe, is more like the terms "influenza," "stomach infection" and "delirium"?No, they are "diseases", specifically "non-magical diseases". At least as far as the term crosses the IC/OOC boundary. If you want to flavour it that the Average Joe in your world can't tell the difference between a natural and supernatural blight then that's your business. Please place each of Jump and Expeditious Retreat with one of the following spell sets. a) Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Endurance b) Haste, Slow, Feather FallIMO, feather fall is miscategorised. I see feather fall as a telekinetic effect, while the others are physical augments. Similarly, jump and ER are (to me) physical augments, and thus fall into the same broad category. An alternative view would place haste, slow and expeditious retreat in the same category as time stop, classifying transmutations which affect speed as a different category to transmutations which enhance ability.
Jaxgaret 09-11-07, 08:50 PM	I would just like to get a sample of players' and DMs' opinions. I say opinions because my interest is really in your perceptions. Please answer my questions. Alright. I'll take the bait. Alright, let's jump right in: 1. Which of the following sets of spells do you feel Bestow Curse "belongs with"? a) Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Endurance b) Haste, Slow c) Magic Weapon B) Haste/Slow. I say this due to the fact that Slow and Bestow Curse are very similar spells. Do you think of Bestow Curse as really manifesting a "curse" as this thing, though supernatural, that really exists? Or, do you think "curse", as used by the people in the DnD universe, is more like the terms "influenza," "stomach infection" and "delirium"? Reading the descriptions of Cursed Items (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm) and the spells Bestow Curse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bestowCurse.htm) and Remove Curse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/removeCurse.htm), Curses in D&D are a specific type of magical effect that cannot be dispelled. They are not supernatural. 2. Please place each of Jump and Expeditious Retreat with one of the following spell sets. a) Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Endurance b) Haste, Slow, Feather Fall I am going to say A), because Jump and Expeditious Retreat provide flat numerical bonuses, the same as the Bull's Strength/Cat's Grace line, whereas Haste/Slow/Feather Fall have non-numerical effects. If you find Jump and Expeditious Retreat dissimilar in a way such that you would be dissatisfied classing them together, please describe or explain that perception. They're fairly similar spells in that they both provide a numerical bonus to movement. Thank you for your time and honesty. You're welcome! I'm interested to see what devious ulterior motive there is behind asking these questions :)
Vegepygmy 09-11-07, 08:57 PM	Curses in D&D are a specific type of magical effect that cannot be dispelled. It is not supernatural.If it's magical, it's supernatural.
ArcTan 09-11-07, 10:53 PM	I would just like to get a sample of players' and DMs' opinions. I say opinions because my interest is really in your perceptions. Please answer my questions. Alright, let's jump right in: 1. Which of the following sets of spells do you feel Bestow Curse "belongs with"? a) Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Endurance b) Haste, Slow c) Magic Weapon Do you think of Bestow Curse as really manifesting a "curse" as this thing, though supernatural, that really exists? Or, do you think "curse", as used by the people in the DnD universe, is more like the terms "influenza," "stomach infection" and "delirium"? What are you talking about? Influenza, stomach infections and delirium are all quite real things. How is using the term "influenza" using a term for something that doesn't really exist?
ArcTan 09-11-07, 10:54 PM	Reading the descriptions of Cursed Items (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm) and the spells Bestow Curse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bestowCurse.htm) and Remove Curse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/removeCurse.htm), Curses in D&D are a specific type of magical effect that cannot be dispelled. They are not supernatural. They absolutely are supernatural. The fact that you can't dispel them doesn't change that -- they still go away in an antimagic field or when zapped by Mordenkainen's disjunction. There are plenty of magical effects that explicitly get protected from dispel magic -- that doesn't make them suddenly "non-magical". Walls of force are magical, for instance.
Jaxgaret 09-12-07, 01:14 AM	If it's magical, it's supernatural. They absolutely are supernatural. The fact that you can't dispel them doesn't change that -- they still go away in an antimagic field or when zapped by Mordenkainen's disjunction. There are plenty of magical effects that explicitly get protected from dispel magic -- that doesn't make them suddenly "non-magical". Walls of force are magical, for instance. Anything that is supernatural is indeed magical. But not everything that is magical is supernatural. Let me know where, if anywhere, that the rules state that curses are supernatural. Bestow Curse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bestowCurse.htm), for instance, allows SR, whilst Supernatural (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbiliti es) attacks do not.
ArcTan 09-12-07, 01:38 AM	Anything that is supernatural is indeed magical. But not everything that is magical is supernatural. Let me know where, if anywhere, that the rules state that curses are supernatural. Bestow Curse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bestowCurse.htm), for instance, allows SR, whilst Supernatural (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbiliti es) attacks do not. Bestow curse is obviously a spell, not a (Sp) or (Su) ability, sure -- although there's nothing that says a creature *couldn't* have bestow curse as a (Su) ability. However, it's really annoying to have people harp on the D&D definition of a term when someone's clearly simply using the colloquial definition -- bestow curse is indeed a "supernatural" effect, whether or not it's generated by a (Su) ability. D&D *itself* frequently uses the word "supernatural" simply to mean "magical" -- take a look at the description of a Golem's Immunity to Magic in the MM. The naming of (Sp), (Su) and (Ex) abilities is pretty clearly based on a nested use of those terms, not a strictly hierarchical one. Supernatural Abilities are called that because they're supernatural-but-not-spell-like. Just like Extraordinary Abilities are called that because they're extraordinary-but-not-supernatural. I'm pretty sure they didn't mean to say that (Ex) abilities are literally "extraordinary" and (Sp) and (Su) abilities are merely "ordinary".
NoldorForce 09-12-07, 02:11 AM	1. Which of the following sets of spells do you feel Bestow Curse "belongs with"? a) Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, EnduranceI feel it to be something of a harmful Transmutation. Come to think of it, what's the point of Necromancy, considering that it can basically be covered by Evocation/Psychokinesis and Transmutation/Psychometabolism? Do you think of Bestow Curse as really manifesting a "curse" as this thing, though supernatural, that really exists? Or, do you think "curse", as used by the people in the DnD universe, is more like the terms "influenza," "stomach infection" and "delirium"?The latter. Primarily because it can be a very broad term; dying curses, for instance, need not be magical at all. Though perhaps this opinion may change; I'm a bit confused by your question. 2. Please place each of Jump and Expeditious Retreat with one of the following spell sets. b) Haste, Slow, Feather FallThis is based on the XPH concept of Psychoportation, or monkeying around with time and space. Feather Fall, for instance, can be viewed as warping either space (to shrink the effective distance you fall) or time (extending the time in which you fall).
Vegepygmy 09-12-07, 03:33 AM	Anything that is supernatural is indeed magical. But not everything that is magical is supernatural. Let me know where, if anywhere, that the rules state that curses are supernatural. Bestow Curse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bestowCurse.htm), for instance, allows SR, whilst Supernatural (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbiliti es) attacks do not.You are confusing the common, ordinary English word "supernatural" with the game-specific term "supernatural ability." Not all magical effects are the product of a supernatural ability (Su). All magical effects are, however, by definition, "supernatural."
jaelis 09-12-07, 09:22 AM	Here's my answers, before reading anything but the OP: 1. (b) But I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make about a curse vs a disease. 2. (a)
Jaxgaret 09-12-07, 11:11 AM	Bestow curse is obviously a spell, not a (Sp) or (Su) ability, sure -- although there's nothing that says a creature *couldn't* have bestow curse as a (Su) ability. However, it's really annoying to have people harp on the D&D definition of a term when someone's clearly simply using the colloquial definition -- bestow curse is indeed a "supernatural" effect, whether or not it's generated by a (Su) ability. D&D *itself* frequently uses the word "supernatural" simply to mean "magical" -- take a look at the description of a Golem's Immunity to Magic in the MM. The naming of (Sp), (Su) and (Ex) abilities is pretty clearly based on a nested use of those terms, not a strictly hierarchical one. Supernatural Abilities are called that because they're supernatural-but-not-spell-like. Just like Extraordinary Abilities are called that because they're extraordinary-but-not-supernatural. I'm pretty sure they didn't mean to say that (Ex) abilities are literally "extraordinary" and (Sp) and (Su) abilities are merely "ordinary". You are confusing the common, ordinary English word "supernatural" with the game-specific term "supernatural ability." Not all magical effects are the product of a supernatural ability (Su). All magical effects are, however, by definition, "supernatural." Darn it, you've made me dig out the dictionary.com. Supernatural: 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. 3. Of or relating to a deity. 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. 5. Of or relating to the miraculous. In the D&D world, magic is natural. Supernatural abilities are outside of the influence of magic (see SR: No for confirmation), and thus are "attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces". It follows that describing the Golem's Immunity to Magic as supernatural makes perfect sense, because it violates the natural laws of magic. I am fairly sure that you two are going to hem and haw and stick to your guns, because you've already made up your minds to disagree with me. I hope for your sakes that you can listen to what I am saying and think critically about it, and not just reflexively disagree. If you find some way to convince me otherwise, I'm all ears. EDIT: I already found something antithetical to my argument: the Hexblade's Curse ability is Supernatural.
Horseshoe_Hermit 09-12-07, 12:26 PM	I am laughing at the argument over supernaturality. The distinction I was getting at with curses and diseases, was... I mean... Imagine a biologist of today, and a person from the time when people believed "life" was "vital force." The person has this view of "life" and it seems he deeply believes that "life" is this irreducible thing that you put in the object to make it alive - "vital force." The biologist has the view that "life" is a description, that you give to something when it satisfies a definition. The biologist thinks that there are mechanistic processes that add up to "life." The life isn't a separate thing. It's just a description of the whole thing from a "zoomed out" level of analysis. Now suppose that the vital force theory were right. I am asking you, is a curse like the vital force? Now suppose that present day biology has it right. Is "cursed" like "alive"?
ArcTan 09-12-07, 05:35 PM	In the D&D world, magic is natural. Supernatural abilities are outside of the influence of magic (see SR: No for confirmation), and thus are "attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces". It follows that describing the Golem's Immunity to Magic as supernatural makes perfect sense, because it violates the natural laws of magic. No, I mean Immunity to Magic protects against "most magical and supernatural effects, except when otherwise noted". Then we find out Immunity to Magic counts as infinite SR, which means it doesn't work against (Su) abilities at all. Immunity to Magic *itself* is (Ex). If your definition of "supernatural" is "breaks the normal rules of magic", then that would seem to apply equally to (Ex) and (Su) abilities. EDIT: I already found something antithetical to my argument: the Hexblade's Curse ability is Supernatural. Fine. Liches have a Paralyzing Touch, which is described as a "curse" that can only be removed by remove curse, and is a (Su) ability. The thing is that there's no obvious divide between (Su) abilities and (Sp) abilities. A (Su) ability is often just a spell or something similar to a spell that, for this particular creature, is Supernatural. Shadowcasters, for instance, are based on the concept of having "mysteries" that work as SLAs until they reach a certain point of familiarity with them, at which point they turn into (Su) abilities. You can't say "curses aren't supernatural", because there's nothing at all that prevents a creature from being able to cast bestow curse or a similar effect as a (Su) ability. (Su) describes *how a monster uses an ability*, not what the ability is. (Efreet do wish as an SLA, Zodars do it as a (Su) ability.)
ArcTan 09-12-07, 05:43 PM	I am laughing at the argument over supernaturality. The distinction I was getting at with curses and diseases, was... I mean... Imagine a biologist of today, and a person from the time when people believed "life" was "vital force." The person has this view of "life" and it seems he deeply believes that "life" is this irreducible thing that you put in the object to make it alive - "vital force." The biologist has the view that "life" is a description, that you give to something when it satisfies a definition. The biologist thinks that there are mechanistic processes that add up to "life." The life isn't a separate thing. It's just a description of the whole thing from a "zoomed out" level of analysis. Now suppose that the vital force theory were right. I am asking you, is a curse like the vital force? Now suppose that present day biology has it right. Is "cursed" like "alive"? I... dunno. This is a very broad philosophical debate -- between holism and reductionism -- and, really, you can describe anything both ways. A holist has plenty of room to argue that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and a reductionist always has the ability to add extra parts to his imaginary list of parts to explain wholes. I mean, put it this way -- influenza *is* a specific thing caused by a specific "vital fluid". No influenza virions means no influenza. The influenza virus *is* a "vital fluid" that makes you sick -- indeed, the so-called "germ theory of disease" is distinct from earlier ideas of disease in that it *does* propose a physical substance that makes you sick (the virus) while earlier theories about influenza thought that influenza was just a particular imbalance of the humors, or the result of negative metaphysical influences like a misalignment of the stars. Indeed, the word "influenza" comes from the fact that people used to think influenza was just a general term for "something wrong" with the body that could be caused by all kinds of negative "influences" ("influenza" means "influence"), and now we're saying its this specific goo that's made of little self-replicating bundles of RNA that causes it. But that doesn't make us truly vitalists who are describing the influenza virus as an irreducible mystical thing. The virus itself is made of chemicals that follow the same basic physical laws as all chemicals. We know the biological mechanism by which the virus infects people, which is a mechanism like any other biological mechanism, that can be predicted and influenced. The symptoms of the disease itself are things the body does in response to the virus' presence that can be prevented separately from preventing infection. I mean, look at it this way: The fact that we have a definition of the word "apple", and we know pretty well what an apple is and what it isn't, doesn't mean that we believe apples are a mystical Aristotelian essence that can't be penetrated. I know what an apple is and what an apple isn't -- I *also* know what an apple is *made of*, and that the same compounds can be rearranged to make an orange. I know what a sonnet is. There are very strict rules that define a sonnet. That doesn't mean that a sonnet itself isn't made up of words and concepts that could probably be used to write something that wasn't a sonnet, or that the physical representation of a sonnet is anything more than ink spilled on paper in a process we can understand. That doesn't mean the definition of a sonnet is any less solid. The philosophical false dichotomy between treating something as an inviolate essence and understanding what it's made of is, well, false. The fact that I know a cell phone is just a device made out of circuits put together in a certain way doesn't mean there's no definition of the word "cell phone", that I can call anything a cell phone if I want, or that cell phones aren't "real".
ArcTan 09-12-07, 05:46 PM	That last post was kind of off-topic, so I'll put it this way: I absolutely agree that "curse" is a category of magic that some magical effects fit into and others don't. You have to have that, or spells like remove curse don't make sense. What it is that makes something a "curse" is not clear. It's clear that a "curse" is not *just* a term to describe any negative magical effect. Remove curse can't heal damage caused by magic missile, even though MM is clearly a harmful spell. More to the point, it also doesn't work on slow, because while slow is bad it's apparently not a "curse". There's a class of magic in D&D called "curses" that, generally speaking, cannot be dispelled through normal means and don't wear off within a short period of time. Whether "curse" is just a way to describe that kind of spell or whether there's something about those spells that *makes* them "curses" is, I think, a meaningless question. It's like asking whether the word "cell phone" is something that describes machines you hold in your hand and use to communicate with people, or whether there's something in those machines that *makes* them cell phones. The answer is, of course, that it's really the same thing.
Yaeri 09-12-07, 06:12 PM	1. Which of the following sets of spells do you feel Bestow Curse "belongs with"? a) Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Endurance b) Haste, Slow c) Magic Weapon b) Do you think of Bestow Curse as really manifesting a "curse" as this thing, though supernatural, that really exists? Or, do you think "curse", as used by the people in the DnD universe, is more like the terms "influenza," "stomach infection" and "delirium"? Supernatural, not like a gipsy curse, but still a magical effect (not a physical/biological one) 2. Please place each of Jump and Expeditious Retreat with one of the following spell sets. a) Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Endurance b) Haste, Slow, Feather Fall If you find Jump and Expeditious Retreat dissimilar in a way such that you would be dissatisfied classing them together, please describe or explain that perception. I am inclined to place jump with a), because to me a flat out bonus to a single skill is pretty similar to a flat out bonus to a single stat. I am inclined to place expeditious retreat with b), because to me they're all utilitarian spells that influence how you move.
Horseshoe_Hermit 09-12-07, 10:14 PM	Very well said, ArcTan. It isn't often that someone can make me feel really, really stupid. :) Okay... so, ignore my crazy banter, it's nothing but misleading. The answers are very consistent... a lot of people like the (b)s, and everyone else places Jump or Expeditious Retreat with (a). I'll need some time to meditate on what I want to know about curses, given what ArcTan has said. I may be wrapping this up soon. Well, just this part anyway. You may see another thread asking about different spells in the near future. I think I'll call it "Spell Similarity"
Jaxgaret 09-12-07, 11:23 PM	No, I mean Immunity to Magic protects against "most magical and supernatural effects, except when otherwise noted". Then we find out Immunity to Magic counts as infinite SR, which means it doesn't work against (Su) abilities at all. WotC strikes again! :) Immunity to Magic *itself* is (Ex). If your definition of "supernatural" is "breaks the normal rules of magic", then that would seem to apply equally to (Ex) and (Su) abilities. Fine. Liches have a Paralyzing Touch, which is described as a "curse" that can only be removed by remove curse, and is a (Su) ability. Well, before we came upon the Hexblade's Curse and the Lich's Paralyzing Touch as Supernatural Curses, I would have said that (Ex) abilities are inherently non-magical. But I obviously can't take that stand now, can I? ;) The thing is that there's no obvious divide between (Su) abilities and (Sp) abilities. A (Su) ability is often just a spell or something similar to a spell that, for this particular creature, is Supernatural. Shadowcasters, for instance, are based on the concept of having "mysteries" that work as SLAs until they reach a certain point of familiarity with them, at which point they turn into (Su) abilities. You can't say "curses aren't supernatural", because there's nothing at all that prevents a creature from being able to cast bestow curse or a similar effect as a (Su) ability. (Su) describes *how a monster uses an ability*, not what the ability is. (Efreet do wish as an SLA, Zodars do it as a (Su) ability.) I bow to your superior D&D-fu. Here I was assuming (very stupidly) that WotC had been consistent in their designation of things as Supernatural, when of course I should have known that it would be willy-nilly, like everything else in this *ahem* well-designed piece of... work that we know as D&D.
Nom 09-12-07, 11:51 PM	What it is that makes something a "curse" is not clear. It's clear that a "curse" is not *just* a term to describe any negative magical effect. Remove curse can't heal damage caused by magic missile, even though MM is clearly a harmful spell. More to the point, it also doesn't work on slow, because while slow is bad it's apparently not a "curse".slow is practically bad, not inherently bad. Curses are inherently bad (like damage). It may seem a bit odd to think that slow is not "inherently bad", so let's take a different example. enlarge person is a non-harmless transmutation, meaning that a PC resists it by default. Sometimes, the effect is beneficial. Sometimes, it's not. But mechanically, it is simply a transmutation that makes you bigger that the self naturally resists. Likewise, slow is a transmutation that makes you slower that the body naturally resists. Neither of these are "curses" in the sense of bestow curse, which is an inherently malign magical effect that requires special magic to negate. Thus, while slow and bestow curse might be outwardly similar in that they apply an unwanted effect to your character, what's actually going on under the hood - even from a purely mechanics perspective - is quite different. Another example: scorching ray and flame blade both do fire damage on a successful attack roll, but that doesn't make them fundamentally "similar" spells.
Jaxgaret 09-13-07, 12:34 AM	It may seem a bit odd to think that slow is not "inherently bad", so let's take a different example. enlarge person is a non-harmless transmutation, meaning that a PC resists it by default. Characters can choose to fail a saving throw, thus accepting the spell's effect. Sometimes, the effect is beneficial. Sometimes, it's not. But mechanically, it is simply a transmutation that makes you bigger that the self naturally resists. Enlarge Person can be a buff or a debuff, depending on the situation. The character chooses whether or not to accept the spell or make a save. It is not "naturally resisted". Likewise, slow is a transmutation that makes you slower that the body naturally resists. Neither of these are "curses" in the sense of bestow curse, which is an inherently malign magical effect that requires special magic to negate. Thus, while slow and bestow curse might be outwardly similar in that they apply an unwanted effect to your character, what's actually going on under the hood - even from a purely mechanics perspective - is quite different. Slow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/slow.htm) and Bestow Curse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bestowCurse.htm) seem almost identical from a mechanical perspective to me. Another example: scorching ray and flame blade both do fire damage on a successful attack roll, but that doesn't make them fundamentally "similar" spells. Why not? I don't know the spell Flame Blade, but I imagine it involves creating a large flaming sword that goes over and tries to whack thine enemies; couldn't a Scorching Ray be easily flavored as a Flame Blade, with the same mechanics as a Scorching Ray?