PDA

View Full Version : [Any but with 3.P Examples] Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard



Endarire
2010-11-25, 04:48 AM
Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard

Foreward
This article is intended for 3.5 and Pathfinder mechanics, but applies in general.

What Mundanes Do
Mundanes in this case are the Monks, the Fighters, the Barbarians, the Rangers, the Rogues, and anyone who could reasonably exist in the real world. These characters seemingly don't rely on magic to do their jobs. Indeed, any seemingly supernatural ability they have could feasibly be gained through training of just being born that way.

First, the mundanes rely on skills to succeed, such as picking locks, disabling traps, scouting, negotiating, and knowing things.

Second, a mundane combatant does things that you'd expect. He punches and kicks; he swings swords and hammers; he shoots bolts, arrows, and stones; he dodges and deflects blows. He may use the environment to his advantage, such as triggering a rockslide to block a pass.

He may use personal ingenuity to make things "ahead of their time." In a medieval society, a mundane may be skillful enough to craft a hang glider, or a revolver, or a submarine. These devices or methods are usually slow to change the world, if even they catch on!

The advantage gained from a mundane being "ahead of his time" can be tremendous, though it may take generations for people to understand what this one man did. Leonardo da Vinci was a genius inventor, among other things. He made the prototypes for a submarine centuries before militaries actually traveled by sub. In contrast, if da Vinci had made a rocket launcher and discovered an easy and reliable means of making ammo for it in the 1400s or 1500s, he may have been able to rule the world!

What Magic Does
In short, magic does whatever the author wants it to do and is often viewed as a plot device. Indeed, since magic has no innate limits, it can do anything. Those that wield magic must have strict limits on their power; otherwise, they'll rule the world. Easily. After all, if magic does things better- faster, cheaper, with greater chance of success, and so on- why do we need mundanes at all?

My discussion of magic emphasizes D&D 3.5. There has been much talk about casters, especially Wizards and Druids, outdoing and even replacing the more mundane classes. Many believe that all Druids get a "Fighter" standard at level 1, but there's nothing magical about a riding dog that you trained following you around and guarding you like a real trained dog would.

The issue is with magic saying, "I play by different rules than mundanes. In fact, I write the rules for mundanes while I stick around and do as I please."

Since this is meant to be a cooperative game, not a movie or a book, then one person making another effectively obsolete by merely showing up is bad game balance. In a non-interactive medium, the author can handle magic outsourcing a mundane's job with fewer real life feelings being hurt.

What Players Do
As humans, we are greatly influenced by our experiences, especially by sight. I've formed mental pictures and carried them around for years, only to have them quickly overwritten when I see the "official" version. (Billy Joel's "Piano Man" inspired far different mental pictures than what I saw in an official music video.)

When making a character, a person usually thinks to all the movies and TV he's seen and the stories he's heard and read. He can get a fairly good idea of what a human with these abilities can do. He may expect all Monks to work like Bruce Lee, and all Barbarians to work like Conan. His ideas of what "Monk" and "Barbarian" are will probably blind him, at least initially, to the possibility of multiclassing Monk and Barbarian.

Nevermind that "Monk" and "Barbarian" are labels to conveniently categorizes piles of stats. You don't see these Monk/Barbarian hybrids movies, right?

It may not seem "realistic" (and I use the "Can I do it in real life?" definition) for a Rogue to walk on a cloud. Without magic. Because the rules say he can (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#balance). Alternatively, he could have been reliably making DC 25 Diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) checks from level 2 without magic. (Level 2, mind you, is probably you and me.) That's enough to turn a hostile creature indifferent as a full-round action, or turn an indifferent creature helpful in 2 rounds. Yes, that includes the -10 for a rushed Diplomacy check.

Here's how:

25 = 10 (Taking 10) + 5 (Ranks) + 2 (Masterwork Tool) + 6 (Synergy) + 4 (CHA Bonus) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Negotiator Feat) + 2 (Half-Elf) + 1 (Honest Trait) - 10 (Rushed Check)

Sure, it's optimized, and you probably wouldn't find such a person in real life, but there are plenty of stories where people talk themselves out of hostile situations. It's plausible.

Another topic of contention is what HP (hit points) represent. Is it a matter of general health? Is it morale? Is it something else? If someone gets stabbed twenty times in real life, he's expected to die. Soon. Even with immediate and ideal medical treatment. In a game (especially in mid- to late-game 3.5), someone can be hurt in all sorts of ways and still be able to act to his full capacity since he has at least 1 HP left.

As humans, we're constantly gauging what we perceive to what we've experienced. Even if we don't do so in these words, we continually ask ourselves or others, "Does this seem right?" Fantasy and imagined things can stretch our belief in what's "right" for the scenario, but usually, our first reaction comes from what would happen in real life.

Adding Magic
Let's assume for a moment that magic does not exist in real life. When a movie director wants to make a "magic" effect with computer graphics (CGI), he'll probably do it with flair. Maybe a blue flash of light will appear briefly before a Wizard teleports in.

And, y'know what? That's sometimes expected.

Assuming nothing says otherwise, that movie director could, instead of making that flash of blue light, make a flash of purple light, or yellow light, or drop the visual effect and decide that a Wizard will teleport in with a loud cow moo. After all, nothing says we can't. In short, it could be plausible.

The Double Standard
I asked one of my friends about this discrepancy between casters and mundanes. In short, he said, "That's how it's supposed to work."

This statement, among others, opened my eyes to what casters and mundanes get based on their class. My research boils down to this:

The very ability to use magic is what makes magic so powerful. In other words, magic is powerful because someone can do it at all.

For example, let's assume a caster can cause an earthquake when he wants. Casting this spell may require 3 seconds, 10 minutes, or another span of time. It may require the sacrifice of 40 virgins under a full moon. It may require melting down gold bars and forming them into a life size statue of Bon Jovi.

The point is that the caster can and the non-caster can't.

Examples from D&D 3.5: Enhancing Your Abilities
D&D 3.5 is a game about magic.

Want a more accurate or damaging weapon? There are minor mundane upgrades, but the game expects you'll get a magic weapon. A caster can make one. If you instead need a magic weapon right now and a caster has a spell handy, he can cast (greater) magic weapon.

Want a more protective item? There are minor mundane upgrades, but the game expects you'll get magic armor, and maybe a magic shield, a magic ring, a magic necklace, and somesuch. A caster can make one or provide a short-term AC boost.

Want to fly, swim, or burrow? Unless your race can already do this, you need a magic item or a spell cast on you. A caster can do it.

Want to do just about anything besides attack with a weapon or use a skill? Magic is the answer, and of course a caster can do it.

Some would say this gets ridiculous.

If you keep asking "Daddy Wizard" and "Mommy Cleric" for buffs just to stay relevant, then, logically, they're better off without you. They can summon or call bigger, badder things than you that don't require as much maintenance, and that won't complain if they're killed.

Out of character, this probably won't happen, because I assume players are friends who want to play together.

Examples from D&D 3.5: Unique Class Features
All creatures, upon gaining a hit die or level, gain these features in various quantities:
-Hit Points (HP)
-Skill Points
-Base Attack Bonus (BAB); not necessarily 1 per HD
-Base Saves; not necessarily 1 or more per HD
-Baes Stats; typically 1 per 4 HD
-Feats; usually 1 at the first HD, 1 at 3HD, and 1 every 3 HD thereafter

A human Fighter3 and human Wizard3 each get the above abilities. In addition, a Wizard3 gets these things:
-2 spells known of any level he can cast. These will probably be level 2 spells. (I prefer glitterdust and alter self.)
-At least 1 level 2 slot with which to cast spells. Because of INT and specialization, this Wizard will probably get 2-4 slots instead of 1.
-If the Wizard has a familiar, the familiar gets +1 natural armor, +1 INT, and the ability to deliver touch spells.

You may be crying foul that this comparison is rigged. Wizards of the Coast felt it appropriate to give, well, Wizards something unique at every level (extra spells), but not Fighters. What about the Fighter's close cousin, the Barbarian?

A Barbarian3 gets these unique class features:
-+1 on Reflex saves and +1 dodge AC to avoid traps. Yep, it's somethin', but it's no glitterdust.

Examples from D&D 3.5: Level-Appropriate Abilities
You may be asking, "What's your standard of balance? Is there a way to determine what's level-appropriate?"

Yes.

There are many creatures who can inflict nasty status effects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm). The cures to these effects (remove blindness/deafness to undo glitterdust, for example) come at the same level or a very similar level as the start of these effects.

A Xill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/xill.htm) can paralyze a victim on a failed Fort save. Indefinitely. Fortunately, there are two "level-appropriate" cures, remove paralysis (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/removeparalysis.htm) (Cleric2, Paladin2) and freedom of movement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/freedomofmovement.htm) (Bard4, Cleric4, Druid4, Luck4, Ranger4, and more outside of core). At least in the core rules, there is no mundane way to cure the 'paralyzed' condition! I hope you packed the right magic, because you ain't movin' if you were wrong.

Non-casters just don't get things like this!

Examples from D&D 3.5: Tome of Battle
Say what you will about Tome of Battle. I like it. A lot. It gives non-casters options besides, "I hit it!" and "I hit it harder!"

Sure, its maneuvers and stances (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) sometimes stretch the limits of believability for non-casters, expecially at mid- to high-levels. Mind Over Body (Ex) says, "If I Concentrate hard enough, I'll prevent paralysis!" Rallying Strike (Ex) says, "If I hit a foe, I heal all allies within 30' of me!"

And y'know what? That's making non-casters a bit more self-sufficient, even if it makes non-casters feel a bit more like casters.

Before Tome of Battle, I had a hard time imagining level-appropriate abilities for non-casters. I never felt like there was a compelling warrior ability that required level 9 or higher, and usually, level 5 or higher. With ToB, there is a standard for level-appropriate abilities. I can take 20 levels of classes that give full BAB and feel like less of a sucker for not having spells. (Note: I played a full BAB character at level 9 with a mesh of Tome of Battle classes and still felt like a sucker for not having spells. At least I could heal well.)

The Eternal Blade class (Tome of Battle 109), at character level 20, can let me take an extra turn as an immediate action. I look at that and say, "That is so cool!" It's nowhere near as cool as the tricks and toys casters get, but it's a good start.

What's The Point?
This is the core of the problem: Magic and mundane are not reconcilable. There is no fair way to put Mr. "I alter reality because I want to" Wizard and Mr. "I hit things" Warrior in the same setting and have things work.

In general, mundanes work the way they do because of real life expectations, and magic works the way it does because that's what we'd want to be doing if not for these physical constraints.

Maybe logic wins, and we realize that casters and mundanes are in different leagues. Maybe logic implodes- at least slightly- and casters don't get to alter reality in meaningful ways. Maybe logic, while still imploding, grants mundanes a fair chance and gives them "magic" under a different name.

Dimers
2010-11-25, 06:01 AM
Your concept is that the existence of magic is ultimately irreconcilable with mundane characters, for the purpose of cooperative games? I disagree; the relative costs can be balanced within a game system such that there would always be a good reason to play a mundane character in a world that has magic. If the cost of playing a magic-user is so high that you'll only ever cast one spell in the character's life, the game's players will certainly pick mundane characters. That's the opposite end of the spectrum from 3.5. There are game systems on that spectrum with a fair balance for magic and mundane, systems in which mundanes can succeed with no need for spells or magic items but casters have value too.

Saph
2010-11-25, 06:10 AM
Some interesting ideas, but your basic theory:


This is the core of the problem: Magic and mundane are not reconcilable. There is no fair way to put Mr. "I alter reality because I want to" Wizard and Mr. "I hit things" Warrior in the same setting and have things work.

. . . isn't really true. If the costs for magic are too high, players won't usually use it. It doesn't matter if, in theory, you can alter reality because you want to. What matters is how cost-efficient, practical, and effective the spells are.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 06:15 AM
To piggyback on the other comments - it's not just the cost, but the effect. A week of preparation is too much to open a door, but to raise dead in the right system and setting, it's acceptable, while all too short for 'make me a god king.'

JeminiZero
2010-11-25, 06:22 AM
Magic and Mundane can coexist, and does so in other settings, notably the modern superhero genre, and the various systems that simulate it notable Mutants and Mastermind. I once wrote a short post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152637) outlining how D&D severly limits the applications of mundane compared to M&M 2e.

To apply your Earthquake example, is it possible for a mundane character to cause one? Logically, if he were strong and tough enough to smash the ground with enough force, he could trigger seismic activity. However, D&D doesn't have mechanics for it, whereas M&M 2e does.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 06:29 AM
Magic and Mundane can coexist, and does so in other settings, notably the modern superhero genre, and the various systems that simulate it notable Mutants and Mastermind. I once wrote a short post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152637) outlining how D&D severly limits the applications of mundane compared to M&M 2e.

To apply your Earthquake example, is it possible for a mundane character to cause one? Logically, if he were strong and tough enough to smash the ground with enough force, he could trigger seismic activity. However, D&D doesn't have mechanics for it, whereas M&M 2e does.

JeminiZero, no, it is not possible for a mundane character, as defined by the author, to cause one. Note:


Indeed, since magic has no innate limits, it can do anything. Those that wield magic must have strict limits on their power; otherwise, they'll rule the world. Easily. After all, if magic does things better- faster, cheaper, with greater chance of success, and so on- why do we need mundanes at all?

...

In general, mundanes work the way they do because of real life expectations, and magic works the way it does because that's what we'd want to be doing if not for these physical constraints.

Maybe logic wins, and we realize that casters and mundanes are in different leagues. Maybe logic implodes- at least slightly- and casters don't get to alter reality in meaningful ways. Maybe logic, while still imploding, grants mundanes a fair chance and gives them "magic" under a different name.

Her entire post is not really architectured well - I feel like she should elaborate on some specifics - but the ideas in them are sound. It's essentially an essayed challenge to the idea that mundanes are supposed to somehow feel useful besides someone who literally moves thousands of miles with a few waves of her fingers.

Earthwalker
2010-11-25, 06:38 AM
DnD works on the principal that a wizard will only have a limted number of spells per day. As such the magic system is designed in a way that when a spell is cast it is successful.
This does work when more work is required over a short period of time. For example
A lvl 3 rogue and a lvl 3 wizard need to open 5 chests in a day. The wizard has two knock spells memorized, the rogue has open lock and some tools.
The rogue tries to open each lock and can open them all, after a few trys. The wizard can open two, the other three are left unopened.
Now I think this is what was envisioned for the magic system in DnD, what happens is the wizard gets out three more scrolls of knock (breaking the limiting factor) and opens them all. Or just comes back a day later.
What I would have prefered was that you had a rogue and wizard, the Wizard doesn’t get a spell called knock, he gets a spell called enhance open lock. This give the target +10 to open lock skill for one hour. Now the wizard can do the rogues job by giving himself the skill, or better yet he can enhance to rogues skill.

Other systems balance things differently. In Runequest you have a limited amount of power, you also have a limited chance to cast a spell, it is not automatically successful. Having to improve you chanc of success takes time and effort and use up resources. The effects of most of the spells are also more limited. Of course in Runequest pretty much everyone has magic of some sort.

Shadowrun magic is powerful but the act of casting a spell can also drain and weaken a mage. The more pagic and the more powerful magic you use the more chance you get drained and as time goes on you begin to suffer for the spells you have cast.

So mundane and Magic can exist together. All this depends on what you call magic, if you are saying being able to alter reality on whim and suffer no ill effects, then no how can you balance a mundane against that kind of power. I do feel that DnD has the worse magic system of all the games I have played.

Eldan
2010-11-25, 06:38 AM
There are, however, still systems coming to mind where magic and mundane characters are more or less balanced. I haven't played most of these, but from what I heard, it can be possible. Iron Heroes. Conan-based RPGs. Heck, 4th edition.

The key, really, is to give the mundane characters other things to do and making magic, while able to do things the mundanes can't, not able to do them well enough to make the mundanes irrelevant.

Merk
2010-11-25, 10:02 AM
Personally, I think the problem is that "magic" is too vaguely defined, and as a result is entirely too versatile. At least in 3.P, "mundane" things are separated to a high level of focus -- there's lockpicking, sneaking, breaking things, jumping, etc. You might be good at some of these things, but probably not all of them. Meanwhile, "magic" is "redefining reality" which covers so many capabilities. I think a good start to balancing magic with mundane classes is to split up magic along lines of function.

true_shinken
2010-11-25, 10:14 AM
If the costs for magic are too high, players won't usually use it. It doesn't matter if, in theory, you can alter reality because you want to. What matters is how cost-efficient, practical, and effective the spells are.

Agreed. That's what AD&D was all about.

Lapak
2010-11-25, 10:27 AM
Some interesting ideas, but your basic theory:



. . . isn't really true. If the costs for magic are too high, players won't usually use it. It doesn't matter if, in theory, you can alter reality because you want to. What matters is how cost-efficient, practical, and effective the spells are.Indeed. Magic can and does exist in a number of game systems with enough restrictions that it's a useful tool without being utterly dominant. If casters can do anything, obviously they're not going to work with mundane characters - but it's only in the odd systems (like D&D 3.x/PF) that they can. There are plenty of mechanics where magic does allow for the impossible but is limited in scope or time, or drains the caster in some meaningful way (as spell slots are not) or otherwise makes spellcasting valuable without being utterly dominant.

It's true of most fictional magic, too. There are relatively few setting in writing or TV or movies where magic is just do-anything to the point where non-magical characters are irrelevant.

What you're saying is true enough in the structure of 3.5/PF, but it really doesn't apply to the 'Any' of your thread title. Shadowrun 2e has been mentioned; even in Mage: The Ascension (where magic is as unlimited as in any game system) there are severe limits both on magic in general and on any given mage. That's a key thing, too, as well as vulnerability or weakness: any system which forces a magician to specialize in a meaningful way puts paid to the idea that mundane characters can't co-exist. It works just fine if a magical character can do impossible things so long as they can't do every impossible thing.

awa
2010-11-25, 10:48 AM
its not an rpg but take harry potter, wizards rule the entire world no one expects muggles to be able to compete with wizards, but at the same time the "killing curse" would be far less effective then an assault rife. Like others have said before magic and mundanes can coexist in a setting it just does not do so in dnd because the tier one casters can do so much with so little prep and at so little cost to themselves. If wizards capped out at first level spells then they would still be magic but no one would play them, so i feel the problem is with dnd not the setting in general.

WarKitty
2010-11-25, 10:51 AM
Tell me if this is a good summary:

In D&D, the concept of mundane is typically limited by what we could logically imagine a normal person doing. The concept of caster is not, because magic by its nature already breaks our ideas of what normally happens. You can't have a setting where magic and mundanes of that sort coexist. If you want to have mundanes function well, you need to let go of the limits of what's logical for a badass normal and let them have amazing movie-esque abilities.

Toliudar
2010-11-25, 11:06 AM
I think some of the solutions are addressed by no longer thinking of the martial classes as mundanes, but as heroes from mythology. Look at Hercules, Odysseus, Chu Chulain (sorry on spelling there), Rama. Compared to some of their accomplishments, walking on clouds and shrugging off energy drain with Iron Heart Surge seem entirely appropriate.

Of course, this is only appropriate in high-fantasy kinds of games, but if you DON'T want that, you're probably doing something to tone down the magic system anyway, so the result is the same.

Greenish
2010-11-25, 11:11 AM
If the costs for magic are too high, players won't usually use it. It doesn't matter if, in theory, you can alter reality because you want to. What matters is how cost-efficient, practical, and effective the spells are.And if the costs for using magic are too high, and magic thus isn't used, is that supposed to reconcile magic and mundane?

I mean, if magic just plain sucks, I wouldn't say the system works fairly.

Sipex
2010-11-25, 11:12 AM
Tell me if this is a good summary:

In D&D, the concept of mundane is typically limited by what we could logically imagine a normal person doing. The concept of caster is not, because magic by its nature already breaks our ideas of what normally happens. You can't have a setting where magic and mundanes of that sort coexist. If you want to have mundanes function well, you need to let go of the limits of what's logical for a badass normal and let them have amazing movie-esque abilities.

This is pretty much 4th Edition in a nutshell.

It's also one of the points people complain about.

I've never understood why.

I pretty much agree with the OP though, 'mundanes' tend to look inferior when compared to their magical cousins.

Lapak
2010-11-25, 11:35 AM
And if the costs for using magic are too high, and magic thus isn't used, is that supposed to reconcile magic and mundane?

I mean, if magic just plain sucks, I wouldn't say the system works fairly.Of course. Which is why you have to strike a balance. Take Mage as an example: Paradox is one of the major costs for magic and sticks with a caster for days or weeks. So you don't want to teleport from Maine to Ohio if you have time to take a plane. But if you need to be in Ohio right this very minute, you can accomplish it. Similarly, you don't want to walk around with an impenetrable forcefield protecting you at all times - but you can throw one up if you must. Long-term costs like Paradox keep a magician under control and explain why the mundane way of doing things is important while still letting magic-users be really astoundingly powerful within their limits.

To take a more closely related example and another approach to balance, almost every 2e spell left the caster vulnerable in the middle of each combat round, such that several opponents might go while the spell is being cast and have a chance to disrupt it or get out of the way - the more high-level the spell, the longer the delay. And the amount of always-on or contingent effects were drastically fewer. So wizards weren't able to keep defenses running at all times, at setting them up or putting down enemies took time. So mundane characters had a real role - their abilities were always 'on' and ready to respond instantly to a threat. Action economy is pretty huge; the fact that they can break it is no small part of what makes 3e casters so dominant.

It's definitely possible to strike a better balance in a way that is internally consistent in a logical sense and makes casters unique and useful without being mini-gods. Some games don't, and 3rd edition is one of those, but it's certainly possible.

Dada
2010-11-25, 11:55 AM
Personally, I think the problem is that "magic" is too vaguely defined, and as a result is entirely too versatile. At least in 3.P, "mundane" things are separated to a high level of focus -- there's lockpicking, sneaking, breaking things, jumping, etc. You might be good at some of these things, but probably not all of them. Meanwhile, "magic" is "redefining reality" which covers so many capabilities. I think a good start to balancing magic with mundane classes is to split up magic along lines of function.

This is actually an excellent point.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 12:38 PM
This is actually an excellent point.

It's actually a point the OP alludes to.

Z3ro
2010-11-25, 02:12 PM
Tell me if this is a good summary:

In D&D, the concept of mundane is typically limited by what we could logically imagine a normal person doing. The concept of caster is not, because magic by its nature already breaks our ideas of what normally happens. You can't have a setting where magic and mundanes of that sort coexist. If you want to have mundanes function well, you need to let go of the limits of what's logical for a badass normal and let them have amazing movie-esque abilities.

While I agree with this, I think you've left out an important point. Basically you're saying that magic is more powerful than non-magic, and you could fix that by making non-magic more powerful.

That would work, but you can also limit magic to make things work as well (as several people have already said in this thread). You don't necessarily need to make magic weaker, but you can give it things like random miss-fire chances or steep penalties for failure, making it less attractive.

But the general point is correct; once magic is too powerful, using non-magic is pointless. One of my favorite rpgs, unisystems Armageddon, basically phases out mundanes at high levels. You don't need magic for low-powered characters, but at higher powers the game literally won't let you play a mundane character. This is good, as at high levels everyone is something like a greater seraphim that can fly faster than a fighter jet and shot holy fire indiscriminately. Shooting a gun versus that just doesn't measure up.

WarKitty
2010-11-25, 02:17 PM
While I agree with this, I think you've left out an important point. Basically you're saying that magic is more powerful than non-magic, and you could fix that by making non-magic more powerful.

That would work, but you can also limit magic to make things work as well (as several people have already said in this thread). You don't necessarily need to make magic weaker, but you can give it things like random miss-fire chances or steep penalties for failure, making it less attractive.

But the general point is correct; once magic is too powerful, using non-magic is pointless. One of my favorite rpgs, unisystems Armageddon, basically phases out mundanes at high levels. You don't need magic for low-powered characters, but at higher powers the game literally won't let you play a mundane character. This is good, as at high levels everyone is something like a greater seraphim that can fly faster than a fighter jet and shot holy fire indiscriminately. Shooting a gun versus that just doesn't measure up.

Depends on the person. I don't particularly like to depower magic, because then you lose the heroic fantasy feel. I also have absolutely no objections to giving the melee impossible powers. Just wanted to point out that is also an option.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 02:22 PM
This also becomes less of an issue in less combat oriented games - Either Magic or Technology can be put to use as a utility adventure role while the other becomes combat adventure.

Endarire
2010-11-25, 05:44 PM
WarKitty: That's pretty much what I was trying to say, summarized in a convenient paragraph.

Regarding costs: I implied it, but did not state it. If magic is so awkward to use that it isn't worth using, then it doesn't feel like magic, and it's a waste of time. Magic has the great implication of being better than mundane.

Gralamin
2010-11-25, 07:34 PM
WarKitty: That's pretty much what I was trying to say, summarized in a convenient paragraph.

Regarding costs: I implied it, but did not state it. If magic is so awkward to use that it isn't worth using, then it doesn't feel like magic, and it's a waste of time. Magic has the great implication of being better than mundane.

That sounds like you are used to "newer" ideas of magic in media. A lot of mythology, etc. has the implication that magic is difficult to even cast for those trained to do it. It's where the argument that the 3.5 system for spells actually is close to mythology comes from (even though there are some major differences, IE: No Cast and Forget). It's implied that you prepay all of the costs in 3.5, and that is where a lot of the problem is - the costs are waved away and spells become easy to use wonders.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 07:35 PM
Yeah, agreed. The idea that magic has to be easy is mostly a modern invention.

Saph
2010-11-25, 07:37 PM
Regarding costs: I implied it, but did not state it. If magic is so awkward to use that it isn't worth using, then it doesn't feel like magic, and it's a waste of time. Magic has the great implication of being better than mundane.

Citation please? I can refer you to plenty of settings where magic is not universally better than doing things the mundane way.

Endarire
2010-11-25, 07:41 PM
Implication from here:

"After all, if magic does things better- faster, cheaper, with greater chance of success, and so on- why do we need mundanes at all?"

Also, if magic is just another way of doing things (in the "separate but equal" way), what makes it special?

To me, the less a caster can alter reality on a whim, the less magic feels like magic. I'm like codified magic a la 3.5 just so everyone knows what spell X will do!

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 07:45 PM
Implication from here:

"After all, if magic does things better- faster, cheaper, with greater chance of success, and so on- why do we need mundanes at all?"

Also, if magic is just another way of doing things (in the "separate but equal" way), what makes it special?

To me, the less a caster can alter reality on a whim, the less magic feels like magic. I'm like codified magic a la 3.5 just so everyone knows what spell X will do!

Because it can do things that mundane cannot. There is no way mundane stuff can ever replicate the effect of blessing an area to ward it against evil. You can balance it with its costs to make it so that it's not an overpowered option but it is a unique one.

Equitable is what we're looking for, not equal.

Saph
2010-11-25, 07:46 PM
"After all, if magic does things better- faster, cheaper, with greater chance of success, and so on- why do we need mundanes at all?"

Why does it have to be all of the above? If you look at the magic systems in most game settings, magic generally only scores one or two out of three on the "faster, cheaper, more successful" scale.

E.g. magic in the Warhammer universe is fast and sort-of-cheap, but every spell you cast carries the possibility of various horrible things happening, which kind of puts a damper on spamming them.

WarKitty
2010-11-25, 08:01 PM
Why does it have to be all of the above? If you look at the magic systems in most game settings, magic generally only scores one or two out of three on the "faster, cheaper, more successful" scale.

E.g. magic in the Warhammer universe is fast and sort-of-cheap, but every spell you cast carries the possibility of various horrible things happening, which kind of puts a damper on spamming them.

Because I want to play a high-magic world where magic is as easy and as valid as swinging a sword. And quite honestly I want to play in a world where I can be a kickass barbarian that bends reality because my muscles are that awesome.

Depowering magic is one option; powering mundane is another. Depends on your play style.

Eldan
2010-11-25, 08:06 PM
Of course. But in either case, magic can not be better in all three areas, better, faster and stronger.

To use your example: perhaps the barbarian can flex his muscles more easily than the mage can cast a spell for the sme effect. Perhaps training your muscles to be awesome is easier than learning to cast spells. Perhaps flexing your muscles is just a twitch, while magic requires rituals. In any case, if magic is better in every area, mundane becomes useless.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 08:08 PM
We're also forgetting 'different' here, people. The option of 'different.' Frex, look at Avatar: the Last Airbender. There were situations where (at least for the average member), you could fight benders of all types but air outside their element and have a heck of an advantage. And in V:tM, Vamps can't go inside places of worship. Jedi can't use mind tricks on droids. Etc.

Partysan
2010-11-25, 08:09 PM
There is also the unfortunate implication of magic being as easy to use as a sword. See, while magic is of yourse able to do things that cannot be achieved by mundane way, but this doesn't mean that it's easy. Casters raising the dead? Sure, I can imagine this. But I can't imagine how it should be about as easy to raise the dead as to strike out at someone with a sword. Even if we have an absolute master of the sword who has pinnacled every part of swordfighting what he does is still a lot less complex than bringing dead people to life again. Game mechanics could reflect that, but in many cases don't.

Another point is style. If we evolve to high levels in Fantasy gaming, mundane characters will reach levels at which they are about 4 times as strong, fast and tough as humans usually can be, and about 10-20 times as good at fighting or picking locks. Sword skills and lockpicking limit themselves as the OP has outlined. Someone very good with a sword can do well in melee, but not much else, mich the same for lockpicks. But strength and agility and speed etc. have certain implications that are often rejected because of arbitrary stylistic conventions. Someone who is four times as fast, strong and agile as we are should be able to move in a way we can't even see. He probably could jump onto a house and send people flying with his fists, or punch through a wall. A caster, who is more intelligent, but rarely fast or strong, should not be able to act as fast as such a person, and some utility issues shouldn't be issues as well. But this "Charles Atlas Superpower" is usually rejected because of being "too anime" (indeed resembling wuxia movies as seen today, although european myths do feature such feats as well but aren't as famous), even though they are just logically consistent if your think through what the physical implications of high level ability scores are. However the rules don't think it through but reduce it to skill and attack modifiers.

Godskook
2010-11-25, 08:18 PM
I refer you to my signature, where the Ascendent feats provide a melee combat solution that turns melee players into something quite fearsome, even without magic. As a reference point, using everything in post #1 except Rupture magic and standard melee tools, the 'brew registers at about a tier 3 by ToS reckoning.

The problem with mundane resources in RAW is that 3.5's designers really didn't even *START* figuring out what melee needed to be competitive until very late in the game. By the time they actually did, 4E was coming out and nobody cared enough to keep fixing the problems.

Feats *can* be designed for melee such that melee can keep up with casters. My 'brew should prove that. An [Ascendant] focused build can play back-up skillmonkey for *anything*, with their base +ECL*.75 on all skill checks, actually threaten casters at ranges casters like to engage at(110 feat for my build, at level 13), and can outpace the cheap baubles casters previously assumed protected them(abrupt jaunt has a very *hard* prowess check, as does the cheap contingencies a caster would typically buy. A contingency with a good caster level on it would be more effective, but would also cost a much larger portion of the caster's resources.).

lesser_minion
2010-11-25, 08:22 PM
In D&D, the concept of mundane is typically limited by what we could logically imagine a normal person doing. The concept of caster is not, because magic by its nature already breaks our ideas of what normally happens. You can't have a setting where magic and mundanes of that sort coexist. If you want to have mundanes function well, you need to let go of the limits of what's logical for a badass normal and let them have amazing movie-esque abilities.

Actually, magic doesn't break our ideas of what normally happens. This is storytelling -- a character's capabilities are determined by what is established in the narrative and the premise, not necessarily by what happens in the real world.

Non-casters are still in a worse position, because casters can get away with being just that little bit more alien, but it's nowhere near insurmountable, especially when you remember that casters actually are following the rules. It's just a matter of coming up with a decent premise for a class instead of "1337 h4xxor casts teh spells and is teh awsum".

Somebody, somewhere will disagree, but the Binder is a good example of a casting class with a decent premise. Both the shadowcaster and the beguiler also come with at least semi-decent premises.

Prime32
2010-11-25, 09:29 PM
But this "Charles Atlas Superpower" is usually rejected because of being "too anime" (indeed resembling wuxia movies as seen today, although european myths do feature such feats as well but aren't as famous), even though they are just logically consistent if your think through what the physical implications of high level ability scores are.http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10208
"I swim for two weeks through arctic waters in heavy armour without rest."
"I fire a giant energy beam out of my sword, cutting a mountain range apart."
"I pick up a country and throw it at him."
"I sunder the sun."
"I fight 100,000 gods at the same time without using magic."
All from mythology, though the last two were Chinese rather than European.


Because I want to play a high-magic world where magic is as easy and as valid as swinging a sword. And quite honestly I want to play in a world where I can be a kickass barbarian that bends reality because my muscles are that awesome.

Depowering magic is one option; powering mundane is another. Depends on your play style.Another route is to make everyone a caster. If you can swing a sword really well, it's because you specialise in using self-buffs to enhance your strength and dampen blows.

This is used by Nanoha and Negima for one thing. In the former the most melee-focused characters are basically DMM-abusing clerics who mix in things like flaming swords and barrier spells. In the latter Ki-based abilities are the same thing as magic, just using energy from the caster's body instead of from the world around him.

Partysan
2010-11-25, 10:15 PM
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10208
"I swim for two weeks through arctic waters in heavy armour without rest."
"I fire a giant energy beam out of my sword, cutting a mountain range apart."
"I pick up a country and throw it at him."
"I sunder the sun."
"I fight 100,000 gods at the same time without using magic."
All from mythology, though the last two were Chinese rather than European.

Ah, thanks for supporting my point. Nice link btw, I'll keep that for reference.

Tiki Snakes
2010-11-25, 10:44 PM
I've encountered in many stories the idea that magic is neither free, nor easy. Occaisionally, not even entirely real.

I believe in the Earthsea books, the main character at one point explains that he could create food to feed himself, but it wouldn't do any good. it would be like eating the idea of bread, no calories.

Even the over-powered-sorcerers in the Belgariad have the concept of their magic being essentially a physical effort, with the young title character trying to lift a rock without preparing properly and not only exhausting himself but burying himself up to his neck in the mud also.

The Discworld wizards even, I vaguely remember broached a similar topic. At the very least, both they and the witches spend very little time doing things by magic, prefering for the most part to do them the simpler, quicker and more reliable way.

Magic does not, merely by being magic, automatically equal the cheaper, better, faster, easier and more reliable option. That's an idea that is more perculiar to DnD than you might think.

druid91
2010-11-25, 10:47 PM
You want to know what puts mundanes on par with mages?

High intelligence, and the craft mechanical skill.

bloodtide
2010-11-25, 10:49 PM
If you keep asking "Daddy Wizard" and "Mommy Cleric" for buffs just to stay relevant, then, logically, they're better off without you. They can summon or call bigger, badder things than you that don't require as much maintenance, and that won't complain if they're killed.

The problem I see here is the time factor. A Mundane can use almost any and all of their abilities at will as many times a day as they wish. A monk of fighter can do a melee attack, at will, for example.

Magic has limits. No matter how powerful a character is, they can run out of magic.

Take the classic dungeon. The first level of the dungeon has 25 locked doors, 15 locked chests, plus ten other locked items.

Our magic using person will not have that many spells of knock, and even if they have a wand with a full 50 charges, it will be more then half drained...and this is only level one of a ten level dungeon.

The mundane character can attempt to open every single lock, all day long. They have no limit on the number of times they can pick a lock.

The way magic becomes bad for balance is where the players cheat:

PC- 'My wand of knock is down to 15 charges, lets say we go back to town and buy another one and then come right back to the door to dungeon level two'

DM-'Ok, you go back to town and buy another wand of knock, then head back to the dungeon and open the locked door.'




Examples from D&D 3.5: Unique Class Features

This Unbalanced problem is new to the more modern gaming mindset. And the biggest problem is the '4 encounters a day' rule. A modern game only has 4 encounters, and the characters get to rest all up between them. In a classic game, you'd have 20 to 50 encounters a day.

A modern character knows they have to be ready for only 4 fights a day, and then they can rest in peace until the next day.

The classic character is in danger 24/7. They have to be ready to fight and fight and fight (and other actions too) for game hours on end.

Lets take a classic dungeon adventure:

Modern gamers will only explore 10 rooms or less a game day. After all, once they hit the set number of 4 good encounters, they Must stop and rest. No modern player wants to continue if they have used up all their abilities. Each player wants their character to be at full power for every encounter. The idea that a barbarian would have to fight without raging or a wizard would have to fight without casting a single spell, is wrong to these players.

Classic gamers will game on the same game day...until the real wee hours of the morning when the game is called to a stop. They have to conserve their powers and abilities. They have no set number. Any time in the next six game and real hours they might need something. So a barbarian will choose to not rage in every fight, and a wizard will chose not to cast spells in every fight.

awa
2010-11-26, 12:08 AM
i am sick and tired of people saying "modern gamers" only have 4 encounters a day the book says a party should be able to handle 4 level = cr encounters a day if the fights are above cr you can handle less if they are below cr you can handle more. In fact lots of little fights spread a bit apart is a great way to reduce the lead casters have over mundane characters. if your dm only ever gives you 4 encounters in a day then that's your dms problem not 3.5s

On a related note once the wizard has teleport or an 8 hour rope trick its hard to stop them from resting whenever they feel like it unless they have some kind of time table

erikun
2010-11-26, 01:04 AM
I agree with some of the premises presented here. Yes, there is a clear divide between what magic can do and what mundane can do. I think you might be understating what is physically possible with superhuman abilities - did the person just vanish and appear hundreds of feet away because of a Teleport or because of insane stealth and movement? - but it is still clear that mundanes, by definition, cannot do the physically impossible. Magicians can.

On the other hand, I don't quite agree with your conclusion. As others have said, you can balance magic and mundane by making magic harder, longer, or riskier - that's what most classic literature has magic doing. Merlin didn't walk around in an Improbability Sphere and casting Cloudkill - he sat in his tower, casting divinations and, when fighting, sat in the back of an army tossing destructive Fireballs every so often. And he sat well in the back, to avoid archers from raining pointy death on his head.

The problem in D&D isn't so much that Wizards are better than that Wizards are better yet described as equals to mundanes at the same level. A 20th level Fighter is really CR ~10, while a 20th level Wizard is more like CR ~50. If the D&D Wizard was casting (DC appropriate) Fireballs and Black Tentacles at 20th level - or if the Fighter had +20 BAB and was preparing for Epic feats at 10th - then you'd probably see a lot less imbalance than we have right now.


This Unbalanced problem is new to the more modern gaming mindset. And the biggest problem is the '4 encounters a day' rule. A modern game only has 4 encounters, and the characters get to rest all up between them. In a classic game, you'd have 20 to 50 encounters a day.
I'm not too sure about that. On the other hand, "classic" games both made it easier to avoid encounters and ambush successfully - two tactics which allowed the party to greatly conserve resources. 3.5e fights, even with ambush, still tend to suck up a lot of HP and spells. In AD&D, a surprise Fireball or an assault from the warriors/Thieves would frequently kill all opponents in a single turn.

Bloodtide pointed out one of the big reasons I dislike 4e, as well: everyone wears out. I don't mind it when the Wizard says "I'm all out of spells," and the party looks for a spot to rest. The Wizard casts spells, it takes time to recover spells, so it makes sense that he'd need to rest to regain them. On the other hand, the Fighter saying "I'm all out of maneuvers" and the party needing to sleep for 8 hours to regain them feels quite rediculous. As Bloodtide pointed out, the point of mundanes is that they have access to everything they can do at pretty much anytime. Taking a rest to re-use a technique - especially an eight hour sleep! - feels rather silly, in my opinion. This is especially true for something that isn't supposed to be "magic."

Earthwalker
2010-11-26, 03:39 AM
Because I want to play a high-magic world where magic is as easy and as valid as swinging a sword. And quite honestly I want to play in a world where I can be a kickass barbarian that bends reality because my muscles are that awesome.

Depowering magic is one option; powering mundane is another. Depends on your play style.

In that case I would look at playing earthdawn where all player characters are adepts. Some use the high magic level to cast spells, others use it to enhance thier abilties (warriors / thiefs)

Alot of systems equal powered magicians and mundanes mix perfectly fine. In shadowrun it works not becuase of how the system (for combat and damge) works. Yeah you can cast a barrier as a mage to have a chance to resist damage. Then when attacked it comes down to the skill of the shooter against the force of the spell the mage cast.
The DnD example would be protection from arrows. When its then just a blanket you can no longer shot the mage. This isn't an issue with mundane and magic just a flawed system.

lesser_minion
2010-11-26, 08:55 AM
OK, just to clarify something:

The fifteen-minute workday is not to blame for the game being unbalanced. One spell will generally screw over an encounter so badly that it becomes trivial. You quickly reach the point where you can't run out of spells at that rate unless the DM is deliberately trying to screw you over.

What the fifteen minute workday does do is eliminate whatever risk was left -- unless the adventure is on a short fuse, with a large penalty for failure (basically, "You have one hour to do [task] before [big bad] does [really bad thing]").

As for the "mundanes by definition can't break the laws of physics" -- this is still not true.

Whether magical or not, characters can do anything that follows reasonably from what we know about them, including the fact that they can grow stronger, faster, and more skilled than any real person.

Even if casters can do things that are absolutely essential to a party's survival, that's still not a problem, as long as non-casters can do other things that are also essential.

It's certainly reasonable to argue that D&D casters are much stronger than non-casters, but it doesn't follow that the two can't be balanced.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-26, 09:53 AM
I'm sick and tired of people using the word 'mundane' for non-magical things. I even think it's part of the problem, reinforcing the notion that non-magical things can't be awesome or powerful.

Repeat with me: heroes are not mundane. No matter where or what their powers come from, they just aren't. Even starting out, heroic characters should posses skills and traits that allow them to succeed in tasks that would be suicidal for untrained. Ordinary, everyday folks should not be used as benchmark for them - instead, one should look at what high-end acrobats, martial artist, artists, illusionist, strange animals and, say, stunt drivers can achieve. Quite often, people arguing that "non-magical people shouldn't be able to do that and that" are bluntly ignoring a lot of amazing feats living creatures are capable of in real life. Reality is less realistic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic) than they think. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AluminumChristmasTrees)

The real division exist between Supernatural and Superhuman - and what some people fail to acknowledge is that one can be the latter without being the former. For example, D&D physics explicitly differ (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfLikeRealityUnlessNoted) from real-world ones on several accounts already, so stubbornly sticking to real world ones to define what is natural and what is not is fallacious. This gets especially egrerious when people apply human standards to player characters who often aren't human in the first place - why exactly can't an orc's hide grow thick enough to resist acid, hmmm?

Of course a game will become unbalanced, if people are okay with one party being both superhuman and supernatural, while insisting that the other party must not only be natural, but human as well. D&D 3.5 as a system is very schizophrenic about this. On one hand, non-casters often lack superhuman class features; on the other, the very definition of Extraordinary (Superhuman) abilities calls them out for being able to defy physics without magic, and the fine details of the game subsystems often allow for a character to become superhuman by accident (see: skills). In addition, magical gear and gadgets are assumed to be available and required by casters and non-casters alike.

Fortunately, there are game systems where the picture isn't as slanted. Curiously enough, both earlier and later version of D&D belong to that group as well. In early editions, Warriors and the like didn't have as many explicitly superhuman abilities, but their (relatively) greater defensive attributes (especially saving throws) as well as costliness of magic allowed them to co-exist with casters. 4th edition went the other way, completely doing away the idea that superhuman feats must be magical as well.

Prime32
2010-11-26, 10:53 AM
Just to point something out...

Looking at the Monkey King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Wukong), patron god of munchkins everywhere, he could turn into anything or anyone. However, not only were his transformations weaker than his normal form, they provided poor disguises. Most significantly, this ultimate shapechanging technique required 72 spells to cover all forms. A D&D caster can outmatch one of the most powerful mythological characters ever with a single spell.

Likewise he knew spells to "freeze humans, demons, and gods alike". Emphasis on the plural. He couldn't just cast hold monster and be done with it.

awa
2010-11-26, 10:57 AM
to be fair his normal form was so insane that anything else would almost have to be a reduction in power.

true_shinken
2010-11-26, 10:58 AM
Sun Wukong is just awesome. Sorry, I couldn't resist saying that.
So basically yeah: D&D magic is a lot more powerful than most other magic we ever hear around.
Even Zatanna is less powerful than a D&D wizard, since she has no Silent Spell (and Slade used this weakness to great effect).

bloodtide
2010-11-26, 02:17 PM
OK, just to clarify something:

The fifteen-minute workday is not to blame for the game being unbalanced. One spell will generally screw over an encounter so badly that it becomes trivial. You quickly reach the point where you can't run out of spells at that rate unless the DM is deliberately trying to screw you over.

This makes the magic vs mundane hard for people to see.

Modern game-the characters will only get 4-6 tough encounters a day. That number of encounters will drain a spellcaster to zero if they 'screw over an encounter so badly that it becomes trivial.' They simply don't have enough spell slots. Once you get past ten tough encounters, the spellcasters who blasted everything in the first four encounters are really in trouble. The mundane types, on the other hand, can swing their weapons all day long.

So if the game is like: Encounter one-Wizard zaps and kills everything! BooM! Wizard rules! Fighters clean their weapons. Encounter two-Cleric zaps and kills everything! Fighter's eat a snack. Encounter three-Wizard Boom! Fighters sleep. Encounter 4-wizard and Cleric zap and kill big boss! Fighters go home. Then the group sleeps for the night. Then yes the fighters fel a bit useless. But the spellcasters only do this as they know they are safe with the four big encounter rule. If they knew that they might need to be active for 12 game hours, they would not zap so much.


In classic D&D it took a lot of work to get to a boss monster. Often you'd be 'half dead' by the time you got to the boss. You sure would not be at 100% with all your spells, abilities and such.

Take a modern D&D game. The players will outright refuse to fight the boss monster at anything less then 100%.

AstralFire
2010-11-26, 02:21 PM
It's simply not realistic to expect every type of campaign to be about endless dungeon crawling in a forced march to the end boss, even if you ban every single spell that gives players the ability to get sanctuary. and rest at will. Especially when combat takes very long online.

WarKitty
2010-11-26, 02:22 PM
It's also less realistic if you don't have some form of magical healing available. The fighter does have a limited resource - his hit points.

bloodtide
2010-11-26, 02:33 PM
It's simply not realistic to expect every type of campaign to be about endless dungeon crawling in a forced march to the end boss

Of course not. I often run more role playing type games, then roll types.


But the premise still holds true. A wizard can cast knock five times a day. A rouge can use open locks an infinite number of times. A wizard can cast charm person five times a day, a bard can use diplomacy at will. A wizard can move items around with telekinesis once or twice a day, a fighter can move objects around at will.

And it's true for magic items too, unless the characters are adventuring in Magic Mart's parking lot, and live on a world where magic items are stocked like videos at Blockbuster(where the magic shop has a wall of 50 wands of knock at all times).

lesser_minion
2010-11-26, 02:35 PM
Modern game-the characters will only get 4-6 tough encounters a day. That number of encounters will drain a spellcaster to zero if they 'screw over an encounter so badly that it becomes trivial.' They simply don't have enough spell slots. Once you get past ten tough encounters, the spellcasters who blasted everything in the first four encounters are really in trouble.

As soon as you have a few levels under your belt, you can do this sort of thing as often as you need to. A 3rd level caster has enough spells to wipe out five encounters without a pause (2-3 glitterdusts, 3-4 greases or color sprays). A 7th level caster can take down at least nine.

You are not going to get anywhere with this line of reasoning. Not only is your impression of how 'modern players' play the game completely and utterly wrong, but it's still not the problem -- characters still have more than enough spells on hand to deal with anything they face.

Also, for future reference, most wizards don't bother with Knock. That's what team mates are for.

Z3ro
2010-11-26, 02:41 PM
As soon as you have a few levels under your belt, you can do this sort of thing as often as you need to. A 3rd level caster has enough spells to wipe out five encounters without a pause (2-3 glitterdusts, 3-4 greases or color sprays). A 7th level caster can take down at least nine.

You are not going to get anywhere with this line of reasoning. Not only is your impression of how 'modern players' play the game completely and utterly wrong, but it's still not the problem -- characters still have more than enough spells on hand to deal with anything they face.

Maybe I'm just playing in the wrong groups, but it's never been my experience that 3rd level casters end five encounters a day with no problem. Maybe different DM styles?

lesser_minion
2010-11-26, 02:49 PM
Maybe I'm just playing in the wrong groups, but it's never been my experience that 3rd level casters end five encounters a day with no problem. Maybe different DM styles?

Wizards have enough spells to neutralise five encounters. That doesn't mean they'll always -- or even frequently -- manage it. Just that one spell can potentially neutralise an encounter, and that a 3rd level caster can cast five to seven of those spells before having to stop and rest. Many parties have two such casters, if not more.

Casters don't completely nuke an encounter into the floor, leaving the fighter sitting around picking his nose. They completely defang and declaw the encounter, then send in their team mates to mop up (this is why some wizards like to wield scythes).

bloodtide
2010-11-26, 02:58 PM
As soon as you have a few levels under your belt, you can do this sort of thing as often as you need to. A 3rd level caster has enough spells to wipe out five encounters without a pause (2-3 glitterdusts, 3-4 greases or color sprays). A 7th level caster can take down at least nine.

This is a great example of classic vs modern play styles. For our 3rd level wizard to 'wipe the encounter with glitterdust' he needs the monsters to be nice and all stand close together. Glitterdust only covers a 10 foot spread. So out of a group of a dozen bandits, how will you get them all to dogpile on each other you you can hit all 12 of them with the spell. This also has the problem of the 'official modern day fight scene': where the DM says 'ok it's your party vs the bandits'. Why can't a couple more bandits come running up from behind?

Greese has the exact same problem, plus plenty of monster can fly.

And color spray? With a range of 15 feet? A 3rd level caster would want to get within 15 feet of a monster, lets say a black bear and hope that color spray works?


And even if the wizard can pull off all of these spells, up to five times a day, what does the wizard do for encounter six, seven or ten?

AstralFire
2010-11-26, 03:03 PM
And how often can you really rationalize having that many encounters a day?

And you're having to throw in an awful lot of bandits at this party...

bloodtide
2010-11-26, 03:08 PM
And how often can you really rationalize having that many encounters a day?

Every game.

Again this is the difference between classic and modern. The modern player only expects a couple of encounters a day. The classic player knows the number is unlimited.

WarKitty
2010-11-26, 03:11 PM
My problem is that the style of "caster throws a spell per fight then has nothing to do" really isn't that much fun for the caster. I don't want to single-handedly win every fight, but I do want to be relevant the large majority of the time. If I end up throwing a few spells and then sitting back the rest of the day firing my crossbow, I'm going to wonder why I didn't just roll a rogue.

The issue I have with a lot of the balance attempts is that they go too far. There's no line between "caster wins" and "caster is useless."

Z3ro
2010-11-26, 03:14 PM
Every game.

Again this is the difference between classic and modern. The modern player only expects a couple of encounters a day. The classic player knows the number is unlimited.

Many questions of mine are answered. Thank you.

Sipex
2010-11-26, 03:18 PM
My problem is that the style of "caster throws a spell per fight then has nothing to do" really isn't that much fun for the caster. I don't want to single-handedly win every fight, but I do want to be relevant the large majority of the time. If I end up throwing a few spells and then sitting back the rest of the day firing my crossbow, I'm going to wonder why I didn't just roll a rogue.

The issue I have with a lot of the balance attempts is that they go too far. There's no line between "caster wins" and "caster is useless."

Again, I'm going to tote 4e here because I love it and that's kind of what I do.

If you've played it or heard the complaints you may know that 4e structures spells (and, pretty much, all battle abilities) the same way. You have a small number of abilities you can only use once per day (these tend to be your big ones, the abilities which can turn the tide of a battle), about the same amount that recharge after every encounter (during a 5 minute rest. These are moderate spells and such which do more than your basic spell) and finally two to four at will powers (depending on class and race) which you can use all the time.

This, I find, is an excellent way of taking care of the whole "Okay, now I fire my crossbow for the rest of the day." shenaningans.

AstralFire
2010-11-26, 03:19 PM
Every game.

Again this is the difference between classic and modern. The modern player only expects a couple of encounters a day. The classic player knows the number is unlimited.

So you're saying that in every single campaign, regardless of the plot or events, you fully expect the possibility of going into ten encounters a day, every day. It doesn't matter that you're on a soarship to Xen'drik when bandits attack; there had better be enough bandits that your party alone can get up to ten consecutive encounters out of them.

bloodtide
2010-11-26, 03:21 PM
My problem is that the style of "caster throws a spell per fight then has nothing to do" really isn't that much fun for the caster. I don't want to single-handedly win every fight, but I do want to be relevant the large majority of the time. If I end up throwing a few spells and then sitting back the rest of the day firing my crossbow, I'm going to wonder why I didn't just roll a rogue.


This is exactly my point. I'm not saying the caster should burn off all their spells and then toss rocks the rest of the day. That would understandably suck.

The problem comes from the 4 'tough' encounter limit. If a spell caster knows that the game day will automatically end after four encounters, then they are free to zap away with 25% of their spells per encounter. Safe with the knowledge that as soon as they cast their last spell the DM will say 'and the sun goes down and you rest'.

Without the four limit, the spellcaster has to save their spells. They can't afford to cast ten spells to mop up some kobolds. They will save their spells for later.

bloodtide
2010-11-26, 03:23 PM
So you're saying that in every single campaign, regardless of the plot or events, you fully expect the possibility of going into ten encounters a day, every day. It doesn't matter that you're on a soarship to Xen'drik when bandits attack; there had better be enough bandits that your party alone can get up to ten consecutive encounters out of them.


It's not the point of how many encounters you might have a day. The point is that the number is unknown.

If the spellcaster knows that the game will only have 4 fair and balanced encounters a day...they can go all out in every encounter. If they have no idea of the number, they must hold themselves back.

WarKitty
2010-11-26, 03:24 PM
Again, I'm going to tote 4e here because I love it and that's kind of what I do.

If you've played it or heard the complaints you may know that 4e structures spells (and, pretty much, all battle abilities) the same way. You have a small number of abilities you can only use once per day (these tend to be your big ones, the abilities which can turn the tide of a battle), about the same amount that recharge after every encounter (during a 5 minute rest. These are moderate spells and such which do more than your basic spell) and finally two to four at will powers (depending on class and race) which you can use all the time.

This, I find, is an excellent way of taking care of the whole "Okay, now I fire my crossbow for the rest of the day." shenaningans.

Could be. My main issue with 4e was it didn't have enough optimization/differentiation for my tastes. I tend to come up with odd characters that don't fit the rules properly even with the number of splat books in 3.5


This is exactly my point. I'm not saying the caster should burn off all their spells and then toss rocks the rest of the day. That would understandably suck.

The problem comes from the 4 'tough' encounter limit. If a spell caster knows that the game day will automatically end after four encounters, then they are free to zap away with 25% of their spells per encounter. Safe with the knowledge that as soon as they cast their last spell the DM will say 'and the sun goes down and you rest'.

Without the four limit, the spellcaster has to save their spells. They can't afford to cast ten spells to mop up some kobolds. They will save their spells for later.

See that's my point. Saving my spells in case I need them is equally boring, because I'm still irrelevant for most of the encounters. If we're fighting kobolds, I want to do something to help that's actually related to what I do, not sit around doing something that I'm not designed for.

AstralFire
2010-11-26, 03:27 PM
It's not the point of how many encounters you might have a day. The point is that the number is unknown.

If the spellcaster knows that the game will only have 4 fair and balanced encounters a day...they can go all out in every encounter. If they have no idea of the number, they must hold themselves back.

Considering that encounters are life and death, the most sane and rational thing is to go all-out as far as one can afford for the number of encounters one will likely face. If I am sitting in Peacefulton in the Kingdom of Serenity and I am baking pies and something happens to come up, I'll use 75% of my daily resources if they turn out to be useful, just because there's no logical reason to expect to face more.

If I am in a dungeon crawl, I will use as few as possible, no matter how much the DM has the tendency to hold back on encounters.

The only element that modernity plays in this is a shift away from the dungeon crawl.

lesser_minion
2010-11-26, 03:46 PM
The problem comes from the 4 'tough' encounter limit. If a spell caster knows that the game day will automatically end after four encounters, then they are free to zap away with 25% of their spells per encounter. Safe with the knowledge that as soon as they cast their last spell the DM will say 'and the sun goes down and you rest'.

There is nothing in the DMG advising the DM to end the day after four encounters -- these are your misconceptions about 'modern style' talking, not anything that actually happens in reality.

What the DMG does say is that 'on average', a level-appropriate encounter will cost a party about 20% of their resources -- i.e. five of them will probably wipe the party out.

randomhero00
2010-11-26, 03:48 PM
I think 4e is a good example of keeping magic in line with mundane. Sure some of the mundane powers seem magical, but you can refluff them a bit to be more like mundane maneuvers. I know you didn't specify 4e but its a glaring example.

Gralamin
2010-11-26, 04:21 PM
There is nothing in the DMG advising the DM to end the day after four encounters -- these are your misconceptions about 'modern style' talking, not anything that actually happens in reality.

What the DMG does say is that 'on average', a level-appropriate encounter will cost a party about 20% of their resources -- i.e. five of them will probably wipe the party out.

I'm pretty sure there is, actually. I just cannot find it in the terribly organized book right now. Hopefully someone else will though.

RaveingRonin
2010-11-26, 05:35 PM
I like the Dark Heresy way for balancing magic (psionics as it's called) and mundanes. See, in Dark Heresy, if you can "cast" you also run the risk of LITERALLY ceasing to exist. Literally, if you invoke perils of the warp, you are sucked into the realm of chaos and to quote the text "The psyker IS NO MORE". So yeah, you can call down a column of fire and incinerate the orks into a fine powdery ash, but roll one too many 9's casting that Holocaust power, and you are demon chow (or worse if Slaanesh gets a hold of you /shudder). Also, the Combat Shotgun is a fan-freaking-tastic equalizer. Sure, you can't kill a half dozen orks in one fell swoop, but roll low enough (low is good in DH) at point blank on a semi-auto setting, and that ork standing next to you is a fine red mist, with maybe his feet still intact and THAT'S IT. Yup, perils of the warp and combat shotguns. Done deal.

WarKitty
2010-11-26, 05:45 PM
I like the Dark Heresy way for balancing magic (psionics as it's called) and mundanes. See, in Dark Heresy, if you can "cast" you also run the risk of LITERALLY ceasing to exist. Literally, if you invoke perils of the warp, you are sucked into the realm of chaos and to quote the text "The psyker IS NO MORE". So yeah, you can call down a column of fire and incinerate the orks into a fine powdery ash, but roll one too many 9's casting that Holocaust power, and you are demon chow (or worse if Slaanesh gets a hold of you /shudder). Also, the Combat Shotgun is a fan-freaking-tastic equalizer. Sure, you can't kill a half dozen orks in one fell swoop, but roll low enough (low is good in DH) at point blank on a semi-auto setting, and that ork standing next to you is a fine red mist, with maybe his feet still intact and THAT'S IT. Yup, perils of the warp and combat shotguns. Done deal.

See when you bring that into a high fantasy setting like D&D, it just makes people start to wonder why anyone would play a caster. Plus all those cool magic items that my melee uses? Do those suddenly become rare because no one is going to risk their soul to make a +1 sword? Or do I now have to stick to mundane gear with the occasional artifact if I'm really lucky? That may be a fine system, but it has an extremely different feel from D&D, and it forces me into a grittier game than I particularly enjoy playing.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-26, 06:09 PM
It's perfectly possible to have a high-magic game with limited or dangerous magic. Because if the risks are low enough, or at least lower than the risk of imminent failure, then having the spells is still an asset.

Also, the idea that "people will feel tha casters useless" is something of a myth, stemming from the flawed version of the thought that everybody has to have something to do, or that everybody needs to have fun all the time. I think many people are overstressing this.

For example, lately I've been running several old-school games, where magic is both highly limited and dangerous. The casters have frequently used up all their spells within the first few minutes of an adventure that ended up lasting for hours, yet they still had fun and were entertained. Why? First, they're new to the hobby; they haven't grown to the thought that their magic has to be available at each moment. Second, exactly because it isn't available, they've come to define their characters and actions through things other than magic, and can make themselves important in non-magical ways; granted, here the system plays part as well, since it allows for a caster to maintain certain treshold of effectiveness without magic. (However, so can 3.5e.) Third, even though they aren't always at hand, the characters have toys no-one else does, so they get to feel special and unique even when they aren't using those toys.

All of those games have been very high fantasy, starring imprisoned demons, sunken starships and what not.

Errr.... what was my point again?

WarKitty
2010-11-26, 06:16 PM
Honestly, this is just where I'd put reserve feats into play. Being able to chuck a little ball of energy at enemies would pretty much make me happy at low levels, even if I'm doing the same thing mechanically as firing a crossbow. For a little extra flavor make it a 1d4 touch attack instead of a 1d8 regular attack. I still feel like a mage instead of a rogue with some flashy tricks instead of skill points, and I'm not overwhelming everyone else.

Half-Orc Rage
2010-11-26, 06:26 PM
I've been seeing a lot of these threads. Basically there's the complaint that the wizards, clerics, etc. are Tier 1, powerful classes that can do everything at high enough levels with a smart player, while fighters, barbarians, etc are tier 4 or 5 or whatever and can maybe do a couple things well. I think sometimes the threads are exaggerated on this, I've heard people saying wizards outpower fighters from first level and some other claims I didn't agree with.

Basically, I see three options.
1) Play 4th edition where they seem more balanced. This might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is why I guess so few people regard it as an adequate solution.

2) Keep 3.x, but do house rules to balance the classes. This is a lot of work to really rewrite the rules, and I don't know how many people are inclined to do it. It doesn't sound like Pathfinder really overcame this issue when they rewrote the rules. They might be slightly more balanced but overall didn't make the fighter superbadass at level 16 or the wizard less superbadass at level 16.

3) Keep 3.x, and just expect the casters to behave and buff their buddies. Might seem like handcuffing yourself, I don't know. People always recommend Book of Nine Swords in these, so there's that.

I am not sure what pointing it out repeatedly really does at this point. They aren't making 3rd edition D&D anymore at this point so they aren't fixing it, WotC thought 4e was the fix. I could see a "this is my house rule" thread but I don't see why they keep having "fighters and rogues suck compared to clerics and wizards" threads.

Partysan
2010-11-26, 08:40 PM
Since reserve feats came up, I'd like to go back to my comment about complexity and expand on that.
Swinging a sword isn't a particularly complicated motion. You still have to do it a few thousands of times to master it, but all in all it's easy to understand. The difficult part in fighting is knowing which kind of swinging to use at which precise point of time and in which situation, and all this so fast that you don't have to think about it. But the swing per se isn't complex at all.
Similar things could be said about evoking magical energy to attack. An attack roll for a ray of CL/2 d6 energy damage? I'd have no problem with every caster whose fluff it fits to have it at will. Since it's not complex. It's just some raw energy you throw in someone's direction.
Then let's talk about Knock. A spell which opens a lock. Now, what does it do? I mean, how does the magic open the lock? Does it invoke the philosophical idea of opening? People seem to think so. If it does, this would be extremely powerful and you'd ask why casters couldn't evoke the philosophical idea of death, life, superpower or cheesecake. It could as well be a telekinetic manipulation. In that case the caster would have to be able to telekinetically feel the lock and apply pressure to it. This doesn't only require fine manipulation but also knowledge about how locks work. Because of this, giving a skill bonus and removing the need for lockpicks would make more sense as a spell effect than just opening the lock. But the lock just opens, as if the spell consciously knew what locks and opening are and how to do it. Opening a lock is a complex thing, even if it looks simple from the outside. Thus, it shouldn't be as easy to open a lock magically as just to fling energy in someone's general direction.
Now Knock is a second level spell. There are a lot of spells doing even more incredible things. And I say, the more complex a spell's effect is, the more difficult the spell should be to cast. But D&D doesn't work that way. In D&D spells just invoke the idea of something and do it perfectly. "It's magic" isn't always a good explanation to me, why is it to you? Magic, while doing supernatural things, still has to do something which gives an effect. Spells can break the rules of nature, but not those of logic.

Endarire
2010-11-26, 09:29 PM
Knock is normally a level 2 spell, or a level 3 spell for on the Horde domain.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-26, 09:31 PM
For the record, I don't have any qualms with magic that breaks both nature and logic, and neither do some settings.

In fact, part of the problem is that D&D 3.5 magic works too logically (within itself, that is), and the better you are at processing logic, the greater returns you get. Those settings where magic isn't logical tend to be ones with arbitrary spell failures and horrible miscast consequences - see Warhammer, for example.

Partysan
2010-11-26, 09:46 PM
For the record, I don't have any qualms with magic that breaks both nature and logic, and neither do some settings.

In fact, part of the problem is that D&D 3.5 magic works too logically (within itself, that is), and the better you are at processing logic, the greater returns you get. Those settings where magic isn't logical tend to be ones with arbitrary spell failures and horrible miscast consequences - see Warhammer, for example.
How does Warhammer magic break logic? And btw, I don't like horrible miscasts because they are an all-or-nothing thing: either the caster is still super or he instantly dies a most horrible death.
Arbitrary doesn't mean illogical. Magic can't break the law of causality or the law of identity.
Magic is alwas easier to balance if you think through what it actually does to produce an effect. That's what D&D fails to do.


Knock is normally a level 2 spell, or a level 3 spell for on the Horde domain.
Corrected, thanks for pointing it out.

Eclipse
2010-11-26, 10:23 PM
As a possible fix for 3.P, one could change the rules for spell memorization to be each spell taking one hour per spell level to memorize (and level 0's can take an insignificant amount of time to prepare as far as I'm concerned). I think this was the rule for memorization in an older edition of the game, and it would make a wizard think twice about using a level 9 spell if it would take an entire day to recommit it to memory. No longer do wizards get to use spells with impunity, as it will take time to recover those that are used. Meanwhile, they still get to maintain their awesome power, and if they are willing to take on the weakness of doing so, they can go nova in a desperate situation. But I find it highly unlikely a party can rest for days on end for a wizard to replenish all of his spells all the time. Same rules apply for all casters who prepare spells, though divine casters recover through prayer instead.

For spontaneous casters, they must meditate for one half hour per spell level for each spell slot, as they have a better connection to the arcane or divine source of their power, but it still is difficult and time consuming to replenish that source within themselves.

Then just neuter the magic marts, and off we go on an adventure with powerful casters limited by the time they have to prepare their spells. All unused spells remain prepared, of course.

If the GM is feeling kind, allow reserve feats so the casters have abilities they can use more frequently that fit the feel of being a caster. Reserve feats seem weak enough that this shouldn't be too unbalancing, as far as I can tell.

Sang Real
2010-11-26, 10:48 PM
I think 4e is a good example of keeping magic in line with mundane. Sure some of the mundane powers seem magical, but you can refluff them a bit to be more like mundane maneuvers. I know you didn't specify 4e but its a glaring example.
+1

Alternatively, ignore the "martial" label for fighters, etc, and think of them as sword-magic users. Some people have mentioned doing this in 3e; unfortunately 3e rules don't support this idea without major house ruling. 4e does it nicely, on the other hand.


I could see a "this is my house rule" thread but I don't see why they keep having "fighters and rogues suck compared to clerics and wizards" threads.
Because it's our patriotic obligation to educate that one forum lurker out there who somehow isn't aware of the "casters > mundane" idea yet?

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-26, 11:16 PM
As a possible fix for 3.P, one could change the rules for spell memorization to be each spell taking one hour per spell level to memorize (and level 0's can take an insignificant amount of time to prepare as far as I'm concerned). I think this was the rule for memorization in an older edition of the game, and it would make a wizard think twice about using a level 9 spell if it would take an entire day to recommit it to memory.

The AD&D rule was 10 minutes per spell level per spell. An hour per is a bit much, I think.

awa
2010-11-26, 11:21 PM
i think forcing a wizard to spend weeks re memorizing all his spells is stupid its the same problem they fixed in second edition where the high level fighter had to wait a month to heal after getting beat up all your doing is making the party take insanely long breaks between any moderately hard fights.

and just becuase you have a bad dm for 3.5 games does not mean all players do so stop saying all "modern" players do this because its both wrong and insulting

olthar
2010-11-26, 11:48 PM
A number of people have already said this, but I think the problem isn't with the system so much as with the DMs (oh, and the system). Honestly, trying to alter the system so that there are longer breaks just means that the party will sit in a town for a month instead of a day.

1: Almost all of my experience in 3.+ playing has this idea that "we can just go rest." That's a nice idea and all, and I don't understand why some DMs allow it. You're in the middle of a dungeon. If you leave the dungeon and then come back the occupants will notice e.g. "hey, mook_5's dead." This means to me (as a dm) that the dungeon's occupants will lay new traps and be ready for encounters (i.e. increased patrols, with setups for what happens if they see those people who killed mook_5). A dungeon has a complex ecology that an adventurer will disturb. To ignore the disturbance and let them leave with no repercussions is a dm failure.

1a: Rope Trick: It's nice and all. You can sleep a safe 8 hours anywhere. So now we can stay in the dungeon and rest (above still applies, but less so). The problem with this idea is time. Depending on how you do turns etc... a battle could be anywhere from a minute to 20 minutes of "real time." Even after 4 or 5 battles and lets say 4 hours of walking between rooms it is only noon or so (because the sun woke you at 7am). You may be slightly tired, but not 8 hours of sleep tired, and definitely not falling asleep at noon tired. Letting players decide to fall asleep at noon for 8 hours is ridiculous. Further, if you allowed them to do that, then even wasting your time with wandering monster rolls is stupid. It's the middle of the day! Unless they are all nocturnal the only roll you need to make is to see which set of monsters stumbles by your sleeping party first. They may not notice the cool rope trick, but they are more likely to be looking for anomalous stuff if their friends are dead.

2: Most of my playing experience was 2nd edition where you pretty much had to plan out your action before the round began (modified initiative meant you needed to declare your cast right away to know initiative order). This meant that you could be casting a healing spell on someone who died before you cast it or a magic missile that fizzles as the warrior already downed the last opponents. This also meant you couldn't optimize your attack to the current situation as the situation was entirely too fluid. (I was also a **** of a dm so I held to that stuff). Most importantly, this did a bit to equalize casters and melee as casters would often find their carefully planned out spells failing to work (or even worse, a monster coming in and stopping it from being cast).

3: Lastly, the system. "People who play wizards play wizards to cast spells." Call the wahmbulance or say that to a level 4+ melee player and see what their response to that comment is.

awa
2010-11-27, 12:15 AM
you don't need to sleep only rest

Sindri
2010-11-27, 01:07 AM
There's a fix for this in Krynn at least; the Tinker Gnome chapter of Races of Ansalon gives rules for devices: building them requires lots of ranks in Disable Device, Knowledge(architecture/engineering) and Craft(tinkering), lots of time, and sort of a lot of money, but in the end you get anything from enhanced weapons to combat robots to power armor to flying machines and submarines, significantly more easily than magic weapons or constructs.
Then there's alchemy; a smart mundane can make non-magical (though very expensive) cures for most status conditions (and homebrew the rest), healing ointments, and stat enhancers.
You could expand the masterwork possibilities as well; if a +1 to hit is 300gp and DC 20 mundanely and 1000gp magically, then why not make +2-+5 available at higher DCs and values?
If you look hard and/or are creative, you can find or make rules for using high intelligence or lots of skills, combined with resources and preparation, to outshine all but the most powerful of spellslingers.

And of course, most of the power of a wizard comes from having access to a large variety of spells. If you limit magical knowledge to high power mages and make them unwilling to share their secrets, instead of making anything available in an average city, then there's a dramatic reduction in the abilities of those who are limited to the ancient scrolls and stolen spelbooks they find. Meanwhile, if you allow for innovation and construction instead of holding people to the equipment lists in the PH, it becomes more attractive in the long run to invent a device to do a job than to hunt down the forgotten lore that might be able to pull it off.

The guy who can swing a sword really well is still less dramatic than the one who shoots sparks from his fingers, but if he's swinging a chainsword while wearing power armor and those sparks are all that the mage knows how to do, the positions are reversed.

Eclipse
2010-11-27, 08:14 AM
The AD&D rule was 10 minutes per spell level per spell. An hour per is a bit much, I think.

Perhaps you're right that an hour is too much. Still, players can figure out a time frame that works best for them, in any case.


i think forcing a wizard to spend weeks re memorizing all his spells is stupid its the same problem they fixed in second edition where the high level fighter had to wait a month to heal after getting beat up all your doing is making the party take insanely long breaks between any moderately hard fights.

and just becuase you have a bad dm for 3.5 games does not mean all players do so stop saying all "modern" players do this because its both wrong and insulting

Not quite... it's forcing casters to not go nova all the time in a moderately difficult encounter, because if they do, then the next day they won't be at peak spellcasting efficiency, though they will still have whatever spells they have time to recommit to memory, along with all of their other resources. This fix isn't for everyone, just groups who would prefer magic to be harder. Most likely, this would fit best in a low magic setting, as far as I'm concerned, but others might like it otherwise.

And my games move along just fine under the normal rules, both when I GM and when others do, but that doesn't mean I can't see how things could get lopsided depending on the group. Just contributing ideas for other play styles.

awa
2010-11-27, 10:35 AM
it make wizards increasingly useless because at high levels even one 9th level spell means he wastes a whole day memorizing it and while high op wizards can win battles with only low level spells what about low op wizards who just want to blow something up with a fire ball? Low opp wizards are actually limited by the number of spells they have magic missile scales a little but its not going to kill a high level monster in one shot so that means casting it multiple times in one encounter.

And if you are doing this for divine casters than the fighter wont be able to function because with out access to healing he will run out of hp before the wizard runs out of spells. so all your doing is shortening the number of encounters because the fighter cant afford more than one challenging encounter before he needs to spend several days healing.

your "solution" would just cause ludicrous lags in game play as every one needs to hide in a town for a month after a hard fight. in fact i say pcs would only fight one battle a day on average because the caster would never use anything but their most efficient spells. because casting anything that does not win the fight instantly means another wasted day particularly at high level where casting a second high level represents most of a work day spent re memorizing.

so now you have done the exact opposite of what you wanted you have people who are only good for going nova you have just reduced how many spells going nova represents.

Aron Times
2010-11-27, 12:21 PM
One of my pet peeves is people saying that 4e classes are too similar to each other. They're not. Each class plays radically different from each other. While they all have the same basic framework, each class provides a different gaming experience. You don't need different conflicting subsystems for unique class gameplay.

And neither does different subsystems necessarily provide unique play. I can turn this argument on its head by pointing out that about half the psionic powers in the 3.5 XPH are basically psionic versions of spells. 3.5 Psions and wizards do play differently from each other, but the two classes are much closer than most people think. I also find it quite jarring to see how people consider 4e classes "identical" when it's taken for granted that 3.5 wizards and sorcerers are quite different from each other when they have near-identical spell lists.

But I guess some people are just too entrenched in their preconceived notions and misconceptions. There are some legitimate flaws in 4e, but most of the complaints I've seen are basically They Changed It Now It Sucks.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-27, 12:24 PM
How does Warhammer magic break logic? And btw, I don't like horrible miscasts because they are an all-or-nothing thing: either the caster is still super or he instantly dies a most horrible death.
Arbitrary doesn't mean illogical. Magic can't break the law of causality or the law of identity.
Magic is alwas easier to balance if you think through what it actually does to produce an effect. That's what D&D fails to do.


Corrected, thanks for pointing it out.
If you take even a cursory look at the fluff of the setting, it should become fairly obvious Chaos and Warp don't give one whiff about these fancy laws of "causality" or "identity" you speak of. How well these are mirrored in game rules is another thing, mostly it just means more randomness and potential for surreal consequences. Still, I hold my stance: there's no imperative for magic to be logical. There are many setting where Magic A is sometimes Magic B, sometimes C, and sometimes not magic at all.

And why should miscasts always be so horrible as to reduce spellcasting to "all-or-nothing"? Taking Warhammer as example again, there's a wide variety of consequences; most of the time, you get roughly what you wanted, sometimes you get more than you wanted, sometimes you get nothing at all; "instantly dying a most horrible death" is just one possibility. It's very well possible to balance such a system around spellcasting being "a viable option", nothing more, nothing less - granted, Warhammer isn't such a great example of that.

I also disagree with your conclusion that magic's easier to balance by building it ground up; personally, I've always found spell systems easier to build from top down, thinking of the effect spells have first rather than how they produce it. (If that leads to an irrational, confusing nature of magic, I consider it a bonus. :smalltongue:) The reason being, with the latter approach, I can immediatly start balancing magic against pre-existing things; with the former, I usually end up spending way too much time pondering about metaphysical questions and implications, and take forever to get to actual game rules.

oxybe
2010-11-27, 01:19 PM
sure the fighter can swing his sword all day and the wizard can only cast X spells... but the ability to swing a sword all day isn't that special since you aren't in a constant stream of combat all day, every day.

the fighter's ability to swing a sword is only as relevant as there are things to be swung at. the fact he can do it all day isn't really important, it's "when **** hits the fan, are you a bad enough dude to [insert solution to problem that caused **** to hit fan]?". a wizard doesn't need to be pooping magical rainbows all day long, he just needs the ability when it's needed.

when i was playing a warlocks a year or so ago, he was invisible+flying pretty much all day long. this was awesome when we were dungeon crawling or sneaking about, but the ability to be invisible all day isn't really that useful unless you need to be invisible. during downtime when all he had to do is booze it up at the tavern and eat a comically large ham, i guess he could invis away and not pay the tab, but other then that, being invisible isn't that big of a boon in your day to day life unless you've got a penchant for shenanigans.

a wizard expecting prolonged trouble past level 5 can easily ration out his spells to last several encounters (and craft a few scrolls to take care of corner cases) and once he starts being able to cast several level 4 & 5 spells each day the 4-encounter workday method stops working if the caster knows how his spells work. people who've played full casters understand this. you don't need to always have the awesome turned up to 11, you just need to be able to turn it up when needed.

as for the 4-encounter workday, it's just a baseline, as is the standard party size of 4-5 players.

WarKitty
2010-11-27, 01:30 PM
My problem with a warhammer type system is that it forces a very gritty feel to the game. Now, this fits in perfectly with the warhammer type setting. In the high fantasy D&D games I play, it is incredibly out of place. I play games where PC death is rare and when it does happen there's usually a raise dead spell coming up. A warhammer type system would essentially invalidate that type of game.

Godskook
2010-11-27, 02:38 PM
One of my pet peeves is people saying that 4e classes are too similar to each other. They're not. Each class plays radically different from each other. While they all have the same basic framework, each class provides a different gaming experience. You don't need different conflicting subsystems for unique class gameplay.

And neither does different subsystems necessarily provide unique play. I can turn this argument on its head by pointing out that about half the psionic powers in the 3.5 XPH are basically psionic versions of spells. 3.5 Psions and wizards do play differently from each other, but the two classes are much closer than most people think. I also find it quite jarring to see how people consider 4e classes "identical" when it's taken for granted that 3.5 wizards and sorcerers are quite different from each other when they have near-identical spell lists.

But I guess some people are just too entrenched in their preconceived notions and misconceptions. There are some legitimate flaws in 4e, but most of the complaints I've seen are basically They Changed It Now It Sucks.

You don't seem to understand the complaint made in the "classes are too similar" department then, so let me illustrate with two video games, both of which I love:

Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo
Super Smash Bros.

In SSF2 Turbo, player interface was different for each character. Moves worked *differently*, and knowing one character did not mean learning another was easy, since almost all the moves were different. Launching a haduken as Ryu(or Ken) was one thing(Down, Down-forward, forward+punch), but doing it as Guile required something else(Hold back, forward+punch), and Sagat two different versions of it(hi and low) as compared to everyone else.

In SSB, almost all the abilities are standardized. Most attacks in SSB are a combination of a joystick direction and a button press. And about 90% of the time, you get fairly similar results. Up-B is a move that works well when you're either below the opponent or as a recovery option to get back on a platform. An ariel Down-A will prove lethal to your opponent if performed while not on a ledge. Sure, each character has unique flavor, but there's a level of homogenization going on.

The difference is, in D&D, we seek a level of versimilitude in our mechanics, a demand that isn't placed on fighting games. So when hitting something with our axe feels just about the same as casting a spell, people get annoyed.

Partysan
2010-11-27, 02:57 PM
If you take even a cursory look at the fluff of the setting, it should become fairly obvious Chaos and Warp don't give one whiff about these fancy laws of "causality" or "identity" you speak of. How well these are mirrored in game rules is another thing, mostly it just means more randomness and potential for surreal consequences. Still, I hold my stance: there's no imperative for magic to be logical. There are many setting where Magic A is sometimes Magic B, sometimes C, and sometimes not magic at all.
While I'm more familiar with the 40k setting I doubt the warp is that much different. And a rule saying "every time magic is used there is a certain chance for certain effects to happen" operates well inside the realms of logic.


And why should miscasts always be so horrible as to reduce spellcasting to "all-or-nothing"? Taking Warhammer as example again, there's a wide variety of consequences; most of the time, you get roughly what you wanted, sometimes you get more than you wanted, sometimes you get nothing at all; "instantly dying a most horrible death" is just one possibility. It's very well possible to balance such a system around spellcasting being "a viable option", nothing more, nothing less - granted, Warhammer isn't such a great example of that.
I agree with you that adding an element of potentially dangerous uncertainty to magic is a viable way of balancing it. As other poster have already pointed out, it is not always a stylistically appropriate way, but that's another story. I might however add, that it would be inappropriate for D&D as well.


I also disagree with your conclusion that magic's easier to balance by building it ground up; personally, I've always found spell systems easier to build from top down, thinking of the effect spells have first rather than how they produce it. (If that leads to an irrational, confusing nature of magic, I consider it a bonus. :smalltongue:) The reason being, with the latter approach, I can immediatly start balancing magic against pre-existing things; with the former, I usually end up spending way too much time pondering about metaphysical questions and implications, and take forever to get to actual game rules.
We aren't that far from each other in that question. It's just how the definition of "effect" works out. An effect called "opens lock" is about as definite as an effect called "kills person", while "telekinetically unlocks lock" more equals "rips out soul of a person which is fatal" or "shoots damaging ray of magical energy at person". While you will find the latter (the soul one probably at high levels) you rarely find a spell that just says "kills person magically". That's what I meant. It's the difference between what the effect does and what the outcome of it is/may be/should be.

Aron Times
2010-11-27, 03:00 PM
Hitting something with an axe is quite different from casting a spell in 4e. And it feels different when you actually play. They may look similar on paper, but there are meaningful differences between the two in actual gameplay.

In fact, a fighter hitting something with an axe does so in a meaningfully different way from a barbarian hitting something with the same axe. The fighter's powers and class features focus on protecting the rest of the party, while the barbarian focuses entirely on dealing as much damage as possible. The fighter is a nigh-impenetrable wall of steel while the barbarian is a glass cannon.

You shouldn't look at the various 4e powers as if they existed in a vacuum. Most of the classes have class features that alter the way their powers work compared to other classes.

For example, a tactical warlord who uses Warlord's Favor deals 2[W] + str mod damage and grants a 1 + int mod attack bonus to attacks made by one ally against the target. A fighter who uses Warlord's Favor (through multiclassing) only grants a +2 attack bonus, but he gets to mark the target in addition to its normal effects. Basically:

1. Warlord's Favor used by a warlord grants a massive attack bonus against the target.

2. Warlord's Favor used by a fighter grants a small bonus but forces the target to focus on the fighter or else the fighter gets a free attack on him.

Both classes use the exact same power, but their class features modify it in subtle but meaningful ways.

Edit: Another example would be the difference between the sorcerer and the wizard, specifically, their spells.

Both classes are arcane casters with a focus on AoE spells. The sorcerer deals much more damage than the wizard and his spells tend to have smaller AoE. Basically, the sorcerer's shtick is concentrating large amounts of damage in a relatively small AoE. The wizard, on the other hand, has much more debilitating status effects and larger AoE on his spells. The sorcerer can quickly bring down the enemy's HP, while the wizard can disable them all to make them easy pickings for the party's muscle (the 4e wizard kind of works like the 3.5 Batman wizard).

Both classes also differ in the potency of their at-will and daily powers. Sorcerer at-wills deal more damage and are generally much better than the wizard's at-wills, but the wizard has godlike dailies that win fights by themselves. Sorcerers are better when it comes to consistent damage all day long, but wizard novas are much more devastating.

Both classes' powers look very similar to each other, but the way they're used and the way they actually play out are radically different.

Sang Real
2010-11-27, 03:17 PM
The difference is, in D&D, we seek a level of versimilitude in our mechanics, a demand that isn't placed on fighting games. So when hitting something with our axe feels just about the same as casting a spell, people get annoyed.
I understand this complaint. As fantasy lovers, we want magic to feel different from mundane stuff, if only on a superficial level.

What I, and many 4e fans, have trouble with is: given the choice between a byzantine and broken magic system that feels more magicy, and a more simple and [mostly] balanced magic system that feels less magicy but plays magicy...

Well, a feeling being more important than actual play and balance. That's what a lot of us, me included, don't get. In an ideal game, we'd have all three but given the choice I'd rather have 2/3.

Godskook
2010-11-27, 04:39 PM
Stuff

See, that's why I chose to compare 4E to Super Smash Bros.

Every character in SSB gets roughly the same abilities, but the individual character's take on it is still quite unique.

For instance, every one gets a Up-B power, that is useful for returning from off the ledge. Pikachu gets one that is substantially longer and faster than almost everyone else, and can even change direction mid-power. This allows him to return from farther launches and do with far less risk of counterattack. Yoshi, on the other side of the coin, gets almost *NOTHING* on his Up-B except a mild hesitation. Kirby's Up-B is mostly vertical movement, and is self-fatal if he can't grab the edge during animation, a unique disadvantage compared to others, which can still drift towards ledges after the move's animation finishes.

Each character will play quite differently, and yet, each is built the same in terms of structure, which is the complaint people have.


What I, and many 4e fans, have trouble with is: given the choice between a byzantine and broken magic system that feels more magicy, and a more simple and [mostly] balanced magic system that feels less magicy but plays magicy...

Well, a feeling being more important than actual play and balance. That's what a lot of us, me included, don't get. In an ideal game, we'd have all three but given the choice I'd rather have 2/3.

1.You get 2/3 in both systems, since 3.5's magic plays magicy too.

2.Personally, I believe that it is easier to balance a system that 'feels' right than to fix the 'feel' on a system that's balanced. Besides that, 3.5-splat is a lot more balanced than core was.

3.The problem that comes up in 3.5 is that when they say "Mundane", they want Zoro or Sanji, but pick options like they're building Ussop. Or maybe they want a "viable Ussop" and fail to see the oxymoron in that statement. In 4E, as far as I know, you're essentially forced into picking up level-appropriate abilities by design, so of course, PCs are going to be more balanced out of the box, instead of the Ussop-syndrome suffered by mundane characters in 3.5(I imagine Ussop to be a fighter-feat rogue with WF(sling), WS(sling) and some archery feats who eventually multiclasses into Artificer when he begins to realize that he needs to stop being team liability #1).

Aron Times
2010-11-27, 05:06 PM
See, that's why I chose to compare 4E to Super Smash Bros.

Every character in SSB gets roughly the same abilities, but the individual character's take on it is still quite unique.

For instance, every one gets a Up-B power, that is useful for returning from off the ledge. Pikachu gets one that is substantially longer and faster than almost everyone else, and can even change direction mid-power. This allows him to return from farther launches and do with far less risk of counterattack. Yoshi, on the other side of the coin, gets almost *NOTHING* on his Up-B except a mild hesitation. Kirby's Up-B is mostly vertical movement, and is self-fatal if he can't grab the edge during animation, a unique disadvantage compared to others, which can still drift towards ledges after the move's animation finishes.

Each character will play quite differently, and yet, each is built the same in terms of structure, which is the complaint people have.

This looks like a case of judging a book by its cover. On the surface, Super Smash Brothers characters have identical moves, but each character is actually quite unique when you actually get to play it. The same applies to 4e. The various powers all follow the same format, but once you actually get to play it, the various powers are all quite different from each other.

I do understand this complaint, even if I don't agree with it. It's exactly the same as saying that all SSB character are the same when in practice they are not. To use a game that I've actually played, it's like saying that Marvel vs. Capcom 2 charactes are all the same because they use the same basic joystick and button combinations for most of them.

Gnaeus
2010-11-27, 05:08 PM
This is a great example of classic vs modern play styles. For our 3rd level wizard to 'wipe the encounter with glitterdust' he needs the monsters to be nice and all stand close together. Glitterdust only covers a 10 foot spread. So out of a group of a dozen bandits, how will you get them all to dogpile on each other you you can hit all 12 of them with the spell. This also has the problem of the 'official modern day fight scene': where the DM says 'ok it's your party vs the bandits'. Why can't a couple more bandits come running up from behind?

Greese has the exact same problem, plus plenty of monster can fly.

And color spray? With a range of 15 feet? A 3rd level caster would want to get within 15 feet of a monster, lets say a black bear and hope that color spray works?


And even if the wizard can pull off all of these spells, up to five times a day, what does the wizard do for encounter six, seven or ten?

After about level 7-10, the wizard can pretty easily outperform the fighter in 10+ encounters per day, if the wizard expects to have that many. Tricks like Sudden extended Polymorph + Heart of X+ Primal X+ Greater Magic Weapon + Greater Mage Armor will allow the wizard to hit harder and faster than most fighters with better defenses better movement and better special abilities for hours at a time. Given that the average D&D fight takes under a minute, the fighter is likely to run out of hit points LONG before the wizard runs out of magic juice. And the wizard can still cast other spells, use scrolls, wands, etc. Then you add reserve feats. Or the 14 HD giant zombie beast that he rides on.

And the wizard has the HARDEST time of the big 3 on this scale. Druid or DMM Persist cleric can easily last all day. Wizards can also, with Incantrix, or other tricks. The 4 encounter day isn't the problem. AT ALL.

Tiki Snakes
2010-11-27, 09:50 PM
Actually, I'd say there's a vastly greater difference between characters for the majority of Smash Brothers than in the usual Street-fighter game. I think the analogy is better than you think, in that reguard, because the large majority of the difference between many Street Fighter characters is based on the unholy contortions that are required to do the various special moves, rather than any gross differences in the moves themselves or the tactical differences. The average Street fighter has between two and five characters who can be described as "Ryu, except..." after all.

The difference in capability, power, utility and so on of the various smash brothers is, for me, far more genuine and pronounced.

true_shinken
2010-11-27, 09:55 PM
The average Street fighter has between two and five characters who can be described as "Ryu, except..." after all.

Sir, I'm afraid you don't much about Street Fighter. What you say about 'Shotoklones' was true only in very early SFs. In the more recent SFIV, even the basic maneuvers from Ryu/Ken/Akuma are very, very different. Characters like Dan and Sakura, who share a few moves with Ryu but play completely different stretch this even further.
Heck, the fact that damage received is different from character to character already makes SF a lot more varied than Smash Bros.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-11-27, 10:15 PM
I think some of the solutions are addressed by no longer thinking of the martial classes as mundanes, but as heroes from mythology. Look at Hercules, Odysseus, Chu Chulain (sorry on spelling there), Rama. Compared to some of their accomplishments, walking on clouds and shrugging off energy drain with Iron Heart Surge seem entirely appropriate.

Of course, this is only appropriate in high-fantasy kinds of games, but if you DON'T want that, you're probably doing something to tone down the magic system anyway, so the result is the same.

This. Wholeheartedly. I mean, Gilgamesh used a 200 pound bronze axe (I think it was 200 lbs). Mundane D&D characters could probably use even heavier stuff, and they're not even two-thirds divine!

awa
2010-11-27, 11:19 PM
actually one problem with the dnd character= mythic hero is that the pcs ability to resist effects (hp and saves) goes to insane levels and their ability to do things (skills and such) their raw physical stats typical don't go up all that much now a dnd character with high strength might be able to lift a 200 pound ax as a light load he (with out weird builds or extremely powerful magic items) is not going to be using a weapon that unwieldy (unless hes using monkey grip but even then it wont be 200 pounds)

RaveingRonin
2010-11-28, 06:18 AM
I love gritty games, and Dark Heresy and Call of Cthulhu rank to the top of my fave game systems. In the Undearthred Arcana book, they give the rules for Sanity, which penalizes casters for performing certain types of magic (conjuration, necromancy, and transmutation the worst I think). It's a lil better then Dark heresy in that everyone is subject to going bonkers, but has the same effect of making casters more balanced to non-casters. I'm not trying to convince anyone here that gritty is better then squeaky clean, but I think the alternate SAN rules for 3.5 are gold.

Prime32
2010-11-28, 07:27 AM
Sir, I'm afraid you don't much about Street Fighter. What you say about 'Shotoklones' was true only in very early SFs. In the more recent SFIV, even the basic maneuvers from Ryu/Ken/Akuma are very, very different. Characters like Dan and Sakura, who share a few moves with Ryu but play completely different stretch this even further.But they all punch and kick people. SSB characters punch or shoot or swing swords or throw bananas... :smalltongue:


Heck, the fact that damage received is different from character to character already makes SF a lot more varied than Smash Bros.SSB has that too. The game is based on knocking your opponent out of the arena rather than reducing their hp, and some characters are heavier than others.

AstralFire
2010-11-28, 07:33 AM
There are actual type interactions in Smash, as well, down to fire attacks melting ice effects.

true_shinken
2010-11-28, 08:31 AM
But they all punch and kick people. SSB characters punch or shoot or swing swords or throw bananas... :smalltongue:
Street Fighter has Sodom with his swords, Rolento with bats/knives/grenades, Hakkam with oil, Eagle with his escrima sticks, Maki with her tonfa... I could do on and on. It's certainly not just punching and kicking.


SSB has that too. The game is based on knocking your opponent out of the arena rather than reducing their hp, and some characters are heavier than others.
I stand corrected, then. You still have more moves in each SF character and they feel more different when you play, which was the point in question.

AstralFire
2010-11-28, 08:33 AM
Smash Brothers has items and crazy stages. I really find the choice of Smash to be an amazingly appropriate fit - more depth than its given credit for because of the simplification that went into the core mechanic.

true_shinken
2010-11-28, 08:40 AM
Smash Brothers has items and crazy stages. I really find the choice of Smash to be an amazingly appropriate fit - more depth than its given credit for because of the simplification that went into the core mechanic.
I'm not talking about the game, I'm talking about the characters in the game. Smash is a good game but many times the difference between characters is very narrow. Street Fighter has very different characters and a completely different gameplay. Smash does feel a lot closer to 4th edition, where everyone plays more or less the same. Street Fighter feels closer to 3.5, where each class plays differently and you usually need an effort to optimize.

awa
2010-11-28, 10:00 AM
i don't know what your talking about smash brothers is far more different then street fighter. with exceptions like Mario and Luigi the characters play completely different

BunnyMaster42
2010-11-28, 01:33 PM
i don't know what your talking about smash brothers is far more different then street fighter. with exceptions like Mario and Luigi the characters play completely different

It's not whether the characters play differentlt, they obviously do, it's just that each SSB character has the same control layout. While each character has different moves, the general format of the moves and the execution of them is pretty much the same throughout. If you know how to pull off the special moves with one character, then you know how to do them with every character, as opposed to the Street Fighter games where the methods of pulling of verious special attacks veries extremely from one character to another.

The way I see it is that with SSB the standardization of the controls makes it easy to pick and play pretty much any character and be able to use them without much more than a basic understanding of the controls, while at the same time the differences in the moves themselves and playstyles of the characters in general serves to give each character their own (fairly) unique feel (like 4e from what I've heard). Street Fighter on the other hand isn't quite as beginner friendly. While the absolute basics are the same throughout, each character has their own unique moveset as well as their own playstyles. It makes it harder to pick up a random character and play them competently, but it also tends to allow for a greater level of variety in the character types.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-28, 01:39 PM
The above points are good, but I'm still amazed by how much weight people place on game mechanics. 90% of roleplaying is description, and most systems I own use same basic mechanics for spellcasting and other skills - that's never detracted from feel of magic for me. Swinging an axe and throwing a fireball are described differently and have different in-game ramifications, even if same die is thrown for both.