PDA

View Full Version : Magic does not break the laws of physics



Drolyt
2012-02-26, 01:15 AM
Often I hear, especially in debates about how overpowered magic is and particularly in regards to Dungeons and Dragons, the claim that magic basically tells physics to shut up and sit down. Which is funny when Vaarsuvius says it, but it is (imo) a terrible mistake to think that way in game design. Magic does things that are impossible in our world, but in a world of magic it is simply normal. A magical world has different laws of physics and therefore different limits in regards to an individual's ability to influence their environment, but there still are laws, and there still are limits, and casting a spell does not break them. Magic should be powerful and interesting, but it shouldn't be a "do whatever I want" button.

Related, if there are wizards who cast spells and dragons who breath fire in a fictional world, it does not make sense to divide the world into "magic" and "not magic". For example, I think "anti-magic fields" and "spell resistance" are bad design, not only from a balance perspective but because they only make sense in the context of this arbitrary division. This amounts to laws of physics where objects have a "memory" of their past; somehow these effects can distinguish between two identical situations where one was caused by magic and one wasn't even though for all other purposes they are identical. That isn't how physics works in our world, and while you could imagine physical laws that allow it I don't see the advantage.

Finally, if you have not only spellcasting, but explicitly non-magical creatures who nevertheless obviously would break the physical laws of our world, then it only makes sense to allow PCs to break those laws (since those laws don't exist in the world they live in) and do amazing things. This is relevant because too many people expect non-spellcasters to be completely mundane. This isn't explicitly contradictory, maybe humans are inherently squishy wizards who can only survive in the world using spells, but in that case you would expect non-spellcasters to simply not exist due to natural selection. A self-consistent world necessitates that non-spellcasters be able to contribute meaningfully. One could imagine that non-spellcasters fill menial labor roles, but in that case it wouldn't make sense for them to be adventurers. Fighters, rogues, barbarians, monks, etc. should be able to do things that are supernatural in relation to our world, even if they can't cast spells.

Golden Ladybug
2012-02-26, 02:56 AM
Yeah, gonna have to disagree with your premise here; when someone says that Magic breaks the laws of Physics, and you respond with "well, in a world with Magic, the Laws of Physics would be different" you might be technically right, but you've missed the point.

Magic does things that break the Laws of Physics as they exist in the real world. It doesn't matter if they don't break the Laws of Physics in the fictional, Magic compliant, world, because those Laws of Physics aren't THE Laws of Physics.

Get me?

And to respond to your other point, Internal Consistency has never been the strong point of any setting that has magic and wants to balance it against anything that isn't equivalent to magic. Because, just as you said, why would there still be non-magical/mundane people if Magic users can do it all effortlessly? Some settings have their explanations for this, but some don't. I suppose we just have to chalk it up to the Willing Suspension of the Disbelief.

Another_Poet
2012-02-26, 03:09 AM
Drolyt, you've made one of the most salient and important points a gamer can make. You have one of the fundamental building blocks of worldbuilding: that magic is endemic to the fantasy worlds we create.

Golden Ladybug's point is mostly academic. Fantasy magic may break the laws of physics of Earth, but D&D doesn't take place on Earth, so eff that noise.

Drolyt
2012-02-26, 03:12 AM
Yeah, gonna have to disagree with your premise here; when someone says that Magic breaks the laws of Physics, and you respond with "well, in a world with Magic, the Laws of Physics would be different" you might be technically right, but you've missed the point.

Magic does things that break the Laws of Physics as they exist in the real world. It doesn't matter if they don't break the Laws of Physics in the fictional, Magic compliant, world, because those Laws of Physics aren't THE Laws of Physics.

Get me?
I'm not sure I see your point, and I'm not sure you see mine. Perhaps I worded it poorly; I probably shouldn't write rants at this time of night, but I was thinking about the issue. My problem is with people saying that wizards/clerics/druids/spellcasters break the laws of physics and fighters/barbarians/rogues/non-spellcasters don't. That doesn't make sense to me; why would we have a system where some people follow the laws of our universe and others don't?

And to respond to your other point, Internal Consistency has never been the strong point of any setting that has magic and wants to balance it against anything that isn't equivalent to magic. Because, just as you said, why would there still be non-magical/mundane people if Magic users can do it all effortlessly? Some settings have their explanations for this, but some don't. I suppose we just have to chalk it up to the Willing Suspension of the Disbelief.
It would be fine if non-spellcasters can contribute, but for that to be true either the spellcasters would have to be much weaker than they are in Dungeons and Dragons and similar games or the non-spellcasters have to have abilities they could not have in real life. It isn't just a matter of mechanical balance, if you give non-spellcasters enough arbitrary plusses to compete with spellcasters but still treat them as mundanes then all you've done is make the game more nonsensical.

huttj509
2012-02-26, 03:15 AM
Golden Ladybug's point is mostly academic. Fantasy magic may break the laws of physics of Earth, but D&D doesn't take place on Earth, so eff that noise.

However, when the comment is made, it's normally in discussions involving how some classes/roles ARE expected to obey the laws of physics of Earth. The whole point is that some classes follow different rules. Also known as "why can't martial have nice things?"

Drolyt
2012-02-26, 03:32 AM
Drolyt, you've made one of the most salient and important points a gamer can make. You have one of the fundamental building blocks of worldbuilding: that magic is endemic to the fantasy worlds we create.

Golden Ladybug's point is mostly academic. Fantasy magic may break the laws of physics of Earth, but D&D doesn't take place on Earth, so eff that noise.
Yes, this is exactly what I am trying to get at, or at least one of the points I was trying to get across. I understand the temptation to think of a fantasy world as being basically earth with wizards, but that doesn't create believable worlds unless magic is either very weak or very rare. Given that magic exists it doesn't make sense to suppose that anyone would choose not to augment their abilities with "supernatural" abilities if they can. This doesn't necessarily mean spells, but could be "Ki" or the "The Sublime Way", but regardless it means competing with spellcasters. If these abilities are not available then it doesn't really make sense for non-spellcasters to exist, although there may be something like the Eldritch Knight.

However, when the comment is made, it's normally in discussions involving how some classes/roles ARE expected to obey the laws of physics of Earth. The whole point is that some classes follow different rules. Also known as "why can't martial have nice things?"
And I agree with the sentiment, but I think that even talking about the issue in such terms reveals a problem with how we tend to think about fantasy worlds, that is, that the world works just like ours except for some mysterious thing called "magic" that occasionally changes the rules. If we think about it in this way it is very easy to see some abilities as "magical" or "supernatural" and say that non-spellcasters like fighters and rogues shouldn't be able to do that stuff because they aren't spellcasters, but I don't think this makes for either an internally consistent world or a fun game. In a magical world the only thing separating a magic-user from a non magic-user is skill, so I don't see why we should seperate classes into "supernatural" and "not supernatural"; everyone should be supernatural after a certain level, even if they don't use "magic" in the sense that they don't cast spells.

Rainbownaga
2012-02-26, 03:32 AM
I agree with the sentiment. I always assume that in fantasy game settings that the mundane classes are actually supernaturally augmented. Even in default d&d thinking of level 12 plus non-magical heroes as being completely slaved to the laws of physics hurts (especially where hit points are concerned).

This reminds me of a book I read once ("The longing ring" I think) where a character becomes a thief by learning thief-magic from another thief.

Personally, I really like the idea and it makes the most sense to me.

In defense of anti-magic and spell resistance, it might be better to think of it in terms of covert and overt magic. After all, the Draconomicon points out that a dragon is quite capable of breaking the laws of physics in an AM field- by flying.

icefractal
2012-02-26, 03:58 AM
I'm in agreement on this, it's the kind of setting I use when I run fantasy. In a world of high-magic fantasy (as most D&D settings are), why would everything else by the same?

So for example, IMC:
* The sun really is pushed across the sky by a giant beetle.
* The world is flat and infinite in extent. You can walk to other planes - keep going into the desert, it gets hotter and hotter, eventually everything around you is fire and you've reached the City of Brass. The gods live on high mountains, deep fissures, or other hard to reach locations.
* Disease is caused by malevolent spirits. With the right ritual, you can force them out of the body, but then you've got angry disease-insects running around - better step on them before they scatter.
* There is no magic/non-magic divide. You can make a zone that disrupts spellcasting of a particular type, that forces incorporeal things to be solid, or whatever, but there's not a general "anti-magic" field.
* Being astoundingly good at a skill will let you do things that unquestionably exceed the "ordinary". Weaving a cloak out of moonlight just requires a skilled enough weaver. Riding the lighting is so hard and dangerous almost no-one would even try it, but it is possible.

Knaight
2012-02-26, 05:48 AM
I'm going to disagree. In many cases, magic basically works on its own rules, which don't really connect to anything else. It's a discipline into itself, and as such can ignore the basic rules of other disciplines - which makes it entirely consistent for there to be a world where mages can do everything they can in D&D, while non-mages can do little else. However, it is also entirely consistent for magic to be a handful of highly limited tricks, which exist alongside full on high powered wuxia.

An analogy would be Newtonian physics and chemistry. Newtonian physics dictate the basic actions taken due to interactions of forces, but chemistry can throw a wrench into that and operate by its own rules. Sure, normally projectiles fly in nice, simple parabolas, because the force is imparted briefly. A little bit of rocket fuel, however, messes that up entirely. Sure, the energy of a collision is normally fairly predictable. If the collision also happens to involve potential reactants, and conditions in which they will react things are going to behave oddly. Newtonian physics represents the non-magical world, chemistry magic. And while magic has rules, they may be very different (note how chem and physics are usually noted as different fields).

As such, a dichotomy between magic and not-magic is entirely reasonable, and insisting it just go away as it is somehow invalid anything but. With that said, demanding that the rules of not-magic mirror reality really only represents one possibility, and excludes others, as such making a terrible baseline. We have three sets of rules: Setting Magic, Setting Mundane, Real Mundane. They may overlap to some extent, but treating any of these as if they are the same is a headache waiting to happen.

Kalmageddon
2012-02-26, 06:45 AM
If we are talking about D&D magic I disagree. The rules of magic are never fully explained and are often broken when the setting feels like it by bringing an artifact to the table that says "you know that limitation magic has? this one overcomes it".

For short: magic does break the laws of physics and even it's own laws because magic is just a game element that goes wherever the setting, the DM and the writers feel like it should.

That said it's mostly true for every science in fiction, physics in science fiction can do things that we believe to be impossibile and "break its own rules", like faster then light traveling speed for spaceships.

So why is magic a worst offender then fictional science? Because there is no preconception to consider, with magic you are pretty much already open to the idea that it can do anything. Science fiction has to consider suspension of disbelief much more closely and thus the end result is something more subtle. With magic you don't have any of these problems.

Also, regarding the idea that a world with magic has different laws of physics... No it doesn't. Because then you wouldn't really need magic to obtain extraordinary effects, would you? No first law of thermodynamics? Whan'ts preventing me from generating infinite energy trough a perpetual motion machine? Why would I need to study magic in the frist place? Most of the laws of physics are things very close to the ordinary, a commoner would find a way to obtain all sorts of extraordinary effects by just baging two rocks togheter.

There HAS to be ordinary laws of physics in order for magic to be viable, else magic would be just a more complicated way of doing mundane things in a wolrd where the laws of physics allow magical things to happen.

Do you follow me?

Ashtagon
2012-02-26, 06:52 AM
On the issue of antimagic fields being bad design...

We have devices that can block electrical fields, radiological fields, and thermal emitters. Is it that much of a stretch of the imagination, in a world where magic is known to exist, to postulate something that can block a magical field?

Eldan
2012-02-26, 07:39 AM
Also, regarding the idea that a world with magic has different laws of physics... No it doesn't. Because then you wouldn't really need magic to obtain extraordinary effects, would you? No first law of thermodynamics? Whan'ts preventing me from generating infinite energy trough a perpetual motion machine? Why would I need to study magic in the frist place? Most of the laws of physics are things very close to the ordinary, a commoner would find a way to obtain all sorts of extraordinary effects by just baging two rocks togheter.

There HAS to be ordinary laws of physics in order for magic to be viable, else magic would be just a more complicated way of doing mundane things in a wolrd where the laws of physics allow magical things to happen.

Do you follow me?

The laws of physics are postulated by observing how the world works and by theory and experimentation upon those laws. If we observe that swallowing a spider lets us walk on walls, then that is a physical law of the world we are in.

Why can't we build thermonuclear intercontinental missiles by banging two rocks together? We need to study first, and we need theories, experiments, cooperation, technology, prototypes. Just as with magic.

Magic is as you observed, a complicated way of achieving certain results. These results can maybe not achieved without it, but we can also, in our world, not send pictures from Europe to America in milliseconds without electronic devices.

The Dark Fiddler
2012-02-26, 08:05 AM
Related, if there are wizards who cast spells and dragons who breath fire in a fictional world, it does not make sense to divide the world into "magic" and "not magic". For example, I think "anti-magic fields" and "spell resistance" are bad design, not only from a balance perspective but because they only make sense in the context of this arbitrary division.

But what if the dragon's fire-breath ISN'T magical? I disagree with your idea here that they're both the same, on the grounds that the dragon's breath could be a bio-chemical reaction. (I know this missing the main point, really, but this is the only thing that jumped out at me. Also, it's early in the morning.)

erikun
2012-02-26, 08:23 AM
I have to agree with the point that Golden Ladybug first laid out. While it is true that a character inside a magic-infused world would include magic in their laws of physics, when a person critiques a system or setting with "Magic does not follow the Laws of Physics", they are not saying that magic is internally inconsistent. (Although it could be.) Almost always, they are saying that magic is not consistent with the laws of physics as we understand it.

Of course, in most of these same systems and settings, "mundane" activities will frequently not follow the laws of physics as well. An argument that melee characters should follow the laws of physics falls apart when we're talking about characters who can throw an object to the moon and back in under six seconds, or swing a 15-pound chunk of metal ten times at full strength within the same time frame, as many times as they'd care to do so. And by "should follow the laws of physics" in this case, I'm clearly not referring to the laws of magical creation.

prufock
2012-02-26, 10:39 AM
I'm not going to disagree, because frankly there is nothing with which to disagree. This is a silly, nonsensical argument, for two reasons.

1. You argue that in a world where magic is part of physics, magic is part of physics. It's circular and pointless. In a world where "gravity" pushes masses apart instead of together, reverse gravity is just "part of physics." If we speculate a world where X is true, then say that in that world X is true, that is not an argument[/i/].

2. Mixing a real-world concept like with a fantasy concept like magic is pointless anyway. The designers of the system did not consult with physicists to ask if their magic was reasonable. They did not try to explain magic in a real-world, physics-friendly way. When they try to offer up explanations, they rely on even [i]more fictional concepts ("the energy is drawn from another plane of existence," etc).

If we want to use a semantic argument, the designers even gave some magical abilities the descriptor "supernatural," which means, literally, above and beyond the natural physical world.

That doesn't mean that magic doesn't follow rules, but trying to explain how it works using physics is a dead end. What interaction is taking place for verbal and somatic cues to pull energy from another plane in a coherent way? Down this path lies only madness.

It all boils down to setting. Does the DM want magic to follow certain rules and interact properly with physics in his own world? If so, then it does. Does the DM instead want magic to be a supernatural system that ignores physics and follows its own rules? If so, then it does.

boredgremlin
2012-02-26, 11:03 AM
I think it depends on how you explain magic.

I always used magic as energy channeled from another dimension that briefly causes the conditions of that dimension to supersede the basic dimension of the setting world for a set period of time.

I find it simple and easy to explain most magical things using the dimensions in the great wheel cosmology that way.

Why doesnt everyone do it? Because not everyone can. Its a talent not a skill. Like art or music. Some people are naturally great at it, some people couldnt do it to save their life and most people could work really, really hard for a long time and get mediocre at it but they have other things they need to do in their life and naturally pursue basic survival and natural talents they do actually have rather then spending many years slaving away just to become a piss poor wizard sometime in their middle age.

Anti-magic is an area where the wall between dimensions has been artificially thickened to prevent energy from those other dimensions from coming in. So magic doesnt work there.

Psionics, just to throw a wrench in the works is INTERNAL energy compared to the EXTERNAL energy of magic. Although that requires tossing out large chunks of the 3e psionics book, but whatever because doing that is a good idea no matter how you look at it.

Essentially magic is elemental and outer planes with a minor touch ethereal plane and nothing to do with the mind.

Psionics is the mind interacting with the ethereal and astral planes to affect the physical plane.

I find having an internal non-campaign specific explanation for these things has helped myself and players have a better inherent understanding of how my fantasy words work and increases verisimilitude.

Jay R
2012-02-26, 11:03 AM
In the last game I ran, the players' introduction included the following:

"A warning about meta-knowledge. In a game in which stone gargoyles can fly and people can cast magic spells, modern rules of physics and chemistry simply don’t apply. There aren’t 92 natural elements, lightning is not caused by an imbalance of electrical potential, and stars are not gigantic gaseous bodies undergoing nuclear fusion. Cute stunts involving clever use of the laws of thermodynamics simply won’t work. Note that cute stunts involving the gross effects thereof very likely will work. Roll a stone down a mountain, and you could cause an avalanche. But in a world with teleportation, levitation, and fireball spells, Newton’s three laws of motion do not apply, and energy and momentum are not conserved. Accordingly, modern scientific meta-knowledge will do you more harm than good. On the other hand, knowledge of Aristotle, Ptolemy, medieval alchemy, or medieval and classical legends might be useful occasionally."

[Among other things, this included the first two very obscure clues to the scenarios, which involved the seven planets according to Ptolemy (moon, Mercury, Venus, sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) and their legendary powers (love with Venus, war with Mars, heat and life with the sun, etc.). The hints started as extremely obscure, and grew slowly more obvious, until late in the sixth session, when they finally realized that their artifacts had the powers of the planets about 20 minutes before they lost them forever.]

Eldan
2012-02-26, 11:04 AM
Supernatural is a very silly word anyway, we already had a similar argument once, and I went to track down the dictionary definitions of supernatural, then the words that make up supernatural, and then the definition for those and so on. In the end, you end up with "not part of" for "super" and "everything that exists" for natural.

Which is, of course, a non-definition for a world where the things thus described actually exist.

Edit: Good point by the poster above me. My D&D worlds tend to run off a wild mix of antique Greek, 17th century scientific and alchemical ideas. Harmony of the spheres, panacea, homunculi, vis vitae, atomism, male and female forces, spirits of matter,the transformation of the soul, same attracts same and so on.

Frozen_Feet
2012-02-26, 11:26 AM
"Magic" and "Supernatural" are, essentially, empty buzzwords without further definition. You can't talk about either in general, because there really isn't a general definition of either - what "magic" and "supernatural" actually mean vary greatly from setting to setting.

That said, my opinion is that "supernatural, once it becomes a fact of life, is just extension of the natural". To realize what this means in practice, take a look at several real-world religious and magical practices, where people pray to things that are, by their own admission, intangible and ineffable, for all sorts of minor everyday things.

That said, I do agree with the idea that "non-magical" doesn't have to mean "obeys IRL physics". I'm perfectly fine with giant dragons flying and breathing fire, despite that running counter to our modern understanding of physics and biology. It does not pain me to say "yes, it's perfectly in line with laws of nature, your limited understading of them just doesn't tell you how".

After all, there was a time when people though aeroplanes were impossible. Heck, we went to the moon, and there are still people who think that is impossible. Just because it does not make sense in the context of your limited understanding, doesn't automatically mean it is "magic" or "supernatural". It's not like Quantum mechanics make a lick of sense in context of General Relativity, either.

Finally, I think there's an useful definition of "supernatural" for worlds where such co-exist with the natural: supernatural is the superset for natural and natural a subset of supernatural. In practice, this means all of the natural world can be extrapolated from the supernatural, and it governed by it, but all of the supernatural can't be extrapolated or affected from the natural.

Partysan
2012-02-26, 11:50 AM
I basically agree, but I think using the word "physics" here leads the discussion in a wrong direction.
Fact is: Magic has rules. These rules are essentially arbitrary, since there is nothing but fantasy to base them on, but each setting has rules for its magic. Although we tend to call magic "supernatural", this stems from our world. A world that contains magic has laws of nature governing it, magic is part of the world's nature. This does, and will cause things to happen differently than in our world, although how strong and frequent this influence is going to be relies on the specific laws governing the setting's magic.

Knaight has a point when he says that magic while part of nature is a different field than physics (as long as you don't use the very very braod definition of physics as "study of all laws of nature"), but these two fields do exist, have laws, and will interact. Since they interact, physics will be different than in a world without magic.
It is difficult to make concrete assertions about this, because the rules of magic will vary greatly in different settings. A setting can have magic be extremely powerful and easy to do, but then either everyone in the world will use magic (which in D&D is one reasonable conclusion) or, if for some reason magic is very rare, it is not suited for a player character in a mixed group.

Talking about D&D 3.5 specificly, the problem is basically a disconnect between the assumed fluff and the crunch's logical conclusions. This has been discussed time and again. The rules of nature, including those of magic, when taken to their logical end, would produce a world different from that which D&D tries to portray and closer to a Tippyverse, purely magical society, or whatever one might construct along those lines, it's beside the point here.
The point is that there is no rule which says that magic, by definition, has to be more powerful than anything that does not explicitly use magic. Why? Because there are no predefined rules of magic. The author of each setting makes them up. If the way it works does logically conflict with the setting we're dealing with bad writing.
The way a lot of D&D players think is that all which is not explicitly magic should work exactly like in our world with all its limitations and magic can do whateverever it wants to without any cost-return balance. This has problems on several levels. Number one, the D&D rules present a world that even without magic already works differently from ours, hence high-level characters surviving being submerged in lava. Number two, even in the context of our world numbers are not taken to their conclusion. If a human with Strength and Dexterity 30-40 could exist in our world, they could to things decidedly superhuman, yet some people will deny them even feats only logically following from their abilities because it wouldn't be "mundane" anymore. Well, then any character with an ability score over 18 is not mundane anyways. And number three, if magic can do anything, is easy to learn and use and does not have any significant cost thenb not only is there NO rule that ever said so but the result would also be a setting which would at best be different and at worst wholly uninteresting.

The point of the discussion is that while Vaarsuvius may crack a joke about real world physics, the laws of magic are part of D&D's natural laws. A character may not know them, but they'll be aware of their existence. As such, magic is not "rewriting reality" (only Wish and Miracle are) but part of reality. There is no reason whatsoever that magic should be limitless. It could be, but why should it? In the context of a game such magic is wholly detrimental and it does not add much to the setting in return. No one is disputing that magic should be able to do things that nonmagic cannot, that's its point. But the whole reason for its inclusion into the game world is our desire for a specific, and interesting kind of world to play in, and for mechanics that make the game fun. As such, the rules that govern magic in games and D&D specificly should be tuned for that purpose.

Addendum: I for one do not have a problem with antimagic fields. If magic does have laws and works in a defined way, then it can be stopped from working. If for example magic is based on the manipulation of elementary particles called Pseudons (yes, I am using that in one of my settings) then inhibiting those can make it unusable the area of that effect.

valadil
2012-02-26, 11:56 AM
I'll agree that magic doesn't always break physics but I don't think that this meanings magic and physics should mix. I also don't think it's safe to assume that a world with magic is still functional. I'm not going to point fingers but I'm sure there are fantasy world that would implode under their own self contradictory physics.

boredgremlin
2012-02-26, 12:24 PM
I'll agree that magic doesn't always break physics but I don't think that this meanings magic and physics should mix. I also don't think it's safe to assume that a world with magic is still functional. I'm not going to point fingers but I'm sure there are fantasy world that would implode under their own self contradictory physics.

eh, Forgotten realms has imploded what 3, 4 times now? Everyone there seems to be okay with it. They've had more apocalypses then buffy the vampire slayer and superman combined and no one seems to care.

hiryuu
2012-02-26, 12:58 PM
"Magic" and "Supernatural" are, essentially, empty buzzwords without further definition. You can't talk about either in general, because there really isn't a general definition of either - what "magic" and "supernatural" actually mean vary greatly from setting to setting.

That said, my opinion is that "supernatural, once it becomes a fact of life, is just extension of the natural". To realize what this means in practice, take a look at several real-world religious and magical practices, where people pray to things that are, by their own admission, intangible and ineffable, for all sorts of minor everyday things.

That said, I do agree with the idea that "non-magical" doesn't have to mean "obeys IRL physics". I'm perfectly fine with giant dragons flying and breathing fire, despite that running counter to our modern understanding of physics and biology. It does not pain me to say "yes, it's perfectly in line with laws of nature, your limited understading of them just doesn't tell you how".

After all, there was a time when people though aeroplanes were impossible. Heck, we went to the moon, and there are still people who think that is impossible. Just because it does not make sense in the context of your limited understanding, doesn't automatically mean it is "magic" or "supernatural". It's not like Quantum mechanics make a lick of sense in context of General Relativity, either.

Finally, I think there's an useful definition of "supernatural" for worlds where such co-exist with the natural: supernatural is the superset for natural and natural a subset of supernatural. In practice, this means all of the natural world can be extrapolated from the supernatural, and it governed by it, but all of the supernatural can't be extrapolated or affected from the natural.

This. Very much this.

Just because a different world obeys a very different set of physical laws does not mean the inhabitants are aware of them. I mean, not only are our physical laws basically arbitrary because there isn't (as far as we're aware) an agency devoted to making sure they're obeyed. They simply are. They don't have any definition until we try to describe their functionality in terms we can use. And not every physicist or scientists agrees to not only those laws, but also the terms used (as an example, I've now seen fistfights erupt over a) whether a set of postage-stamp-sized fragments of maxillae belonged to reptile-like mammals or mammal-like reptiles and b) Higgs boson vs. quantum gravitation; now imagine two wizards debating where they're evoking all these magic missiles from).

Same as it is with a world that has a different set of laws: the inhabitants may only know enough to get a fireball going, and even that's probably got some guesswork involved. You don't have to actually know how and why it's happening to note that a ball of wood and a ball of iron fall at the same rate, all you have to know is that they do, and you can do some pretty amazing things. "Stuff falls down" and "stress is even throughout a contiguous structure" is about all you need to know in order to infer and start designing arches.

I think the issue here is that in our culture, it's very common to see physics and science (not to mention magic) as forces. Physics and science, at least, are NOT. They are methods of description. They are basically systems about how to investigate things in a methodical fashion. Magic, on the other hand, is very often depicted as a force. Saying magic and physics are opposed is like saying that Sean Connery's morning schedule and inertia are opposing forces.

Shadowknight12
2012-02-26, 01:23 PM
Oh, it's this argument again. Nice to see the undead remain vigorous even after repeated burying.

Let's address the root of the issue: In any system this particular problem ("magic" vs. "non-magic") applies, the problem is always the same. Authors sought to create a system to emulate stories and legends from different creators, cultures and time periods. They sought to put, in the same world, Arturian fantasy, Tolkienesque fantasy, steampunk and things from Simbad to Beowulf.

You cannot have Internal Consistency (magical or otherwise) when your game design is a lazy* fantasy kitchen sink.

This argument goes nowhere because the goalposts will keep endlessly shifting as someone cites examples from one source, where magic is *meant* to be precisely that which defies the laws of physics, and then someone else cites an example where magic is commonplace and natural. And then we touch upon the fact that what's "magical" and "supernatural" in one setting might be utterly mundane in another. And when someone brings Balance to the table, things just get ten times muddier.

So really, people. Stop for a moment and think about what you're debating. Well, unless you find it amusing to argue past each other for twenty-something pages.

*: You could have Internal Consistency in such a fantasy kitchen sink, but you'd need far more work than any popular game designer has ever put on their product to date.

bloodtide
2012-02-26, 01:54 PM
Yeah, gonna have to disagree with your premise here; when someone says that Magic breaks the laws of Physics, and you respond with "well, in a world with Magic, the Laws of Physics would be different" you might be technically right, but you've missed the point.

Magic does things that break the Laws of Physics as they exist in the real world. It doesn't matter if they don't break the Laws of Physics in the fictional, Magic compliant, world, because those Laws of Physics aren't THE Laws of Physics.

This is commonly said by most scientest types. Anything that does not fit into their 'safe box' of reality, or anything they don't like ''breaks the laws of physics''. And what 'laws' are they again? The laws everyone thinks they know? Well, physics does not work that way.

For example, humans only discovered radiation in the last two centuries. So radiation was around for the 6,000 years of human history before that. Humans just did not know about it. But it did not break any 'laws of physics'. Though if you went back to 1700 and told a scientist about radiation he would laugh at you and say 'that would break the laws of physics''(as HE knows them). He would be wrong, of course.

Magic is the same way, just as we can't explain it with our current laws, does not ake it law breaking,

Tyndmyr
2012-02-26, 02:14 PM
Magic does things that are impossible in our world....

Precisely. This is known as "breaking the laws of physics". That's what we're talking about.


This is commonly said by most scientest types. Anything that does not fit into their 'safe box' of reality, or anything they don't like ''breaks the laws of physics''. And what 'laws' are they again? The laws everyone thinks they know? Well, physics does not work that way.

For example, humans only discovered radiation in the last two centuries. So radiation was around for the 6,000 years of human history before that. Humans just did not know about it. But it did not break any 'laws of physics'. Though if you went back to 1700 and told a scientist about radiation he would laugh at you and say 'that would break the laws of physics''(as HE knows them). He would be wrong, of course.

That seems rather unlikely. The idea that certain things emitted something roughly akin to radiation seems to be a popular theory long, long before it was shown to exist. Certainly, it has many parallels, like a fire emitting heat. Your entire argument here appears immensely suspect.

What, are you saying that magic really is physics, we just haven't discovered how to cast Wall of Iron yet? Because that seems really implausible.

hiryuu
2012-02-26, 02:26 PM
This is commonly said by most scientest types. Anything that does not fit into their 'safe box' of reality, or anything they don't like ''breaks the laws of physics''. And what 'laws' are they again? The laws everyone thinks they know? Well, physics does not work that way.

Scientists know this very well. They know the safe box does not exist. That is why they rewrite the laws all the time. That is why they experiment and poke and prod. That's why they are scientists.


For example, humans only discovered radiation in the last two centuries. So radiation was around for the 6,000 years of human history before that. Humans just did not know about it. But it did not break any 'laws of physics'. Though if you went back to 1700 and told a scientist about radiation he would laugh at you and say 'that would break the laws of physics''(as HE knows them). He would be wrong, of course.

Magic is the same way, just as we can't explain it with our current laws, does not ake it law breaking,

Who was it that was steeping out of their safe box and trying to figure out what this whole radiation thing was all about in the first oh right it was scientists. Most of that, though, required apparatus and tools that simply weren't available until much later. Röntgen, for example, couldn't make his discovery at all without vacuum tubes. I would imagine the same would be true for magic: that artifact/phenomena/monster isn't breaking the rules of magic, they just haven't figured out how it works yet.

As for the real world, we know perfectly well that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, thank you. To quote Dara O'Briain: "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop."

On the other hand, science lets us make predictions based on inferences. Predictions based on knowledge of the laws of physics as we know them allowed us to find things like Hawking radiation, infer principles of momentum, and even produce computer technology. I would imagine in a D&D setting, it's similar predictive capacity that lets artificers act like in-universe engineers.

GolemsVoice
2012-02-26, 02:27 PM
The problem with magic in some settings probably is that it is a "get out of physics free" card. So physics might work normally, but as soon as magic is involved, literally anything goes. So magic isn't a law unto itself, but rather an addition to every other law. "Gravity works like.... bla bla... unless magic is involved." "Light works like... bla bla... unless magic is involved" and so forth.

If magic is a raw force that one can use to achieve any desired effects, what would be it's laws other than "It can be used to break all the other laws?"

RedWarlock
2012-02-26, 04:14 PM
I like to think of it like programming. (stop me if you don't get this)

Science as we IRL know it is like programming with a fixed API, being unable to write your own methods or classes.

Magic is being able to program in full, with variables, methods, classes, etc at your disposal. You just have to watch out or you'll write yourself into a memory leak or crash the system with the code on line 002.

I like to say this a lot in the programming jobs I've done. You can do anything you want, it's just a matter of how long you're willing to take to get there, and how much training it takes to be capable of doing that.

I agree with the OP, magic does has in-universe limits, it's just a limit of time and training. If magic were really limitless or operating outside of 'physics as we know them' the way some people think, you'd have 1st level wizards being able to kill every 20th CR fighter with a glance.

Drolyt
2012-02-26, 04:20 PM
First I'd like to say that I think a lot of people are misunderstanding my point. This is my fault because I was tired and I used a line of reasoning that focused far too heavily on semantics making the whole thing somewhat incomprehensible. I also failed to properly distinguish between the various points I was trying to make, so it all just blurs together. I shouldn't of wrote that while I was tired. Nevertheless, let's continue...

I'm going to disagree. In many cases, magic basically works on its own rules, which don't really connect to anything else. It's a discipline into itself, and as such can ignore the basic rules of other disciplines - which makes it entirely consistent for there to be a world where mages can do everything they can in D&D, while non-mages can do little else. However, it is also entirely consistent for magic to be a handful of highly limited tricks, which exist alongside full on high powered wuxia.

An analogy would be Newtonian physics and chemistry. Newtonian physics dictate the basic actions taken due to interactions of forces, but chemistry can throw a wrench into that and operate by its own rules. Sure, normally projectiles fly in nice, simple parabolas, because the force is imparted briefly. A little bit of rocket fuel, however, messes that up entirely. Sure, the energy of a collision is normally fairly predictable. If the collision also happens to involve potential reactants, and conditions in which they will react things are going to behave oddly. Newtonian physics represents the non-magical world, chemistry magic. And while magic has rules, they may be very different (note how chem and physics are usually noted as different fields).

As such, a dichotomy between magic and not-magic is entirely reasonable, and insisting it just go away as it is somehow invalid anything but. With that said, demanding that the rules of not-magic mirror reality really only represents one possibility, and excludes others, as such making a terrible baseline. We have three sets of rules: Setting Magic, Setting Mundane, Real Mundane. They may overlap to some extent, but treating any of these as if they are the same is a headache waiting to happen.
I think I kind of see your point. Chemistry and mechanics still follow the fundamental laws of our world, but in practice we can treat them as separate sets of laws that interact with each other resulting in a good approximation of the more fundamental laws of quantum mechanics. We could view magic in this way, but I don't see how this solves my problem.

If we are talking about D&D magic I disagree. The rules of magic are never fully explained and are often broken when the setting feels like it by bringing an artifact to the table that says "you know that limitation magic has? this one overcomes it".

For short: magic does break the laws of physics and even it's own laws because magic is just a game element that goes wherever the setting, the DM and the writers feel like it should.

That said it's mostly true for every science in fiction, physics in science fiction can do things that we believe to be impossibile and "break its own rules", like faster then light traveling speed for spaceships.

So why is magic a worst offender then fictional science? Because there is no preconception to consider, with magic you are pretty much already open to the idea that it can do anything. Science fiction has to consider suspension of disbelief much more closely and thus the end result is something more subtle. With magic you don't have any of these problems.

Also, regarding the idea that a world with magic has different laws of physics... No it doesn't. Because then you wouldn't really need magic to obtain extraordinary effects, would you? No first law of thermodynamics? Whan'ts preventing me from generating infinite energy trough a perpetual motion machine? Why would I need to study magic in the frist place? Most of the laws of physics are things very close to the ordinary, a commoner would find a way to obtain all sorts of extraordinary effects by just baging two rocks togheter.

There HAS to be ordinary laws of physics in order for magic to be viable, else magic would be just a more complicated way of doing mundane things in a wolrd where the laws of physics allow magical things to happen.

Do you follow me?
No, I don't. In part I think we are talking past each other, you seem to have a very different idea of what the "laws of physics" are. What you are saying is like saying that quantum mechanics or relativity somehow breaks the laws of physics. If we were to discover that dragons were real and had magical powers no scientist would say they broke the laws of physics, thy would study the phenomenon and modify our understanding of physics.

On the issue of antimagic fields being bad design...

We have devices that can block electrical fields, radiological fields, and thermal emitters. Is it that much of a stretch of the imagination, in a world where magic is known to exist, to postulate something that can block a magical field?
Only if you suppose there is a "magical field". The problem is that most games are very arbitrary about what counts as magic for this purpose.

But what if the dragon's fire-breath ISN'T magical? I disagree with your idea here that they're both the same, on the grounds that the dragon's breath could be a bio-chemical reaction. (I know this missing the main point, really, but this is the only thing that jumped out at me. Also, it's early in the morning.)
My example only really stands if we assume a fire breathing dragon would violate real world physics. My point is, if both a wizard and a dragon (or a Minotaur or whatever) breaks the physics of our world then how do we determine which is considered "magic".

I'm not going to disagree, because frankly there is nothing with which to disagree. This is a silly, nonsensical argument, for two reasons.

1. You argue that in a world where magic is part of physics, magic is part of physics. It's circular and pointless. In a world where "gravity" pushes masses apart instead of together, reverse gravity is just "part of physics." If we speculate a world where X is true, then say that in that world X is true, that is not an argument[/i/].

2. Mixing a real-world concept like with a fantasy concept like magic is pointless anyway. The designers of the system did not consult with physicists to ask if their magic was reasonable. They did not try to explain magic in a real-world, physics-friendly way. When they try to offer up explanations, they rely on even [i]more fictional concepts ("the energy is drawn from another plane of existence," etc).

If we want to use a semantic argument, the designers even gave some magical abilities the descriptor "supernatural," which means, literally, above and beyond the natural physical world.

That doesn't mean that magic doesn't follow rules, but trying to explain how it works using physics is a dead end. What interaction is taking place for verbal and somatic cues to pull energy from another plane in a coherent way? Down this path lies only madness.

It all boils down to setting. Does the DM want magic to follow certain rules and interact properly with physics in his own world? If so, then it does. Does the DM instead want magic to be a supernatural system that ignores physics and follows its own rules? If so, then it does.
I think we are talking past each other here. To be honest, I'm not at all positive what you are trying to say in this post, and I'm pretty sure you didn't understand what I was getting at. I'll take the blame for that, since looking at my first post now that I'm more awake I think I did a terrible job of explaining myself.

I think it depends on how you explain magic.

I always used magic as energy channeled from another dimension that briefly causes the conditions of that dimension to supersede the basic dimension of the setting world for a set period of time.

I find it simple and easy to explain most magical things using the dimensions in the great wheel cosmology that way.

Why doesnt everyone do it? Because not everyone can. Its a talent not a skill. Like art or music. Some people are naturally great at it, some people couldnt do it to save their life and most people could work really, really hard for a long time and get mediocre at it but they have other things they need to do in their life and naturally pursue basic survival and natural talents they do actually have rather then spending many years slaving away just to become a piss poor wizard sometime in their middle age.

Anti-magic is an area where the wall between dimensions has been artificially thickened to prevent energy from those other dimensions from coming in. So magic doesnt work there.

Psionics, just to throw a wrench in the works is INTERNAL energy compared to the EXTERNAL energy of magic. Although that requires tossing out large chunks of the 3e psionics book, but whatever because doing that is a good idea no matter how you look at it.

Essentially magic is elemental and outer planes with a minor touch ethereal plane and nothing to do with the mind.

Psionics is the mind interacting with the ethereal and astral planes to affect the physical plane.

I find having an internal non-campaign specific explanation for these things has helped myself and players have a better inherent understanding of how my fantasy words work and increases verisimilitude.
This works, and I like it, but it doesn't address all of my concerns. Chiefly, it doesn't explain why mundanes are going on adventures with supernaturals and trying to compete with them, and it doesn't explain why the only available supernatural powers for PCs involve spellcasting. If you do in fact allow non-spellcasters to have mythical abilities (or conversely limit spellcasters in such a way as to allow non-spellcasters to compete) you would dodge most or all of my points.

Supernatural is a very silly word anyway, we already had a similar argument once, and I went to track down the dictionary definitions of supernatural, then the words that make up supernatural, and then the definition for those and so on. In the end, you end up with "not part of" for "super" and "everything that exists" for natural.

Which is, of course, a non-definition for a world where the things thus described actually exist.

Edit: Good point by the poster above me. My D&D worlds tend to run off a wild mix of antique Greek, 17th century scientific and alchemical ideas. Harmony of the spheres, panacea, homunculi, vis vitae, atomism, male and female forces, spirits of matter,the transformation of the soul, same attracts same and so on.
This is kind of my point. When "supernatural" or "magic" is defined as "anything that isn't possible in our world" you are going to have problems.

The problem with magic in some settings probably is that it is a "get out of physics free" card. So physics might work normally, but as soon as magic is involved, literally anything goes. So magic isn't a law unto itself, but rather an addition to every other law. "Gravity works like.... bla bla... unless magic is involved." "Light works like... bla bla... unless magic is involved" and so forth.

If magic is a raw force that one can use to achieve any desired effects, what would be it's laws other than "It can be used to break all the other laws?"
Yes, that is my point. Such a way of viewing magic is, in my opinion, detrimental to gameplay and to story.

GolemsVoice
2012-02-26, 05:05 PM
But why? I mean, in some settings, that's what magic IS. Magic is a power that certain individuals can draw upon to do anything they wish, and (theorethically) the only thing that's stopping them from doing whatever they want is their powerlevel. And that's fine, if you like that sort of thing. If you don't, then you should stay away from this type of magic, but saying it is fundamentally flawed is a bit much, I'd say.

You're saying that magic does not break the laws of physic, and I say it does, because it can change or suspend them as the caster sees fit, and that's the only rule there is. If that's your point, well, I'd agree with you, but that's really not much of an obervation, is it?

Now, there are a lot of systems, films and games out there where magic works exactly the way you described, with it's own laws and boundaries. In such worlds, magic might indeed be just another natural force, and very often, it is treated as such.

I think you're overthinking this, honestly. Yes, I'm well aware of the problems of magic as a near unlimited force able to do anything, but hey, I'm playing a fantasy game/watching a fantasy movie etc. not Physics: The Calculating.

GRM13
2012-02-26, 05:06 PM
Oh, it's this argument again. Nice to see the undead remain vigorous even after repeated burying.

Let's address the root of the issue: In any system this particular problem ("magic" vs. "non-magic") applies, the problem is always the same. Authors sought to create a system to emulate stories and legends from different creators, cultures and time periods. They sought to put, in the same world, Arturian fantasy, Tolkienesque fantasy, steampunk and things from Simbad to Beowulf.

You cannot have Internal Consistency (magical or otherwise) when your game design is a lazy* fantasy kitchen sink.

This argument goes nowhere because the goalposts will keep endlessly shifting as someone cites examples from one source, where magic is *meant* to be precisely that which defies the laws of physics, and then someone else cites an example where magic is commonplace and natural. And then we touch upon the fact that what's "magical" and "supernatural" in one setting might be utterly mundane in another. And when someone brings Balance to the table, things just get ten times muddier.

So really, people. Stop for a moment and think about what you're debating. Well, unless you find it amusing to argue past each other for twenty-something pages.

*: You could have Internal Consistency in such a fantasy kitchen sink, but you'd need far more work than any popular game designer has ever put on their product to date.

The flaw I see with your statement is that in all those settings you've stated have not only magic, but also plenty of mortals doing wondrous things by pure strength and agility without the help(and a few times with the help of) Magic. Heck Steampunk is less magic and more pseudo science made by brilliant people.

Yet when it comes to gameplay these people end up being left as jsut marginally better than the average man. You would think that if they were taking ques from all these great settings they would take some hints from those heroes.

Another thing that comes to mind is that the guy that can destroy full armies with a glare is almost never the main protagonist of the tale. He is usually a mentor, guiding him with his years of experience or as a rescuer when the protagonist finally get into that spot where they realize they need to get stronger/join allies/search for the mcguffin when he has been put in a corner by the enemy forces. Or the villain cause it's more dramatic when the heroes has all the odds against him and yet pulls of a victory, so what better thing to raise the danger than with someone who can shoot lighting out of his hand with a simple thought. So why has the system allow the players who are the main cast of the story to be these godly roles.

GolemsVoice
2012-02-26, 05:28 PM
Yet when it comes to gameplay these people end up being left as jsut marginally better than the average man. You would think that if they were taking ques from all these great settings they would take some hints from those heroes.

I'd say that depends, and as far as I know, the problem of magic being way more powerful than any other source of "power" really only exists in D&D.

For example, in Warcraft (not neccessarily World of Warcraft) mages can summon creatures, blast foes with the fury of the elements and teleport around, but tinkers can produce veritable armies of robots, pull a tank out of a backpack and so on.

Shadowknight12
2012-02-26, 05:53 PM
The flaw I see with your statement is that in all those settings you've stated have not only magic, but also plenty of mortals doing wondrous things by pure strength and agility without the help(and a few times with the help of) Magic. Heck Steampunk is less magic and more pseudo science made by brilliant people.

Yet when it comes to gameplay these people end up being left as jsut marginally better than the average man. You would think that if they were taking ques from all these great settings they would take some hints from those heroes.

Because they made lazy design choices. They chose to model barbarians after Conan, rogues after gentlemen thieves, rangers after Aragorn and fighters after standard knights in armour from Arturian fantasy, whose "powers" came solely from the magical items they happened to wield (see: Excalibur). They did not choose to model martial characters as wuxia or the like. They picked and chose in the laziest way possible. I mean, honestly, look at the 3E fighter. Do you honestly think they designed that with more than an ounce of effort?


Another thing that comes to mind is that the guy that can destroy full armies with a glare is almost never the main protagonist of the tale. He is usually a mentor, guiding him with his years of experience or as a rescuer when the protagonist finally get into that spot where they realize they need to get stronger/join allies/search for the mcguffin when he has been put in a corner by the enemy forces. Or the villain cause it's more dramatic when the heroes has all the odds against him and yet pulls of a victory, so what better thing to raise the danger than with someone who can shoot lighting out of his hand with a simple thought. So why has the system allow the players who are the main cast of the story to be these godly roles.

Yeah, and in Tolkienesque fantasy, Gandalf is an NPC, not a PC. The PCs are all martial-types, whose main "magical powers" come from the items they wield and their clever manipulation of the pre-existent laws of the universe (see: Aragorn commanding the Legion of the Dead because of their oath/curse).

The thing is, when game designers allowed players to have magic, they allowed them to have ALL OF THE MAGIC. From Gandalf's literally godlike powers to the sorcerous villains of Conan to Merlin to every sword and sorcery spellcaster.

They never thought that maybe godlike power adventuring next to Joe Swordnboard wouldn't be a good thing in the long run. But they didn't care. Because they were lazy.

GRM13
2012-02-26, 06:09 PM
and the warriors in that game have ways to regain HP on their own resilience, different moves to help them do what they want to accomplish (a way to actually protect others from being harm among them), can gain a good resistance of Controlling effects, weakening the enemies defenses or recovery) and get abilities like cleave and whirlwind for free just for being warriors, and that is without having them being engies and thus getting rockets and parachutes and teleporters. The magic casters have great things, but one can do just as many abilities while not relying on magic)

Shadowknight12
2012-02-26, 06:11 PM
and the warriors in that game have ways to regain HP on their own resilience, different moves to help them do what they want to accomplish (a way to actually protect others from being harm among them), can gain a good resistance of Controlling effects, weakening the enemies defenses or recovery) and get abilities like cleave and whirlwind for free just for being warriors, and that is without having them being engies and thus getting rockets and parachutes and teleporters. The magic casters have great things, but one can do just as many abilities while not relying on magic)

Yes, that is the product of the designers wanting to give players the possibility to emulate all the other martial types you see in other classic stories in the laziest way possible ("Just make it a feat!").

GRM13
2012-02-26, 06:13 PM
They never thought that maybe godlike power adventuring next to Joe Swordnboard wouldn't be a good thing in the long run. But they didn't care. Because they were lazy.

Honestly for me it seems less about lazy design and more about favoritism to the wonderful magic and their mysteries. After all everyone wasn't to be the guy who can cause lighting with a tap of his walking stick.


Yes, that is the product of the designers wanting to give players the possibility to emulate all the other martial types you see in other classic stories in the laziest way possible ("Just make it a feat!").

That one was less directed at you and more towards Golemvoices' comment concerning WoW. Though I still don't understand the reson why they went the "let's give it as a feat but make it have a huge feat tax so no other classes can have it" instead of "let's just let them have it as a class ability" the second one seems a lot less complicated and effective.

Shadowknight12
2012-02-26, 06:24 PM
Honestly for me it seems less about lazy design and more about favoritism to the wonderful magic and their mysteries. After all everyone wasn't to be the guy who can cause lighting with a tap of his walking stick.

Oh that too, without a doubt. You see tons of effort (as far as effort goes in mainstream games) on the wrong things. Casters get more magic, fighters get a few more scraps. The favouritism is so clear it's like a zombiefied, purulent, grotesquely misshapen elephant in the room.


That one was less directed at you and more towards Golemvoices' comment concerning WoW. Though I still don't understand the reson why they went the "let's give it as a feat but make it have a huge feat tax so no other classes can have it" instead of "let's just let them have it as a class ability" the second one seems a lot less complicated and effective.

Ah. Well, to put it in perspective, they did a WCIII/WoW version of D&D 3e and the results were very similar to what we have now, though it was admittedly more balanced. It served only to highlight that the flaws were in the game's core philosophies and not in the source material.

Drolyt
2012-02-26, 06:28 PM
But why? I mean, in some settings, that's what magic IS. Magic is a power that certain individuals can draw upon to do anything they wish, and (theorethically) the only thing that's stopping them from doing whatever they want is their powerlevel. And that's fine, if you like that sort of thing. If you don't, then you should stay away from this type of magic, but saying it is fundamentally flawed is a bit much, I'd say.
I'm not saying it is fundamentally flawed to have magic that can do anything if you have sufficient power, I'm saying it is flawed to think that you can mix characters with access to that power with characters without access to it and think everything will be fine. I further contend that it is flawed to suppose that in a world where such powerful magic exists only traditional spellcaster types would harness that power while those who prefer martial combat would remain mundane; fighters/rogues/etc. should have abiliites comparable to wuxia or anime characters, not only as a matter of balance, but because it doesn't make sense otherwise.

You're saying that magic does not break the laws of physic, and I say it does, because it can change or suspend them as the caster sees fit, and that's the only rule there is. If that's your point, well, I'd agree with you, but that's really not much of an obervation, is it?
That's still a rule, and you have already given a limitation that it requires a certain amount of power. In fact I could argue that magic doesn't break the laws of physics, not even of our world (except maybe teleporation and conjuration). All you have to imagine is that magic is a sort of energy source that can be harnessed by sentient creatures with effort to create certain predetermined effects. There is not inconsistent with real world physics.

Now, there are a lot of systems, films and games out there where magic works exactly the way you described, with it's own laws and boundaries. In such worlds, magic might indeed be just another natural force, and very often, it is treated as such.

I think you're overthinking this, honestly. Yes, I'm well aware of the problems of magic as a near unlimited force able to do anything, but hey, I'm playing a fantasy game/watching a fantasy movie etc. not Physics: The Calculating.
I may be overthinking things, yes. I don't expect players to deal with these issues, but I think maybe game designers should put more thought into it.

I'd say that depends, and as far as I know, the problem of magic being way more powerful than any other source of "power" really only exists in D&D.

For example, in Warcraft (not neccessarily World of Warcraft) mages can summon creatures, blast foes with the fury of the elements and teleport around, but tinkers can produce veritable armies of robots, pull a tank out of a backpack and so on.
It doesn't only exist in D&D, but you are correct that it is not universal.

Because they made lazy design choices. They chose to model barbarians after Conan, rogues after gentlemen thieves, rangers after Aragorn and fighters after standard knights in armour from Arturian fantasy, whose "powers" came solely from the magical items they happened to wield (see: Excalibur). They did not choose to model martial characters as wuxia or the like. They picked and chose in the laziest way possible. I mean, honestly, look at the 3E fighter. Do you honestly think they designed that with more than an ounce of effort?
They put a lot of effort into and had a lot of good ideas, but I agree they ended up with something less than perfect. They can't even represent what you said well; Conan damn well could read, he read and wrote several languages including dead ones.

The thing is, when game designers allowed players to have magic, they allowed them to have ALL OF THE MAGIC. From Gandalf's literally godlike powers to the sorcerous villains of Conan to Merlin to every sword and sorcery spellcaster.

They never thought that maybe godlike power adventuring next to Joe Swordnboard wouldn't be a good thing in the long run. But they didn't care. Because they were lazy.
That wouldn't be a problem if mundanes weren't meant to compete, which is part of what I'm getting at. It is not only bad for balance, but simply illogical for all powerful mages and mundanes to adventure together.

Shadowknight12
2012-02-26, 06:40 PM
They put a lot of effort into and had a lot of good ideas, but I agree they ended up with something less than perfect. They can't even represent what you said well; Conan damn well could read, he read and wrote several languages including dead ones.

They put effort in the wrong areas, and the effort put was nowhere near the effort that a mainstream game of such calibre actually deserved. I've seen indie games with a ton more effort put than anything WotC has ever printed out. And they will continue doing so because they're a company, and companies do not care one tidbit about their products; they care about the profit. Effort will be poured onto a project as far as the cost/benefit ratio will allow.

Also, archetype conflation is partially to blame for the barbarian disaster. It wasn't only Conan, it was also the big dumb barbarian from the North who couldn't read or write and whose only purpose in life was to raid, rape and pillage. Hence why orcs are usually barbarians. Archetype conflation.


That wouldn't be a problem if mundanes weren't meant to compete, which is part of what I'm getting at. It is not only bad for balance, but simply illogical for all powerful mages and mundanes to adventure together.

Blame Lord of the Rings. They had a nigh-omnipotent mage adventuring with people who could never compete. Disregard the fact that there was a terribly important reason for all of them to travel together and it wasn't something silly like "slay ten goblins."

But other than that, yes, you're completely right. The problem is that you're forgetting that WotC are a company and they have to market their products in order to make sure they sell. The best way to do so is by promising people the power to re-enact stories that were already popular. They needed to turn in a quick profit and didn't really bother balancing the things you pointed out.

Knaight
2012-02-26, 09:24 PM
I further contend that it is flawed to suppose that in a world where such powerful magic exists only traditional spellcaster types would harness that power while those who prefer martial combat would remain mundane; fighters/rogues/etc. should have abiliites comparable to wuxia or anime characters, not only as a matter of balance, but because it doesn't make sense otherwise.

A world where normal people are highly limited, and magic operates in a way that utterly breaks those limits (while still basically being a separate field, though again using the chemistry-Newtonian physics analogy) is entirely consistent. It's just that certain concepts don't work very well in it. If one mage is equivalent to half an army, odds are you wouldn't see them "adventuring" with a single guy with a sword. Unless, of course, said single guy with a sword was some sort of highly powered magical being that they had contacted/created/whatever. Still, provided that the "adventuring party including mundanes" concept is scrapped, the "incredibly powerful mages in a world of generally normal people" concept works fine.

Drolyt
2012-02-26, 09:31 PM
A world where normal people are highly limited, and magic operates in a way that utterly breaks those limits (while still basically being a separate field, though again using the chemistry-Newtonian physics analogy) is entirely consistent. It's just that certain concepts don't work very well in it. If one mage is equivalent to half an army, odds are you wouldn't see them "adventuring" with a single guy with a sword. Unless, of course, said single guy with a sword was some sort of highly powered magical being that they had contacted/created/whatever. Still, provided that the "adventuring party including mundanes" concept is scrapped, the "incredibly powerful mages in a world of generally normal people" concept works fine.
Yes, that's true. Yet I don't think that it necessitates that martial characters don't exist, only that they be similarly supernatural in their power, either through the same magic as the wizards/clerics/etc. such as with an eldritch knight, or through "ki" or "chackra" or something like in wuxia or anime.

Knaight
2012-02-26, 10:11 PM
Yes, that's true. Yet I don't think that it necessitates that martial characters don't exist, only that they be similarly supernatural in their power, either through the same magic as the wizards/clerics/etc. such as with an eldritch knight, or through "ki" or "chackra" or something like in wuxia or anime.
My point is that they don't have to be similarly supernatural in their power. They can be - with the magic nonmagic separation you can still tweak both parts, and nonmagic doesn't have to correlate to real at all, which encompasses mythological hero types - but there is an option where they aren't. It's just that it is when they are that the "adventuring party containing mundanes" works well.

Plus, going back to the first place, there is still a role for martial characters - commanders.

Zeful
2012-02-26, 11:04 PM
Plus, going back to the first place, there is still a role for martial characters - commanders.

Which would be fine in a swords and sorcery wargame, something D&D most certainly is not. As an RPG, relegating an entire field of options to sucking isn't good design, ever. Every option presented to the player should be of at least roughly equal value, especially in a system where enemies are built with the same mechanics as the player. If you don't, the game just devolves into a math problem that has an answer.

Knaight
2012-02-26, 11:15 PM
Which would be fine in a swords and sorcery wargame, something D&D most certainly is not. As an RPG, relegating an entire field of options to sucking isn't good design, ever. Every option presented to the player should be of at least roughly equal value, especially in a system where enemies are built with the same mechanics as the player. If you don't, the game just devolves into a math problem that has an answer.

Two things.
1) The statement was made very broadly, outside the context of just RPGs, and while it often does fail in RPGs, it works elsewhere.
2) Troupe play can accommodate this sort of thing just fine. Ars Magica mages are far more powerful than anything else, but that isn't a big deal - as everyone will play mages, everyone will play nonmagical heroic companions, and everyone will play fragile support cast. Outside of the 1 player, 1 character paradigm it's entirely functional, and not just a math problem that has an answer. Within the context of a D&D style class based system tightly focused on combat, it will be ugly.

GRM13
2012-02-27, 12:06 AM
Plus, going back to the first place, there is still a role for martial characters - commanders.

Except that a spellcaster with high intelligence would probably know more tactics and is able to support all his men, thus being more proficient as a commander than a soldier who is just more knowledgeable.

bloodtide
2012-02-27, 12:22 AM
That seems rather unlikely. The idea that certain things emitted something roughly akin to radiation seems to be a popular theory long, long before it was shown to exist. Certainly, it has many parallels, like a fire emitting heat. Your entire argument here appears immensely suspect.

What, are you saying that magic really is physics, we just haven't discovered how to cast Wall of Iron yet? Because that seems really implausible.

It does not matter much what you pick. At one time everything we have today was 'impossible' and/or 'breaking the laws of physics'


Scientists know this very well. They know the safe box does not exist. That is why they rewrite the laws all the time. That is why they experiment and poke and prod. That's why they are scientists.

The vast majority of scientists are not so open minded. Ask one what they think of something like hyperspace and they will quickly go onto a rant about how it's impossible and breaks the laws of physics. And it's the exact same argument that has been used thousands of times over the years. The exact thing that would have been said in say 1500 if you tried to tell someone about something like electricity.




I would imagine the same would be true for magic: that artifact/phenomena/monster isn't breaking the rules of magic, they just haven't figured out how it works yet.

That's my point in general. Magic does not 'break' anything, everything uses the laws. There are just more laws then we know of, always.



The problem with magic in some settings probably is that it is a "get out of physics free" card. So physics might work normally, but as soon as magic is involved, literally anything goes. So magic isn't a law unto itself, but rather an addition to every other law. "Gravity works like.... bla bla... unless magic is involved." "Light works like... bla bla... unless magic is involved" and so forth.

Not exactly. But then again this 'law': Thing work like this except when is a very, very common 'law'. Just about everything is one way except when something else is happening. For an easy example, water becomes ice at zero degrees...except, well wait a second why are the oceans in the arctic/antarctic not frozen solid ice? Hummm



My point is that they don't have to be similarly supernatural in their power. They can be - with the magic nonmagic separation you can still tweak both parts, and nonmagic doesn't have to correlate to real at all, which encompasses mythological hero types - but there is an option where they aren't. It's just that it is when they are that the "adventuring party containing mundanes" works well.

Plus, going back to the first place, there is still a role for martial characters - commanders.


You don't need magic to change the world, any more then you need technology or money or anything else. Anyone can do it, you just need the will.

Drolyt
2012-02-27, 01:23 AM
Not exactly. But then again this 'law': Thing work like this except when is a very, very common 'law'. Just about everything is one way except when something else is happening. For an easy example, water becomes ice at zero degrees...except, well wait a second why are the oceans in the arctic/antarctic not frozen solid ice? Hummm.
All laws which have the form "except when" are approximations. The truly fundamental laws, which we only know in part (quantum mechanics and general relativity, with string theory and loop quantum gravity being areas of research) don't have exceptions. Not sure how this is even relevant, but I felt this distinction was important.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 02:49 AM
I think something thats usually lost in this whole "why dont wizards rule the universe" argument every time it comes up is that your comparing the absurdly rare and powerful archmage to bob the peasant *** militiaman.

Whats never taken into account is that while high powered mages might be common in PLAYER groups that doesnt at all mean they are common in the world at large.

In most editions mages are practically dead weight and definately less useful then a 1st level fighter or rogue until they are at least 5th level. Until then they are plinking away with a magic missile that does half as much damage as a bow and arrow or hoping to grab somebody with a touch spell.

Adventuring is hard. I'd say its a safe bet to assume a 60-75% mortality rate among adventurers before reaching that 5th level mark. And not much lower after that.

So when the only way to get XP is to put yourself in a life or death situation AND you have to do it literally dozens of times per level how realistic is it to assume theres lots of high level characters of any class out there?

And even assuming they make that 5 or 6th level mark why would a normal person in this world aka someone who isnt going to be fictionally eaten if things dont work out but literally torn apart, probably alive and eaten? Or killed in some other horrifying and painful way keep doing it over and over for the years necessary to become high level when they could settle down and make magic light stones that sell for as much as a skilled craftsman makes in 10 years of work?

I mean really, any magic user with an item creation feat literally has a magic money printing machine. And it only spits out hundred dollar bills.

Most adventurers would probably do it just long enough to make a small name for themselves and enough money to set themselves up a business and then retire.

The idea that the world is full of high level arch wizards out there destroying the laws of physics in major godlike ways on a daily basis is ludicrous.

Which is why none of these arguments are really worth the time or energy put into them.

Drolyt
2012-02-27, 03:25 AM
I think something thats usually lost in this whole "why dont wizards rule the universe" argument every time it comes up is that your comparing the absurdly rare and powerful archmage to bob the peasant *** militiaman.

Whats never taken into account is that while high powered mages might be common in PLAYER groups that doesnt at all mean they are common in the world at large.

In most editions mages are practically dead weight and definately less useful then a 1st level fighter or rogue until they are at least 5th level. Until then they are plinking away with a magic missile that does half as much damage as a bow and arrow or hoping to grab somebody with a touch spell.

Adventuring is hard. I'd say its a safe bet to assume a 60-75% mortality rate among adventurers before reaching that 5th level mark. And not much lower after that.

So when the only way to get XP is to put yourself in a life or death situation AND you have to do it literally dozens of times per level how realistic is it to assume theres lots of high level characters of any class out there?

And even assuming they make that 5 or 6th level mark why would a normal person in this world aka someone who isnt going to be fictionally eaten if things dont work out but literally torn apart, probably alive and eaten? Or killed in some other horrifying and painful way keep doing it over and over for the years necessary to become high level when they could settle down and make magic light stones that sell for as much as a skilled craftsman makes in 10 years of work?

I mean really, any magic user with an item creation feat literally has a magic money printing machine. And it only spits out hundred dollar bills.

Most adventurers would probably do it just long enough to make a small name for themselves and enough money to set themselves up a business and then retire.

The idea that the world is full of high level arch wizards out there destroying the laws of physics in major godlike ways on a daily basis is ludicrous.

Which is why none of these arguments are really worth the time or energy put into them.
At least in 3rd (and 3.5) edition D&D magic-users beat out non magic characters starting at 1st level. Seriously, even among 1st level spells we find several "I win buttons", such as sleep and color spray. So this isn't just a problem with high level super mages. Even if it was you make several assumptions, such as your idea that the only way anyone ever becomes a high level super mage is dangerous adventuring. While the DMG only gives a passing mention to story XP rewards, I don't think it makes sense to assume that the only way anyone gains levels is through killing things. If that were the case how would expert craftsmen and the like gain levels? Regardless even if we suppose there are only a few powerful mages and most people have to deal with being normal it doesn't make the problem go away. Non magic-users may be able to compete at lower levels, but in high powered situations they would be relegated to cannon fodder or grunt work rather than being equal partners. There isn't anything inherently wrong with such a set up, but many games try to ignore this and pretend that reality warpers and mundane fighters are somehow still equal which is nonsensical.

GRM13
2012-02-27, 03:38 AM
@boredgremlin

two things.

1) one doesn't gain experience by just adventuring, it is simply the fasted method (RL experience is much faster than book learning) many settings have magic schools or guilds where wizards learn their skills, mastering magic for sorcerers is like learning to walk, swim and climb to us, it comes naturally for them. Clerics are everywhere in each religion even if not the main forces as their higher ranks, same could be said for paladins. And finally druids are one with nature and so in a similar way to sorcerers learn on their own (as well as having their one community). The only reason they are as you say everywhere is cause most of them are reclusive in their groups and tend to not have desire to go adventuring, this doesn't stop them from being any less powerful.

And even if this wasn't true there is still that fact that all you would need is 3-4 truly powerful mages and they could dominate the whole world. The only thing stopping them from doings so is each other, they are each living Nukes and thus are in a state of cold war. Nothing less than this would be able to barely touch them

2) And even if you create a world not affected from the above, this still doesn't solve the problem that even if mages are rare in the setting that for a PC is very easy to just go a caster and outclass anyone around their lvl (not just below them as should be obvious but at the same lvl and even higher).

GolemsVoice
2012-02-27, 05:24 AM
Not exactly. But then again this 'law': Thing work like this except when is a very, very common 'law'. Just about everything is one way except when something else is happening. For an easy example, water becomes ice at zero degrees...except, well wait a second why are the oceans in the arctic/antarctic not frozen solid ice? Hummm

Yeah, except that, as I said before, "it breaks all the other rules when involved" isn't much of a rule, because it's incredibly broad, and yes, the rule of magic would then be that it breaks all the laws of conventional physics. Sure, since conventional physics in this world would all have the rule that they are broken by magic, magic would no longer not follow the rules of conventional physics, but that's arguing semantics, I'd say.

Also, from what I know, the fact that the oceans are not frozen solid has to do with salt water somehow changing the point at which water freezes, and probably the anomaly of density. Those are exceptions to the rule, yes, but it's a very specific exception which is always the case. Magic could very well freeze all the oceans solid, and no law of physics will stop it, ever. It could also exchange every 500th fish for the Tarrasque. If your world contains that sort of magic, of course.



Ah. Well, to put it in perspective, they did a WCIII/WoW version of D&D 3e and the results were very similar to what we have now, though it was admittedly more balanced. It served only to highlight that the flaws were in the game's core philosophies and not in the source material.

I have never played the game in such a high-powered environment, but from what I know, they removed many of the spells that break D&D wizards. WoW RPG casters are more about blasting and battlefield control. Still strong enough, I guess, but less.

Tyndmyr
2012-02-27, 10:16 AM
It does not matter much what you pick. At one time everything we have today was 'impossible' and/or 'breaking the laws of physics'


No...not really. It was sort of understood even long ago that we didn't know everything, and people eagerly looked forward to what would be possible in the future with a better understanding of physics. We still do this. We sort of have to, for Sci Fi to be a genre.

Not understanding the laws of physics is entirely different from breaking the laws of physics. Don't conflate the two.


The vast majority of scientists are not so open minded. Ask one what they think of something like hyperspace and they will quickly go onto a rant about how it's impossible and breaks the laws of physics. And it's the exact same argument that has been used thousands of times over the years. The exact thing that would have been said in say 1500 if you tried to tell someone about something like electricity.

That's not how science works. Some elements of science are uncertain...we don't know the ultimate truth behind them for sure. Other elements of science ARE quite certain, and we can deduce as a result that some things are impossible.

An unknown thing is not the same as an impossible thing, and scientists, by their very nature, must know the difference between these concepts.


At least in 3rd (and 3.5) edition D&D magic-users beat out non magic characters starting at 1st level. Seriously, even among 1st level spells we find several "I win buttons", such as sleep and color spray. So this isn't just a problem with high level super mages.

This is incorrect. The best level 1 char(outside of pun-pun, who is a paladin), is a crusader. Magic users do not beat out similarly optimized non-magic users at level 1. It takes some levels for that to occur naturally.

hiryuu
2012-02-27, 10:54 AM
The vast majority of scientists are not so open minded.

No. No, actually, that is the opposite of how actual scientists think (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI). You're likely confusing "impossible" with "improbable" or "unlikely." For example, it's pretty unlikely we're just going to overturn the entire idea of gravity and gravitation (and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that disproving the existence of gravity is pretty impossible at this point). Peer review is just a total hassle because when you propose anything new, you have to cover any and every question that might come up, and all that questioning and looking for things you got wrong is part of the self correcting nature of scientific inquiry.

gkathellar
2012-02-27, 11:33 AM
OP, I strongly agree with your point in general, and just wanted to emphasize this part:


Finally, if you have not only spellcasting, but explicitly non-magical creatures who nevertheless obviously would break the physical laws of our world, then it only makes sense to allow PCs to break those laws (since those laws don't exist in the world they live in) and do amazing things.

Considering their size and body structure dragons shouldn't really be able to breathe, much less walk, or fly, or metabolize solid stone. And yet they can do these things, and these things are considered non-magical abilities. Which means they either exist in a universe without the square-cubed law, or are made of unobtainium. The obvious implication is that either foundational mathematics or foundational chemistry are broken.

So why are we assuming anything looks the way it does in our reality?


The laws of physics are postulated by observing how the world works and by theory and experimentation upon those laws. If we observe that swallowing a spider lets us walk on walls, then that is a physical law of the world we are in.

Why can't we build thermonuclear intercontinental missiles by banging two rocks together? We need to study first, and we need theories, experiments, cooperation, technology, prototypes. Just as with magic.

Magic is as you observed, a complicated way of achieving certain results. These results can maybe not achieved without it, but we can also, in our world, not send pictures from Europe to America in milliseconds without electronic devices.

QFT.

Jayabalard
2012-02-27, 12:34 PM
A magical world has different laws of physics and therefore different limits in regards to an individual's ability to influence their environment, but there still are laws, and there still are limits, and casting a spell does not break them. No, that's only true of some magic systems.

in some magic systems there are indeed laws of physics and magic does indeed break them.



A self-consistent world necessitates that non-spellcasters be able to contribute meaningfully. One could imagine that non-spellcasters fill menial labor roles, but in that case it wouldn't make sense for them to be adventurers. Fighters, rogues, barbarians, monks, etc. should be able to do things that are supernatural in relation to our world, even if they can't cast spells.No, it's quite fine for a self consistent world to have people who can use magic that are well beyond those who can't use magic, so that those who can't use magic cannot contribute meaningfully in a party with those who can.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 01:47 PM
At least in 3rd (and 3.5) edition D&D magic-users beat out non magic characters starting at 1st level. Seriously, even among 1st level spells we find several "I win buttons", such as sleep and color spray. So this isn't just a problem with high level super mages. Even if it was you make several assumptions, such as your idea that the only way anyone ever becomes a high level super mage is dangerous adventuring. While the DMG only gives a passing mention to story XP rewards, I don't think it makes sense to assume that the only way anyone gains levels is through killing things. If that were the case how would expert craftsmen and the like gain levels? Regardless even if we suppose there are only a few powerful mages and most people have to deal with being normal it doesn't make the problem go away. Non magic-users may be able to compete at lower levels, but in high powered situations they would be relegated to cannon fodder or grunt work rather than being equal partners. There isn't anything inherently wrong with such a set up, but many games try to ignore this and pretend that reality warpers and mundane fighters are somehow still equal which is nonsensical.

Color spray is not an I'win. Sleep might be in a one on one fight or against a very small group thats clustered tightly together. Unless even one guy makes his save in which case a freaking weaner dog could kill a 1st level magic user according to RAW.

And both spells have considerably less range then a bow or crossbow. This sort of thing is why some settings have a "wizards are feared and killed on sight" mentality among the commoners. At low level they are piddly weaklings so why would anyone ever let them survive to high level?

Story awards may work. But realistically those suggested rewards arent very big and I dont think a wizard is getting XP for getting cats out of trees anyway. Even the story award system requires some sort of drama. So an NPC wizard who works with the town police might earn some experience awards, but he is also going to be putting himself in dangerous situations, although less often then an adventurer. And he'll earn much less XP. So you can bet he's probably getting old and retiring before hitting anywhere near what would even be name level in older editions.

When your talking story awards for a regular life adding levels its really only realistic to assumes races like elves that live for centuries are going to attain even modest level that way.

BTW expert craftsmen DONT gain levels. I've never seen a 10th level carpenter in a module. The 3e dmg gives you that commoner class that i suppose you could use but again the "expert craftsmen" would likely still be very low level. He simply maxed out that skill, had a high associated ability score and took the feat skill focus:carpentry. You can rack up a pretty reasonable score that way. You have to also assume craftsmen are taking 20 on their checks. So even a level 1 craftsmen who specialized that way could hit a DC 30 craft skill whenever he wanted.

Assuming theres only a few high level wizards actually DOES solve the problem. If theres a only a few then its a safe bet some will keep adventuring and get themselves killed eventually, some will retire to do wizardy things and leave the outside world alone, some will seek and most likely attain political power, some will retire to other planes and some will seek to advance their religion. Just because they arent a cleric doesnt mean they dont have faith.

The high level fighters arent ruling the world because they cant beat a high level spell caster. With the right set up they can (i'm not getting into that though) they arent ruling the world because according to the raw they are probably a complete moron whose only good at killing stuff and has no CHA to speak of. So no one would put them in charge unless they inherited it and even then the court advisor is probably running things.

Anyone who actually cares about this topic should read Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books. They put out a pretty clear picture of what this sort of world might actually look like and why wizards arent just automatically shattering reality and running everything.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 02:09 PM
@boredgremlin

two things.

1) one doesn't gain experience by just adventuring, it is simply the fasted method (RL experience is much faster than book learning) many settings have magic schools or guilds where wizards learn their skills, mastering magic for sorcerers is like learning to walk, swim and climb to us, it comes naturally for them. Clerics are everywhere in each religion even if not the main forces as their higher ranks, same could be said for paladins. And finally druids are one with nature and so in a similar way to sorcerers learn on their own (as well as having their one community). The only reason they are as you say everywhere is cause most of them are reclusive in their groups and tend to not have desire to go adventuring, this doesn't stop them from being any less powerful.

And even if this wasn't true there is still that fact that all you would need is 3-4 truly powerful mages and they could dominate the whole world. The only thing stopping them from doings so is each other, they are each living Nukes and thus are in a state of cold war. Nothing less than this would be able to barely touch them

2) And even if you create a world not affected from the above, this still doesn't solve the problem that even if mages are rare in the setting that for a PC is very easy to just go a caster and outclass anyone around their lvl (not just below them as should be obvious but at the same lvl and even higher).

1. Actually theres no official rules for training or how it works. But its a safe bet then only someone higher level can teach you. So your still stuck with SOMEONE having to have gone out adventuring a lot, then wanting to teach others (which potentially dilutes their power), actually being good at teaching others, being good at running a business, and not pissing off or worrying the kingdom to the point where an army shows up (your wizard is not beating an entire army) and burns your school to the ground and kills you.

Sorcerers, druids, etc have a natural affinity for magic yes. That doesnt mean they get better at it constantly the entire time they are alive. Some people have an affinity for music, they still need to practice constantly to get better at it. Also if your thinking they cast spells all day long everyday even if they are not adventuring. The rules specifically say you cant just sit in camp casting "alarm" over and over to gain XP. So saying they get better at magic just by virtue of being "magical" is going directly against the rules. Which we must assume are the "LAWS" of magic even if they dont make sense.

So just naturally getting better as you get older is out. Same with clerics and paladins. Just by sitting around praying they are not gaining XP. They have to actually go out there and put their butt on the line.

3-4 powerful mages absolutely could NOT dominate the entire world. Even if they did happen to get along, which is doubtful. First off, short of wish non of those spells are game breaking. And even wish was nerfed a lot in later editions. It cant even flat out kill people anymore, just do damage.

War in a D&D world wouldnt look like the patriot or LoTR it would look like vietnam. All those big area effect spells would only hit a handful of people at a time out of tens of thousands in an army that would besiege any wizard who got too far out of line.

Clerics arent quite as powerful as mages but theres more then a few lawful good and chaotic good gods whose religions would add powerful spell casters to any army taking down a tyranical wizard.

Adventuring parties would be a constant threat. Assume your high level mage can beat any equal level fighter 1 on 1? Your wrong, but thats not important because even if he isnt the same level as you he's coming with 3 or 4 other guys at his back. And together they will take your BBEG ass down.

To top it off you have to assume that if there are a half dozen very powerful mages in the world then any one who tries to seize too much power has 4 or 5 other mages who want to stop him and will support any forces who seek to do that. So archmages are themselves a sort of MAD defense against each other.

2. That whole "the wizard outclasses me, whaaaa" thing only happens on message boards. Its not true to start with and even if it was your not playing PvP, your playing together against the NPC's and every poll shows that few groups actually play into high level where that sort of thing could even begin to happen anyway.

So the whole thing is a non-issue created online just so people have something to talk about. Its like the char op board characters. Sure theres broken combo's. How often have you actually seen one at your table?

Drolyt
2012-02-27, 02:21 PM
This is incorrect. The best level 1 char(outside of pun-pun, who is a paladin), is a crusader. Magic users do not beat out similarly optimized non-magic users at level 1. It takes some levels for that to occur naturally.
Crusader? Probably, yeah. But I wasn't considering ToB, which competes with magic for much longer until the really broken spells appear. PHB martial classes are outclassed almost immediately, with the only semblance of balance being the pathetic number of spells low level wizards get.


No, it's quite fine for a self consistent world to have people who can use magic that are well beyond those who can't use magic, so that those who can't use magic cannot contribute meaningfully in a party with those who can.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Such a world is self-consistent. The world I'm suggesting is inconsistent is the one where all that is true and yet for some reason mundanes are still going on adventures with magic-users.

Deepbluediver
2012-02-27, 02:32 PM
I'm sorry, but I've read through most of this and I'm still confused on what exactly we are debating here. It seems to jump back and forth between arguments about semantics and Real world vs. D&D world, and how we should fluff magic so that it makes logical sense (which seems self-contradictory).

jindra34
2012-02-27, 03:18 PM
A little bit from me
1. It generally should be assumed that 'magic' (manipulation of energy through mental discipline alone seems like a decent definition) follows the 'laws' of the setting, but it doesn't have too. One time I ran a game where magic was brow beating the area into not challenging your ability to do something and hoping nothing in charge of maintaining the stability of the world took major offense to you doing so, and it worked pretty well.

2. Personally I find the only good use of the 3.x magic system as an example is when showing what not to do. It irks me that people use it as an example of an average system when its known to be an utter mess.

Drolyt
2012-02-27, 03:19 PM
I'm sorry, but I've read through most of this and I'm still confused on what exactly we are debating here. It seems to jump back and forth between arguments about semantics and Real world vs. D&D world, and how we should fluff magic so that it makes logical sense (which seems self-contradictory).
I don't blame you, I think that a lot of us aren't even following each other, so I'm not sure how you are supposed to follow. Did you follow my original post?

Deepbluediver
2012-02-27, 04:01 PM
*makes a survival check to follow the path of the thread*...is a 21 good enough? :smalltongue:


I don't blame you, I think that a lot of us aren't even following each other, so I'm not sure how you are supposed to follow. Did you follow my original post?

I think so; I definitely agree that the D&D world does not follow real-world physics and so cannot be held accountable to them. Even if the standard material plane follows SIMILAR laws, for the most part, as soon as you get to the elemental planes even those go out the window, and the various energy-aligned planes are practically inconceivable. Even without knowing precisely what the laws of physics that govern the D&D world are though, magic still acts largely upon physical premises (matter, energy, etc).
Unless you are implying that magic does not subscribe to any laws, limitations, or rules whatsoever, which seems to go too far in the other direction.

Regarding Magic Resistance and Anti-magic fields, I disagree about their validity. I tend to think about them differently than you though. Spell resistance is just an objects standard inertia to resist being changed. Think about a block of ice and a block of iron. If I have a stone mallet, I can break the block of ice, but probably not the block of iron. This isn't because the iron "remembers" being like iron more than the ice remembers being ice, its just because it has a higher "mallet resistance" (density, hardness, etc).
Anti-magic fields: I never thought of these as areas where magic doesn't work on a fundemental level, just areas where a different kind of magic stops most normal spells from functioning. To use another mundane example, imagine a big person sitting on your chest and pinning your down. It's not that your muscles no longer work or that you forgot how to walk, it's just that there is a stronger force opposing you.
The balance issue is trickier: are you saying that you don't think there should be ANYTHING that opposes magic except other magic (which depends on your view of magic in the first place) or are you saying that the mechanics and/or numerical values don't fit well? (which I could definitely understand)

Regarding creatures: if you read the webcomic XKCD, you may remember a strip detailing how biology is just applied chemistry, which is just applied physics (which is applied math). So it stands to reason that if we have different laws of physics, then we can get different laws of biology. I actually have less of an issue with people playing god and creating abominations of nature than I do with them violating the laws of conservation of mass and energy.


Now, if it where all up to me (which it isn't except, in homebrew :smallcool:) then I would make magic so that it didn't violate the known laws of physics quite so grossly. A wall of iron that you created, for example, acts like a wall of mundanely fashioned iron for all intensive purposes, but after a while it fades back into whatever magical essence it was pulled from.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 04:24 PM
I think a setting and its magic doesnt have to slavishly follow real world laws of physics. But the basic assumptions that things fall down, roll down hill and not up, fire is hot ouch and getting sick is bad simply should not change.

Does it matter if everything falls at the same rate? Maybe. But then your into falling rules and damage so just leave that alone or someones head in your group will explode.

does conservation of energy matter? Again, maybe in very rare cases to a small degree. But its certainly nothing your going to find a common point of debate in a game.

I'm struggling to think of which law of physics is so badly jacked up by fantasy magic that it can de-rail a game or cause a table argument. Where is this so-called problem actually causing people a problem in real play?

Does anyone have an anecdote where this actually mattered or is it just kind of world building nit picking?

jindra34
2012-02-27, 04:40 PM
I think a setting and its magic doesnt have to slavishly follow real world laws of physics. But the basic assumptions that things fall down, roll down hill and not up, fire is hot ouch and getting sick is bad simply should not change.

Does it matter if everything falls at the same rate? Maybe. But then your into falling rules and damage so just leave that alone or someones head in your group will explode.

does conservation of energy matter? Again, maybe in very rare cases to a small degree. But its certainly nothing your going to find a common point of debate in a game.

I'm struggling to think of which law of physics is so badly jacked up by fantasy magic that it can de-rail a game or cause a table argument. Where is this so-called problem actually causing people a problem in real play?

Does anyone have an anecdote where this actually mattered or is it just kind of world building nit picking?
Read some of the 3.5 thread should melee rival casters. Magic breaking the laws of reality is brought up often.

Drolyt
2012-02-27, 05:19 PM
*makes a survival check to follow the path of the thread*...is a 21 good enough? :smalltongue:



I think so; I definitely agree that the D&D world does not follow real-world physics and so cannot be held accountable to them. Even if the standard material plane follows SIMILAR laws, for the most part, as soon as you get to the elemental planes even those go out the window, and the various energy-aligned planes are practically inconceivable. Even without knowing precisely what the laws of physics that govern the D&D world are though, magic still acts largely upon physical premises (matter, energy, etc).
Unless you are implying that magic does not subscribe to any laws, limitations, or rules whatsoever, which seems to go too far in the other direction.
This sounds about right.

Regarding Magic Resistance and Anti-magic fields, I disagree about their validity. I tend to think about them differently than you though. Spell resistance is just an objects standard inertia to resist being changed. Think about a block of ice and a block of iron. If I have a stone mallet, I can break the block of ice, but probably not the block of iron. This isn't because the iron "remembers" being like iron more than the ice remembers being ice, its just because it has a higher "mallet resistance" (density, hardness, etc).
Anti-magic fields: I never thought of these as areas where magic doesn't work on a fundemental level, just areas where a different kind of magic stops most normal spells from functioning. To use another mundane example, imagine a big person sitting on your chest and pinning your down. It's not that your muscles no longer work or that you forgot how to walk, it's just that there is a stronger force opposing you.
It seems to me if anti-magic fields worked like that you should get a caster level check to see if your can use your magic anyways. My other problem is that at least in D&D it seems like the decisions about what spells are affected by spell resistance and anti-magic fields are a bit arbitrary. In my opinion spells with an instantaneous effect should not be affected by spell resistance or an anti-magic field (although the field may still keep you from casting if you are inside it) because although the creation of the effect (such as a fireball or a wall of stone) requires magic the effect itself doesn't depend on magic. This is one issue that extends to a lot of games, not just those in the D&D family.

The balance issue is trickier: are you saying that you don't think there should be ANYTHING that opposes magic except other magic (which depends on your view of magic in the first place) or are you saying that the mechanics and/or numerical values don't fit well? (which I could definitely understand)
I'm saying that it is impossible (not merely a matter of "should") for those who lack supernatural abilities (in relation to the real world) to challenge those who have them, at least when those abilities are sufficiently powerful. These abilities do not necessarily have to be "magic", they could be based on ki, or chakra, superhuman biology, or simply being that awesome, but for non-spellcasters to compete they need superpowerful abilities. The other point I was trying to make is that this isn't simply a game balance issue, but a worldbuilding one. It doesn't make sense to have mundane adventurers when all the laws of logic and reason tell you that can't meaningfully contribute. They would simply die out due to natural selection.

Regarding creatures: if you read the webcomic XKCD, you may remember a strip detailing how biology is just applied chemistry, which is just applied physics (which is applied math). So it stands to reason that if we have different laws of physics, then we can get different laws of biology. I actually have less of an issue with people playing god and creating abominations of nature than I do with them violating the laws of conservation of mass and energy.
Agreed. Also, XKCD is awesome.


Now, if it where all up to me (which it isn't except, in homebrew :smallcool:) then I would make magic so that it didn't violate the known laws of physics quite so grossly. A wall of iron that you created, for example, acts like a wall of mundanely fashioned iron for all intensive purposes, but after a while it fades back into whatever magical essence it was pulled from.
I'm not positive what you are saying here. Why should the wall fade away?

I think a setting and its magic doesnt have to slavishly follow real world laws of physics. But the basic assumptions that things fall down, roll down hill and not up, fire is hot ouch and getting sick is bad simply should not change.

Does it matter if everything falls at the same rate? Maybe. But then your into falling rules and damage so just leave that alone or someones head in your group will explode.

does conservation of energy matter? Again, maybe in very rare cases to a small degree. But its certainly nothing your going to find a common point of debate in a game.

I'm struggling to think of which law of physics is so badly jacked up by fantasy magic that it can de-rail a game or cause a table argument. Where is this so-called problem actually causing people a problem in real play?

Does anyone have an anecdote where this actually mattered or is it just kind of world building nit picking?
It is world building and game design nit picking. Well, I wouldn't call it nit picking, but it shouldn't come up directly at the game table. My point was that it was one of the causes of certain problems that do come up at the game table, like fighters feeling worthless.

hiryuu
2012-02-27, 06:26 PM
Now, if it where all up to me (which it isn't except, in homebrew :smallcool:) then I would make magic so that it didn't violate the known laws of physics quite so grossly. A wall of iron that you created, for example, acts like a wall of mundanely fashioned iron for all intensive purposes, but after a while it fades back into whatever magical essence it was pulled from.

What if everything were just reified magical essences? *theremin noise*

GolemsVoice
2012-02-27, 06:43 PM
Well, I wouldn't call it nit picking, but it shouldn't come up directly at the game table. My point was that it was one of the causes of certain problems that do come up at the game table, like fighters feeling worthless.

That's not a problem of magic breaking or not breaking the laws of physics, though, that's, as other said, a problem of the KIND of magic that D&D favours. From what I know, shooting pure energy out of your hands that do 3d6 damage is just as much breaking the laws of real world physics as, say, stopping time, but a fighter can compete with raw damage, but he can't emulate Time Stop.

Drolyt
2012-02-27, 06:56 PM
That's not a problem of magic breaking or not breaking the laws of physics, though, that's, as other said, a problem of the KIND of magic that D&D favours. From what I know, shooting pure energy out of your hands that do 3d6 damage is just as much breaking the laws of real world physics as, say, stopping time, but a fighter can compete with raw damage, but he can't emulate Time Stop.
Well, aside from the fact that pure energy is a meaningless concept there is nothing inherently physics breaking about most damage dealing spells except for the spellcasting itself; you could create the same effect with technology. Time Stop does defy the laws of physics as we know it. At any rate it isn't a problem just with the kind of magic D&D has, it is a problem with having that kind of magic and insisting mundanes can compete.

Deepbluediver
2012-02-27, 07:35 PM
It seems to me if anti-magic fields worked like that you should get a caster level check to see if your can use your magic anyways. My other problem is that at least in D&D it seems like the decisions about what spells are affected by spell resistance and anti-magic fields are a bit arbitrary. In my opinion spells with an instantaneous effect should not be affected by spell resistance or an anti-magic field (although the field may still keep you from casting if you are inside it) because although the creation of the effect (such as a fireball or a wall of stone) requires magic the effect itself doesn't depend on magic. This is one issue that extends to a lot of games, not just those in the D&D family.
I'd probably file both of these under the heading of "mechanics that are not well designed, particularly with regards to fluff"; yes it is somewhat arbitrary, and it depends partly on how magic works for 'your' universe. Does a spell like fireball create fire that is essentially the same as when burning wood? Or is magical fire actually arcane energy that simply releases heat and light? If it's the former, then I would say any magic with it's point of origin inside the AMF should fail, if its the latter, then all magic stops at the edge of the barrier.

I prefer the first type for fluff reasons, but for gameplay mechanics, the second one is easier to determine how spells work. Under the first type, you can still cast spells from outside the spell that affect target inside, but you would need to break things down on a case by case basis, some of which would almost certainly end up being opinion anyway. For example, a burning hands spells would be able to deal damage, because you are generating the spell outside, and the fire is just regular fire. A polymorph spell shouldn't work, because although the caster is outside the field, the effect would need to start inside. A fireball spell is extra tricky; it's cast from outside the field, but is the explosion part of the original spell (essentially like a magical grenade) or is it a seperate effect? The way each of those three spells works is basically just my opinion, and if you disagree then it just serves to illustrate my point as to why the first kind of AMF is tougher to institute, game-mechanic wise, even if it's more fluff-friendly.


I'm saying that it is impossible (not merely a matter of "should") for those who lack supernatural abilities (in relation to the real world) to challenge those who have them, at least when those abilities are sufficiently powerful. These abilities do not necessarily have to be "magic", they could be based on ki, or chakra, superhuman biology, or simply being that awesome, but for non-spellcasters to compete they need superpowerful abilities.
First of all, you are trying to think of mundane characters in terms of real-world limits; we already agreed that D&D opperates under an entirely different set of rules. You've never actually seen the real-world equivalent of a 1st level wizard because humans can't spontaneously generate fire from our fingertips, but going by standard D&D rules, olympic athletes and special ops forces are probably no more than 5th or 6th level characters. You don't really have any idea of what the real-world equivalent of a 20th level fighter should be.
You're thinking "BatmanTM can't keep compete with a wizard", when you should be thinking more along the lines of a wizard competing with SupermanTM or The FlashTM.

Also, what exactly are you thinking of as a supernatural ability? I'm pretty sure there are published rules for super-high skill check scores, things like "climbing" on flat, featureless walls or a ceiling like spiderman, or "balancing" on a lake or even clouds, or a Strength check for causing mini-earthquakes. So theoretically you could stay pure fighter, and at some point you'll eventually be able to mimic spells.


The other point I was trying to make is that this isn't simply a game balance issue, but a worldbuilding one. It doesn't make sense to have mundane adventurers when all the laws of logic and reason tell you that can't meaningfully contribute. They would simply die out due to natural selection.
First, what do you mean by "die out"? If you are thinking that players don't want to play useless characters, and so WotC should stop writing anything less than tier 1 or 2, then that's a matter of opinion, and is partly the reason why so many homebrew fixes exist to narrow the magic/not-magic gap. Some people just want to play Frodo instead of Gandalf.

If you mean in a biologic sense, I refer you to my point of "applying real world logic to the D&D world"; you can't assume the same effect would happen in D&Dland as on Earth.
However, since this is interesting and I like to write, and we are assuming that the D&D world operates under at least SIMILAR biologic rules, then I give you the following: generational evolution is interesting and not always intuitive or logical, and my first response is that this kind of thing takes time, so your world is MIGHT actually be moving in this direction, but it isn't there yet. You are seeing a world where dinosaurs still roam, and asking why everything ISN'T a mammal, when it's obviously such a better evolutionary design.

Next, evolution, even in the real world, is not an all-or-nothing game. Everyone in Norway is probably related to the same 2 light-haired people 400 generations back, but if you drop one brunette in the mix that does not mean that in another 1000 years everyone will have dark hair.

If you don't like those ideas, then obviously there is also some kind of counter-force that keeps things in balance. Remember, evolution isn't about the power or success of any one individual, but about it's ability to breed, and pass it's enhanced genes along to it's offspring, who need to inheret the same characteristic. The ability to shift continents might detract from your ability to actually have kids. In purely biological terms, magic might render you sterile, or effectively sterile, which includes things like insanity or even death. And that's before you include any sociological pressures. Remember, civilized humanoids AREN'T animals, so not everything that is important in the game of reproduction is purely physical.

In the most classic scenario, wizards are the nerds of the D&D world, so while they spend their time locked away in a tower learn how to create matter out of thin air and transmute themselves into a dragon, all the rogues and fighters are getting drunk at parties and boning their way to supremacy.
Or maybe the very first wizard, ever, blew himself up with a lightning bolt and every single society since then has looked down on magic users, to the point where its a huge taboo and no man or woman would willingly mate with a magic user, or the society considers all magic to be evil and forms groups to actively hunt down and kill magic users.

Also, remember that at lower levels the power balance frequently swings the other way; fighters can hack and slash all day while even sorceres rapidly run out of lightning bolts. Even if the numbers of every class are identical, there combined "power" of the stronger low-level classes (of which there are more) balances out the one 20th level wizard.

This is all, of course, assuming that magic is actually an inheritable characteristic. It might be something entirely random, like a mutation, in which case you'll never have more than 1 out of 1000 people becoming a mage, no matter how big the population.

Whether or not you accept my reasoning is largely dependent on what the "rules" of your own D&D world are. But if you accept that they are similar to the rules of the real world as we know them but with a fantastical twist, then the only limit on the potential explanations here is my imagination.


I'm not positive what you are saying here. Why should the wall fade away?
AGAIN, this is "what rules are you using?". Rather than thinking of "making an object from nothing", I usually think that you are making a mimicry of the object in question that acts like the real world object would, including any effects it has. The fire actually produces heat, which is why when you stop cooking something stays baked/fried/incinerated, etc. You can use your wall of iron to block a creature or cover a pit, but as soon as you stop concentrating or the magical energy runs out, the "iron" simply fades back OUT of existence or returns to whatever primordial plane you summoned it from.

If you ask why the entire planet is not covered in iron walls or has not been consumed by fire from the extra energy, I offer two explanation:
First, just like the evolution question, is that your world is actually getting there, but hasn't yet and isn't likely to in the lifetime of your adventurers. The elemental plane of fire is actually a former material plane where the local magic users just had to much of a liking for fire spells.
The second reason is that one of the quirks of "rules" of the D&D world is like our law of conservation of mass and energy, but twisted to fit magic. The number of "summon iron wall" and "fireball" spells is exactly balanced by the number of "disintegrate" and "cone of cold" spells. I'm sorry, does that not make any sense? Good! This is D&D, so STOP TRYING TO APPLY REAL WORLD LOGIC! :smallbiggrin:

What, I'm sorry, is that not fantastical enough for you? Ok, how about this: there is an entire race of creatures (probably outsiders), barely known to any other sentient species, which exists solely to maintain the balance of the universe. They remove matter, counter energy, and construct portals to even out inconsistencies in the multiverse, and their ceaseless and perpetual effort is the only reason that all of existence does not swing horribly out of whack and implode on itself.

Like I said, since you are the one who started off the whole thread pointing out how we don't need to applly the laws of science as we know them, there is no problem that you can propose that I cannot imagine a fantastical solution for.

Drolyt
2012-02-27, 07:49 PM
I'd probably file both of these under the heading of "mechanics that are not well designed, particularly with regards to fluff"; yes it is somewhat arbitrary, and it depends partly on how magic works for 'your' universe. Does a spell like fireball create fire that is essentially the same as when burning wood? Or is magical fire actually arcane energy that simply releases heat and light? If it's the former, then I would say any magic with it's point of origin inside the AMF should fail, if its the latter, then all magic stops at the edge of the barrier.

I prefer the first type for fluff reasons, but for gameplay mechanics, the second one is easier to determine how spells work. Under the first type, you can still cast spells from outside the spell that affect target inside, but you would need to break things down on a case by case basis, some of which would almost certainly end up being opinion anyway. For example, a burning hands spells would be able to deal damage, because you are generating the spell outside, and the fire is just regular fire. A polymorph spell shouldn't work, because although the caster is outside the field, the effect would need to start inside. A fireball spell is extra tricky; it's cast from outside the field, but is the explosion part of the original spell (essentially like a magical grenade) or is it a seperate effect? The way each of those three spells works is basically just my opinion, and if you disagree then it just serves to illustrate my point as to why the first kind of AMF is tougher to institute, game-mechanic wise, even if it's more fluff-friendly.
Fair enough.

First of all, you are trying to think of mundane characters in terms of real-world limits; we already agreed that D&D opperates under an entirely different set of rules. You've never actually seen the real-world equivalent of a 1st level wizard because humans can't spontaneously generate fire from our fingertips, but going by standard D&D rules, olympic athletes and special ops forces are probably no more than 5th or 6th level characters. You don't really have any idea of what the real-world equivalent of a 20th level fighter should be.
You're thinking "BatmanTM can't keep compete with a wizard", when you should be thinking more along the lines of a wizard competing with SupermanTM or The FlashTM.

Also, what exactly are you thinking of as a supernatural ability? I'm pretty sure there are published rules for super-high skill check scores, things like "climbing" on flat, featureless walls or a ceiling like spiderman, or "balancing" on a lake or even clouds, or a Strength check for causing mini-earthquakes. So theoretically you could stay pure fighter, and at some point you'll eventually be able to mimic spells.
Sorry, you misunderstand me. I agree with you. We shouldn't think of mundane characters in terms of real world limits, but the D&D rules often do. Most of the examples you give are only possible at Epic Levels, and I think they should be available much earlier to be in line with what equal level spellcasters can do. That was what I meant when I said that these characters should be supernatural in relation to our world, even if they aren't explicitly "magical".


First, what do you mean by "die out"? If you are thinking that players don't want to play useless characters, and so WotC should stop writing anything less than tier 1 or 2, then that's a matter of opinion, and is partly the reason why so many homebrew fixes exist to narrow the magic/not-magic gap. Some people just want to play Frodo instead of Gandalf.

If you mean in a biologic sense, I refer you to my point of "applying real world logic to the D&D world"; you can't assume the same effect would happen in D&Dland as on Earth.
However, since this is interesting and I like to write, and we are assuming that the D&D world operates under at least SIMILAR biologic rules, then I give you the following: generational evolution is interesting and not always intuitive or logical, and my first response is that this kind of thing takes time, so your world is MIGHT actually be moving in this direction, but it isn't there yet. You are seeing a world where dinosaurs still roam, and asking why everything ISN'T a mammal, when it's obviously such a better evolutionary design.

Next, evolution, even in the real world, is not an all-or-nothing game. Everyone in Norway is probably related to the same 2 light-haired people 400 generations back, but if you drop one brunette in the mix that does not mean that in another 1000 years everyone will have dark hair.

If you don't like those ideas, then obviously there is also some kind of counter-force that keeps things in balance. Remember, evolution isn't about the power or success of any one individual, but about it's ability to breed, and pass it's enhanced genes along to it's offspring, who need to inheret the same characteristic. The ability to shift continents might detract from your ability to actually have kids. In purely biological terms, magic might render you sterile, or effectively sterile, which includes things like insanity or even death. And that's before you include any sociological pressures. Remember, civilized humanoids AREN'T animals, so not everything that is important in the game of reproduction is purely physical.

In the most classic scenario, wizards are the nerds of the D&D world, so while they spend their time locked away in a tower learn how to create matter out of thin air and transmute themselves into a dragon, all the rogues and fighters are getting drunk at parties and boning their way to supremacy.
Or maybe the very first wizard, ever, blew himself up with a lightning bolt and every single society since then has looked down on magic users, to the point where its a huge taboo and no man or woman would willingly mate with a magic user, or the society considers all magic to be evil and forms groups to actively hunt down and kill magic users.

Also, remember that at lower levels the power balance frequently swings the other way; fighters can hack and slash all day while even sorceres rapidly run out of lightning bolts. Even if the numbers of every class are identical, there combined "power" of the stronger low-level classes (of which there are more) balances out the one 20th level wizard.

This is all, of course, assuming that magic is actually an inheritable characteristic. It might be something entirely random, like a mutation, in which case you'll never have more than 1 out of 1000 people becoming a mage, no matter how big the population.

Whether or not you accept my reasoning is largely dependent on what the "rules" of your own D&D world are. But if you accept that they are similar to the rules of the real world as we know them but with a fantastical twist, then the only limit on the potential explanations here is my imagination.
Sorry, I suppose I didn't make myself clear. I don't mean in a biological sense, but simply in a survival of the fittest sense. Non-spellcasters cannot compete with spellcasters so non-spellcasters don't even try. Everyone who can will learn magic, while those who cannot will survive by virtue of comparative advantage, the economic principle stating that even if spellcasters can do everything better they will still focus their efforts on those situations where their abilities provide the greatest advantage, such as adventuring. In those fields only spellcasters would logically compete, and mundanes would be relegated to jobs where spellcasters' comparative advantage is less.

AGAIN, this is "what rules are you using?". Rather than thinking of "making an object from nothing", I usually think that you are making a mimicry of the object in question that acts like the real world object would, including any effects it has. The fire actually produces heat, which is why when you stop cooking something stays baked/fried/incinerated, etc. You can use your wall of iron to block a creature or cover a pit, but as soon as you stop concentrating or the magical energy runs out, the "iron" simply fades back OUT of existence or returns to whatever primordial plane you summoned it from.

If you ask why the entire planet is covered in iron walls of have been consumed by fire from the extra energy, I offer two explanation:
First, just like the evolution question, is that your world is actually getting there, but hasn't yet and isn't likely to in the lifetime of your adventurers. The elemental plane of fire is actually a former material plane where the local magic users just had to much of a liking for fire spells.
The second reason is that one of the quirks of "rules" of the D&D world is like our law of conservation of mass and energy, but twisted to fit magic. The number of "summon iron wall" and "fireball" spells is exactly balanced by the number of "disintegrate" and "cone of cold" spells. I'm sorry, does that not make any sense? Good! This is D&D, so STOP TRYING TO APPLY REAL WORLD LOGIC! :smallbiggrin:

What, I'm sorry, is that not fantastical enough for you? Ok, how about this: there is an entire race of creatures (probably outsiders), barely known to any other sentient species, which exists solely to maintain the balance of the universe. They remove matter, counter energy, and construct portals to even out inconsistencies in the multiverse, and their ceaseless and perpetual effort is the only reason that all of existence does not swing horribly out of whack and implode on itself.

Like I said, since you are the one who started off the whole thread pointing out how we don't need to applly the laws of science as we know them, there is no problem that you can propose that I cannot imagine a fantastical solution for.
Fair enough.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 08:22 PM
Read some of the 3.5 thread should melee rival casters. Magic breaking the laws of reality is brought up often.


:smallyuk: not in any meaningful way. Its all message board hypotheticals that never actually come up in real play.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 08:24 PM
Read some of the 3.5 thread should melee rival casters. Magic breaking the laws of reality is brought up often.


:smallyuk: not in any meaningful way. Its all message board hypotheticals that never actually come up in real play.

GolemsVoice
2012-02-27, 08:39 PM
Time Stop does defy the laws of physics as we know it. At any rate it isn't a problem just with the kind of magic D&D has, it is a problem with having that kind of magic and insisting mundanes can compete.

Magic Missiles are "pure magic energy" doing "energy damage".

There are plenty of systems where magic defies the laws of real world physics, and yet mundanes can compete pretty well. For example, almost ANY system that is not D&D. Take Hellfrost, where you can, with high enough level, animate a tree to fight for you, or create a circle that freezes anyone who touches you, or make injuries and sickness go away with a touch, but if some guy pokes you good, you're screwed, and your spells aren't instant doom to people that match you.

And that the magic system in D&D is a problem is common, accepted knowledge.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 08:41 PM
It is world building and game design nit picking. Well, I wouldn't call it nit picking, but it shouldn't come up directly at the game table. My point was that it was one of the causes of certain problems that do come up at the game table, like fighters feeling worthless.

Ahh fair enough. I think part of that might be a failure of description in the game design though.

I mean a 20th level fighter can bareknuckle box a grizzly to death in his skivvies or fight 50 1st level soldiers and kill them all. He can leap off of a 10 story building 2 or 3 times, shake it off and go home for a beer and swing a 20 pound weapon 4 times in 6 seconds with much greater power and accuracy then a normal man swing once in that same time frame.

Not to mention if he maxed out his strength score even without magic he can lift 1200 pounds to waist height and walk around with it as a human being, albeit slowly. He can pick 600 pounds up over his head.

Think about that for a second. A harley davidson weighs between 700 and 1,000 pounds depending on the model. He can deadlift a harley and walk around with it all day without getting tired.

He can pick a lot of sport bikes up over his head and throw them at you.

Whether he has a specific "power" or not that sort of thing is definitely supernatural in some way. Emphasizing that kind of thing might help the feeling of inferiority.

Drolyt
2012-02-27, 08:50 PM
Magic Missiles are "pure magic energy" doing "energy damage".

There are plenty of systems where magic defies the laws of real world physics, and yet mundanes can compete pretty well. For example, almost ANY system that is not D&D. Take Hellfrost, where you can, with high enough level, animate a tree to fight for you, or create a circle that freezes anyone who touches you, or make injuries and sickness go away with a touch, but if some guy pokes you good, you're screwed, and your spells aren't instant doom to people that match you.

And that the magic system in D&D is a problem is common, accepted knowledge.
I don't disagree, it isn't defying the laws of real world physics alone that is the problem, it is the level of that power; recall that I object to the description of D&D spellcasters as "breaking the laws of physics". D&D wizards (and clerics and druids and so on) have nothing to fear from a pointy stick; other magic systems might work differently, but I'm not sure that is relevant. I'm only concerned with systems with "superhero" or "anime" levels of magic like D&D.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 08:57 PM
Time Stop does defy the laws of physics as we know it. At any rate it isn't a problem just with the kind of magic D&D has, it is a problem with having that kind of magic and insisting mundanes can compete.

LOL dude timestop isnt half as good, at least in 3e as your making it out to be. You randomly get between 12 and 30 seconds to cast spells on yourself. You cant even target someone else with anything according to RAW.

AND you have to be 17th level to do it even a single time a day.

Unless you really have extremely powerful archmages in your world as being a dime a dozen theres probably a handful of people in the entire world who cast it and then do 2 or 3 buffs on themselves before it ends.

Thats kind of a pain but hardly an unbeatable competitive advantage. All the other side has to do is be the ones starting the fight in order to be just as buffed up and prepared as you are.

GRM13
2012-02-27, 09:11 PM
1. Actually theres no official rules for training or how it works.

and because there is no oficial rule, it can go either way. It can be made that only by adventuring can one truly excel, but it can also go that all you need is training dedication to reach it (self training/learning does exist and sometimes it works just fine)


Adventuring parties would be a constant threat. Assume your high level mage can beat any equal level fighter 1 on 1? Your wrong,

No I'm pretty sure it has been proven that a Mage can handle a equal lvl fighter without breaking a sweat. and again your needing a group of 4 to handle 1 and if they are equal lvl the martials are just fodder as the cleric/druid/wizard can can go to to toe with the evil one, heck the fighter could be a hindrance if he is dominated.



To top it off you have to assume that if there are a half dozen very powerful mages in the world then any one who tries to seize too much power has 4 or 5 other mages who want to stop him and will support any forces who seek to do that. So archmages are themselves a sort of MAD defense against each other.

This is no different to what I said with the 3 wizard argument, basically the things keeping a wizard in check is another equally powerful wizard, not a hero in shining armor


2. That whole "the wizard outclasses me, whaaaa" thing only happens on message boards. Its not true to start with and even if it was your not playing PvP, your playing together against the NPC's and every poll shows that few groups actually play into high level where that sort of thing could even begin to happen anyway.

So the whole thing is a non-issue created online just so people have something to talk about. Its like the char op board characters. Sure theres broken combo's. How often have you actually seen one at your table?

Then the campaign that I"m playing with must not exist cause my barbarian (design for damage and strength) has been outperformed easily by the 2 clerics and a wizard with tentacles and fuse arms. And that's without mentioning all the healing, control and and AoE they can do compared to my guy's 2 attack/turn. This is on lvl 6, my character is supposed to be the heavy man of the group but he's the comic relief. The only reason I haven't changed characters is cause I"m having fun with the character, mechanical and battle wise is a drag to have everyone do many awesome things and still be efficient damages and when it's my turn it's either "hit it" or "hit it harder"

Trust me the "wizard outclass martials" problem is real, and while I can debate the other details of your post evenly I I disagree with this statement of yours wholly and the fact that you wave the discussion done here as "boogeyman stories" shows is odd. :smalleek:

GolemsVoice
2012-02-27, 09:38 PM
LOL dude timestop isnt half as good, at least in 3e as your making it out to be. You randomly get between 12 and 30 seconds to cast spells on yourself. You cant even target someone else with anything according to RAW.

That was actually my "mistake". I'm not saying Time Stop is neccessarily powerful, just that it clearly breaks the laws of physics and it can't be emulated by martial types.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 10:16 PM
No I'm pretty sure it has been proven that a Mage can handle a equal lvl fighter without breaking a sweat.

1, Since its not true thats entirely impossible. A wizard who is prepared, pre-buffed and specifically optimized to kill fighters in a 1on1 fight has an advantage against a fighter who hasnt prepared to fight and kill a high level wizard specifically. But its not by any means an insurmountable advantage.

2. When you assume the fighter has equally prepared and optimized to kill wizards (which no one ever does assume) it becomes a very fair fight.

3. That kind of wizard is not well prepared and optimized for your average adventure where lots of different kinds of threats can arise however so the odds of him ever surviving to be high level are pretty slim.


This is no different to what I said with the 3 wizard argument, basically the things keeping a wizard in check is another equally powerful wizard, not a hero in shining armor

Of course it is. They might be getting 3rd party help from a wizard, but A they dont need it to win and B the wizard still needs THEM to actually do the dirty work. Its a mutually necessary arrangement. Neither side can get what they want without the other.



Then the campaign that I"m playing with must not exist cause my barbarian (design for damage and strength) has been outperformed easily by the 2 clerics and a wizard with tentacles and fuse arms.

Its entirely possible your just bad at optimization. Perhaps if you posted this character I could help you fix that.

Alternatively, next time before starting a fight dont wait for them to buff up. Bad guys certainly wouldnt wait without a benevolent god (GM) making it happen that way. So next time just rush in and start the fight right away. Then watch how poorly they do.


And that's without mentioning all the healing, control and and AoE they can do compared to my guy's 2 attack/turn. This is on lvl 6, my character is supposed to be the heavy man of the group but he's the comic relief. The only reason I haven't changed characters is cause I"m having fun with the character, mechanical and battle wise is a drag to have everyone do many awesome things and still be efficient damages and when it's my turn it's either "hit it" or "hit it harder"

Okay now i know your making this up. If you guys are 6th level they dont even have black tentacles yet. So theres no way they can be outclassing you with it. And you dont seem to understand how that spell works either.

It affects everything in a 20ft area with 1 grapple attack per round for 1d6+4 damage and an opposed grapple check score of +15 when casters first get it at 7th level. Monsters of that level should have +10 or so assuming average BaB and slightly above average STR.

Considering that they are doing 5-10 damage per round for 7 rounds or a maximum of 70pts of damage over 7 rounds and Your STR optimized character should be doing at least 2d12+ 18 a round, if your stuck without magic weapons by 6th level for some reason, for a maximum of 294 damage in the same time frame as the caster did a max of 70 damage how the hell are they "outclassing your damage" ?

You can do more then 3X as much damage as them in the same time frame. AND their damage output assumes the monsters are stupid enough to just sit in that small area instead of backing up and take full damage from the spell. Which no GM should have his monsters do if yours IS doing that you need to have a talk with him about tactics and not blame it on the system.


Trust me the "wizard outclass martials" problem is real, and while I can debate the other details of your post evenly I I disagree with this statement of yours wholly and the fact that you wave the discussion done here as "boogeyman stories" shows is odd. :smalleek:

I believe I just demonstrated how it is absolutely not real, and when it does crop up is more a reflection of caster players generally having a higher level of system mastery then any problem with the system itself.

Although i do agree with Monte there, system mastery SHOULD be rewarded and not everyone agrees with that.

Drolyt
2012-02-27, 10:27 PM
LOL dude timestop isnt half as good, at least in 3e as your making it out to be. You randomly get between 12 and 30 seconds to cast spells on yourself. You cant even target someone else with anything according to RAW.

AND you have to be 17th level to do it even a single time a day.

Unless you really have extremely powerful archmages in your world as being a dime a dozen theres probably a handful of people in the entire world who cast it and then do 2 or 3 buffs on themselves before it ends.

Thats kind of a pain but hardly an unbeatable competitive advantage. All the other side has to do is be the ones starting the fight in order to be just as buffed up and prepared as you are.
That wasn't the point. I was simply pointing out that most D&D spells don't violate fundamental laws like, for example, Conservation of Momentum, Conservation of Energy, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or Mass Energy Equivalence. Time Stop does, among other reasons because special relativity tells us that matter always moves through spacetime at the speed of light (C) and Timestop lets you move through it more slowly.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 10:31 PM
That was actually my "mistake". I'm not saying Time Stop is neccessarily powerful, just that it clearly breaks the laws of physics and it can't be emulated by martial types.

Well okay true but thats mainly special effects. In the same frame of time a fighter of that same level can hit someone 20 times and do hundreds of points of damage.

Against low level guys a 20th level fighter with even a basic weapon can kill 4 people every 6 seconds or whirlwind strike 5 times and possibly kill 48 soldiers. Twice that if he uses a reach weapon.

Just imagine that visual for a second....

John the halberdier has a catapult launch him into the center of the enemy army (10D6 falling? who gives a crap) where he proceeds in 30 seconds to kill 96 people by himself. And it gets better. He can reach 10 ft in any direction or 25 ft diameter consider his own square and kill everything in it.

In 30 seconds John leaves a path of corpses 25 feet wide and 125 feet long through an enemy army, and he's not even winded.

Tell me that isnt some Matrix **** to watch.

GRM13
2012-02-27, 10:32 PM
Okay now i know your making this up. If you guys are 6th level they dont even have black tentacles yet. So theres no way they can be outclassing you with it. And you dont seem to understand how that spell works either.

they aren't using black tentacle, they are actual tentacles on the characters back from a magical side effect. it has nothing to do with the black tentacle spell.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 10:38 PM
Time Stop does, among other reasons because special relativity tells us that matter always moves through spacetime at the speed of light (C) and Timestop lets you move through it more slowly.

Black holes already proved special relativity wrong among other things that have done the same. The speed matter moves through space is altered by gravity at least and its suspected by several other things as well.

So since you cant violate a law which has been proven to NOT be a law already your point is invalidated before being made.

You could, theoretically say that timestop creates a localized area of extreme gravity which warps the fabric of spacetime around it in a way which HAS been observed to exist in cases such as black holes. Thus causing the person within the bubble to experience time as a normal rate while those outside of the bubble experienced slowed time.

Theres really no reason to go into this kind of detail but you certainly can do it now that I've thought about it and have it make perfect sense according to our observations of time and physics.

Its called gravitational time dilation. You can google it for yourself. its not terribly interesting to read so i wont explain how it works here. But it DOES work and has been observed.

On a related note Einstein has been pwned several times over in the last 2 decades by cutting edge physicists proving he made many, many mistakes.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 10:45 PM
they aren't using black tentacle, they are actual tentacles on the characters back from a magical side effect. it has nothing to do with the black tentacle spell.

Well then your GM has gone wildly off the reservation in some way if he gave them something that effective. You can hardly blame the system for that.

Deepbluediver
2012-02-27, 10:56 PM
Sorry, you misunderstand me. I agree with you. We shouldn't think of mundane characters in terms of real world limits, but the D&D rules often do. Most of the examples you give are only possible at Epic Levels, and I think they should be available much earlier to be in line with what equal level spellcasters can do. That was what I meant when I said that these characters should be supernatural in relation to our world, even if they aren't explicitly "magical".
Ah ok, I apologize then. If you want to change the skill system it's easy enough to raise the cap to something like "three times your level" which would let you dump all your skill points into just a few things, at the expense of variety. There are a couple issues with this though. The first is that there is no limit on skill checks, and I'm wary of letting players have what essentially amounts to infinite spell-like abilities at a level where most encounters aren't designed for that. The other thing is that skill checks become either trivial (and therefore unexciting) for one character, or absolutely impossible for everyone else. Which turns the game from a dungeon crawl into a get-rogue-to-door quest. It's not guaranteed, but it's things I would worry about.
Also, many of the caster classes rely on intellect, giving them plenty of skill points and doing little to narrow the gap.

Frankly, changing the skill system to much is really just a band aid fix. If you really want to address the magic/mundane imbalance, you would need to rework the system of magic and individual spells, and then redo quite a few classes. In fact, that's what I'm working on a homebrew for right now (link in my extended sig). There's so much interconnected in D&D that there really is no such thing as a fix that is both simple and widely effective, IMHO.


Sorry, I suppose I didn't make myself clear. I don't mean in a biological sense, but simply in a survival of the fittest sense. Non-spellcasters cannot compete with spellcasters so non-spellcasters don't even try. Everyone who can will learn magic, while those who cannot will survive by virtue of comparative advantage, the economic principle stating that even if spellcasters can do everything better they will still focus their efforts on those situations where their abilities provide the greatest advantage, such as adventuring. In those fields only spellcasters would logically compete, and mundanes would be relegated to jobs where spellcasters' comparative advantage is less.
Ok, I guess that you are referring to the interactions of the inhabitants of our fictional world, and not that players will stop wanting to play some types of classes.
Once again, you are attempting to apply real world logic to D&D. If the very fundamentals of the universe do not subscribe to the same laws that we are used to, why should something as abstract as economics? I know I sound like a broken record, but this is basically the only answer I need for any issue regarding a"logical" or "sensical" explanation.

But in the interest of similarity, I'll try to offer one anyway, based on what we know.
The economic argument you are referring to is an optomization model of an ideal situation for populations or countries. You cannot use macro-economic models to definitively determine the actions of any one individual because what is "best" is a very variable term, and individuals often act in an unpredictable or illogical manner. You are assuming that the supply of magic users will exactly match the demand for adventurers, and that everyone who can use magic will want to risk their lives for a rather questionable reward, or that no one who cannot/will not learn magic would not want to be an adventurer.

Economics is not one of the hard sciences, like physics or biology. The basic rules of economics are usually theories instead of laws, and you need to remember that every model has implicit assumptions that acknowledge what is different from the real world (or the D&D world). More than any other area of study, there are hundreds or even thousands of variable that can affect the eventual outcome.
If you want to design a world where only magic users are adventurours, then you can and I would not be able to argue that it's impossible or even unlikely, but by the same token you cannot argue that it is the only viable or logical outcome.

GolemsVoice
2012-02-27, 11:16 PM
John the halberdier has a catapult launch him into the center of the enemy army (10D6 falling? who gives a crap) where he proceeds in 30 seconds to kill 96 people by himself. And it gets better. He can reach 10 ft in any direction or 25 ft diameter consider his own square and kill everything in it.

And now imagine that John the Halberdier is also frenzied berserker, and thus gets INFINTE Great Cleaves.


You could, theoretically say that timestop creates a localized area of extreme gravity which warps the fabric of spacetime around it in a way which HAS been observed to exist in cases such as black holes. Thus causing the person within the bubble to experience time as a normal rate while those outside of the bubble experienced slowed time.

Doesn't that kind of gravity kill people? Action Half Life has LIED to me!

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 11:21 PM
Doesn't that kind of gravity kill people? Action Half Life has LIED to me!

Probably. But since no one has ever been exposed to it and had the effects observed it cant in all fairness be considered a law according to the definition. Its merely a very probable theory at this point.

Therefore the spell is still not actually breaking a law of physics.

boredgremlin
2012-02-27, 11:34 PM
And now imagine that John the Halberdier is also frenzied berserker, and thus gets INFINTE Great Cleaves.

See thats the guy who could rule the world. The wizard is not taking down an entire army or likely even a small group of highly skilled assassins with virulently poisoned weapons who get the drop on him.

But the berserker literally can destroy entire armies and do it in record time. Poison means little to him because of his high fort saves, and even if he is rushed by surprise he's at his best in close quarters.

Screw the wizard. Frenzied berserker for king of the world.

On topic he is definately breaking the laws of physics. I'm pretty sure even great cleave still has a movement limit but he could still probably kill a thousand people in 5 rounds. Its too late to try to do the math though.

Actually now that i think of it wasnt there a martial PrC that could hurl a small moon fully optimized? Theres your D&D WMD. Screw the wizard, that guy can drop a mountain on any city that doesnt accept his rule. OR the tower of any wizard who gets uppity.

Drolyt
2012-02-28, 12:01 AM
Black holes already proved special relativity wrong among other things that have done the same. The speed matter moves through space is altered by gravity at least and its suspected by several other things as well.

So since you cant violate a law which has been proven to NOT be a law already your point is invalidated before being made.

You could, theoretically say that timestop creates a localized area of extreme gravity which warps the fabric of spacetime around it in a way which HAS been observed to exist in cases such as black holes. Thus causing the person within the bubble to experience time as a normal rate while those outside of the bubble experienced slowed time.

Theres really no reason to go into this kind of detail but you certainly can do it now that I've thought about it and have it make perfect sense according to our observations of time and physics.

Its called gravitational time dilation. You can google it for yourself. its not terribly interesting to read so i wont explain how it works here. But it DOES work and has been observed.

On a related note Einstein has been pwned several times over in the last 2 decades by cutting edge physicists proving he made many, many mistakes.
I'm sorry, what? I'm familiar with gravitational time dilation, what does that have to do with what I said? Gravity, like any force, warps spacetime around it. It doesn't "disprove" special relativity, it harmonizes it with gravity. At any rate Einstein developed both theories and to my knowledge nothing in either of them has been proven wrong. All of his mistakes were in regard to quantum mechanics and mostly due to his inability to accept some of the implications like fundamental randomness and nonlocality. As for your proposal for how timestop could work there are several problems, primarily that a force capable of bending spacetime sufficiently to create noticeable time dilation would crush the caster and everything around him.

Ah ok, I apologize then. If you want to change the skill system it's easy enough to raise the cap to something like "three times your level" which would let you dump all your skill points into just a few things, at the expense of variety. There are a couple issues with this though. The first is that there is no limit on skill checks, and I'm wary of letting players have what essentially amounts to infinite spell-like abilities at a level where most encounters aren't designed for that. The other thing is that skill checks become either trivial (and therefore unexciting) for one character, or absolutely impossible for everyone else. Which turns the game from a dungeon crawl into a get-rogue-to-door quest. It's not guaranteed, but it's things I would worry about.
Also, many of the caster classes rely on intellect, giving them plenty of skill points and doing little to narrow the gap.

Frankly, changing the skill system to much is really just a band aid fix. If you really want to address the magic/mundane imbalance, you would need to rework the system of magic and individual spells, and then redo quite a few classes. In fact, that's what I'm working on a homebrew for right now (link in my extended sig). There's so much interconnected in D&D that there really is no such thing as a fix that is both simple and widely effective, IMHO.
I'll check out that link.

Ok, I guess that you are referring to the interactions of the inhabitants of our fictional world, and not that players will stop wanting to play some types of classes.
Once again, you are attempting to apply real world logic to D&D. If the very fundamentals of the universe do not subscribe to the same laws that we are used to, why should something as abstract as economics? I know I sound like a broken record, but this is basically the only answer I need for any issue regarding a"logical" or "sensical" explanation.
The result I spelled out is simply (what I believe to be) the logical result of a situation where spellcasters are better at everything. To put my argument another way in case you misunderstood, if spellcasters are better at everything then everyone who can will learn spellcasting. Those that remain will be unable to compete directly with spellcasters, but can compete in situations where they have a comparative advantage, which roughly defined means they can compete in situations where it would be more efficient for a spellcaster to pay a non-spellcaster to do something than to do it themselves. In other words non-spellcasters would still have jobs to do, but they wouldn't enter professions dominated by spellcasters, that is, the most difficult and profitable professions like adventurer, because they cannot compete. Some may still try, since my argument only concerns the general situation and is not a law, but for the world to not operate as I describe a substantial number of people would have to act against their own economic self-interest.

Now, you can argue with my logic, but I don't see how a fictional world having different physical laws would affect my argument, unless the laws of logic themselves were different, and I'm not even sure how we would discuss such a world.

But in the interest of similarity, I'll try to offer one anyway, based on what we know.
The economic argument you are referring to is an optomization model of an ideal situation for populations or countries. You cannot use macro-economic models to definitively determine the actions of any one individual because what is "best" is a very variable term, and individuals often act in an unpredictable or illogical manner. You are assuming that the supply of magic users will exactly match the demand for adventurers, and that everyone who can use magic will want to risk their lives for a rather questionable reward, or that no one who cannot/will not learn magic would not want to be an adventurer.

I understand that individuals will not necessarily fall in line with general trends, but I don't think that much affects my argument. It is true that if the demand for adventurers exceeds the supply of spellcasters willing to adventure my analysis changes slightly, but in the new equilibreum we would see spellcasters going on the toughest adventures and competing primarily with other spellcasters. Non-spellcasters would take on lesser jobs or work as assistants to spellcasters, but wouldn't compete directly with spellcasters or work with them as equal partners.

Economics is not one of the hard sciences, like physics or biology. The basic rules of economics are usually theories instead of laws, and you need to remember that every model has implicit assumptions that acknowledge what is different from the real world (or the D&D world). More than any other area of study, there are hundreds or even thousands of variable that can affect the eventual outcome.
Sorry, you have made a few errors here. All scientific knowledge is in the form of theories, not laws, which is a legal or mathematical (depending on usage) concept. What I have described is properly neither a theory nor a law, but a logical argument that is true if the premises are true and the logic is sound. To prove me wrong you would have to show that either the premises or the logic are flawed. Science as such cannot be conducted on a fictional world because we can't test our theories.

If you want to design a world where only magic users are adventurours, then you can and I would not be able to argue that it's impossible or even unlikely, but by the same token you cannot argue that it is the only viable or logical outcome.
I'm only arguing that it is the only viable or logical outcome given certain conditions which I believe the standard Dungeons and Dragons setup satisfies.

boredgremlin
2012-02-28, 12:54 AM
I'm sorry, what? I'm familiar with gravitational time dilation, what does that have to do with what I said? Gravity, like any force, warps spacetime around it. It doesn't "disprove" special relativity, it harmonizes it with gravity. At any rate Einstein developed both theories and to my knowledge nothing in either of them has been proven wrong. All of his mistakes were in regard to quantum mechanics and mostly due to his inability to accept some of the implications like fundamental randomness and nonlocality. As for your proposal for how timestop could work there are several problems, primarily that a force capable of bending spacetime sufficiently to create noticeable time dilation would crush the caster and everything around him.

This probably isnt the right format for an in-depth discussion of the mechanics of that kind of physics, or really any physics. Time dilation does disprove the idea that everything moves at a constant speed at all times however. Which i believe was one of the points of your argument.

It does that by altering the meaning of "time". You cannot have a speed without a constant time measurement. Speed is a measure of how long it takes to cover a given distance. When you cant have an objective Time you also cant have an objective speed because half of the equation is an inconstant. To put it simply you cannot measure what you cannot define accurately and we cannot accurately define time in an objective sense with our current technology or understanding.

Whether it would crush him or not is not something we cant accurately describe as a "law" because it cannot at this point be observed and duplicated. Therefore by definition whether it would crush him or not cannot be defined as anything more certain then a theory.

It may be a technicality but since theories in physics are proven wrong all the time no one should be getting their panties in a bunch over magic violating theories of physics. No matter how likely those theories may seem according to our current understanding.

Drolyt
2012-02-28, 01:38 AM
This probably isnt the right format for an in-depth discussion of the mechanics of that kind of physics, or really any physics. Time dilation does disprove the idea that everything moves at a constant speed at all times however. Which i believe was one of the points of your argument.
What I said is that objets move through spacetime at rate C (the speed of light). This is simply another means of formulating special relativity. A completely stationary object (not technically possible due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but bear with me) travels through time at rate C. If it moves through space as well then it must move more slowly through time. If it moves through space at the speed of light then it doesn't move through time at all (and must be a massless particle, but that's another issue). I'm not sure how to explain this, but if you understand linear algebra you can think of it this way: spacetime has four dimensions. So your movement through spacetime can be represented by the vector [x y z t], where x, y, and z are the three spacial dimensions and t is the time dimension. Special relativity dictates that the length of this vector must be C. That is, the square root of (x squared + y squared + z squared + t squared) must be equal to C. So if you are not moving through space, that is x, y, and z are all 0, then t must be C. If you are moving through space then t must be smaller than C. Therefore the faster you move in space the slower you move through time. If you are moving at the speed of light through space then the square root of (x squared + y squared + z squared) is C and t 0 thus you are not moving through time at all, though again this is impossible for anything with mass.

It does that by altering the meaning of "time". You cannot have a speed without a constant time measurement. Speed is a measure of how long it takes to cover a given distance. When you cant have an objective Time you also cant have an objective speed because half of the equation is an inconstant. To put it simply you cannot measure what you cannot define accurately and we cannot accurately define time in an objective sense with our current technology or understanding.
Speed still has meaning even without definite time, it just doesn't follow our everyday intuition. Similarly time still has an objective definition, it just isn't independent of your reference frame.

Whether it would crush him or not is not something we cant accurately describe as a "law" because it cannot at this point be observed and duplicated. Therefore by definition whether it would crush him or not cannot be defined as anything more certain then a theory.
Except theories are very certain, and we have direct observational evidence regarding the effects of gravitational fields. So I'm not sure what you mean here.

It may be a technicality but since theories in physics are proven wrong all the time no one should be getting their panties in a bunch over magic violating theories of physics. No matter how likely those theories may seem according to our current understanding.
Theories in physics are very rarely proven wrong anymore. Special and general relativity have been proven accurate in highly exacting experiments and are far beyond any reasonable doubt. All that remains is to tweak them to work in certain extreme conditions like the big bang or inside black holes, and most importantly to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Knaight
2012-02-28, 04:36 AM
Theories in physics are very rarely proven wrong anymore. Special and general relativity have been proven accurate in highly exacting experiments and are far beyond any reasonable doubt. All that remains is to tweak them to work in certain extreme conditions like the big bang or inside black holes, and most importantly to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Moreover, the vast majority of changes are less "completely wrong" and more "mostly correct, but somewhat oversimplified". Take Newtonian Physics - we now know that they are technically incorrect. With that said, they are close enough approximations to be useful for almost everything that happens at a macro scale on Earth. Bohr's model of the atom is incorrect, but it's still close enough to be usable for much of chemistry. Mendel's model of genetics is oversimplified and technically wrong on a few details, but it still works fairly well within its limits. The sudden, drastic upturning of everything gets focused on, but for the most part that isn't how scientific advancement works.

Even in cases where the early explanations seem utterly wrong, they often aren't. Germ theory supplanted a theory regarding "bad air", but "bad air" is a somewhat usable model, and has similar implications regarding quarantine, hygiene, and certain treatments. Germ theory is less a hugely new understanding and more an understanding of what was in that "bad air", which also expands it outward to various other vectors of disease. Or, consider the shape of the planet - technically, it's not quite spherical, but the sphere model is very close. Moreover, the sphere and flat models aren't actually as different as they seem, as the curvature needed is incredibly minor.

Also, to much of the rest of the thread. The "laws of physics" is a monicker more than an acknowledgement of laws divorced from theories. Theories are really the "highest" form of scientific knowledge, and "laws" fit within these theories. The "laws" of thermodynamics fit within the theories regarding thermodynamics. The term "law" is usually just applied because of the mountains of data the relevant theories have.

Deepbluediver
2012-02-28, 09:03 AM
The result I spelled out is simply (what I believe to be) the logical result of a situation where spellcasters are better at everything.....Now, you can argue with my logic, but I don't see how a fictional world having different physical laws would affect my argument, unless the laws of logic themselves were different, and I'm not even sure how we would discuss such a world.

I understand that individuals will not necessarily fall in line with general trends, but I don't think that much affects my argument....Non-spellcasters would take on lesser jobs or work as assistants to spellcasters, but wouldn't compete directly with spellcasters or work with them as equal partners.
I think you are over-simplifying and making some very drastic assumptions about the system in which your logic operates, but I'm not a trained logician so I'll forgo a rebuttal. At this point though it's become as much a matter of preference and belief; I would make different assumptions, so I don't think that your version of events is inevitable, but I acknowledge that it is a possible outcome. As you pointed out, because we can't test or observe a fictional universe, I think that's the best we can do.


Sorry, you have made a few errors here. All scientific knowledge is in the form of theories, not laws....
I was referring to scientific meaning as I understand it, in which a law is something that has been proven to a very high degree to always be applicable under the same circumstances; like the law of gravity, and a theory is an idea or principle that explains and predicts phenomena; like the theory of evolution or antimatter theory. If I was using the terms incorrectly, then my mistake.
I realize that now I'm the one who's simplifying a bit, but basically I was saying there is more disagreement and less certainty in the study of economics than the relevant parts of other sciences.

nightwyrm
2012-02-28, 10:32 AM
In scientific terms, a law is something that has been proven to a very high degree to always be applicable under the same circumstances; like the law of gravity.
A theory is an idea or principle that explains and predicts phenomena; like the theory of evolution or antimatter theory.
In terms of certainty, law are things that all (or nearly all) scientists accept, while theories are only partially applicable or still up for debate.

I just have to chime in here. A law in science is a description of what happens. It's a statement describing an observed relationship or phenomenon. A theory is an explanation of why that phenomenon happens. They are two different things. We have the laws of gravity which describes stuff being attracted to each other following a mathematical relationship and the theory of gravity which explains why stuff is being attracted to each other.

A theory never "graduates" into a law and you can't really say a theory is less certain than a law or that just because something is a theory and not a law that it's unreliable (sorry, sometimes I get "evolution is just a theory" people in other forums and it annoys the heck out of me).

As to the topic at hand, a problem with comparing real world science/physics with game physics is that real world scientific "rules" are descriptive. It's a description of what has happened. If we observe something new, we change our "rules" to account for that new observation. Game rules are proscriptive, they describe what can happen. Nothing can ever happen that lays outside of those rules. Except for magic (which are usually not well-defined enough to have rules on what their limitations are and thus can break all sorts of rules).

boredgremlin
2012-02-28, 11:00 AM
Theories in physics are very rarely proven wrong anymore. Special and general relativity have been proven accurate in highly exacting experiments and are far beyond any reasonable doubt. All that remains is to tweak them to work in certain extreme conditions like the big bang or inside black holes, and most importantly to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Sure they are. You just dont hear about them unless your a practicing physicist who happens to follow the trade journals.

Both relativities have been proven wrong in an objective sense over and over. Quantum physics breaks Einsteinian physics in all sorts of ways. People just dont make a point of that very often for 2 reasons.

1. respect. The guy did do a lot of great stuff.
2. It still works for big objects. But I'm sorry but when it completely breaks down with regards to small objects then it is simply incorrect and the observed instances where it gets things right its probably getting them right for the wrong reasons. Reasons which are not adequately understoon ATM. However, wrong is wrong.

More then that though you can find all sorts of disproven theories over the last 2 decades if you search for them.

Theres a sort of non-local medium field for a possible unified physics theory thats basically bunkum.

Last year we managed to shoot nuetrinos faster then light speed in a labratory. In which case according to Einstein they should have moved backwards in time. They did not. Which showed 2 things. Light speed is NOT the maximum possible speed, and Einstein was wrong about how speed and gravity affect time.

As hard as many physicists have tried they have yet to be able to discredit the experiment.

Jacob Barnett recently disproved at least part of the big bang theory

The higgs bosun particle itself doesnt have nearly enough evidence to support its existence to even properly rise to the level of the a theory dispite the play its gotten in mainstream physics. The only reason it hasnt been "disproven" is because its existence would neatly solve so many problems with our understanding of the world that physicists wont admit that its just not there.

But really they have bee looking for the god particle for over 40 years and never once detected one. For a particle that was necessary for the big bang to actually produce matter to be so uncommon in said matter that we cant find one after decades of searching is ludicrous.

Higgs bosun is like a vampire. Its friggin dead, they just havent staked it yet.

And those are just a few of the real biggies. Colleges and labratories produce theories all the time that turn out to be wrong. They are just more careful now to work to verify a big theory before trumpeting it in the trades so most people never know when they turn out to be wrong.

boredgremlin
2012-02-28, 11:08 AM
Moreover, the vast majority of changes are less "completely wrong" and more "mostly correct, but somewhat oversimplified". Take Newtonian Physics - we now know that they are technically incorrect. With that said, they are close enough approximations to be useful for almost everything that happens at a macro scale on Earth. Bohr's model of the atom is incorrect, but it's still close enough to be usable for much of chemistry. Mendel's model of genetics is oversimplified and technically wrong on a few details, but it still works fairly well within its limits. The sudden, drastic upturning of everything gets focused on, but for the most part that isn't how scientific advancement works.

Close but wrong, is still wrong. No matter how you try to spin it.

I could theorize that my cup is made of fluffy clouds that are frozen into cup shape which allow it to hold coffee. Saying that because it does actually hold coffee the rest of the theory is "close enough" is BS. Its still wrong.

Partysan
2012-02-28, 12:16 PM
Last year we managed to shoot nuetrinos faster then light speed in a labratory. In which case according to Einstein they should have moved backwards in time. They did not. Which showed 2 things. Light speed is NOT the maximum possible speed, and Einstein was wrong about how speed and gravity affect time.

That was big in the media, but every scientist basically said "Yeah, that would be huge if it was true, but it's probably just a mistake somewhere." Guess what, they found out one of the atomic clocks for measuring the speed had a loose cable.

Drolyt
2012-02-28, 01:16 PM
I think you are over-simplifying and making some very drastic assumptions about the system in which your logic operates, but I'm not a trained logician so I'll forgo a rebuttal. At this point though it's become as much a matter of preference and belief; I would make different assumptions, so I don't think that your version of events is inevitable, but I acknowledge that it is a possible outcome. As you pointed out, because we can't test or observe a fictional universe, I think that's the best we can do.
Fair enough, if we have different ideas of how things work then we'd end up with different conclusions.

I was referring to scientific meaning as I understand it, in which a law is something that has been proven to a very high degree to always be applicable under the same circumstances; like the law of gravity, and a theory is an idea or principle that explains and predicts phenomena; like the theory of evolution or antimatter theory. If I was using the terms incorrectly, then my mistake.
That's not how scientists would normally use the terms and there are some legitimate objections to your way of looking at things, but it isn't important for this discussion.

I realize that now I'm the one who's simplifying a bit, but basically I was saying there is more disagreement and less certainty in the study of economics than the relevant parts of other sciences.
Which is true, but I didn't think it mattered for my argument.

Sure they are. You just dont hear about them unless your a practicing physicist who happens to follow the trade journals.
Does that mean you are?

Both relativities have been proven wrong in an objective sense over and over. Quantum physics breaks Einsteinian physics in all sorts of ways. People just dont make a point of that very often for 2 reasons.
So do you know of any experiments that prove this? Unless I'm very much mistaken Quantum Electrodynamics incorporates Special Relativity into Quantum Mechanics so there is no disagreement there. There is disagreement between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, but there are proposed solutions to that, including the simple possibility that the plank length is indivisible since these incompatibilities exist at sub-plank length distances.

1. respect. The guy did do a lot of great stuff.
2. It still works for big objects. But I'm sorry but when it completely breaks down with regards to small objects then it is simply incorrect and the observed instances where it gets things right its probably getting them right for the wrong reasons. Reasons which are not adequately understoon ATM. However, wrong is wrong.
The equations of General Relativity do not mix with the equations of Quantum Mechanics; when you try to mix them you get infinities and nonsesical results. So far as I am aware neither theory has ever been shown inaccurate even slightly in any experiment, which is why this is such a problem. If you know of such an experiment then please inform me. Regardless it wouldn't prove General Relativity wrong any more than General Relativity proved gravity wrong; the equations might need adjusting, but the ideas are solid and experimentally verified with such accuracy that overturning General Relativity is pretty much unthinkable.

More then that though you can find all sorts of disproven theories over the last 2 decades if you search for them.

Theres a sort of non-local medium field for a possible unified physics theory thats basically bunkum.
You'll need to be more specific. Regardless there is a difference between disproving a young hypothesis and disproving a tried and tested theory that has been subjected to years of the most difficult tests we can imagine.

Last year we managed to shoot nuetrinos faster then light speed in a labratory. In which case according to Einstein they should have moved backwards in time. They did not. Which showed 2 things. Light speed is NOT the maximum possible speed, and Einstein was wrong about how speed and gravity affect time.
I'm aware of this test and it doesn't show anything you are claiming. First, it has yet to be reproduced elsewhere; at least 5 experiments are underway. Second, several possible sources of error have been identified, including the mentioned loose cable. Third, even if it were true we don't know what the implications would be. Einstein's equations do in fact allow for tachyons, particles which move faster than light and have an imaginary mass. It isn't clear what imaginary mass would mean, and most physicists don't believe such particles exist, but it doesn't in and of itself violate Einstein's theories.

As hard as many physicists have tried they have yet to be able to discredit the experiment.
That's because it takes months or years to set up particle experiments. As has been noted it may have been a loose cable, they haven't had the chance to test it with new equipment yet.

Jacob Barnett recently disproved at least part of the big bang theory
You'd have to be more specific.

The higgs bosun particle itself doesnt have nearly enough evidence to support its existence to even properly rise to the level of the a theory dispite the play its gotten in mainstream physics. The only reason it hasnt been "disproven" is because its existence would neatly solve so many problems with our understanding of the world that physicists wont admit that its just not there.
What? The Higgs-Boson isn't a theory. It is a hypothetical particle predicted by the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Basically if we detected it it would give us more definitive evidence for the Standard Model and hopefully give more us more insight into its workings.

But really they have bee looking for the god particle for over 40 years and never once detected one. For a particle that was necessary for the big bang to actually produce matter to be so uncommon in said matter that we cant find one after decades of searching is ludicrous.
What? Seriously? I don't think you understand how this works at all. It isn't that Higgs Boson are rare (assuming they exist), it is that trying to find them (and Gravitons and really any subatomic particle) is like trying to hit a bullet with another bullet while blindfolded and riding a horse. They are really freaking small, and the only way to detect them is to hit them with other really freaking small particles.

Higgs bosun is like a vampire. Its friggin dead, they just havent staked it yet.

No just no.

And those are just a few of the real biggies. Colleges and labratories produce theories all the time that turn out to be wrong. They are just more careful now to work to verify a big theory before trumpeting it in the trades so most people never know when they turn out to be wrong.
I don't think you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory that the last century of scientific inquiry has revolved around.

boredgremlin
2012-02-28, 02:10 PM
Does that mean you are?

Yes I follow trade journals. I was persuing physics in college before switching to make more money with a business degree. I still find the subject fascinating however and follow it when i can.


So do you know of any experiments that prove this? Unless I'm very much mistaken Quantum Electrodynamics incorporates Special Relativity into Quantum Mechanics so there is no disagreement there. There is disagreement between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, but there are proposed solutions to that, including the simple possibility that the plank length is indivisible since these incompatibilities exist at sub-plank length distances.

I'm going to try not to get too esoteric here but essentially QED is an attempt to incorporate special relativity. An attempt which fails in many ways, perhaps most notably when considering gyromagnetic ratios.

But the essense is that its an attempt to square quantum physics with special relativity that falls flat on its face in a lot of ways. And unless its always right, its wrong. So while it was a good attempt which succeeds on the surface when you get down to the nitty gritty it simply cant be correct.


The equations of General Relativity do not mix with the equations of Quantum Mechanics; when you try to mix them you get infinities and nonsesical results.

Which is how you know that one or the other is wrong. The equations are the meat of the theory. If they dont work then the theory doesnt work.


So far as I am aware neither theory has ever been shown inaccurate even slightly in any experiment, which is why this is such a problem.


You dont need to conduct an experiment and the difficulty of conducting such experiments with our current technology does not in any way invalidate the fact that when the baseline equations dont work then the theory doesnt work.



If you know of such an experiment then please inform me. Regardless it wouldn't prove General Relativity wrong any more than General Relativity proved gravity wrong;

For a very long time Eisensteinien physics was indeed considered to have disproven large amounts of newtonian physics. Its only recent developments that have caused people to take another look at newtonian physics, primarily due to the newly discovered problems with relativity and its cousin special relativity.



You'll need to be more specific.

This really isnt the place for that. I think we're boring most people to tears with the turn this discussion has taken. Feel free to PM me though.


I'm aware of this test and it doesn't show anything you are claiming.

Yes it absolutely does. Short of some sort of wormhole einstein believed that light speed was the top speed. Furthermore he postulated that the faster an object went the less it was affected by the passage of time.

Essentially time slows the faster your moving according to einstien. And according to his equations anything moving faster then the speed of light would indeed begin to move backwards in time.

Thats just how the equation works. So....
Particle did not move backwards = equation wrong
equation wrong= theory wrong
Theory wrong= einstien wrong.

its really that simple. You cant claim the theory is correct if its underlying equation is proven false. without the equation there is no theory.



Einstein's equations do in fact allow for tachyons, particles which move faster than light and have an imaginary mass. It isn't clear what imaginary mass would mean, and most physicists don't believe such particles exist, but it doesn't in and of itself violate Einstein's theories.


Tachyons are a fantasy particle that Einstein made up out of thin air when he discovered he was wrong about the light speed barrier and his theory was thus wrong. He has no cogent explanation for what they are or how they would work anywhere and neither does anyone else.

Einstein trying to patch his theory by making **** up instead of completely admitting he was wrong in no way means he wasnt wrong in the first place.


What? The Higgs-Boson isn't a theory. It is a hypothetical particle

Or in other words "theres a bunch of **** we dont understand and wouldnt it be great if a "god" particle did it? Yeah lets go with that". Its just as made up as the stuff in our D&D books.






predicted by the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Basically if we detected it it would give us more definitive evidence for the Standard Model and hopefully give more us more insight into its workings.

Yes it would. If it was real. But its not. And it never will be. We have never detected any evidence of it and never will because, and heres the important thing to remember, it is NOT REAL. Its a convenient invention to plug holes in equations that didnt work.

Higgs-bosun is a grant money gathering scheme. They get in front of ignorant bureaucrats and talk about a "god particle" that makes everything work and could let them build miraculous things if they could harness it and then money falls from the sky and everyone stays employed.





What? Seriously? I don't think you understand how this works at all. It isn't that Higgs Boson are rare (assuming they exist), it is that trying to find them (and Gravitons and really any subatomic particle) is like trying to hit a bullet with another bullet while blindfolded and riding a horse. They are really freaking small, and the only way to detect them is to hit them with other really freaking small particles.

And yet we have discovered actual evidence of many kinds of sub-atomic particles. From deep space collectors to deep earth labs we have witnessed and collected all sorts of things. Those things are real. The things we should be able to detect but cant? Are not real.



I don't think you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory

There is no difference. Some have merely gone long enough without being dis-proven that they become enshrined as some sort of absolute truth even though they have not themselves been proven yet.

But failing to disprove something is not the same thing as proving it. You screw up the entire scientific method if you start thinking that way.

Partysan
2012-02-28, 02:53 PM
This really isnt the place for that. I think we're boring most people to tears with the turn this discussion has taken. Feel free to PM me though.

If anything please open a new thread for it (and link it here). I for one am greatly interested in this discussion.

MukkTB
2012-02-28, 02:59 PM
What is this? I think the op is trying to justify martial characters having nice things. But this thing with magic is an exercise in silly.

By default a fantasy world has the same fundamental rules as reality. E=MC^2. Newtons laws apply. That way the sun shines and when a horse pulls a carriage the carriage moves forward.

Then magic is overlaid on the world. Saying bipity bopity boo will make a pumpkin appear ect. You could replace E=MC^2 with a giant dung beetle pushing a burning ball of dung. However when you do that its an arbitrary handwave.

For example I could declare a steampunk world in which clockwork robots work. However I couldn't explain which laws of physics were changed so that life as we know it remained the same but the robot was possible. You probably couldn't do it convincingly either.

Magic runs on the narrative decisions of the author. Nothing more. Analyzing the nature of magic is stupid beyond establishing that one fact.



As to melee having nice things, I'm in favor of it. In a GAME its generally a good idea to allow players to have the same amount of potency. Sometimes uneven games can be fun but on the long run with multiple playthroughs people are going to look to see if its 'fair.' 3.5 is not fair to martial characters.

On the other hand the pursuit of balance above all else led to 4E. I like tome of battle. I'm not a major fan of 4E.


TLDR: Magic is just the narrator declaring whatever he wants. Melee deserve nice things.

Drolyt
2012-02-28, 03:30 PM
I'm going to try not to get too esoteric here but essentially QED is an attempt to incorporate special relativity. An attempt which fails in many ways, perhaps most notably when considering gyromagnetic ratios.
I'll admit that I haven't actually gotten around to studying QED in depth, or really anything beyond the most basic Quantum Mechanics yet. So I'll have to concede this point on the assumption that you know what you are talking about, cause I don't.

But the essense is that its an attempt to square quantum physics with special relativity that falls flat on its face in a lot of ways. And unless its always right, its wrong. So while it was a good attempt which succeeds on the surface when you get down to the nitty gritty it simply cant be correct.
Part of our disagreement lies with philosophical details. I don't consider a theory that merely needs slight modifications to be wrong in the same sense that the Aristotelian theory of elements is wrong. I suppose this is a bit nit picky, but it appears to be what we really disagree about.

Which is how you know that one or the other is wrong. The equations are the meat of the theory. If they dont work then the theory doesnt work.

You dont need to conduct an experiment and the difficulty of conducting such experiments with our current technology does not in any way invalidate the fact that when the baseline equations dont work then the theory doesnt work.
Except both are right insofar as they predict the outcome of any event to an amazing degree. Only in a very small realm do their predictions fail, and to my knowledge some theories (like String Theory) suggest that that realm doesn't exist and the equations only mess up because we attempt to apply them to non-real circumstances.

For a very long time Eisensteinien physics was indeed considered to have disproven large amounts of newtonian physics. Its only recent developments that have caused people to take another look at newtonian physics, primarily due to the newly discovered problems with relativity and its cousin special relativity.
Many scientists now consider that modern physics did not disprove but merely improved on classical physics. I think this is where we disagree. Many of the ideas I am trying to get across about the difference between disproving and modifying a theory are better explained by Stephen Hawking in his various popular science books like A Brief History of Time.

This really isnt the place for that. I think we're boring most people to tears with the turn this discussion has taken. Feel free to PM me though.
I'll start a new thread then. Actually this is a good place to stop, I have other things I should really be doing. The only other thing I'd like to say is that just because ignorant journalists started calling the Higgs Boson a "God Particle" that doesn't in any way reflect the validity of the theory itself.

Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12806772#post12806772) the thread.

RedWarlock
2012-02-28, 04:30 PM
Magic runs on the narrative decisions of the author. Nothing more. Analyzing the nature of magic is stupid beyond establishing that one fact.

As to melee having nice things, I'm in favor of it. In a GAME its generally a good idea to allow players to have the same amount of potency. Sometimes uneven games can be fun but on the long run with multiple playthroughs people are going to look to see if its 'fair.' 3.5 is not fair to martial characters.

On the other hand the pursuit of balance above all else led to 4E. I like tome of battle. I'm not a major fan of 4E.

TLDR: Magic is just the narrator declaring whatever he wants. Melee deserve nice things.

Agreed with all of this, although I do like 4e in its intent.

Magic should be an internally-consistant (internal to the world/story) principle. It might very well be a superset of 'common' knowledge, but it's not an automatic 'do-anything' concept that makes anyone who can wield it into the master of all reality.

D&D is first of all a game, and should reflect the principle that a level 20 Wizard should be as overall powerful and capable as a level 20 Fighter. Individual challenges don't need to use the same type or strength of response (part of the problem with 4e), but the overall capability of each class should be identical.

Wizards/etc being more powerful than mundane melee types should be a principle of level rather than class. Nothing in fiction (where those 'more powerful' magic types show up) ever claimed them to be the same level as the fighter types, and I think that's where a lot of people draw the wrong assumption. They're considered more powerful because they're higher level. That's all.

It's not a required principle, but I think the 3e idea of a level X character also being useable as a level X CR encounter is a good guideline and judge of character power, whether that's 20 levels of wizard, fighter, or whatever.

GolemsVoice
2012-02-28, 05:04 PM
Magic should be an internally-consistant (internal to the world/story) principle. It might very well be a superset of 'common' knowledge, but it's not an automatic 'do-anything' concept that makes anyone who can wield it into the master of all reality.

Magic isn't real, therefore it can be anything you want it to be. Arguing over what magic "should" is silly, in my opinion. You can always state what you PREFER magic to be, but not what it is, or should be.


As to melee having nice things, I'm in favor of it. In a GAME its generally a good idea to allow players to have the same amount of potency. Sometimes uneven games can be fun but on the long run with multiple playthroughs people are going to look to see if its 'fair.' 3.5 is not fair to martial characters.


What makes D&D especially grating is that it has a level, or level-equivalent system to measure the power. If one would just play "caster" and "fighter" it might be ok, but you specifically play a level 10 fighter and a level 10 wizard, and so you'd expect they should be on the same level, and I#d agree.

Bogardan_Mage
2012-02-28, 05:47 PM
Sorry, I'm confused. How does Time Stop break the laws of physics? All it does is speed up the caster's biological processes so that they percieve the world around them moving much more slowly (to the point that it appears to stop, indeed). This is RAW (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/timeStop.htm). The speed of light and relativity don't come into it, partly because Time Stop is quite small in its scope, only speeding you up by a factor of five at most.

Besides, why bother with Time Stop or even relativity when the lowest level Evocation or Conjuration spells essentially throw the laws of thermodynamics out the window?

Drolyt
2012-02-28, 05:54 PM
Sorry, I'm confused. How does Time Stop break the laws of physics? All it does is speed up the caster's biological processes so that they percieve the world around them moving much more slowly (to the point that it appears to stop, indeed). This is RAW (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/timeStop.htm). The speed of light and relativity don't come into it, partly because Time Stop is quite small in its scope, only speeding you up by a factor of five at most.

Besides, why bother with Time Stop or even relativity when the lowest level Evocation or Conjuration spells essentially throw the laws of thermodynamics out the window?
Because Time Stop was specifically mentioned. Conjuration in general violates real world physics, yes, evocation is more arguable depending on the spell. At any rate your explanation doesn't explain why you can't interact with other creatures.

Bogardan_Mage
2012-02-28, 06:00 PM
Because Time Stop was specifically mentioned. Conjuration in general violates real world physics, yes, evocation is more arguable depending on the spell. At any rate your explanation doesn't explain why you can't interact with other creatures.
As I said, it's not my explanation, it's the explanation of the Rules As Written. I don't know why you can't interact with other creatures (narratively, that is. It's pretty clearly a balance thing in game terms) but it needn't be a function of the method by which time is "stopped", especially when the spell explicitly works in the way I've already stated.

Drolyt
2012-02-28, 06:10 PM
As I said, it's not my explanation, it's the explanation of the Rules As Written. I don't know why you can't interact with other creatures (narratively, that is. It's pretty clearly a balance thing in game terms) but it needn't be a function of the method by which time is "stopped", especially when the spell explicitly works in the way I've already stated.
As written all it says is that you speed up. It doesn't say how. I'm not sure how it matters, I can't think of an explanation for the speed up that doesn't violate physics as we know it. Obviously it doesn't violate the physics of the world in a D&D campaign, which is kind of my point; the exact mechanism isn't important.

Bogardan_Mage
2012-02-28, 06:19 PM
As written all it says is that you speed up. It doesn't say how. I'm not sure how it matters, I can't think of an explanation for the speed up that doesn't violate physics as we know it. Obviously it doesn't violate the physics of the world in a D&D campaign, which is kind of my point; the exact mechanism isn't important.
Maybe my knowledge of physics is wanting, but I don't see how speeding up a human body by a factor of no more than five is necessarily (or even likely) a violation of any physical laws. Biological, perhaps. Beyond the reach of modern technology, sure. But physically impossible? I certainly don't see where the speed of light comes into it, and the initially given explanation seemed to rest on the erroneous assumption that Time Stop actually stopped time, which is specifically states it does not.

Knaight
2012-02-28, 06:25 PM
Maybe my knowledge of physics is wanting, but I don't see how speeding up a human body by a factor of no more than five is necessarily (or even likely) a violation of any physical laws. Biological, perhaps. Beyond the reach of modern technology, sure. But physically impossible? I certainly don't see where the speed of light comes into it, and the initially given explanation seemed to rest on the erroneous assumption that Time Stop actually stopped time, which is specifically states it does not.

Given what that implies about the travel time of electrical impulses in the nervous system and brain, there are some problems. Unless, of course, it just rewires the entire nervous system so as to make it far more efficient - but that has other problems.

Drolyt
2012-02-28, 06:30 PM
Maybe my knowledge of physics is wanting, but I don't see how speeding up a human body by a factor of no more than five is necessarily (or even likely) a violation of any physical laws. Biological, perhaps. Beyond the reach of modern technology, sure. But physically impossible? I certainly don't see where the speed of light comes into it, and the initially given explanation seemed to rest on the erroneous assumption that Time Stop actually stopped time, which is specifically states it does not.
Someone else made the time dilation proposal and I argued against it. As for how simply increasing your perception speed and allowing you to move really fast breaks physics it is mostly an issue of your interaction with other objects. For one thing if you are moving fast enough to see other people as standing still there should be some relativistic effects, for another if you are moving that fast you should feel friction with the air which would have numerous undesirable effects, and for yet another there is no explanation for why you cannot affect the world around you.

Bogardan_Mage
2012-02-28, 06:30 PM
Given what that implies about the travel time of electrical impulses in the nervous system and brain, there are some problems. Unless, of course, it just rewires the entire nervous system so as to make it far more efficient - but that has other problems.
Ok, that's a good point. Is that really a limiting factor in human reaction times? By how much could we be sped up?

huttj509
2012-02-28, 06:44 PM
Physics strives to find a comprehensive model for the universe, yes?

All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George Box

To my mind, there is a difference between wrong and Wrong. Capital-R Right would be absolutely accurate accounts for everything. Capital-W wrong would be a model that is not Right.

Newtonian mechanics, for example, would be Wrong. They do not give correct results in a number of circumstances, and fail to account for various effects that have been observed.

Then why are they still taught? Because they're useful. For most applications on the surface of the Earth, Newtonian mechanics are not wrong, despite being Wrong. They give correct results to within measurable error. The key is to know when things start to differ (very very small or very very fast, for example, even GPS needs to take relativistic effects into account).

Now the discrepancies between the models for the big, and the models for the small imply that at least one of those models is Wrong. But even if relativistic mechanics were shown to be missing something concrete tomorrow...your GPS would still work. Newtonian mechanics are Wrong, but your car still runs, even though it was designed with no concern for relativity.

If there is something new and mind blowingly significant in its effects, either it only plays a role in a particular case while having little effect on all the cases we had been measuring (again, Newtonian -> Relativistic), or we've really been screwing up measurements (full on wrong theories such as Impetus - stuff travels in a straight line when thrown until it runs out of impetus and falls straight down, did nobody notice that that's not how stuff moves except maybe feathers?).

Now, we're pretty sure we've been careful in measurements. That's why things like the neutrino FTL was so potentially interesting. It's not that we've been doing things wrong, it's that we might have been on the verge of discovering a new special case, with new features of unknown uses.

Einstein may be Wrong. That doesn't mean we throw everything relativistic into the trash and start from scratch.

Heck, we still teach the Bohr model of the atom. The Bohr model. Really. Because for what it works for, it still works, and it's easier for people to get a hold on then throwing them straight into orbital clouds and wavefunctions.

Delwugor
2012-02-29, 02:28 AM
Newtonian mechanics, for example, would be Wrong. They do not give correct results in a number of circumstances, and fail to account for various effects that have been observed.
Your definition of Right and Wrong do not take into account that many scientific principles have a range for which they are valid.
Newtonian Physics is Right for the domain where relativistic effects do not impact the results within measurable standards.
Now Newtonian Physics is incomplete since it does not define what gravity is.

I suspect that Relativity (both) will also be shown to be valid only within a certain domain yet undiscovered. I also think Relativity is incomplete as it lacks a definition of Time which of course plays a critical role in spacetime. This also implies that his theory of Relativity is incomplete, but that does not mean nor imply it is Wrong.

Quantum mechanics has been extremely accurate so far but it's incompleteness is well known. In fact that incompleteness may be its greatest strength and why it works so well.

Back on topic I urge anyone really interested in a magic which follows a scientifically consistent (if inaccurate) model to read Empire of the East by Fred Saberhagen. Basically through a combination of suppressing cross-sections of nuclear processes and a form of advanced biochemicals different expressions of energies are more likely (those leading to magic) and combined with those biochemical processes leads to unusual life forms such as Ardneh and Orcus, other demons and technological genies.

Deepbluediver
2012-02-29, 10:27 AM
I just have to chime in here. A law in science is a description of what happens. It's a statement describing an observed relationship or phenomenon. A theory is an explanation of why that phenomenon happens. They are two different things. We have the laws of gravity which describes stuff being attracted to each other following a mathematical relationship and the theory of gravity which explains why stuff is being attracted to each other.

A theory never "graduates" into a law and you can't really say a theory is less certain than a law or that just because something is a theory and not a law that it's unreliable (sorry, sometimes I get "evolution is just a theory" people in other forums and it annoys the heck out of me).


That's not how scientists would normally use the terms and there are some legitimate objections to your way of looking at things, but it isn't important for this discussion.
Sorry about that then, my mistake.

I think what I really was trying to say is something like: there are even more variables that we do not understand well or have trouble modeling when it comes to something like a society's economic/cultural/industrial system than there are for the laws of physics, so that you can say with even less certainty what the outcome of a given situation would be under those circumstances.

jseah
2012-03-01, 09:05 AM
You're saying that magic does not break the laws of physic, and I say it does, because it can change or suspend them as the caster sees fit, and that's the only rule there is.
Makes spell that increases amount of change magic can do for a given amount of power.
Cast spell once. Spell gets better, more increase on next casting. Cast again. Even more increase next casting.

100 castings later, exponential growth allows caster to flatten world.

Roderick_BR
2012-03-01, 09:05 AM
Yeah, gonna have to disagree with your premise here; when someone says that Magic breaks the laws of Physics, and you respond with "well, in a world with Magic, the Laws of Physics would be different" you might be technically right, but you've missed the point.

Magic does things that break the Laws of Physics as they exist in the real world. It doesn't matter if they don't break the Laws of Physics in the fictional, Magic compliant, world, because those Laws of Physics aren't THE Laws of Physics.

Get me?

And to respond to your other point, Internal Consistency has never been the strong point of any setting that has magic and wants to balance it against anything that isn't equivalent to magic. Because, just as you said, why would there still be non-magical/mundane people if Magic users can do it all effortlessly? Some settings have their explanations for this, but some don't. I suppose we just have to chalk it up to the Willing Suspension of the Disbelief.

Allow me explain it in layman terms:

When a player, a real person sitting next to you, say that. It's correct and real. Magic does that, because we are comparing it to our world. It's a normal form of comparison.
When a player character says that, like V did, he's implying that some laws of physics in fact do exists in his world, and magic is a major exception. If they say a man can't fly all by itself, because it's just how physics works, magic tells it to shut up and makes that man fly. It doesn't mean that magic's existence automatically makes all men fly, everywhere in that world.

Simple.

As for overpowered, it depends. D&D makes magic way too easy to obtain and acquire. The same ammount of practice and training, and study that takes a fighter to swing a sword better, is enough to make a wizard learn how to turn a giant rock into a peeble.
Notice that in older versions, casters required more experience points. In 3.x, casters advance on the same speed, and most spells lost all drawbacks. Any average joe with just barely enough inteligence(or wisdom, or charisma) can pick a "spellcasting for dummies" and start bending the fabric of reality within few days.
I just think some spells are too powerful for it's level, and some should be pushed into Epic area. Just that. It's like giving fighters a feat that gives them attack +5/damage +10, right on first level, and a feat that gives them reach +30 on 3rd level, and at 5th level they could see invisible, fly for short ammount of times, and kill stuff with a single attack roll. Things that are only available as Epic feats.

jseah
2012-03-01, 10:52 AM
More seriously, I think the main problems with overpowered magic is due to two things.

1) We expect the world to make sense and play by the same logical rules that ours does.
Sure, a fantasy world doesn't have to do so, but playing in a world where statements can be true, false and bland... can get a bit involved.

Simply, we do not understand worlds without the same logical foundations that ours does. Hence, all playable (and readable) fantasy worlds will have the same logical assumptions as ours.

a = a. Not true is false. 1 + 1 = 2. That kind of thing.

Spatial assumptions and assumptions about information are sometimes violated, but they cause such huge changes that it is often the entire point of the story.

Eg. a story set in a space with negative curvature (the circumference of a circle is not pi*diameter)

2) Now that last point, the assumption about information is simply this:
No spontaneous information is created. Randomly sifting a box of sand does not make stuff happen. Not without expenditure of energy and some external arranging principle (evolution, self-assembly, design, etc.)

Here is the problem. Magic DOES this.
The number of humanly possible syllables in a twenty word chant isn't enough to define what an object is. Never mind the lack of a causal link (which magic systems provide). Magic *creates* information.
The caster defines a desired effect, evokes the magic actions, and all the blanks are filled in, boxes ticked without his/her doing anything about it. And the effect happens.

THIS is the reason why magic is unreasonable and why any engineering student in a fantasy setting would snap the world in half inside ten years (I exaggerate, of course) provided that magic isn't strictly limited to a defined set of spells and nothing else.

If we are to preserve the logical assumptions (and there are very good reasons to), either magic creates information, or the world contains alot less of it. The first makes mages too powerful (in the setting altering sense), the other makes understanding things is too easy = A level equivalent in physics studies theory of everything.


You might want to think about how magic systems often answer these questions:
What is an object?
What does 'stationary' in stationary object mean?
Do two objects fall at the same speed? In a vacuum?
Does the caster define the effects of a spell/Are spells hardcoded for certain behaviours ... or... Do spells "fill in the blanks" when casted based on intention?