Power vs. Versatility and Magic vs. Mundane [Archive]

Talakeal

2013-08-31, 04:18 PM

TLDR: Should a character with extra versatility be less powerful than a single focus character? Is the higher tier of casters an intentional thing?

So I have been working on a homebrew d20 system for a number of years now, and I believe that it is more or less "balanced". That all character types can contribute in most situations, and all have plenty of options, and are more or less equal in terms of power.

I have given martial characters lots of interesting options, while for mages I have found ways to get around the "15 minute work day" and fixed all of the truly broken spell combos that I or more players have found (although I am sure there are plenty more lurking in the margins...).

I was asking one of my play testers if he felt that game was balanced, and he said no, because he is a wizard and he doesn't outperform the rest of the party.

The system is set up so that if he wants to "go nova" and expend all his high level spells on one encounter he will make the rest of the party irrelevant, but he will need to sit back and use lower level spells the rest of the day, at which point they will outshine him. To me this is balanced, because it is equal spotlight time. My player disagrees for three reasons.

First as a caster he has the worst (or is tied for worst) saves, skills, HP, BaB, proficiencies, and the shortest list of class features in the game.

Second, as a wizard he has to work harder OOC. It takes a lot more effort to pick the right spell for a given situation than "run up and hit the bad guy with a stick".

Third, wizards should be more powerful for IC reasons. The old "Why should a guy who can rewrite reality with his mind ever lose to an idiot with a pointy stick?*".

I explained that these are all intentional drawbacks which are balanced out by his sheer versatility. As a generalist wizard with access to any spell in the game he can contribute as much or as little as he likes to ANY given situation, often times on par with a non caster who is specialized in the same area. The play tester disagreed and said that versatility is no excuse for a lack of raw "power", and that wizards should outshine non casters in any situation.

What do you guys think? Is versatility over rated? Are casters in the top tiers and melee in the bottom to intentionally compensate the players and to enhance verisimilitude?

*To me this argument has always been one sided and hollow. Magic doesn't exist, and it can have whatever limits the creator wants to give it without breaking "realism". In most stories I have read magic is powerful but limited, and unless they are literal gods the wizards still need the help of non wizards and can be defeated by them. The above quote uses intentional loaded words, and can be safely responded to with a similarly loaded statement "Why wouldn't a highly trained killer in peak physical condition and equipped with state of the art weaponry be able to defeat an old man in a bath robe shouting gibberish?"

awa

2013-08-31, 04:23 PM

i agree with you if one character put all his time learning how to do one thing he should be better then someone one studies how to do everything.

fiction is full of examples with limits on there magic power

personally ive always hated how pro wizard people describe magic as rewriting reality or telling physics to sit down and shut up.

They arnt they are using magic to do a few very limited and very specific things they may be impressive things but they are just working with in the system that already exists.

ArcturusV

2013-08-31, 04:42 PM

Well, I think the problem you're running into may be your playtester pool. Particularly if they came off 3rd edition, they go into it expecting "Wizard" to mean something that they are familiar with. A better test would be to find a relative rookie, or at least someone who never played a Wizard in 3rd edition, and give them the class to run around with. That way they aren't prejudiced by what they think "Wizard" really is.

Because it sounds like that's the crux of the problem. He isn't complaining necessarily that the Wizard is unable to handle the situation, he's complaining that the Wizard isn't up to snuff with what he thinks a Wizard should be. If you had a neophyte in the playtest as the Wizard you could explain the class in terms of "You can do some really powerful stuff, but it takes time and effort, knowledge and planning" and they probably wouldn't bat an eye at it.

As for his points?

1) Well... if he is a legacy player who has Wizarding experience... remind him of the days prior to 3rd edition where a first level wizard got ONE spell (No bonus for high Int). Had potentially 1 HP, and no armor, no bonus to attack, the worse saves, could only use a staff or a dagger, no class features at all, AND took more XP to level up than any class. People still played Wizards in that environment however, knowing that they had one shot to do something awesome, and then sit back the rest of the day. So it's not that unusual of a balance mechanic, has been historically acceptable. Of course that was also predicated on the swing balance idea where, in return for several levels of having to be a tenacious, clever bastard to survive, you suddenly hit third level spell casting and start rocking face.

And considering the generally wide array of spells I don't consider the "no class features" argument to be particularly valid. Even without "Class features" you still can do a whole lot of things. That's the sort of erroneous logic that would lead to arguments like "Monk is better than Sorcerer because Monk has like 17 times the class features!"

2) Again I call this false. While yes, it can be more up front Out of Game work to research spells... almost every wizard I've ever seen has done this exact same thing. You spend your first between sessions week pouring through all the books. You find the "best" spells of any given level. You write them down somewhere as things in your book/to be added to your book... and you never do any real research again unless you suddenly got a new book with new spells in it. It's an up front investment, sure. But are you really claiming that every game he spends hours looking for the perfect spell? Or has he already reasonably found something like the best 4 blasty spells, the best 4 area control spells, the best 4 social utility spells, etc, and just goes to them when he needs to? At that point you're not talking about all that much more work than the Fighter who, upon character creation, needed to comb through every book for Feats and PrCs to make his concept work right.

3) "Why should a skinny nerd who needs 3 seconds to do an effect win against a guy who can shoot him dead in .3 seconds?" is the counter to that sort of argument in my mind. And again, it's entirely a Legacy thing. If he came from a setting where "Wizards" were not all powerful but merely tricksters who could do odd things (Like say, in RIFTS for example), he wouldn't even bring up this point. It's really kinda stupid when you think about it. It's like arguing that because something is true in DC Universe that it must be true in Marvel Universe. That's really the sort of thing he's going on. Well, it was true in 3rd edition so it has to be true in this game that isn't third edition.

Talakeal

2013-08-31, 04:50 PM

2) Again I call this false. While yes, it can be more up front Out of Game work to research spells... almost every wizard I've ever seen has done this exact same thing. You spend your first between sessions week pouring through all the books. You find the "best" spells of any given level. You write them down somewhere as things in your book/to be added to your book... and you never do any real research again unless you suddenly got a new book with new spells in it. It's an up front investment, sure. But are you really claiming that every game he spends hours looking for the perfect spell? Or has he already reasonably found something like the best 4 blasty spells, the best 4 area control spells, the best 4 social utility spells, etc, and just goes to them when he needs to? At that point you're not talking about all that much more work than the Fighter who, upon character creation, needed to comb through every book for Feats and PrCs to make his concept work right.

I think his argument is that he does go through and memorize a comfortable list of "power" spells and mostly ignore the rest, and at this point he has lost the "versatility" which I am claiming is his major strength.

ArcturusV

2013-08-31, 04:51 PM

Perhaps. The quote made me think he was claiming that "I do hours of research and the fighter just has to roll a d20 with no effort to be as effective as me!" sort of fallacy.

EDIT: Of course, unless you nixed it, he could always do what a lot of fictional wizards end up doing in that "I don't have the versatility" situation. Just research a new spell to do whatever it is you want. Plus it hammers home the concept that Wizards are insanely powerful... when given time and knowledge to prepare as they wish...

Sith_Happens

2013-08-31, 05:57 PM

I was asking one of my play testers if he felt that game was balanced, and he said no, because he is a wizard and he doesn't outperform the rest of the party.

Not that I'm surprised, but your players have a strange idea of what the word "balance" means.

Talakeal

2013-08-31, 05:59 PM

Not that I'm surprised, but your players have a strange idea of what the word "balance" means.

Its kind of funny. The exact words the player used when telling me this was: "No it is not balanced. Although it might look balanced to you, because you have some funny idea of balance where some idiot with a sword should be just as useful to the party as a master of the arcane."

Sith_Happens

2013-08-31, 06:03 PM

Its kind of funny. The exact words the player used when telling me this was: "No it is not balanced. Although it might look balanced to you, because you have some funny idea of balance where some idiot with a sword should be just as useful to the party as a master of the arcane."

In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers.

So yeah, he's wrong.

Greenish

2013-08-31, 06:07 PM

eggynack

2013-08-31, 06:15 PM

Its kind of funny. The exact words the player used when telling me this was: "No it is not balanced. Although it might look balanced to you, because you have some funny idea of balance where some idiot with a sword should be just as useful to the party as a master of the arcane."
You should probably just give him a smile and a thumbs up, and make a little note next to all of his opinions that indicates how crazy they are. Maybe you could just draw little crazy guy faces, or one of these: :smallconfused:. Seriously, his stance is completely illogical. Balanced doesn't mean what this guy thinks it means.

Talakeal

2013-08-31, 06:25 PM

You should probably just give him a smile and a thumbs up, and make a little note next to all of his opinions that indicates how crazy they are. Maybe you could just draw little crazy guy faces, or one of these: :smallconfused:. Seriously, his stance is completely illogical. Balanced doesn't mean what this guy thinks it means.

To be fair, that was just his initial response. When I asked him to elaborate he more or less clarified it into the three points I made in my OP, i.e.:

Versatility is not a worthwhile tradeoff for power, the player who puts in more effort should be rewarded, and the crunch and fluff need to match.

eggynack

2013-08-31, 06:42 PM

To be fair, that was just his initial response. When I asked him to elaborate he more or less clarified it into the three points I made in my OP, i.e.:

Versatility is not a worthwhile tradeoff for power, the player who puts in more effort should be rewarded, and the crunch and fluff need to match.
I saw them. They're just also generally odd, if a bit less crazy. The third point is rather similar to the one I quoted, so it's mostly down to the other two. In the case of class features, wizards get a crazy number of them, and they're called spells. On the idea that difficulty should directly connect to power, it's a position I've heard before, and there's some degree of logic to it, but it's never been a position I've agreed with. Besides, casters tend to be more noob friendly, because you can change them up over time. In any case, I have no idea if you went too far in your balancing, because I haven't seen the new system.

awa

2013-08-31, 06:44 PM

Talakeal

2013-08-31, 06:52 PM

well is the fluff in your setting that wizards have infinite power and can cast there most powerful spells continuously all day long?

If not then their is no problem with crunch/fluff at least in this particular instance.

In my setting / system magic is very powerful and dangerous, but limited and somewhat unpredictable.
If an equal level swordsman and wizard meet, assuming equal levels of preparation, the wizard will probably kill the swordsman, and will almost certainly be able to escape the swordsman. However, the wizard is likely to have used up so much of resources in doing so that he will be very vulnerable until he has time to replenish his power. The fluff and crunch follow one another fairly evenly in this regard.
Wizards are frightening and mysterious, but still vulnerable to heroes, and generally act as an advisor or support character, only intervening directly when the chips are down.

To me this matches fairly well the fiction I am most familiar with such as Conan, Dragon Lance, Lord of the Rings, and Arthurian Mythology.
The player in question says it flies in the face of the fiction he is most familiar with, namely Slayers and similar animes, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, and Forgotten Realms novels.

Blackhawk748

2013-08-31, 07:10 PM

To me this matches fairly well the fiction I am most familiar with such as Conan, Dragon Lance, Lord of the Rings, and Arthurian Mythology.
The player in question says it flies in the face of the fiction he is most familiar with, namely Slayers and similar animes, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, and Forgotten Realms novels.

Ok i normally play Sorcerers and i do it because of Wizards like this, now if hes most familiar with the above fictions, and i am too, he cant really complain. In Star Wars the Jedi and all force users are all gishes, just straight up. In the Wheel of Time Rand is a very accomplished swordsmen and most fights are solved with stabbing each other instead of nuking each other. And just ignore forgotten realms, the mages there are on some serious roids.

Now onto something more positive. Judging from what i read i probably wouldnt mind playing this game, as i usually only throw a few spells each encounter, like 2, and i let the beatsticks have their fun. Usually because i play blasters and its one of my favorite archetypes. On top of this i dont WANT to steal someones job, its theirs let them do it, ill go have fun doing mine.

Now giving mages the options to go all NUCLEAR-HOLOCAUST-OF-MAGICAL-DEATH is totally awesome and i would love to have this options, as in almost all fiction mages are capable of doing this, though they dont because its usually your last resort.

Eldan

2013-08-31, 07:37 PM

Third, wizards should be more powerful for IC reasons. The old "Why should a guy who can rewrite reality with his mind ever lose to an idiot with a pointy stick?*".

That argument is easily countered. "Why should a nuclear physicist lose to a Navy Seal in a fight?"

Anyway. I think it's like this. If you are much stronger, you are higher level. That's what levels are supposed to measure. If wizards are always stronger than mundanes, there's only one solution, really: mundane classes stop advancing at a certain level, and magicals only start at that level. Fill the earlier levels with "scholar" or something.

jaydubs

2013-08-31, 08:07 PM

Third, wizards should be more powerful for IC reasons. The old "Why should a guy who can rewrite reality with his mind ever lose to an idiot with a pointy stick?*".

You could always explain it like this. Wizards are extremely, extremely rare. Mundanes are extremely, extremely common. The average wizard, by virtue of being a reality bender, is far superior to the average mundane.

But, all PCs are supposed to be extraordinary. Since all magic users are already extraordinary, PC magic users are simply ordinary magic users. On the other hand, PC mundanes are the cream of the crop. The best of the best. The 99th percentile of mundane potential.

Merlin may mop the floor with random Joe barbarian. But the game is a lot closer when he's being compared to Hercules, Robin Hood, or David (and Goliath).

erikun

2013-08-31, 11:35 PM

I think that it is fine for a character to go "nova" and rule a single encounter, but not be able to do so repeatedly. I think that it is a problem, though, when said character is unable to meaningfully participate in encounters otherwise due to having bad enough stats, skills, and bonuses that they'd fail and hardly contribute. After all, if everything else is character about the wizard except for his ability to nuke encounters, then I wouldn't be surprised that the player feels disappointed.

Working harder OOC grants the character more versatility and more customization than the default/simpler method. Extra OOC "work" should not be generating a character more power; that's usually a problem with design when it happens.

"Wizards should be more powerful for IC reasons" does not sound like a valid complaint unless your system actually does have wizards as more powerful IC and there is an IC/mechanic conflict.

I'm not impressed by the complaints of your player, though. Above are my thoughts on his reasoning, although it sounds like he's just thinking "D&D3e Wizard" and ignoring what he's actually working with. The fact that he can nova his spells and be completely worthless for the rest of the session does display a possible concern, though.

TuggyNE

2013-09-01, 05:00 AM

Generally, there are three basic arguments for why a level X Wizard/Magic-User/Aes Sedai/what-have-you should be roughly as effective overall as a level X Fighter/Blademaster/whatever.

Definition of level: "Levels" are almost entirely metagame constructs; as such, they should be defined in a way that is convenient for the game, which usually includes balancing rates of power gain so that X = X' for any level X.
The limits of magic are defined by the fiction: as mentioned above, the idea that because the power and effectiveness of a caster varies wildly based on what book you're reading or story you're hearing, the game can pick from that range rather freely and thus set casters at roughly the same power level chosen for martials.
Comparative rarity: mentioned above, the idea that casters, while rare and powerful, are accompanied by those shockingly few martial characters that can somehow equal them (consider Mat's Rogue/luck rerolls build or Perrin's Wolfbrother template to Rand's gish build).

Each of these has considerable merit, and any one of them is more or less able to explain the balance problem on its own.

I consider the desire for intra-party balance in a game self-explanatory, and axiomatic. :smallwink:

jindra34

2013-09-01, 01:08 PM

On the basic issue of should Versatility have a cost, my answer is yes. But remember when looking at balance its not just Power and Versatility, there is also Reliability (how often it works as intended) and Sustainability (how much you can do in a single period [and the length of recovery]) to factor in. So its a wee bit more complex than the surface issue as presented.

Psyren

2013-09-01, 01:25 PM

Definition of level: "Levels" are almost entirely metagame constructs; as such, they should be defined in a way that is convenient for the game, which usually includes balancing rates of power gain so that X = X' for any level X.

This is fine in theory, but pulling it off in practice without turning the game into 4e is the issue at hand.

The limits of magic are defined by the fiction: as mentioned above, the idea that because the power and effectiveness of a caster varies wildly based on what book you're reading or story you're hearing, the game can pick from that range rather freely and thus set casters at roughly the same power level chosen for martials.

While it's true that fiction is fictional and the range of power available to magic and "not-magic" is entirely up to the designers, there's still the matter of expectations and verisimilitude to consider. Specifically, (a) why would anyone study magic at all if martial prowess can accomplish all the same things, and (b) if magic isn't more special or more capable, then what makes it interesting? If Dudley could learn to teleport or fly at Smeltings, why would Hogwarts be a big deal?

Fear of caster imbalance is a strong enough narrative concern to drive entire settings - it's at the core of Dragon Age's narrative for instance, and even in less traditional fantasy settings like the X-Men.

Comparative rarity: mentioned above, the idea that casters, while rare and powerful, are accompanied by those shockingly few martial characters that can somehow equal them (consider Mat's Rogue/luck rerolls build or Perrin's Wolfbrother template to Rand's gish build).

The problem with this analogy is that Perrin and Mat don't even come close to equaling Rand. Indeed, both of them towards the latter books ended up ringed by a constant contingent of Aes Sedai, Wise Ones, damane etc. who could do the "magic stuff" they needed as the plot warranted, as well as protect them from Black Ajah and Forsaken assassination attempts. Even Mat, the only POV character in the series to have any meaningful form of Spell Resistance, almost drank himself unconscious when he realized the terrible truth that "SR: No" spells/weaves existed in his universe.

I consider the desire for intra-party balance in a game self-explanatory, and axiomatic. :smallwink:

While I respect that desire, I'm always compelled to point out that not having that balance isn't as detrimental in practice as forums make it seem. High-powered games like Tippy's tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

That argument is easily countered. "Why should a nuclear physicist lose to a Navy Seal in a fight?"

A nuclear physicist is a poor analogy for a mage; he needs technology and lab equipment to actually apply his knowledge in a conflict, while the wizard does not.

Talakeal

2013-09-01, 02:26 PM

This is fine in theory, but pulling it off in practice without turning the game into 4e is the issue at hand.

I think the problem with 4E is mostly that it stripped away the versatility from casters, not the power. It also added, imo, arbitrary limits to mundane power, such as being unable to do most basic combat maneuvers without the right power and even then only a few times a game.

While it's true that fiction is fictional and the range of power available to magic and "not-magic" is entirely up to the designers, there's still the matter of expectations and verisimilitude to consider. Specifically, (a) why would anyone study magic at all if martial prowess can accomplish all the same things, and (b) if magic isn't more special or more capable, then what makes it interesting? If Dudley could learn to teleport or fly at Smeltings, why would Hogwarts be a big deal?

I can't say about other people's systems, but in mine mages are born that way. For a normal person to ever become a wizard requires a profound mental revelation, something equivalent to Buddhist enlightenment.

Also, magic is way more versatile and somewhat easier than mundane abilities, and if you are willing to go nova much more potent. Say, for example, you had always wanted to be a few inches taller. A surgeon could pull this off, but it would take many costly operations, months of recovery time, and it would never look quite right. Transmuters are rarer than surgeons, and their craft is arguably harder to train (or at least harder to find someone to teach you because of said rarity) but you can pull of the same effect flawlessly with a single spell.

Likewise teleportation requires a lot of power and magical effort, but is risk free and instantaneous compared to mundane transportation.

Then there are other effects like bringing back the dead, travelling through time, changing one's species, destroying an immortal creature, travelling to other planes, etc. which can never be replicated through mundane skill.

That does not, however, make mundane skill relevant. Nor are any of these abilities of much use in a straight up duel.

Fear of caster imbalance is a strong enough narrative concern to drive entire settings - it's at the core of Dragon Age's narrative for instance, and even in less traditional fantasy settings like the X-Men.

I never got far in dragon age, but is that a storyline thing or a mechanics thing? Are you at a major disadvantage if you don't play a wizard?

If it is just an NPC thing that is still around. NPC mages don't have to go through a dungeon to get to the PCs, the PCs will come to them. Though my players whine and complain that it is unfair, it is a very important aspect of the system that NPC mages are stronger than PC mages because they can go nova all the time.

Super-hero comics are not a good example as everyone's power level is pretty fluid and they can make up new uses for their powers on the fly and fluctuate greatly to make team ups and versus battles work regardless of their participants. Also, normally most people have a small handful of powers, actual wizards and omnipotent reality warpers being the partial exception. Still, comics just don't make sense, a villain who can hit hard enough to hurt colossus or wolverine or send them flying should be able to kill all of the x-men without super durability in a single blow, yet for some reason never do.

A nuclear physicist is a poor analogy for a mage; he needs technology and lab equipment to actually apply his knowledge in a conflict, while the wizard does not.

Again, that depends on the setting. A lot require mages to have access to components, wands, spell books, or even places of power or certain times of the year. Also, casting time and effort vary greatly. In call of Cthulhu iirc it takes a long ritual to pull of most spells. Even in Harry Potter you need to point your wand at someone and say a few words of faux Latin, by which time said navy seal could have easily fired off multiple rounds.

jindra34

2013-09-01, 02:31 PM

While it's true that fiction is fictional and the range of power available to magic and "not-magic" is entirely up to the designers, there's still the matter of expectations and verisimilitude to consider. Specifically, (a) why would anyone study magic at all if martial prowess can accomplish all the same things, and (b) if magic isn't more special or more capable, then what makes it interesting?
Well, 1. Magic and directed study don't have to do the same thing, or follow the same rules.
2.More capable doesn't mean more powerful, it can simply mean better able to get desired effects in a wider field of action.
And
3. Why should any field or ability set be as useful in a specific instance as the one that is primarily directed towards it if its more diverse in options. Essentially if magic can enable you to do everything a studied and trained swordsman can do and more, why would anyone train to be a swordsman?

Talakeal

2013-09-01, 02:40 PM

Also, imo magic isn't necessarily "harder" or more time consuming to learn than anything else.

Maybe in AD&D when wizards required more XP to level up, but now that everyone needs the same amount of XP (which holds true in my system) that just isn't true.

A level three wizard has put exactly as much time and effort into training his spells as a level three fighter has put into training with weapons.

awa

2013-09-01, 03:11 PM

" (a) why would anyone study magic at all if martial prowess can accomplish all the same things,"

You could flip that around just as easily if magic is better why is anyone not a wizard?

Eric Tolle

2013-09-01, 03:44 PM

This is fine in theory, but pulling it off in practice without turning the game into 4e is the issue at hand.

D&D and AD&D did a much better job of that balance- due to the nature of saving throws and spellcasting and spell acquisition, high level fighters were valued. (On the other hand, D&D didn't do a good version of rogues until 4E, but that's another thread).

And for that matter, Dungeon World and any number of non-D&D based games, such as Jaws of the Six Serpents, Amber, Warhammer, FATE Core, and the like manage to do decent spellcaster non-spellcaster balance, so there's really no reason why D&D shouldn't be able to manage it. Except that the game explicitly favors overpowered spellcasters through unintentionally bad design. Remember, the designers thought wizards were just going to toss fireballs abd clerics were going to heal. The bad design synchronization didn't become evident until later.

While it's true that fiction is fictional and the range of power available to magic and "not-magic" is entirely up to the designers, there's still the matter of expectations and verisimilitude to consider.

I think the matter of expectations is key; 3E players are used to a munchkinized environment where mages were massively overpowered, and the only real counter to magic was magic.

Specifically, (a) why would anyone study magic at all if martial prowess can accomplish all the same things, and (b) if magic isn't more special or more capable, then what makes it interesting? If Dudley could learn to teleport or fly at Smeltings, why would Hogwarts be a big deal?

Why does anyone make a career as a nuclear physicist, when they can make lots of money as a pro football player? The reality is that different people have different talents, and utilize them in different ways. Frankly the fact that magic allows one to do interesting things should be enough reason to pay a mage, even if combat utility is nil.

It's interesting that you mention Harry Potter, because the author has flat out said that in a fight, technological weapons would win. So why go to Hogwarts when an M-16 is superior to a wand? Because you can learn to fly. Or transmute yourself into a cat, or learn to make potions...hell there's a lot of stuff wizards can do, even if they would get pinned by a guy with a Saturday Night Special. If a wizardly character demands combat superiority over all that, well, I suggest checking one's height in the mirror.

Likewise, in the Dresdin Files, you have Harry, the hotshot powerful wizard...
He gets shot and killed by a sniper.
Did that break verisimilitude? Was there a question there of why someone would ever want to be a wizard?

In Amber, magic is portrayed as very useful.When Merlin, one off the magic specialists wants to kill a monster, what does he do? He picks up a rock. Should we write the estate of Roger Zelazney that he's doing it wrong?

Oh and let's look at that classic spellcaster, the original Merlin. In L'mort D Arthur, he never casts a combat spell. Hell the closest thing to a combat spell in any of the story is when Morgraine puts some people to sleep, IIRC. Shall we argue that Merlin should blow away Arthur in combat in order to preserve versimiltude?

Fear of caster imbalance is a strong enough narrative concern to drive entire settings - it's at the core of Dragon Age's narrative for instance, and even in less traditional fantasy settings like the X-Men.

X-Men is an interesting comparison, because except for a couple characters, anti-mutant prejudice is not based on power superiority. By and large mutants are equal in power to other supers, and your average mutant hero pales in power compared to the Hulk or Silver Surfer. The fear of mutants in X-Men is just a badly handled metaphor for race prejudice.

As far as combat goes, in Teen Titans the comic, Raven is portrayed as having far less combat ability than say, Cyborg. In the cartoon, all members are about equal in utility. Is this a wrong that needed to be corrected by making Raven mite powerful? Is this taking the fun away from Raven?

A nuclear physicist is a poor analogy for a mage; he needs technology and lab equipment to actually apply his knowledge in a conflict, while the wizard does not.

Take a wizard's spellbook away, or never let him have one. And you know, I've been to Stanford, nothing in there looks remotely weaponizable, unless you want a large club.

Thanatosia

2013-09-01, 04:05 PM

Talakeal

2013-09-01, 04:36 PM

eggynack

2013-09-01, 04:39 PM

I've never been convinced that melee vs Caster is as imbalanced in D&D as the tier system suggests. I think a lot of that imbalance comes down to the 15min adventuring session, wich goes entirely counter to the obvious intention of daily power use limitations like spell slots. Once you cure the 15min adventure, I think melee and Casters are far better balanced.

Casters just are not good at dealing damage. Even at high levels, a well opted melee can put out 2 to 3x the damage in a round that a wizard can deal with any spell available (excepting AOE vs mass targets), and that's before accounting the massive amount of energy resistance/immunity that becomes prevelent at higher levels.

So you have casters shining in out of combat utility and melee shining in combat resolution.

The one remaining big flaw in the system is Polymorph/Shapechange wich lets casters suddenly out-melee the melee as soon as they start turning into 12 headed hydras. Find a way to curtail that, and I think the system moves even closer to balance.
First of all, casters get whole piles of spell slots, even at reasonably low levels. Spells are high impact, so it usually takes few of them to end an encounter. Wizards are still imbalanced with full adventuring days, especially because fighters use their HP as a resource in combat in the same manner that wizards use their slots. They just can often have short adventuring days, and it makes their lives easier, so it's an ability that they can sometimes make use of.

Second of all, damage isn't the best way to measure utility, even in direct combat situations. Shooting a good BFC spell is often far more powerful than even the best blasting spell, and it's a thing that fighters aren't nearly as capable of. Moreover, wizard combat prowess can adapt to just about any situation, while a generic fighter has to be facing a ground bound enemy without any of the many fighter stopping tactics available. Wizards shine in out of combat utility, and wizards shine in combat resolution, because wizards shine everywhere. That's not even talking about druids, who can basically be the melee beat stick and the controlling wizard at the same time. So, the imbalance is there, and very much in existence. It's not the only determinant of a character's power level, but it's a major one, and creating a multitude of fixes is one of many valid paths to restoring balance.

DMVerdandi

2013-09-01, 05:03 PM

Why keep the idea of a wizard that can learn "ALL THE SPELLS IN THE WORLD!!!"? Plenty have come to the conclusion that the variety is too strong in itself. Direct damage spells don't really do that much, it is the use of the small things that make a difference. Summoning an ally, transforming into a monster, changing the environment, and having extraordinary defenses.

Perhaps you should let go of the idea of both the legacy wizards (from first edition straight until 3rd.) Let go of those ideas because they come from a lot of ideas and philosophies that you don't seem to enjoy.

Generally there are two camps for this, one is that wizards should be nerfed to high heaven, and somehow that creates balance. It does not, because then the ratio tips towards those who don't use magic. If magic is not an optimal choice, why use it? Think about magic like guns, and mundane like pre-modern weapons.
If pre-modern weapons are easier to use and at all instances better, there becomes no LOGICAL reason to use them. HOWEVER, logic is only one part of human calculation, emotion also goes into it. Some people like swords and spears, and would sacrifice their health points, for cool points, and that is admirable, but we shouldn't come to the conclusion that the person using the gun is somehow uncool, or undeserving of any glory.

I think the logical form of proceeding is not nerfing the spellcaster into unreliability. After all, the truenamer has AWESOME fluff, and has been interesting to many, but because it is so broken and hard to play, no one does.

Here are my suggestions.
Variety is plenty within each school of magic, so require hyper-specialization.
Instead of having generalists, get rid of that idea altogether. As a matter of fact, get rid of the idea of the wizard. Just the name brings up too much connotation. If you keep it, perhaps use a version of the school variants from the SRD. Keeping it very similar to the psion, have each wizard identify themselves by school, not by class.

All magic past spell level 4 can only be learned by specialists. Perhaps a generalist can learn spells up to the sixth level.

Another idea is to maybe think about redoing how spells are learned or kept.
Instead of having the normal vancian style, how about making the main spellcaster have a list of spells saved, that can be cycled out one per day, and without interruption?
It might take a whole month to ritualistically attune one's body to a completely different list of spells known, but it can be done, and furthermore one can keep the whole idea of being bookish, or learning spells from formulas, however it isn't so ridiculous as the traditional vancian spell.

Cast by spell points, no augmentation.
bold because I think it's a fantastic idea. Mesh the sorcerer and wizard together. Easier to play, harder to break.

The second route is to make non-casters better. How does one do this?
One way is to give them magic or an equivalent. You could build magic right into the classes, somehow making hybridized classes with casting potential. This worked VERY well with psionic classes, which made very cool hybrids with the psychic rogue and psychic warrior. Those kick some ass.
Unfortunately, there is no pre-made alternative in 3.5.
Duskblade and spellthief hardly qualify. It is because psionic characters don't NEED 9th level powers to compete, the first level powers practically scale all the way to 20th CL.

So, honestly, they really needed 9th level spells, BUT with lists that were tailored to them. Rather than making the mundane classes the general classes, make the magical warrior and rogue the standard, and the non-magical one's a variant.
However, that is heavy-handed and... Overt.

You could make a magi template. Rather than having all magic castable by class, you could create a template that does not use class levels to determine spellcaster level, but hit dice. Rather than it being a learned science, Magi would naturally attune themselves to magic, allowing it to flow through them.
It would take the role of the sorcerer class, but could represent someone being naturally magical, while still actually mastering a completely different vocation.
Rather than using spell slots, it would be spell like abilities, with each HD granting them a new spell like ability of choice, and increasing the times per day it would be usable.

1 sla per level, choosable from any class list, with the level 1 SLA's being usable 9 per day, and the highest being usable once per day.
Perhaps you could make themed SLA lists for magi, depending on the theme of the character.

The thing about this template, is that it would also be used VERY FREQUENTLY by monsters, as they may have various ranges of magical understanding and intelligence, which might disallow them from the class based spellcasting.

Talakeal

2013-09-01, 05:20 PM

Lots of Good ideas.

Well, I didn't want to get into the specifics of my system to much. This is primarily a 3.5 forum and I want to relate my ideas in concepts the 3.5 crowd is familiar with, and when I go into to much detail the thread tends to die from information overload.

In short, I have already done a lot of what you are saying.

My system is not precisely class and level based, rather it works like a version of e6 where class abilities work like feat chains. Each of the schools of magic is a different chain, and any character who meets the prerequisites can pick up and advance in any of them (although only specialists can max them out.)

The player in question has tried to recreate a D&D wizard (or more precisely a mystic theurge, as he uses divine magic as well), and has advanced fairly deep into all schools of magic. This means that he can cast any spell in the game, although not as reliably or as forcefully as a specialist who went all the way in. He has devoted virtually all of his feat points into these magic skills, leaving him, like a D&D wizard, with few HP, the inability to wear armor or wield weapons, with poor saving throws, and no skill outside of magic.

So he is feeling underpowered because as a generalist wizard he has lost the ability a specialist wizard would have to become an absolute master of their magic and / or be able to also pick up some non magical abilities.

DMVerdandi

2013-09-01, 05:45 PM

Well, I didn't want to get into the specifics of my system to much. This is primarily a 3.5 forum and I want to relate my ideas in concepts the 3.5 crowd is familiar with, and when I go into to much detail the thread tends to die from information overload.

In short, I have already done a lot of what you are saying.

My system is not precisely class and level based, rather it works like a version of e6 where class abilities work like feat chains. Each of the schools of magic is a different chain, and any character who meets the prerequisites can pick up and advance in any of them (although only specialists can max them out.)

The player in question has tried to recreate a D&D wizard (or more precisely a mystic theurge, as he uses divine magic as well), and has advanced fairly deep into all schools of magic. This means that he can cast any spell in the game, although not as reliably or as forcefully as a specialist who went all the way in. He has devoted virtually all of his feat points into these magic skills, leaving him, like a D&D wizard, with few HP, the inability to wear armor or wield weapons, with poor saving throws, and no skill outside of magic.

So he is feeling underpowered because as a generalist wizard he has lost the ability a specialist wizard would have to become an absolute master of their magic and / or be able to also pick up some non magical abilities.

Well, that is how the system works. Thems the breaks.
If the results are less than satisfying for him, he should retire and re-roll.
He spread himself out too thin. In other point buy games, often the same thing can happen. Since there is no levels, he simply has to understand that he needs more experience to finally branch off.

It's not that your system is flawed, it's that a player that specializes in one area of expertise (In this case, magic), is not going to get other abilities and such until they actually start to learn them.

Talakeal

2013-09-01, 06:08 PM

Well, that is how the system works. Thems the breaks.
If the results are less than satisfying for him, he should retire and re-roll.
He spread himself out too thin. In other point buy games, often the same thing can happen. Since there is no levels, he simply has to understand that he needs more experience to finally branch off.

It's not that your system is flawed, it's that a player that specializes in one area of expertise (In this case, magic), is not going to get other abilities and such until they actually start to learn them.

Pretty much what I got out of it to

The play tester seemed to be making two separate arguments, one about how versatility is not a fair tradeoff for power, and one about how magic should not be balanced against mundanes, hence the multi part thread title.

Psyren

2013-09-01, 06:35 PM

Hooboy, lots to respond to. Teach me to leave the house.

@ Talakeal:

I think the problem with 4E is mostly that it stripped away the versatility from casters, not the power. It also added, imo, arbitrary limits to mundane power, such as being unable to do most basic combat maneuvers without the right power and even then only a few times a game.

In a sense, versatility is power. The more tactics you can pull off, the more likely you'll have the necessary solution to a given problem at your disposal, and power in a nutshell is the ability to solve problems.

I can't say about other people's systems, but in mine mages are born that way. For a normal person to ever become a wizard requires a profound mental revelation, something equivalent to Buddhist enlightenment.

Even in cases like that (e.g. sorcery) the caster in question needs to hone or train their gift. For instance, wizards are "born that way" in Harry Potter and Wheel of Time, but if they never push their limits they won't advance. And again, if there is no benefit to them in doing so, it doesn't make sense that they'll spend the time and effort trying, which flies in the face of the world being established.

Also, magic is way more versatile and somewhat easier than mundane abilities, and if you are willing to go nova much more potent. Say, for example, you had always wanted to be a few inches taller. A surgeon could pull this off, but it would take many costly operations, months of recovery time, and it would never look quite right. Transmuters are rarer than surgeons, and their craft is arguably harder to train (or at least harder to find someone to teach you because of said rarity) but you can pull of the same effect flawlessly with a single spell.

Being taller for awhile would indeed be much easier with magic. Being taller permanently, not so much. And being taller in such a way that another caster couldn't undo your work is next to impossible.

Likewise teleportation requires a lot of power and magical effort, but is risk free and instantaneous compared to mundane transportation.

Only Greater Teleport and above, and those are powerful enough that the percentile of casters capable of using them is pretty tiny. All the rest - Teleport, Shadow Walk, Astral Caravan, Dimension Door etc. - are either very limited or have considerable dangers of their own.

I never got far in dragon age, but is that a storyline thing or a mechanics thing? Are you at a major disadvantage if you don't play a wizard?

In the games (especially the video game) you will have a very hard time with no caster in your party, simply because healing and control without one are so difficult to pull off. Worse, only mages can rez during combat, so if your tank drops and you have no mage, you're pretty screwed.

Other than that, the gulf is not as wide between casters and non-casters, partially because there are concepts like aggro and partially because rogues/warriors are functionally casters as well, thanks to moves like exploding arrows and making shockwaves/earthquakes by stomping and producing unlimited alchemical creations on demand etc.

Dragon Age magi also have severe limitations compared to D&D spellcasters as well - there is very little in the way of divination there, little summoning and no teleportation at all.

In the tabletop game though, the gap is a bit wider, especially as you move away from core.

Again, that depends on the setting. A lot require mages to have access to components, wands, spell books, or even places of power or certain times of the year. Also, casting time and effort vary greatly. In call of Cthulhu iirc it takes a long ritual to pull of most spells. Even in Harry Potter you need to point your wand at someone and say a few words of faux Latin, by which time said navy seal could have easily fired off multiple rounds.

Those components (wands, books, pouches etc.) are typically easily portable however. A physicist may be dangerous if he can lug the LHC around with him and fire the proton stream at people, but in practice this just isn't likely.

As for your Navy Seal, putting aside that modern firearms are a level of technology not present in most fantasy RPGs, in the Potterverse there are spells that prevent various electronics and firearms from even functioning. Wizards can extract and even modify the memories of non-wizards, teleport, turn invisible, heal wounds, etc. A single Dementor could likely take out a base full of Navy Seals, as they would have no Patronus to protect them, and there are other hazards just as deadly.

Again, I'm not saying it's fair, but it's not like D&D is the only setting where imbalances like "incorporeal" exist.

3. Why should any field or ability set be as useful in a specific instance as the one that is primarily directed towards it if its more diverse in options. Essentially if magic can enable you to do everything a studied and trained swordsman can do and more, why would anyone train to be a swordsman?

The two most common reasons are (a) because they lack the natural potential/brainpower/force of will to practice magic, and (b) because picking up a sword is easier (at least mentally). Those are simple enough reasons. In most settings, magic is something you get if you're lucky.

" (a) why would anyone study magic at all if martial prowess can accomplish all the same things,"

You could flip that around just as easily if magic is better why is anyone not a wizard?

See above.

@Eric Tolle:

D&D and AD&D did a much better job of that balance- due to the nature of saving throws and spellcasting and spell acquisition, high level fighters were valued. (On the other hand, D&D didn't do a good version of rogues until 4E, but that's another thread).

And for that matter, Dungeon World and any number of non-D&D based games, such as Jaws of the Six Serpents, Amber, Warhammer, FATE Core, and the like manage to do decent spellcaster non-spellcaster balance, so there's really no reason why D&D shouldn't be able to manage it. Except that the game explicitly favors overpowered spellcasters through unintentionally bad design. Remember, the designers thought wizards were just going to toss fireballs abd clerics were going to heal. The bad design synchronization didn't become evident until later.

I've never played any of those other games, so I'll have to take your word for it - though I am compelled to wonder why, if they did such a good job of hitting the sweet spot of balance + verisimilitude, why they aren't more widespread than they are now.

I think the matter of expectations is key; 3E players are used to a munchkinized environment where mages were massively overpowered, and the only real counter to magic was magic.

That's not a "munchkinized environment" unless you play with munchkins.

It's interesting that you mention Harry Potter, because the author has flat out said that in a fight, technological weapons would win.

I didn't see that interview, but I've seen in the books where magic is capable of disabling and nullifying technology, and certainly where it is capable of nullifying the humans using that technology. Since the reverse is not true, I'm having a hard time believing that magic would lose such a contest if both sides went all out. And once you factor in things like the Imperius curse, Polyjuice potion and invisibility, defeating the mages in all-out war becomes a pipe dream.

And as I pointed out above to Talakeal, "M-16 > wand" is hard to swallow when the former is just about useless at fighting a single Dementor.

Likewise, in the Dresdin Files, you have Harry, the hotshot powerful wizard...
He gets shot and killed by a sniper.
Did that break verisimilitude? Was there a question there of why someone would ever want to be a wizard?

This is something else I'm not familiar with, so I can't really comment without knowing what kind of powers he had, the circumstances etc.

In Amber, magic is portrayed as very useful.When Merlin, one off the magic specialists wants to kill a monster, what does he do? He picks up a rock. Should we write the estate of Roger Zelazney that he's doing it wrong?

Don't know anything about Amber either, so I couldn't comment on the usefulness of rocks vs. magic in that setting.

I guess the overarching point is that, sure, you can make a setting where magic is so weak that rocks are just as useful in a fight. D&D chose not to go that route, and the stories that can be told in their settings are the richer for it.

Oh and let's look at that classic spellcaster, the original Merlin. In L'mort D Arthur, he never casts a combat spell. Hell the closest thing to a combat spell in any of the story is when Morgraine puts some people to sleep, IIRC. Shall we argue that Merlin should blow away Arthur in combat in order to preserve versimiltude?

Wasn't the original Merlin just some trickster who used powders, tricks and had large sleeves?

X-Men is an interesting comparison, because except for a couple characters, anti-mutant prejudice is not based on power superiority.

Isn't it? Didn't some of the more militant anti-mutant voices come about because of Magneto and other powerful terrorists? If all mutants had, say, Toad's powers then it probably wouldn't have been as big a deal.

And while some other supers are indeed more powerful, there is no Sentinel initiative for them. The circumstances of their creation (e.g. gamma radiation, cosmic rays, Super Soldier serum et al.) are singular enough that they aren't considered a going concern. Mutants meanwhile, pop up at random.

awa

2013-09-01, 06:58 PM

and not every one has the ability physical or mental to become a master swords men so the idea that magic must be better in all ways or no one would do it is still not valid.

the mutant thing is clearly wrong as well their are entire races of superhuman vastly superior to 99% of mutants with no hatred. and literally captain american beloved hero hypothetical child of captain america who inherits power hated mutant.

Mutants are hated not because there powerful but because of a poorly implemented racism analogy.

Talakeal

2013-09-01, 07:12 PM

Lot's and lot's of stuff

Some responses to your post in no particular order:

In my setting it is relatively easy for a wizard to permanently alter a willing person's mind or body. If that person if unwilling and strong of spirit it is, however, going to be rather difficult to use in a fight.

In my setting magic is no more difficult to learn or to use than any other skill. It is, however, rare, as most people lack the ability to perform magic. People might learn magic because of a natural aptitude, because they have the opportunity to learn from a friend or family member, because they want to perform a task that only magic can accomplish (say for example flying, curing a genetic disease, or winning over the object of their unrequited affection), or because they love magic as much as Po loves kung-fu.

D&D storytelling is rich because they ignore the rules to create the story. If it was a game of pure RAW it would simply be about two pun-puns sitting in their own slow time demiplanes throwing armies of ice assassin aleaxes at each other. I would imagine a story where both magic and melee have a place is the richest because it allows the largest combination of characters to have an impact.

Magic in my setting is very useful, and a balance of magic and martial is best. An all magic or all melee party will be inferior to one with the proper mix.

Incorporeal creatures sure are a bitch without magic. However, they can usually be dealt with by mundanes. In my setting A priest can bless a weapon (without magic) to kill most incorporeal creatures. Wraiths are powerless in bright light. Ghosts are bound to a place or object and cannot leave it, and if it is destroyed they go with it. Spirits cannot interact with mortals except through spells, and it is unlikely that a spirit will have enough spell points to do TOO much harm before its power is expended. Etc.

Psyren

2013-09-01, 07:15 PM

and not every one has the ability physical or mental to become a master swords men so the idea that magic must be better in all ways or no one would do it is still not valid.

A master swordsman - certainly not. But just about anyone can become a swordsman.

the mutant thing is clearly wrong as well their are entire races of superhuman vastly superior to 99% of mutants with no hatred. and literally captain american beloved hero hypothetical child of captain america who inherits power hated mutant.

99% of mutants, sure, but the most powerful mutants left in the 1% pretty clearly eclipse every other metahuman in the 'verse. Scarlet Witch, Professor X, Jean Grey, Franklin Richards, Magneto etc. are capable of reality-altering levels of power.

D&D storytelling is rich because they ignore the rules to create the story. If it was a game of pure RAW it would simply be about two pun-puns sitting in their own slow time demiplanes throwing armies of ice assassin aleaxes at each other.

I don't understand why anyone would come to this conclusion. Pun-Pun may be the upper bound of what D&D magic can accomplish, but there are volumes upon volumes of stories that can take place below that level of power. Just because a given spell (or creature) is in a rulebook somewhere does not mean anyone in the actual game world knows or is capable of using it.

I would imagine a story where both magic and melee have a place is the richest because it allows the largest combination of characters to have an impact.

Mundane/melee does have a place in the story. Just because it is not as capable at everything as magic does not make it useless.

Incorporeal creatures sure are a bitch without magic. However, they can be dealt with. A priest can bless a weapon (without magic) to kill most incorporeal creatures.

How is that not magic? :smallconfused:
That example seems like you're calling a rose by a different name. This runs into the verisimilitude problem face-first.

Wraiths are powerless in bright light. Ghosts are bound to a place or object and cannot leave it, and if it is destroyed they go with it. Spirits cannot interact with mortals except through spells, and it is unlikely that a spirit will have enough spell points to do TOO much harm before its power is expended. Etc.

None of those actually put mundanes on equal footing with mages. Wraiths are powerless in bright light, but dungeons are typically indoors anyway. Ghosts may be bound to an object, but destroying it without being vulnerable to the creature itself is not easy. "Spirits" (what creature is that?) may not be able to take down the whole party, but surely they can take down one person or weaken them, forcing them to expend resources and leaving them vulnerable to a follow-up.

awa

2013-09-01, 08:20 PM

your saying because magic takes more effort then picking up a sword a master swordsmen who has spent just as much if not more time training body and mind should never be able to equal a magic user?

and if they hated other powerful beings because they were powerful maybe that would be valid but no one hates dr-strange because of his power.

no one hates the celestial or the various virtual gods (or actual gods) because of there power. The sentry isn't hated. only mutants because there different, the comics almost never bring up a mutants power when they talk about banning mutants because that does mesh with the message.

ArcturusV

2013-09-01, 10:24 PM

Yes, lets register the people who with just a thought and a desire can flood the entire eastern seaboard. EVIL! :smallbiggrin:

But more on topic. I'm kinda curious to see how the Power vs Versatility balance works out. Or at least hear an anecdote about it. It's a delicate balance and I can't quite figure out how to make it work myself. Least not off the top of my head. That might be a hidden source of your playtester's angst. He doesn't consciously recognize it, but it's the Power and Versatility that's grinding his gears. In any case it sounds like he wants both, at the same time. One of the things I don't like about some DnD magic, where not only is a spell insanely powerful but also limitless in its uses.

Talakeal

2013-09-01, 10:24 PM

How is that not magic? :smallconfused:
That example seems like you're calling a rose by a different name. This runs into the verisimilitude problem face-first.

None of those actually put mundanes on equal footing with mages. Wraiths are powerless in bright light, but dungeons are typically indoors anyway. Ghosts may be bound to an object, but destroying it without being vulnerable to the creature itself is not easy. "Spirits" (what creature is that?) may not be able to take down the whole party, but surely they can take down one person or weaken them, forcing them to expend resources and leaving them vulnerable to a follow-up.

As I said, this is in my campaign world. Priests channel the power of the gods. This is not magic, it is not a spell and priests are incapable of casting spells. If that qualifies them as "magic users" than any fighter with a +1 sword is also a magic user, as is any creature with an ex ability that doesn't follow real world physics.

Any guy with a torch (or a magical glowing weapon) can hurt a wraith. gain, spirits aren't really present in standard D&D, but in my campaign setting the spirit world is very active.

No time atm, will explain in detail later.

Arbane

2013-09-02, 12:42 AM

tzar1990

2013-09-02, 10:49 AM

How about this?

a: Magic can do practically anything, given sufficient time and effort.
b: It usually takes a LOT of time and effort. Thus, magic is generally only used to do things that are flat-out impossible by mundane means.

There. A setup where magic can be useful without overshadowing the mundanes at every turn, while still being useful. Just not in combat.

Another possible setup is to say that Magic, rather than being something entirely seperate from mundane skills, is an extension of them. Every skill can be taken far enough to be "magical" given sufficient efforts, meaning that there's no need to seperate Magic and Mundane in the first place.

This is weird, and not necessarily what we'd expect from roleplaying games, but it has precedent. IN Tolkien's work, it's mentioned that the Elves can achieve truly impossible feats - healing what should be mortal wounds, making sailboats fly, forging Rings of Power (albeit only once the secret was revealed to them), etc. They don't consider this to be Magic, though - it's just what happens when you get good enough at a skill!

Psyren

2013-09-02, 02:03 PM

As I said, this is in my campaign world. Priests channel the power of the gods. This is not magic...

I wish you all success with a concept like "the power of the gods is not magic" but in all honesty that's nothing more than a naming convention. It doesn't matter if you call it Weaves, or the One Power, or Biotics, or Materia or whatever else, none of that will change how it is perceived by readers and players.

There. A setup where magic can be useful without overshadowing the mundanes at every turn, while still being useful. Just not in combat.

So magic is useless in combat? How will you tell iconic stories like mage duels (e.g. Dumbledore vs. Voldemort, Gandalf vs. Saruman), magic turning the tide of a hopeless battle (e.g. Helm's Deep, Dumai's Wells), power tied to sudden emotion (e.g. Milamber's Revolt, the Fall of Manetheren) etc.?

I can understand the desire to make mundanes play a larger role, but not at the expense of narrative potential.

Talakeal

2013-09-02, 02:04 PM

Another possible setup is to say that Magic, rather than being something entirely seperate from mundane skills, is an extension of them. Every skill can be taken far enough to be "magical" given sufficient efforts, meaning that there's no need to seperate Magic and Mundane in the first place.

This is weird, and not necessarily what we'd expect from roleplaying games, but it has precedent. IN Tolkien's work, it's mentioned that the Elves can achieve truly impossible feats - healing what should be mortal wounds, making sailboats fly, forging Rings of Power (albeit only once the secret was revealed to them), etc. They don't consider this to be Magic, though - it's just what happens when you get good enough at a skill!

That's a cool system, but I am not sure it makes too much sense. For example, Gandalf occasionally casts "spells" like fireball and lightning bolt, those aren't really extensions of any natural skill.

For the examples you provided though, it is basically allowing advanced technology with the trappings of a magic item, which is something that my campaign does embrace. Master craftsmen can replicate many feats of modern or sci-fi technology using lost Atlantean techniques, and it is impossible for the common man to tell whether or not they are really magic or just sufficiently advanced science.

I wish you all success with a concept like "the power of the gods is not magic" but in all honesty that's nothing more than a naming convention. It doesn't matter if you call it Weaves, or the One Power, or Biotics, or Materia or whatever else, none of that will change how it is perceived by readers and players.

Ok, so let me elaborate on my earlier point.

In my setting priests do not cast spells like D&D. They can channel the power of the gods to bless things*. This is a (su) effect, but it is not a spell.

In my campaign world the spirit world exists alongside the physical. It is "supernatural" but it is not "magic". Would you call a monk or a dragon* a spell caster because their Ki strikes and flaming breath draw upon a supernatural energy source?

This is a world where the supernatural exists, and the supernatural can manipulate and be manipulated by things in the physical world without actually casting a spell.

I understand that it is a fine line (if you are familiar with WHFB I have argued strenuously that dwarf rune magic should be classified as magic), but if you classify anyone with a supernatural ability as a magic user then the whole argument becomes moot.

If you only count people who take no aid from the supernatural, won't use magic items (or mundane items made from magical materials), won't accept a priestly blessing, won't drink a healing potion, is not from a race with supernatural abilities, and won't draw upon their ki abilities; as non-magic then it will be very hard to find a PC above low level who is not "magical", and they will obviously be at a disadvantage to one who is unless you are playing in a setting like Star Trek where "mundane" technology can pull off things that seem like magic and "magic" is limited to counselor Troi sensing the painfully obvious.

However, I was talking about Spell Casters vs. Non Spell Casters in my OP. I would not count the monk, or a low level ranger or paladin as a spell caster despite the fact that they have a few Su abilities, nor would I count a fighter, rogue, or barbarian who uses magic items.

* Blessed water can undo enchantments, blessed weapons can harm incorporeal creatures, blessed people receive a small luck bonus on skills within the god's portfolio, and blessed places forbid hostile spirits entry. Along with their ability to make sacrifices to the gods in exchange for favors this is the limit of a priest's supernatural abilities in my setting, although nothing is stopping a priest from also picking up true arcane spell casting and calling it "miracle working".

** Dragons in my setting do no have innate sorcerer casting like in D&D.

Psyren

2013-09-02, 02:42 PM

Ok, so let me elaborate on my earlier point.

In my setting priests do not cast spells like D&D. They can channel the power of the gods to bless things*. This is a (su) effect, but it is not a spell.

In my campaign world the spirit world exists alongside the physical. It is "supernatural" but it is not "magic". Would you call a monk or a dragon* a spell caster because their Ki strikes and flaming breath draw upon a supernatural energy source?

Supernatural abilities may not be spells, but they are still explicitly magic. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities)

Arbane

2013-09-02, 02:52 PM

Psyren

2013-09-02, 03:21 PM

Again, it's been done before. TORG had Magic and Miracles as two different things with entirely different mechanics, and there was one cosm (alternate universe) where miracles were omnipresent but magic flat-out didn't exist.

Just because it's "been done" doesn't make it a good idea. FATAL had plenty of ideas too. Again, if all these systems you're citing had found the secret formula, why aren't they suggested as solutions more often?

Non-magical Miracles are pretty hard to swallow from where I'm sitting. Are mundanes capable of achieving them? Are there any restrictions on who can use Miracles, or how often?

You'll just get a different sort of mage battle - seige warfare where two paranoids hurl curses and nightmares at each other over a period of weeks or years, until one of them dies of 'sickness' or an 'accident'.

That's still a different story. Mage duels in fiction were never about the spells themselves, they were about the contest of wills between two brilliant and diametrically opposed minds. It's like a debate, or a chess match, only with much better visuals and a much greater range of moves beyond "knight to d4."

Take Voldemort and Dumbledore's duel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URbvT_pkAjI) for instance; once the two men began fighting, there wasn't a line of dialogue, but gallons of narrative. We had:

1) Straight-up beam-o-war (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeamOWar) - That sequence proved that in terms of raw power, the two were evenly matched, and so would need to resort to cunning.

2) Fire vs. Water - This told you volumes about both men's personality. Voldemort's use of fire, as well as being the first to change the rules of engagement, showcased his aggression and impatience. Shaping the fire into a snake was an added bonus. Dumbledore's use of water meanwhile showed his level-headedness, particularly the fact that he obtained it from his environment - using the battlefield against his enemy like a true strategist. Water also isn't immediately lethal, implying his desire to incapacitate Riddle without outright killing or maiming him.

3) Shadows vs. Light - another (brief) Beam-O-War, but with even more overt symbolism than the first.

4) Shards of glass - Voldemort shows off more of his power here, but more importantly his destructive nature, causing considerable collateral damage to the windows and banner of the ministry. His choice of weapon also once again showcases his desire to maim/kill. His posture is one of exultation as the glass rains down around him.

5) Glass to Sand - Dumbledore's brilliance is again demonstrated as he transmutes the shards to harmless sand. (Glass and sand, as you might already know, have mostly the same chemical composition.) Here again we have the concept of credibility - the writers could have turned the shards of glass into anything, like birds or flower petals, but choosing sand causes that immediate connection with the audience where they can say, "glass to sand! Yes, that makes sense!" And with their minds having made the tiny hop, they are free to appreciate what a quick-thinking fellow Dumbledore is. He also does it using a very shield-like interface, showcasing his desire to protect not just himself, but Harry as well.

Plenty of good stories with magic in them have been written where magic _wasn't_ useful at a certain point.

You can write those stories in D&D too. Trying to charm a construct isn't going to get you very far for instance.

This seems relevant. From Rpg.net:

http://imageshack.us/a/img713/1954/xf02.jpg

Both the RPG Unknown Armies and the novels of Tim Powers have magic that's powerful, useful.... but often way more trouble than it's worth, and usually less useful in a fight than a loaded gun.

If modern guns were in D&D they would indeed beat most spells in a fight. Since they're not though, I don't see the relevance here.

Talakeal

2013-09-02, 03:42 PM

Supernatural abilities may not be spells, but they are still explicitly magic. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities)

That's really just getting into an argument over semantics though.

The words magical, paranormal, supernatural, and metaphysical are all describing similar things and can all be used pretty much interchangeably, but they do have different definitions in both the real world and in games. The problem in the definitions are a bit fuzzy because they describe things which cannot be measured in reality.

I would say D&D doesn't even have a clear definition. For example, a monk loses Ki strike in an anti magic zone but a crusader can still call forth bursts of divine energy that heal people. A dragon cannot breathe fire in an anti magic field, but a skeleton can still walk around as normal.

Again, this is just arguing semantics. When I talk about "magic" or "magic users" I am specifically talking about people who cast spells. I am not talking about people who happen to have a supernatural ability like monks or, in my campaign world, priests.

Again, in my setting being a priest does not allow you to cast spells, it allows you to call upon the power of a god to bless something, which is a single very limited effect and is not considered casting a spell either by the rules or in character in the setting.

When discussing balance and magic vs. mundane in a world where the supernatural exists I would imagine everyone would have some ability to access it. They are not spell-casters, and counting them as such renders the whole idea of magic users vs. non magic users moot.

Edit:

Oh, and for the record Psyren, I actually agree with you about how the destinction is sometimes stupid, like the non supernatural magic of the dwarf runes in warhammer or the crusader in D&D.
In my setting supernatural means dealing with the spirit world. Magic means drawing upon supernatural energy to alter the physical world with spells. Magic is supernatural, the supernatural is not necessarily magic.

Arbane

2013-09-02, 03:53 PM

Just because it's "been done" doesn't make it a good idea. FATAL had plenty of ideas too. Again, if all these systems you're citing had found the secret formula, why aren't they suggested as solutions more often?

Because that's not how D&D does it.

Non-magical Miracles are pretty hard to swallow from where I'm sitting. Are mundanes capable of achieving them? Are there any restrictions on who can use Miracles, or how often?

it's been a LONG time since I read the TORG rules, but from memory: To make a miracle happen, you need to have the Faith and Focus skills. It requires a pretty high skill roll to do Ten-Commandments level stuff. (One cosm has such a high religious axiom that ANYONE with faith can do some miracles, usually the day-to-day ones like turning a plant into a hunting spear) Having more believers praying with you can boost the power significantly. Miracles either look like 'lucky coincidences', or miracles that already exist in that mythology.

That's still a different story. Mage duels in fiction were never about the spells themselves, they were about the contest of wills between two brilliant and diametrically opposed minds.

Or sometimes, two stupid and crazy minds. Fritz Leiber wrote a horror novel called Our Lady of Darkness which was all about a mad architect cursing an enemy of his.

Not every system correlates magic power with IQ.

(Bit about flashy magic duels deleted, as it's kinda what DOESN'T help the snivelling mundanes one bit.)

If modern guns were in D&D they would indeed beat most spells in a fight. Since they're not though, I don't see the relevance here.

Sigh. Replace the word 'a gun' with 'a loaded crossbow' or even 'a two-by-four and the will to use it' and the point still stands.

It is perfectly valid to make a magic system where (as an example) the only power a necromancer has is the ability to call up the spirits of the dead and ask them questions. This is still insanely useful for detective work, history, treasure-hunting, stopping hauntings, and possibly family counselling, but it's useless in a fight.

Conversely, if a mighty noble finds out they've been cursed, get thee to a wizard, because mundane means aren't going to fix it, and even killing the curser might not help.

Psyren

2013-09-02, 04:26 PM

Because that's not how D&D does it.

So they simply lack D&D's exposure, but are otherwise perfect systems? I find that very difficult to believe.

it's been a LONG time since I read the TORG rules, but from memory: To make a miracle happen, you need to have the Faith and Focus skills. It requires a pretty high skill roll to do Ten-Commandments level stuff.

It sounds like a high "faith skill" is what makes one a cleric analogue in that system. There would therefore still be some level of training/scarcity involved in acquiring the requisite knowledge and power.

Or sometimes, two stupid and crazy minds. Fritz Leiber wrote a horror novel called Our Lady of Darkness which was all about a mad architect cursing an enemy of his.

Not every system correlates magic power with IQ.

(Bit about flashy magic duels deleted, as it's kinda what DOESN'T help the snivelling mundanes one bit.)

My point was that magic allows for those kind of metaphysical speed-chess contests in a way few other systems can believably match. Your proposed restriction to magic - requiring large amounts of time to actually use it - excises that narrative purpose and leaves nothing in its place. If you have to prepare for days, or even hours in advance to use its power, there is no room left for emotional outbursts or cunning ripostes. Magic can be used for siegecraft or information-gathering, but you lose out on the more immediate mental contests of will that are also iconic of fictional sorcery.

It is perfectly valid to make a magic system where (as an example) the only power a necromancer has is the ability to call up the spirits of the dead and ask them questions. This is still insanely useful for detective work, history, treasure-hunting, stopping hauntings, and possibly family counselling, but it's useless in a fight.

Valid, certainly. But as I pointed out above, you remove the ability to tell certain stories with that approach, and those who want those stories told will switch to other systems. Middle-Earth for instance lacks a magic system as detailed or accessible as that in any D&D setting, Potterverse, etc. It's a great setting to read about, and plenty of people even want to play games there, but a great many people don't as well. Thus, a system was made for them.

ArcturusV

2013-09-02, 04:31 PM

Maybe loses the "I chuck fireballs and lightning bolts at you" sort of Magic Duel. But depending on how it worked out, it could end up creating magic duels that were more Spy vs Spy style. Which can be entertaining in their own right.

Then again I can't really remember the last time I saw a mage's duel that was chucking fire and lightning at one another outside of fixed fiction like DnD novels or a Comic strip. Just doesn't happen on the table. Tends to be "win initiative, win it all" or something where the Wizard nukes a ton of minions and I watch the barbarian go Rageaxe all over the wizard who was prepped for dueling. So you may not be losing all that much by nixing that option, an option that never comes up isn't really much of one.

Arbane

2013-09-02, 04:45 PM

So they simply lack D&D's exposure, but are otherwise perfect systems? I find that very difficult to believe.

Nice going. You really showed that strawman who's boss. No, they're obscure but USABLE systems, and I like showing people there's more than one way to do things.

It sounds like a high "faith skill" is what makes one a cleric analogue in that system. There would therefore still be some level of training/scarcity involved in acquiring the requisite knowledge and power.

Some, yes. Like I said, in one world, that 'training' is 'say this prayer'. In other worlds, it'll be ten years in a seminary or equivalent.

My point was that magic allows for those kind of metaphysical speed-chess contests in a way few other systems can believably match.

Then again I can't really remember the last time I saw a mage's duel that was chucking fire and lightning at one another outside of fixed fiction like DnD novels or a Comic strip. Just doesn't happen on the table. Tends to be "win initiative, win it all" or something where the Wizard nukes a ton of minions and I watch the barbarian go Rageaxe all over the wizard who was prepped for dueling. So you may not be losing all that much by nixing that option, an option that never comes up isn't really much of one.

What ArcturusV said. How _DO_ you do a wizard-duel in D&D? Actual wiz-fights come down to whoever loses a save first, which is usually whoever lost init.

Your proposed restriction to magic - requiring large amounts of time to actually use it - excises that narrative purpose and leaves nothing in its place.

A slow, building sense of impending doom, detective work, and paranoia aren't 'narrative' enough for you?

Valid, certainly. But as I pointed out above, you remove the ability to tell certain stories with that approach, and those who want those stories told will switch to other systems.

Well, YES.

But, to quote another person who argued the case for mundanity in the face of overpowered magic, let's turn that chessboard around, shall we?

1: Not every system has to do things the same way.
2: Flash-bang omnipotent magic cuts off JUST AS MANY STORIES as slowpoke magic.

Talakeal

2013-09-02, 04:45 PM

1) Straight-up beam-o-war (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeamOWar) - That sequence proved that in terms of raw power, the two were evenly matched, and so would need to resort to cunning.

2) Fire vs. Water - This told you volumes about both men's personality. Voldemort's use of fire, as well as being the first to change the rules of engagement, showcased his aggression and impatience. Shaping the fire into a snake was an added bonus. Dumbledore's use of water meanwhile showed his level-headedness, particularly the fact that he obtained it from his environment - using the battlefield against his enemy like a true strategist. Water also isn't immediately lethal, implying his desire to incapacitate Riddle without outright killing or maiming him.

3) Shadows vs. Light - another (brief) Beam-O-War, but with even more overt symbolism than the first.

4) Shards of glass - Voldemort shows off more of his power here, but more importantly his destructive nature, causing considerable collateral damage to the windows and banner of the ministry. His choice of weapon also once again showcases his desire to maim/kill. His posture is one of exultation as the glass rains down around him.

5) Glass to Sand - Dumbledore's brilliance is again demonstrated as he transmutes the shards to harmless sand. (Glass and sand, as you might already know, have mostly the same chemical composition.) Here again we have the concept of credibility - the writers could have turned the shards of glass into anything, like birds or flower petals, but choosing sand causes that immediate connection with the audience where they can say, "glass to sand! Yes, that makes sense!" And with their minds having made the tiny hop, they are free to appreciate what a quick-thinking fellow Dumbledore is. He also does it using a very shield-like interface, showcasing his desire to protect not just himself, but Harry as well.

That's a really beautiful analysis. None of that ever occurred to me, but that is really cool, and something I can use when DMing. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

Psyren

2013-09-02, 04:55 PM

What ArcturusV said. How _DO_ you do a wizard-duel in D&D? Actual wiz-fights come down to whoever loses a save first, which is usually whoever lost init.

Counterspells exist. So do dispels, readied/immediate/delayed actions, celerity etc. If you want something a bit more overt or specific, there are rules for mageduels in both 3.5 (CArc) and PF (UM).

A slow, building sense of impending doom, detective work, and paranoia aren't 'narrative' enough for you?

Those do nothing to address any of the examples I listed previously. Where was the "detective work" in Helm's Deep? Where was the "impending doom" in the Ministry of Magic duel? Where was the "paranoia" in Midkemia?

1: Not every system has to do things the same way.
2: Flash-bang omnipotent magic cuts off JUST AS MANY STORIES as slowpoke magic.

1) Agreed, but there are already systems with no magic or "useless-in-combat" magic. So there is no reason for D&D to go down that road. The very name of the system evokes epic battles.

2) It actually doesn't, because omnipotence is only potential, not necessarily actual. You can easily have a D&D world where the highest level spellcasters are in the 7-12 range. They can do a lot, but would still have to rely on mundane assistance in many cases.

That's a really beautiful analysis. None of that ever occurred to me, but that is really cool, and something I can use when DMing. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

The best part is that they conveyed all that information without a single word. Even Dumbledore's occasional breaks from the fight to toss Harry back, or keep himself interposed between Voldemort and Harry during the beam struggles, conveyed volumes.

paddyfool

2013-09-02, 04:59 PM

One issue I see with any conversion of the 3.5 wizard is that all it's good at is casting spells, and so it has to be just that good at casting spells. (OK, you might get a fair few skill points with a super-duper Int, but the skill list doesn't match it, and never mind mundane combat).

Whereas in many fantasy settings, wizards and other spellcasters are allowed to also be skilful in other areas, so that they can contribute in ways other than casting spells, and hence don't have to rely on them so much.

And in my own favourite pen-and-paper fantasy RPG, Fantasy Craft, the core spellcaster starts out as effectively a skillmonkey with cantrips and gets more powerful spellcasting slower and later.

Psyren

2013-09-02, 05:03 PM

3.P Wizards are Int-based with all Knowledges as class skills, so that is certainly a non-spell niche for them. Even with their small number of skill points, they can afford to drop a few into obscure subjects like History, Nobility/Royalty etc.

They also get Decipher Script/Linguistics for decoding obscure documents. Pathfinder expanded this to cover detecting forgeries and learning languages, and also gave them Appraise.

paddyfool

2013-09-02, 05:34 PM

Which is a step in the right direction, certainly, but only allows for fairly niche utility.

However, what if the most focused spellcasters available started out looking a lot like level 1 bards (without the music), and then developed along the lines of having bardlike HP/skill points/BAB alongside versatile spellcasting that hit level 9 spells around level 20? That should allow everyone to contribute across a rather wider spread of levels, imho.

Arbane

2013-09-02, 05:38 PM

Those do nothing to address any of the examples I listed previously. Where was the "detective work" in Helm's Deep? Where was the "impending doom" in the Ministry of Magic duel? Where was the "paranoia" in Midkemia?

:smallannoyed:

Not THERE, obviously.

My point, inasmuch as I HAVE one, is that not every game can model every fiction well. D&D, in my not at all humble opinion, is bad at modeling any story not based on... D&D.

1) Agreed, but there are already systems with no magic or "useless-in-combat" magic. So there is no reason for D&D to go down that road. The very name of the system evokes epic battles.

You'll note D&D is not named "Archmage" or similar. Rolling back to page 1, the whole problem is that casters rule, mundanes drool, and efforts to find ways to FIX that problem. Talking about how uber Dumbledore is _doesn't help_.

2) It actually doesn't, because omnipotence is only potential, not necessarily actual. You can easily have a D&D world where the highest level spellcasters are in the 7-12 range. They can do a lot, but would still have to rely on mundane assistance in many cases.

Like what? Even stuck with level 5 spells max, what can mundanes do better than a caster with the right spell?

DeltaEmil

2013-09-02, 05:51 PM

One very famous wizard duel is Merlin vs Mim. Shapechanging into animals to duke it out physically.
Still crazy powerful.

No need for the two of them to be permanently invisible mirror-imaged true-seeing mindblanked Greater Deities sending out shapechanging solar-gating bearsummoning astral projections of themselves while sitting in an impenetrable demiplane, with contingencies upon contingencies applied so that a never-ending cascade chain is set in motion.
Unfortunately, that's what being a D&D spellcaster entails.

Komatik

2013-09-02, 07:06 PM

I would say D&D doesn't even have a clear definition. For example, a monk loses Ki strike in an anti magic zone but a crusader can still call forth bursts of divine energy that heal people. A dragon cannot breathe fire in an anti magic field, but a skeleton can still walk around as normal.

Using blatantly supernatural Devoted Spirit maneuvers where someone pretty clearly just forgot to write "this is a supernatural ability" isn't the best of examples, I think.

Talakeal

2013-09-02, 09:41 PM

Using blatantly supernatural Devoted Spirit maneuvers where someone pretty clearly just forgot to write "this is a supernatural ability" isn't the best of examples, I think.

I agree, the EX devoted spirit healing and shadow teleportation maneuvers were probably the result of a typo or editing mistake and meant to be SU. Still, some people disagree. I once got into a very nasty argument on this board with someone who felt that the ONLY reason maneuvers were tagged as EX or SU is whether or not they would be unbalanced in an anti magic field, and there is no fluff reason, as the EX tag explicitly says it need not follow the laws of physics.

Still, it is kind of strange that an air elemental can exist in an AMF but a monk loses the ability to strike it.

My point was that in my setting there exist supernatural elements that are not explicitly magical and are not spell casting, either mechanically or thematically. These include a dragon's ability to fly and breathe fire, an undead creature or golems ability to live without life, a monk's ki strikes, or a priests ability to bless things.

Alex12

2013-09-02, 10:08 PM

Using blatantly supernatural Devoted Spirit maneuvers where someone pretty clearly just forgot to write "this is a supernatural ability" isn't the best of examples, I think.

Fine. How about punching through adamantine? Or hitting the ground so hard it creates an earthquake? Or the ability to float gently above molten lava?

Hiro Protagonest

2013-09-02, 10:18 PM

Fine. How about punching through adamantine? Or hitting the ground so hard it creates an earthquake? Or the ability to float gently above molten lava?

Extraordinary abilities achieved through extreme physical conditioning. Healing yourself may even count as that. Healing someone else is pretty magical, though.

Psyren

2013-09-02, 11:34 PM

No need for the two of them to be permanently invisible mirror-imaged true-seeing mindblanked Greater Deities sending out shapechanging solar-gating bearsummoning astral projections of themselves while sitting in an impenetrable demiplane, with contingencies upon contingencies applied so that a never-ending cascade chain is set in motion.
Unfortunately, that's what being a D&D spellcaster entails.

Why? Why does a D&D mage duel - or any other magical conflict - have to resort to gating solars, astral projections and nested contingencies?

My point, inasmuch as I HAVE one, is that not every game can model every fiction well. D&D, in my not at all humble opinion, is bad at modeling any story not based on... D&D.

You're free to believe that but you'd be wrong. The thing about d20 is that it can do a very wide range of power levels. You could stat up for instance all the supernatural beings in A Song of Ice and Fire (the Others, the wights, the direwolves, Dany's dragons, Melisandre's Shadows etc. - all of them) and then run an adventure set in that world. Or you could go for something more powerful, like Avatar d20 or Wheel of Time d20. All it takes is some elbow grease and creativity.

You'll note D&D is not named "Archmage" or similar. Rolling back to page 1, the whole problem is that casters rule, mundanes drool, and efforts to find ways to FIX that problem. Talking about how uber Dumbledore is _doesn't help_.

I know what was on page 1. I'm disputing the premise of the "problem" itself.

Like what? Even stuck with level 5 spells max, what can mundanes do better than a caster with the right spell?

"With the right spell" is the key there. The benefit to melee is that (a) every single monster in the game can be defeated via HP damage and (b) melee is capable of dealing that damage to every monster - with the right implements. Spells can do it more easily, yes - if you have the right ones, and the right amounts.

Arbane

2013-09-03, 12:08 AM

Why? Why does a D&D mage duel - or any other magical conflict - have to resort to gating solars, astral projections and nested contingencies?

Because that's how you WIN.

You're free to believe that but you'd be wrong. The thing about d20 is that it can do a very wide range of power levels. You could stat up for instance all the supernatural beings in A Song of Ice and Fire (the Others, the wights, the direwolves, Dany's dragons, Melisandre's Shadows etc. - all of them) and then run an adventure set in that world.

Yes, you could run AN adventure in the ASoIaF world. If you kept it low-level and kept the supernatural characters under control. Turn it into a campaign, though, let the casters gain levels, and it will cease to look like A Song of Ice and Fire pretty quickly.

Or are you saying that the solution would be to.... nerf the magic-types?

Or you could go for something more powerful, like Avatar d20 or Wheel of Time d20.

Buhwah?

"It works great if you houserule it into unrecognizability" is not really a very good argument.

Avatar doesn't HAVE any spellcasters in it. It's got Monks.

There IS a d20 Wheel of Time RPG. If I remember correctly, casters rule, mundanes drool there, too. At least they have the excuse that it's true to the books.

All it takes is some elbow grease and creativity.

Yes. We're trying to apply that creativity to make mundanes less worthless in the presence of their betters spellcasters.

"With the right spell" is the key there. The benefit to melee is that (a) every single monster in the game can be defeated via HP damage and (b) melee is capable of dealing that damage to every monster - with the right implements. Spells can do it more easily, yes - if you have the right ones, and the right amounts.

Actually, there's a few monsters that CAN'T be beaten with HP damage alone. Shadows can't be TOUCHED without magic. Trolls can't be killed if you don't know the trick. A lich will just keep coming back unless you can track down their phylactery. A demon (if it has the sense of a doorknob) will just laugh and teleport away. I'm sure there's plenty more, those are just at the top of the list.

Edit to add: And it isn't JUST combat - is there ANYTHING in D&D that a mundane can do better than a caster with the right spell?

ArcturusV

2013-09-03, 12:28 AM

Complain about being underpowered?

Psyren

2013-09-03, 12:56 AM

Because that's how you WIN.

If Pun-Pun level shenanigans are the only avenue to victory a player can conceive of, then the DM is well within his rights to rule zero such intellectually bankrupt strategies to the grave, or require gentleman's agreements up front.

In short, the spells chapter of any book, including core, only represent what is potential or possible. Nothing requires that all of those tactics be available to every single caster of a certain level. Indeed, DMG 14 provides guidelines to the DM for just these sorts of adjustments.

Yes, you could run AN adventure in the ASoIaF world. If you kept it low-level and kept the supernatural characters under control. Turn it into a campaign, though, let the casters gain levels, and it will cease to look like A Song of Ice and Fire pretty quickly.

ASoIaF is very clearly a low-level campaign world, so this goes without saying.

Or are you saying that the solution would be to.... nerf the magic-types?

Whether you consider it a nerf or not depends on where the player's power point was. If Team Solars and Pun-Pun are all the player can come up with, then yes, a nerf is in order and is in fact justified.

Buhwah?

"It works great if you houserule it into unrecognizability" is not really a very good argument.

Avatar doesn't HAVE any spellcasters in it. It's got Monks.

There IS a d20 Wheel of Time RPG. If I remember correctly, casters rule, mundanes drool there, too. At least they have the excuse that it's true to the books.

"Mundanes drooling" is an oversimplification. This is again the false equivalency between "less capable than magic" and "capable of nothing useful at all." In Wheel of Time, mundanes command armies, protect channelers, are political leaders etc. Aes Sedai journey with Warders specifically because their casting can't handle every threat they might encounter.

Yes. We're trying to apply that creativity to make mundanes less worthless in the presence of their betters spellcasters.

Magic is superior to non-magic (and is supposed to be), so I'm not sure why you crossed that bit out. But I consider terms like "worthless" and "drooling" to be hyperbolic emotional appeals.

Actually, there's a few monsters that CAN'T be beaten with HP damage alone. Shadows can't be TOUCHED without magic. Trolls can't be killed if you don't know the trick.

Did you intentionally skip over the "with the right implements" in my post? A ghost touch sword handles the former, a flaming or acidic sword the latter.

This discussion won't go far if you're going to selectively block out the parts that specifically address your complaints.

For the others, liches take up to 10 days to come back, and the phylactery itself can be destroyed in the meantime as well. Demons can be killed before they retreat (if they even choose to) and forcing a retreat is a victory by the rules anyway.

Edit to add: And it isn't JUST combat - is there ANYTHING in D&D that a mundane can do better than a caster with the right spell?

Again you're adding that caveat "with the right spell." You have to, of course.

Arbane

2013-09-03, 01:09 AM

Magic is superior to non-magic (and is supposed to be)

Again, sez who?

Psyren

2013-09-03, 01:49 AM

Again, sez who?

Narrative credibility. Gandalf being equal to (or worse, weaker than) the other members of the Fellowship would not have been believable. Moiraine relied on Lan, but still was capable of doing many things (and facing various challenges) that no one else in the party could, and ditto for Rand later in even the first book. Raistlin and Goldmoon are the most important members of the Heroes. The magic-user isn't always the leader of a mixed team in fantasy, but they are generally seen as analogous to the Queen piece - needing to be protected so that their greater power can be effectively leveraged.

Arbane

2013-09-03, 01:55 AM

Narrative credibility.

Your tastes in fantastic fiction are not fundamental axioms.

And I'll say it again, if you insist that "magic >>>> mundane", then "magic-users >>>> mundanes" is a perfectly logical conclusion. The thing is, this can make for a BAD GAME, since it effectively means the non-casters are there soley as flunkies for the casters.

Psyren

2013-09-03, 01:59 AM

Your tastes in fantastic fiction are not fundamental axioms.

I think the conventions are wide-spread enough to be expected, yes. If magic is around, generally speaking, it can do (beneficial) things mundane cannot.

And I'll say it again, if you insist that "magic >>>> mundane", then "magic-users >>>> mundanes" is a perfectly logical conclusion.

I never disagreed with that conclusion. What I'm saying is that "magic-users >>>> mundanes" is not the same thing as "mundanes = useless."

ShneekeyTheLost

2013-09-03, 02:05 AM

The power of the casters in general rests on three shining pillars which will need to be shattered in order for anyone else to have a realistic chance at meeting them fairly:

1) DC Stacking. Even if you take out the most abusive combos, the very concept of a 'save or lose' typically means you are risking wasting your action in return for a chance of ending the encounter rapidly. However, DC stacking is pretty easy to do, and it isn't very hard to set up a situation in which your opponent cannot possibly make their save except on a natural 20. In some situations, it isn't actually a saving throw (such as the grapple check from Evard's Black Tentacles), and in such cases, the odds of victory of the opponent party is literally zero. This lets you end encounters with even low-level spells.

2) Versatility AND power. This is something you half-way addressed, but I'd like to expound a bit here. The problem with the wizard is that not only does he have a very broad selection of spells to select from, most of them are also encounter-enders. Part of that is tied in to the previous point, if Save or Lose spells were riskier then they would be more balanced. But there are still far too many spells which are just encounter-enders, and he's got a very broad selection of types of shut-down effects and the Knowledge skills to be able to identify which one would be ideal for the situation.

Part of this is tied up in how many negative conditions are 'lose' conditions. This was originally envisioned to give the PC's enough different threats that the GM could find SOMETHING to affect them. However, the Caster has hijacked that power and using it against encounters.

3) Action Economy breaking. Casters can do it. Melee... not so much (although ToB has a few tricks for them). Action economy is the ONLY economy that matters in combat, and casters have many more ways to break it than mundane classes. Contingency, Celerity, Time Stop (although that one is at least balanced by being a 9th level spell, and a limitation on what you can do with your 'free' actions). Also, being able to use area-effect shutdown effects means you are trading your one action for every single one of your opponent's actions for the foreseeable future. That's a trade balance ridiculously in favor of the caster.

Arbane

2013-09-03, 02:06 AM

I think the conventions are wide-spread enough to be expected, yes. If magic is around, generally speaking, it can do (beneficial) things mundane cannot.

Amazingly, we AGREE on this point. The problem comes when magic can ALSO do all the beneficial things a mundane can, only usually better, which i would like to remind you once again is the case in Dungeons and Dragons 3.5th edition, which is where this discussion started.

I never disagreed with that conclusion. What I'm saying is that "magic-users >>>> mundanes" is not the same thing as "mundanes = useless."

If the magicians can do everything the mundanes can do, and more, then yes, the mundanes are redundant.

Psyren

2013-09-03, 02:21 AM

Amazingly, we AGREE on this point. The problem comes when magic can ALSO do all the beneficial things a mundane can, only usually better, which i would like to remind you once again is the case in Dungeons and Dragons 3.5th edition, which is where this discussion started.

The problem is still overblown. A caster who is dedicating his resources to usurping the mundane's job is generally doing worse at his own for little gain. Granted this is less the case in 3.5 than it is in PF (where casters can't replace their physical stats on a whim) but it's still there.

If the magicians can do everything the mundanes can do, and more, then yes, the mundanes are redundant.

"Can" is not "will," nor is it "should" for that matter.

Talakeal

2013-09-03, 02:40 PM

Just because you have a more useful skill does not make you "better" than anyone else, especially when everyone's skills are needed to solve a problem.

In my experience mages are very rarely the focal point of a setting. Usually they simply don't care enough, wizards are bookworms, they are not adventurous or socially adept. Most make great advisors, but terrible leaders. In most D&D fiction the mage is the most powerful (and also most vulnerable) member of the party, but is rarely the party leader.

Just like in real life the people running an organization are seldom the most skilled people in it. The talented people who do all the work seldom get all the money or the glory, those are usually people who are good at presenting a public face or at administrative tasks, making sure the group as a whole works.

On a side note, I was watching the Harry Potter films the other day, and I noticed that most problems are not solved with magic. They use mundane skills, out smart their enemies, and even resort to plenty of physical action scenes with running, jumping, climbing, hiding, and sword fighting. If magic is the be all and end all of that setting, why don't the WIZARDs use it to solve more of their problems?

Edit:
Also, about the incorporeal enemy thing. While this may be true in some settings, incorporeal creatures don't exist in real life, and you are free to invent whatever powers you want. They might not be able to interact with physical objects at all. They might be destroyed by holy water, light, the color red, not believing in them, saying certain words, etc. Mythology is full of crazy ways of dealing with spirits that do not involve magic, and if you require magic to deal with them that is a deliberate choice on the part of the setting creator, not an inherent logical property of ghosts. Hell, you might even make a setting where ghosts are not of this world and completely immune to its magic, but can still be destroyed by a silver knife wielded by a skilled hand.

Also, to say that a priest blessing something is magic still seems a stretch. If you look at horror movies set in the "real world" undead creatures can often can be killed by holy relics such as Van Helsing using crucifixes, communion wafers, and holy water to battle Dracula. Does that make him a magic user? Does it make the father who blessed the water a wizard?