T2+ Mundane Class: What would it take? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : T2+ Mundane Class: What would it take?

Pages : [1] 2

PsyBomb

2014-08-29, 10:11 PM

So, I've seen this pop up here and there. I'll codify it here, and possibly assemble the ideas over in Homebrew. The idea is simple. The goal is to create a T2 or T1 class, under the following conditions:

1) Must not be a Primary Spellcaster (includes Psionics, Invocations, etc)
2) Must be both playable and require effort to be in its tier.

I would prefer the class to not be a spellcaster at all, but if you get a couple of SU abilities scattered around that SUPPORT it's main drive (as opposed to being based around the ability, like Eldritch Blast) it's fine. Gathering ideas here, and really just seeing if it's possible.

Finally, I'll be doing this mostly from a PF point of view (because that's the game that's still updating), but any insights from any 3.X can't hurt.

Phelix-Mu

2014-08-29, 10:19 PM

An old, and oft referred to thread to which I contributed dealt with this very matter.

I posited a character class with d12HD, 8+skill points, all skills, all good saves, one floating feat from anywhere per level, resettable each day, martial maneuvers as per swordsage, warblade recharge mechanic, evasion, mettle, trapfinding, and a slew of other mundane-themed abilities.

Consensus seemed to be that this theoretical class barely broke the lower bound of Tier 2, if that. Many thought it was still strictly inferior.

The simple fact is that spellcasting is a freaking enormous toolbox, with enough support in enough different splats to constitute the single most versatile class feature, even in it's more limited, T2 incarnations. Even slices of spellcasting plus little else lands the partial-list classes in T3 on the basis of spells alone.

Jeff the Green

2014-08-29, 11:10 PM

Xefas's mythos classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?364949-Mythos-Homebrew-Discussion-II-Where-Simplicity-Goes-to-Die) are generally said to be tier 2, and the Teramach and Bellator are basically mundane. In Morph Bark's list, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?245701-Morph-Bark-s-Homebrew-Tier-Compendium)the Teramach, the War-Marked (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?190893-D-amp-D-3-5-The-War-Marked-Reloaded-(CC-3-0)&p=10556446#post10556446), and the Sanguine Knight (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?268605-(3-5-Base-class)-Sanguine-Knight) are all listed as non-magic-using tier 2s, though Sanguine Knight at least has several Supernatural abilities.

OldTrees1

2014-08-29, 11:23 PM

Tiers 1 and 2 are defined by Versatility+Competence coupled with Game-Breaking abilities.

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks

To reach tier 2, make something that can do something competent in any circumstance and add a couple campaign smashing abilities(or don't, high Tier 3 is easier to DM for than Tier 2).

Story

2014-08-30, 12:37 AM

Take Binder, change everything from Su to Ex, refluff as appropriate.

I like the idea of a Charisma based class that can just intimidate reality into doing semi-magical things.

Jeff the Green

2014-08-30, 12:42 AM

Take Binder, change everything from Su to Ex, refluff as appropriate.

I like the idea of a Charisma based class that can just intimidate reality into doing semi-magical things.

I have a hard time believing that anything capable of summoning creatures can be described as "mundane", regardless of the tags on its abilities.

georgie_leech

2014-08-30, 12:43 AM

[Insert stock complaint about equating "Mundane" with "Non-Magic"]

eggynack

2014-08-30, 12:45 AM

Worst case scenario, you could always just make a martial wizard. I figure something like an alchemist, factotum, or artificer, except differentish. Basically, you just take as many spells as you can, and turn them into not-spells, and give those not-spells to our not-caster. For example, instead of casting obscuring mist/solid fog/hell, acid fog too, you just give the not-caster smoke pellets of a bunch of types. Instead of casting earthquake, or control winds, or stone shape, you let the not-caster stab his sword into the ground with super-human strength, or spin the thing around until a tornado happens, or batter stone into particular shapes with his trusty hammer. Go through that process with enough spells, and there ya go, tier one or two class. It's not pretty, but it's a place to start.

Jeff the Green

2014-08-30, 12:45 AM

[Insert stock complaint about equating "Mundane" with "Non-Magic"]

You're thinking of "melee". Mundane, at least in this context, means exactly that.

georgie_leech

2014-08-30, 12:52 AM

You're thinking of "melee". Mundane, at least in this context, means exactly that.

The trouble is that I have a hard time seeing anything game-breaking as "mundane." Non-magic sure. I could see such a class having, say, slicing through space with a sword to teleport, or shooting an arrow accurately enough to pass through all intervening obstacles to pierce the soul of the target, or striking nerve points such that the target loses all Non-Ex abilities forever even if they're an Astral Projection (or all of the above) as something that fits the requirement, but I can't see them as "pertaining to earthly as oppose to heavenly or spiritual matters" or "ordinary."

Seppo87

2014-08-30, 02:43 AM

I have a hard time believing that anything capable of summoning creatures can be described as "mundane", regardless of the tags on its abilities.
Think of Pokémon, Ash is definitely a mundane guy

Inevitability

2014-08-30, 02:46 AM

The Protean (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/hagunemnon.htm)'s Alter Shape ability is nonmagical, but that only on a commoner 20 would already be tier 2 or even tier 1.

Maybe a 44-level Protean monster class?

Think of Pokémon, Ash is definitely a mundane guy

What Ash does is definitely not summoning. It is more like handle animal and a couple of charm spells.

Seppo87

2014-08-30, 02:51 AM

What Ash does is definitely not summoning. It is more like handle animal and a couple of charm spells.
That's just fluff

I'm not sure my point is coming across so I'll state it clearly:
Many effects can be refluffed to appear as if they were mundane, while functioning exactly like a magical effect

Lans

2014-08-30, 02:53 AM

Fantastically refluff the artificer to non magic?

BWR

2014-08-30, 02:57 AM

I'm rather ignorant of Pokemon lore, but are the trainers' abilities innate or just a result of their technology? Pokeballs and whatnot. If their capture and tame and train stuff is merely the result of tech, then Ash isn't really a refluffed summoner but a guy with some fun toys. I'm sure you could make a T1/2 mundane character if you gave her enough supertech gear, but then it's the gear that does it, not the character's abilties.

Kennisiou

2014-08-30, 03:15 AM

Nonmagical access to some form of gamebreaking ability. Depending on whether or not you consider (Su) abilities "mundane" you could make a T2 mundane class out of mundane wildshape ranger and master of many forms (make it one class instead of a base class and a prestige class).

The ability to create wish effects, massively manipulate the action economy, create large amounts of matter, create a new plane, manipulate the fundamental laws of reality, turn into powerful creatures, or summon powerful creatures for a long duration are all pretty much instant t2 abilities. Mundane ability to do one of those is a T2 class. You could probably argue that a good enough mundane diplomancer would be a t2 build, so a mundane class that just gets enough mundane effects to be a powerful, non-item-dependant diplomancer would almost certainly be t2. Marshal is a t5 class that gets a +cha to charisma based skills aura AND skill focus diplomacy at level one, so you'll have to do a lot better than that to be a mundane T2 class just off of diplomacy -- add in some charisma bonuses, some random modifiers, and probably some roll manipulations, others situationally having their attitude of you automatically adjusted one stage, and maybe the ability to make diplomacy checks to summon extraplanar aid (just, like, charismatically shout at the sky until angels help you), or some other effects and you'd have a solid mundane T2 diplomancer.

Diovid

2014-08-30, 03:31 AM

I agree with the above remarks about just taking spells and explaining them with non-magic fluff, such as via the extraordinary ability to create non-magical items which do those things, does the trick.

I was going to say Wild Shape Champion of the Wild Ranger / Master of Many Forms, though I can't remember whether it is tier 2 or not. Not that it matters since I remembered Wild Shape is Su.

Edit: Ninja'd on the MoMM remark.

Thanatosia

2014-08-30, 05:13 AM

Clockwerk Batman

Nigh-infinite Utility belt full of gagets that have effects on par with spells and psionic abilities. That's the only way I can think of to get a mundane anywhere near T1 or T2. T1 and T2 is defined by it's ability to break the normal laws of the universe - well, that is'nt precisely accurate, it's measured by its utility - but in a world where magic exists utility pretty much caps out at T3 without breaking the normal laws of the universe somehow.

Anyhow, that takes magic or technology so advanced it appears to be magic.... Clockwerk Batman kinda falls somewhere between magic and undefined 'sufficiently advanced' super technology.

Another option is timetraveler from the future or some other sci-fi guy with physics bending gadgets.

Xerlith

2014-08-30, 07:59 AM

So if it's something that mimics spellcasting, but is not spellcasting, it's okay? Then Artificer does what you want and then some.

Then again, simply taking a class, giving it some more powerful abilities fluffed as mundane and you're good.

Glitterdust? Why, a grenade. As is Solid Fog. And Fireball.
Luminous Armor? This. (https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7314/8857052016_aa3b5876eb_z.jpg)
Genesis? Well, if quantum physics are on the table...
Teleport? Well, if quantum physics... :smallbiggrin:
Fly? Iron man rings a bell?

That - or you can go all Jack Rakan and be so awesome that your awesomeness does everything for you.

Jeff the Green

2014-08-30, 08:03 AM

That - or you can go all Jack Rakan and be so awesome that your awesomeness does everything for you.

That's pretty much how the Teramach works—you're just so angry that the universe is scared of you and will give you whatever you want to make you go away.

Chronos

2014-08-30, 08:29 AM

Step 1: Don't houserule skills. One big reason for the magic-mundane divide is that a lot of people, when they see a skill use being totally broken, say "But that can't work that way; skills are nonmagical", and nerf them, while being more tolerant of totally-broken spells, because magic.

Step 2: Start with the best skill-user, the factotum. Strip away his Arcane Dilettante ability, if that's necessary to make him count as non-magical.

Step 3: Gestalt him with Warblade and/or Swordsage. Possibly add the Fighter's bonus feats as well.

This gives the the character access to game-breaking abilities (Diplomacy, Bluff, Sleight of Hand), plus a variety of options both in and out of combat (maneuvers, skills). He can fill multiple roles well, better even than other classes intended to fill those roles.

caimbuel

2014-08-30, 08:51 AM

My problem with mundane tier 2 in my mind is how varied the campaigns can be, if its 90% roleplay, or instead 90% combat, or nevermind is full of uncrittable and mindless, even the wildest one it changes drastically every time the GM reads a book or watches a movie, etc. Point is spells splat enough that there is almost always a spell for that, skills and feats don't.

Fair, no, inherent when a lot is rolled on an iconic d20, yes. But there are few that want to learn a truly complexe game, and any of them that I have learned still tend to have limitations, but this is another problem/area entirely.

As soon as skills are mundane, and spells are not, it is a problem IMO, that simple. To many see spells as physics breaking, reality breaking, how does mundane keep up with that?

YMMV

Morty

2014-08-30, 08:55 AM

NichG

2014-08-30, 08:59 AM

The easiest way to make a mundane T2+ character is probably to violate the character-build economy. That is to say, take Leadership and turn it up to 11. Have a character whose schtick is basically mundane Thrallherd due to, e.g., political or spiritual importance. Their 'power' is that they're so famous/important that if they ask for something, any NPC allied with their civilization will basically provide it for them or reconfigure their lives/the lives of their friends and family for their sake.

Its a pain to run characters who have entire parties worth of lackeys, and I think this'd cause real problems for the game, but it probably satisfies the request of this thread in a technical sense at least. Instead of 'I have this big list of spells I can use', its 'I have this big list of high-level, powerful lackeys I can use'.

Its even genre-appropriate, if you think about it. You're basically playing King Arthur.

Jeff the Green

2014-08-30, 09:13 AM

As soon as skills are mundane, and spells are not, it is a problem IMO, that simple. To many see spells as physics breaking, reality breaking, how does mundane keep up with that?

YMMV

Actually, at one point I tried to rectify this with sort of a ToB for skill monkeys. Basically you'd learn powers that you performed by using skills. Unfortunately I butted against the swinginess of skill modifiers and the fact that clerics can trivialize even DC 40 rolls.

I think you could fix it if you did away with all spells that gave more than a +4 bonus to skills, or maybe +8 if it affects only a single skill specified by the spell.

Irk

2014-08-30, 09:25 AM

While not a class, I believe the Psycarnum Warrior (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/3541096) is T2 without REALLY being a primary spellcaster.

caimbuel

2014-08-30, 10:22 AM

Irk, its a guy with defined abilities. I still find it hard to believe it will ALWAYS be useful and game breaking in more then one way. It reminds me of a weak psychic warrior.

And as Jeff pointed out, when you make skills special, the caster can still beat the mundane on skill rolls. This is nothing new, and it is baked into the d20 system, but I still hold by my earlier remarks.

Diovid

2014-08-30, 10:40 AM

Xerlith

2014-08-30, 11:39 AM

So how far would you get with thematic tristalt characters? Such as:

Wild Shape Champion of the Wild Ranger // Barbarian // Scout

Warblade // Swashbuckler // Factotum (without su and sp abilities)

Knight // Paladin // Crusader (using as much acfs/variants/substitution levels to switch Paladin's abilities to Ex and just removing them when that's not possible)

Edit: Assume all acfs/variants/substitution levels are on the table (though you still have to choose between them) and assume the dead levels article is in effect.

Except the first one, which barely scratches the T2 floor, rest of those are solid, strong, but still Tier3s.

There's lightyears of difference betweeen Tier 3 and Tier 2. It may very well be the biggest rift of all. T2 and T1 are relatively similar - they get the same tricks, T1 just gets more. But Tier 3 and Tier 2? That's a whole different story.

Psyren

2014-08-30, 11:43 AM

[Insert stock complaint about equating "Mundane" with "Non-Magic"]

This. And for that matter, equating "magic" with "spellcaster."

Mithril Leaf

2014-08-30, 12:27 PM

rg9000

2014-08-30, 12:52 PM

Better yet, try an improved version of the Bonus Feat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?335680-The-Bonus-Feat-PEACH-BASE). (The current version is only about T5 or so...)

ShneekeyTheLost

2014-08-30, 12:58 PM

Phelix-Mu

2014-08-30, 01:02 PM

Warlock/Cancer Mage/Hulking Hurler/Bloodstorm Blade?

The secret is the thrown weapon that has the Aptitude enchantment, with a bunch of bonus attack feats like Boomerang Ricochet and Round Kick.

I deal an arbitrary amount of damage to an exploding dice number of targets with a range of Line of Sight (using Dragonwrought Kobold to qualify early for epic feats).

That sounds pretty Tier 2'ish.

Uh, I don't think any class that just does one thing stupidly well (in this case dealing damage) makes it above Tier 3, if that. Tier 2 isn't about a single trick.

More to the point, complex builds involving PrCs aren't covered by the tier system, which mostly deals with the base classes. It's framework can arguably be extrapolated (and there is even a thread that deals with this), but PrCs are quite difficult to measure because they can be tacked onto a huge number of different chassis that meet their qualifications.

Jormengand

2014-08-30, 01:15 PM

eggynack

2014-08-30, 01:25 PM

I think most people decided that Marty, Who Is Every T4 and Below Class Gestalted Together was T1. Would probably stay about T2 without obviously-magical stuff (Like truenamer) and with other higher-tier mundanes chucked in for good measure.
I'm not sure that it would, in fact, stay at tier two on the basis of mundane alone. Much of the tier four gestalt's best tricks, like sanctified spells from healer, invocations and item use from warlock, the sometimes good spells from the warmage, the occasional useful utterance from truenamer, and so on, were very much magical in nature. Most of that discussion, as I recall, was just trying to figure out how much magic you can stack together from the little bits and pieces here and there.

ShneekeyTheLost

2014-08-30, 01:26 PM

Uh, I don't think any class that just does one thing stupidly well (in this case dealing damage) makes it above Tier 3, if that. Tier 2 isn't about a single trick.

More to the point, complex builds involving PrCs aren't covered by the tier system, which mostly deals with the base classes. It's framework can arguably be extrapolated (and there is even a thread that deals with this), but PrCs are quite difficult to measure because they can be tacked onto a huge number of different chassis that meet their qualifications.

Which is the problem with the entire discussion.

You don't play classes, you play characters, which are generally made up of one or more classes. Discussing which class is more or less powerful than another is an interesting theoretical discussion, but not very practical.

Relative power of a class is even irrelevant in character creation, because there can be synergistic abilities from lower tiered classes that can ultimately be even more powerful. Heck, even most 'wizard' builds are largely some PrC or another.

Classes are not brought to the table, characters are. Discussing how powerful individual classes are does not actually address the issue of powerful characters, which are what can break games.

Grod_The_Giant

2014-08-30, 01:41 PM

You basically have to have magic, even of the "because I'm just that good nature. If the wizard can teleport across the world, the mundane can jump a hundred miles at a time. If the wizard can kill you with a word, the mundane can kill you with a punch. If the wizard can dominate you with a word, the mundane can do the same with a sentence. You need the same sort of action economy abuse, the same sorts of immunities. More specifically, you have to write a huge list of special abilities, all of them with broken-spell-esque power.

Something like my Myth (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307285-The-Myth-Tier-1-quot-Mundane-quot-Challenge-Accepted!), for instance.

Psyren

2014-08-30, 01:43 PM

If the wizard can dominate you with a word, the mundane can do the same with a sentence.

This would fall under my list of things mundanes should NOT be able to do. (And yes, I'm aware of 3.5 Diplomacy.)

georgie_leech

2014-08-30, 01:48 PM

This would fall under my list of things mundanes should NOT be able to do. (And yes, I'm aware of 3.5 Diplomacy.)

You don't like the archetype of an impassioned speaker able to turn hearts and minds just by talking? :smallconfused:

Inevitability

2014-08-30, 03:29 PM

A chicken infested commoner can:

-Move at infinite speed (if you create enough chickens in a certain direction, you are automatically pushed the other way)

-Block any attack (billions of chickens are enough to block line of effect. Trillions should be enough to get you out of any AoE)

-Gain infinite money (chickens have a listed prize, remember)

-Kill anything (enough chickens in any space (say, the universe) will lead to a black hole that can kill anything)

Psyren

2014-08-30, 03:43 PM

You don't like the archetype of an impassioned speaker able to turn hearts and minds just by talking? :smallconfused:

"Turn hearts and minds" is not the same thing as "achieve fanaticism with a single roll." Doing that by talking should take much longer than a spell and be far less absolute. The things that a really high 3.5 Diplomacy check are able to do should be accomplished by actions, not merely words.

Irk

2014-08-30, 03:52 PM

Irk, its a guy with defined abilities.
Which, in this case, means extraordinarily little. Just because your abilities are defined does NOT mean that you can't be versatile.

I still find it hard to believe it will ALWAYS be useful and game breaking in more then one way. It reminds me of a weak psychic warrior.
Really? With infinite Power Points, an incredible array of buffs allowing for great control over the battlefield, and an amazing amount of offensive and defensive options, I find it difficult to beleive that it at all resembles a "Weak Psychic Warrior". Simply the infinite PP is nearly enough to kick into Tier 2, not to mention the other combat tricks that it has access to (Share Pain + Psicrystal, awesome mobility (hustle, wall walker, inconstant location), strong grappling ability, etc). Re-read it, the author explains why it belongs in T2.

Arbane

2014-08-30, 03:55 PM

A better ruleset, basically. 3e is fundamentally and dysfunctionally skewed in favour of magic-users and giving everyone magic equivalents turns the game into a rocket tag... well, a worse one than it is already.

Yeah, making non-casters who can keep up with 3.x's overpowered spellcasters basically needs...

You basically have to have magic, even of the "because I'm just that good nature. If the wizard can teleport across the world, the mundane can jump a hundred miles at a time. If the wizard can kill you with a word, the mundane can kill you with a punch. If the wizard can dominate you with a word, the mundane can do the same with a sentence. You need the same sort of action economy abuse, the same sorts of immunities. More specifically, you have to write a huge list of special abilities, all of them with broken-spell-esque power.

...needs that, yeah.

Part of the problem is that 3rd edition pretty much removed everything that made spellcasting even mildly inconvenient in earlier editions.

The easiest way to make a mundane T2+ character is probably to violate the character-build economy. That is to say, take Leadership and turn it up to 11.

(SNIP)

Its even genre-appropriate, if you think about it. You're basically playing King Arthur.

IIRC, that's pretty much how it worked in AD&D. At 'name' level, the Fighter built a castle and got their own army as a class feature. (Wizards got to build a tower and start digging their own dungeon.) And this was in an edition where a horde of minions was still potentially useful at high level.

Anlashok

2014-08-30, 03:56 PM

malonkey1

2014-08-30, 03:58 PM

Well, my take is that while mundane isn't magical, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not amazing to an average person. I'd take a Fighter chassis, and add the following: The ability to choose from a narrow set of spell effects, refluffed as outstanding feats (fast-talking with Charm Person, a Forbidden Lethal Technique made up of Finger of Death, a second wind via a personal cure X wounds or even heal, etc.), as well as entirely new abilities (deflecting ray spells with a shield, a "boomerang toss" to use thrown weapons around walls/corners, etc.). Next, give them some static bonuses to specific skills, and, here's the clincher, make the bonuses count as skill ranks (up to the normal maximum, ignoring overflow) for meeting Prereqs, allowing more diversification, and then top it off with a few bonus feats. Ideally, make them floating feats pulled from a limited list (like the Brawler from Pathfinder's Advanced Class Guide)

Psyren

2014-08-30, 04:02 PM

Morty

2014-08-30, 04:06 PM

...needs that, yeah.

Part of the problem is that 3rd edition pretty much removed everything that made spellcasting even mildly inconvenient in earlier editions.

Or, in other words, you need something that is magic in function, if not in form. D&D 3e is dominated by easy, powerful magical effects that can only be countered by other powerful magic, and that counter usually stops them cold. If we give non-magicians such effects without calling them magic, it's a band-aid at best, without treating the underlying problem.

You know reading this thread I've been struck by a thought.

As much as we talk about how unbalanced 3.5 is and as much as people talk about the issues of mixing certain concepts together... a lot of people seem to really, really enjoy the fact that a character who isn't a full spellcaster can't compete with someone who is.

And those people don't need threads like this one to play 3.5. Therefore, taking their opinion into account is counter-productive in a discussion that starts from the assumption of imbalance being undesirable.

Thanatosia

2014-08-30, 05:13 PM

As much as we talk about how unbalanced 3.5 is and as much as people talk about the issues of mixing certain concepts together... a lot of people seem to really, really enjoy the fact that a character who isn't a full spellcaster can't compete with someone who is.
WHy should they?

In any case where you take set of abilities A, and pit a group of people who can possess all abilities including A against a group of people who can only possess abilities not including A, the first set of people are going to be superior 100% of the time, and I see no reason why it should'nt be.

Magic is a big deal, why should people who deliberately not use magic expect parity with people who don't just cross off a giant sorce of power for the sake of it. There is nothing stoping magic users from using everything mundanes have access too, they just add magic on top of it, there's no way a mundane can compete in that context no matter how good you make mundane abilities short of creating some sort of wierd 'magic exclusive' mundane powers that make no sense other then an alternate form of magic.

Anlashok

2014-08-30, 05:20 PM

Kymme

2014-08-30, 05:22 PM

When I think of 'Mundane', I'm thinking 'somebody who doesn't cast spells/manifest powers'. Xefas' mythos classes, as well as the War Marked, Sanguine Knight, and a handful of others, hit Tier 2 without casting spells. Which, in my opinion, is pretty cool.

Grod_The_Giant

2014-08-30, 05:26 PM

"Turn hearts and minds" is not the same thing as "achieve fanaticism with a single roll." Doing that by talking should take much longer than a spell and be far less absolute. The things that a really high 3.5 Diplomacy check are able to do should be accomplished by actions, not merely words.
But the thing is, that's what a T1 classes can do. A wizard isn't a higher tier than a factotum because he can do more things-- both classes can contribute effectively in just about any circumstance. T1/T2 classes are defined by the ability to break the game. If you want a "mundane" class who can compete, he's going to have to be just as broken. So when the wizard gets dominate person, the myth gets mythic charm. When the wizard gets celerity, the myth gets legendary surge. And so on. If you don't let the "mundane" get broken abilities, you can't let the mage use broken spells.

Divide by Zero

2014-08-30, 05:26 PM

WHy should they?

Because this is a game, and some people want to play non-casters, and it's harder to do that in a fun way if the class isn't capable of keeping up.

eggynack

2014-08-30, 05:28 PM

In any case where you take set of abilities A, and pit a group of people who can possess all abilities including A against a group of people who can only possess abilities not including A, the first set of people are going to be superior 100% of the time, and I see no reason why it should'nt be.

Magic is a big deal, why should people who deliberately not use magic expect parity with people who don't just cross off a giant sorce of power for the sake of it. There is nothing stoping magic users from using everything mundanes have access too, they just add magic on top of it, there's no way a mundane can compete in that context no matter how good you make mundane abilities short of creating some sort of wierd 'magic exclusive' mundane powers that make no sense other then an alternate form of magic.
That is how magic in D&D 3.5 currently works. That's not at all how magic in D&D 3.5 necessarily has to work. Magic could be not that big of a source of power, and more importantly, it could not just obsolete everything mundane folks do. It would be incredibly trivial to create a system like that, even working from 3.5 as a base. Instead of doing that thing where you cross out spells for being broken, consider instead adding spells for being necessary. Now, our arbitrary wizard, for the sake of argument, just has divination and utility all the time, and thus doesn't step on fighter shoes at all. That's obviously not the only way to go about things, and probably isn't the best, but the idea that superior magic is something that would be impossible to not add to the system is a silly one.

Psyren

2014-08-30, 05:34 PM

But the thing is, that's what a T1 classes can do.

They do that with spells. Which has all kinds of built in downsides and counters just by being magic. A skill check does not and therefore needs different ones.

If you don't let the "mundane" get broken abilities, you can't let the mage use broken spells.

For the most part, spells are only broken if you ignore all the myriad ways to deal with them. There are a handful that were actually poorly designed, sure, but dominate is very much not one of them.

eggynack

2014-08-30, 05:47 PM

A skill check does not and therefore needs different ones.

I disagree, or rather, I think that the downsides should be on a different scale. Magic should be better at some things. For an arbitrary list, maybe flight, AoE damage, divination, and perhaps BFC effects. Mundane should be better at some other things. For a less arbitrary list, for it is based on the stuff that mundane folks can already do, maybe convincing folks of stuff, stealthing about, and single target damage.

The current issue is that the list of things that magic is better at is far longer than the mundane list, and magic folk can approximate the mundane list far better than the mundane folk can approximate the magic list. Key to balance, then, is working out what the lists should be, and the extent to which one list should be capable of mimicking the other. Maybe the mundanes should have better convincing abilities than their magical kin, then, with the previously stated limiting factor that they can't fly, and magic-folk should have their divinations, under the assumption that they can't do, holy crap, just all the stuff always.

OldTrees1

2014-08-30, 06:09 PM

They do that with spells. Which has all kinds of built in downsides and counters just by being magic. A skill check does not and therefore needs different ones.

For the most part, spells are only broken if you ignore all the myriad ways to deal with them. There are a handful that were actually poorly designed, sure, but dominate is very much not one of them.

I believe you are ignoring 2 crucial facts.
1) This thread is about Tier 2
2) The definition of Tier 2 (from the person that defined the tiers) includes being game breaking as a necessary condition of being Tier 2.

Other than that I see no flaw in your logic.

Urpriest

2014-08-30, 06:20 PM

Haven't read the whole thread, but I'll suggest what I always suggest in these situations: the Artificer, mildly refluffed.

If you think about mundane heroes from folklore or fiction, they almost always win via creative use of magic items. Perseus was the classic example with a magic knapsack, sword, shield, helm, sandals, and gorgon-head, but pretty much everyone had a few magical treasures or long-lasting buffs that got them through. The same is usually true about mundane characters who beat mages in high fantasy, think of Mat in the Wheel of Time.

Refluff the Artificer as a mythic hero. Rather than crafting items, they negotiate with gods and spirits for them. Rather than making temporary magic items with their Infusions, they discover new capabilities of their existing items, leveraging them at just the right moment to ensure success. They're really good at using wands, scrolls, and staves because of course they are, they're the hero. You'd probably want to replace the homunculus with a more traditional companion, but even that's not strictly necessary.

Seppo87

2014-08-30, 06:30 PM

So when the wizard gets dominate person, the myth gets mythic charm. When the wizard gets celerity, the myth gets legendary surge. And so on. If you don't let the "mundane" get broken abilities, you can't let the mage use broken spells.
But then we'd have 2 classes with the same exact gamebreaking potential, one of which is also incredibly good at fighting, while the other is not.
This is not ideal either.

Anlashok

2014-08-30, 06:46 PM

For the most part, spells are only broken if you ignore all the myriad ways to deal with them. There are a handful that were actually poorly designed, sure, but dominate is very much not one of them.

That requires you to ignore the myriad of ways spellcasters have to get around the things that supposedly shut them down.

But then we'd have 2 classes with the same exact gamebreaking potential, one of which is also incredibly good at fighting, while the other is not.
This is not ideal either.
Since when were spellcasters bad in a fight?

caimbuel

2014-08-30, 07:40 PM

I think people think mashing class's together will help. Plain and simple while most want skills to be mundane, nothing a mundane can do will compete with a caster, its not that a caster can beat them on skills. They can use spells that go way past skills, soon as a skill mimics "time stops" with a skill, I may say different, but I know I will not be playing any d20.

And even that does not cover the leap, if the mundane can timestop, I also want him to teleport, dominate, and the list goes on for t2. I want him to change on the fly to master and dominate anything in t1. I think to many equate power to tiers, and it never has been that. It is about always having an answer for anything that comes around. The better you are at more things helps, but till you have to measure your actions to not implode your campaign you are not T2+.

Urpriest

2014-08-30, 07:50 PM

I think people think mashing class's together will help. Plain and simple while most want skills to be mundane, nothing a mundane can do will compete with a caster, its not that a caster can beat them on skills. They can use spells that go way past skills, soon as a skill mimics "time stops" with a skill, I may say different, but I know I will not be playing any d20.

You do know Time Stop doesn't actually stop time, it just makes you move really fast, right? How is that not an appropriate mundane ability?

Granted, if a skill mimics Planar Binding or Shapechange I'd be pretty confused, unless one was going for a more Exalted/(Xefas Mythic) style game. But Time Stop, really?

Kennisiou

2014-08-30, 07:59 PM

Actually, talking about a T2 diplomancy class, here, potentially, is one right now. Made in 3.5 because that's the system I'm more familiar with, but probably could be adapted to PF. Possibly also a tad overloaded with class features, some of which aren't very impressive. I'm kinda throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks, a little bit.

Diplomancer
"Words before murds, bro"

Hitdie: d6
Weapon Proficiencies: Sling, Light Crossbow, Heavy Crossbow, Hand Crossbow, Dagger, Club, Quarterstaff
Armor Proficiencies: Light Armor, all shields except Tower Shields
Table D-1: The Diplomancer

Level
BAB
Fort
Ref
Will
Special

1
+0
+0
+0
+2
Skill Focus: (Diplomacy), Aura of Confidence, Berate

2
+1
+0
+0
+3
Bonus Language, Good Listener, Bolster

3
+1
+1
+1
+3
Read the Room, Faux Faux Pas

4
+2
+1
+1
+4
Charisma Bonus (+2), Seductive Techniques

5
+2
+1
+1
+4
Winning Smile, Public Speaker

6
+3
+2
+2
+5
Bonus Language, Excellent Leader

7
+3
+2
+2
+5
Smooth Talker, Slick, Always Knows What to Say

8
+4
+2
+2
+6
Charisma Bonus (+4), Informed Diplomacy

9
+4
+3
+3
+7
Slander, All the Right Friends in All the Right Places

10
5
3
3
7
Sphere of Influence, Bonus Language

11
+5
+3
+3
+7
Great Gossiper, He's With Me

12
+6/+1
+4
+4
+8
I Get the Gist of It, Winning Performance, Charisma Bonus (+6)

13
+6/+1
+4
+4
+8
Beseech the Skies, Show-Off

14
+7/+2
+4
+4
+9
Bonus Language, Voice for Many

15
+7/+2
+5
+5
+9
Actoins Speak Loudest

16
+8/+3
+5
+5
+10
Charisma Bonus +8, Swords to Plowshares

17
+8/+3
+5
+5
+10
Bonus Language, Let's Make a Deal

18
+9/+4
+6
+6
+11
Beseech the Heavens

19
+9/+4
+6
+6
+11
Ever-Expanding Influence

20
+10/+5
+6
+6
+12
Speaking From the Heart

Class Skills (4 + Intelligence modifier per level, x4 at first level): Bluff, Craft (any), Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Forgery, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), Listen, Perform, Sense Motive, Speak Language.

Skill Focus (Diplomacy): At first level, the Diplomancer gains Skill Focus: (Diplomacy) as a bonus feat.

Aura of Confidence(Ex): At first level, the Diplomancer and any allies that can see or hear the Diplomancer speak may add the Diplomancer's Charisma modifier to all Charisma checks and Charisma based skill checks. This effect does not stack with any Marshal auras.

Berate (Ex): At first level, the Diplomancer may use their diplomacy skill to negatively effect an enemy's self-esteem. This effect allows her to use Diplomacy to demoralize as Intimidate demoralizes, except that it can only effect targets who are capable of hearing and understanding the Diplomancer and that it does not have any range other than how far her voice can carry (if the Diplomancer can speak telepathically, she may berate a target in such a way).

Bonus Language (Ex): At second level (and again at levels 6, 10, 14, and 17) the Diplomancer may learn another language. This language does not have to be on their race's bonus languages list and doesn't count towards their total maximum number of languages known.

Good Listener (Ex): At second level, the Diplomancer gains a +2 bonus to listen and diplomacy. Additionally, she can use the "Listen to This" skill trick (see Complete Scoundrel) even if she does not normally meet the prerequisites.

Bolster (Ex): At second level, the Diplomancer may use their diplomacy to aid allies in combat. She may choose to substitute diplomacy rolls for attack rolls when using the aid another in combat action.

Read the Room (Ex): At third level, the Diplomancer can make a sense motive check at any time to see what an NPC's attitude is towards someone else, including another NPC or herself. The Sense Motive DC is 15 or the result of an opposed bluff check by the NPC in question if they are attempting to hide their feelings.

Faux Faux Pas (Ex): At third level, if the Diplomancer fails a Diplomacy check and would cause their target's attitude to be shifted downward, she may make a bluff check opposed by sense motive to play off what she said as a joke, instead causing the NPC's attitude to remain the same.

Charisma Bonus (Ex): At fourth level, the Diplomancer gains a +2 Competence bonus to Charisma. This bonus is increased to +4 at level 8, +6 at level 12, +8 at level 16 and +10 at level 20.

Seductive Techniques (Ex): At fourth level, the Diplomancer can use the bluff skill to seduce an NPC to learn the truth as a Swashbuckler (see Dead Level supplements, WoTC website).

Winning Smile (Ex): At fifth level, any NPC the Diplomancer meets automatically has their attitude towards him adjusted one stage higher. This adjustment cannot make their attitude better than friendly. Anyone whose attitude is unfriendly is subject to a will save (DC 10 +1/2 Diplomancer class levels + charisma modifier) to have their attitude not be adjusted. Hostile enemies cannot have their attitude towards the diplomancer adjusted by this ability, however if the Diplomancer adjusts their attitude past hostile, this ability will apply and they will be adjusted up one stage further (or will be subject to a save or have their attitude adjusted if they went from hostile to unfriendly) This bonus does not apply to the Diplomancer's associates.

Public Speaker (Ex): At fifth level, when using the Berate or Bolster actions, the Diplomancer may choose to effect a number of targets with their roll equal to half of their Diplomancer level.

Excellent Leader (Ex): At Sixth level, the Diplomancer gains a bonus to their leadership score equal to half of their Diplomancer level. Additionally, the highest possible level for a Diplomancer's cohort is only one level lower than their current level instead of two levels lower. It the leadership feat is banned, instead this ability gives the Diplomancer a Warrior cohort whose level is equal to the Diplomancer's level minus one. If the cohort is lost, the Diplomancer is subject to EXP loss as though a familiar has been lost and must spend at least one week and 1000 gold per cohort level to gain another cohort.

Smooth Talker (Ex): At seventh level, if the Diplomancer gets caught in a lie by a sense motive check against a bluff, she can use a Diplomacy check to smooth over the lie. The lie will still be disbelieved, but the person with the successful sense motive check will hold no suspicion or negative opinion of her over the lie, after all, she just made a simple mistake. The DC for the diplomacy check is 10 plus the difference between the bluff and sense motive check.

Slick (Ex): At seventh level, if the Diplomancer fails a Diplomacy check, she may roll a bluff check opposed by sense motive. If she wins, she may immediately reroll the Diplomacy check at a -5 penalty.

Always Knows What to Say (Ex): At seventh level, the Diplomancer adds her Charisma modifier to the penalties from being shaken that are a result of her berate as well as to the bonuses that are a result of her bolster.

Informed Diplomacy (Ex): At eight level, the Diplomancer can make a Gather Information check about someone she plans to use Diplomacy on. This check is made in secret, as the Diplomancer does not know the quality of information until it is used. The skill check may backfire as attempting to use information that is easily known mostly will just make you look like you're a know-it-all. She gains a bonus to diplomacy according to the following tables:

Table D-2: Informed Diplomacy Results

Check Result
Diplomacy Bonus

5 or less
-4

6-10
-2

11-15
+0

16-20
+2

21-25
+4

26-30
+6

31-35
+8

36 or more
+10

Table D-3: Informed Diplomacy Gather Information Modifiers

Circumstance
Informed Diplomacy Modifier

Diplomacy Target is world-renowned
+4

Diplomacy Target is nationally-renowned
+2*

Diplomacy Target is locally-renowned
+0

Diplomacy Target is relatively unknown
-2

There is no reason for anyone to have heard of target
-6

You are distant from target's city of residence
-1**

Target lives on a different plane
-10

Target is somewhat secretive (tends not to talk about self much)
-2

Target is very secretive (often swears friends/servents to secrecy over trivial things)
-5

Target is ridiculously secretive (suffers from paranoia, will kill or otherwise silence those that "know too much")
-10

*only if within nation of residence
**Per 10 miles of distance, does not apply to extraplanar entities, cannot surpass -10.

Slander (Ex): At ninth level, the Diplomancer can use her diplomacy skill to negatively effect an NPC's perception of others via slander, shifting an NPC's attitude towards that person downwards on the scale. All modifiers that would normally apply to diplomacy apply to this check, including every Diplomancer class feature that gives you a bonus to Diplomacy. To successfully use this ability, the Diplomancer must either know something about the person she intends to slander that her audience perceives as negative or must succeed on a bluff check opposed by the audience's sense motive. A successful Read the Room check will tell her if she knows anything that the audience would perceive as negative. If she know nothing, she may still attempt to slander by making a bluff check opposed by audience sense motive. The audience must have an indifferent or better attitude towards the Diplomancer before she can attempt to slander. She gain a +2 bonus if your audience is friendly to her, a +5 if they're helpful, and a +20 if they're fanatic. The Once she has the negative fact (or lie) you intend to slander with, the Diplomancer makes a diplomacy check as normal and the results of that check are shown as follows.

Table D-4: Slander Results

New Attitude
(DC To Achieve)

Initial Attitude
Fanatic
Helpful
Friendly
Indifferent
Unfriendly
Hostile

Fanatic
50 or less*
51-70
71-90
91-110
111-130
131+

Helpful
-
10 or less*
15
20
25
30

Friendly
-
-
10 or less*
15
20
25

Indifferent
-
-
-
10 or less*
15
20

Unfriendly**
-
-
-
-
10 or less*
15

*If you get this result, the NPC's attitude towards you is shifted down one stage as well.
**Hostile is not listed because you cannot make an NPC's attitude lower than hostile, and you cannot use this ability unless you know the NPC attitude towards your slander target.

All the Right Friends in All the Right Places (Ex): At ninth level, the Diplomancer has managed to rub elbows with both high and low society. Whenever entering a new town, she is already going to have at least four NPCs who are helpful as better towards her -- distant relatives, friends of friends, or maybe just fans of her work. One NPC will be a minor government official, such as a bureaucrat, a minor lord, a member of an oligarchy, an aid to a senator, or an adviser to the king. One will be a merchant or innkeeper who is one of the most successful of the town. One will be "streetwise," an orphan who grew up on the streets and is now the leader of a small gang, a well-connected thief, a police officer who works the beat in the slums, or someone else who knows what's happening in the shadier parts of town. The fourth is a member in some standing of the most popular church in town, either a cleric or favored soul or maybe just a wealthy benefactor who the church respects a great deal. These friends are not obligated to help the Diplomancer any more than any other helpful NPC might, and she can negatively effect their attitudes, but they must start out helpful towards her. In a city where everyone is at odds with the Diplomancer for ideological or philosophical reasons (eg, a CG Diplomancer in a LE city looking to overthrow their king), the DM may reduce the amount of helpers the Diplomancer has to two. In a city that ideologically agrees with the Diplomancer, she may know more than four such people. The Diplomancer is automatically assumed to keep in regular contact with these people. She knows their names, a way to easily contact them, and where they work, as well as any other information that would be necessary to the two having a close relationship. If the Diplomancer has the leadership feat, these people do not count as her followers.

Sphere of Influence (Ex): At tenth level, the Diplomancer can establish a sphere of influence within a city. The sphere's radius is equal to 10 miles per Diplomancer level. To establish a sphere of influence, she must spend one week and 1000 GP + another 100 GP for every 1000 population of the area (in particularly high or low population games, DMs may choose to make the extra costs apply every 10000 or every 100, or possibly even further). She must spend that week making a Diplomacy check every day, DC 30 + 1 for every 1000 people within the sphere (again, subject to increase or decrease based on population at DM's discretion). Once a sphere has been established, the Diplomancer must spend at least one period of 24 consecutive hours within that sphere per month, and must make a diplomacy check and spend an additional 100 GP + 10 per 1000 people within the sphere. When the sphere grows when the Diplomancer levels up, she must pay an additional 100 GP for every 1000 population that was added with the sphere's growth in addition to their next maintenance payment. While within one of their Spheres of Influence, the Diplomancer gains a bonus equal to half her Diplomancer level to all charisma checks and charisma-based skill checks, as well as to Sense Motive skill checks. She additionally gains a bonus equal to half her Diplomancer level to any Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (History) or Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) checks that have to do with their sphere of influence whether or not she is within it. While within one of their Spheres of Influence all goods and services purchased by the Diplomancer have their prices reduced by .25% per Diplomancer level. Whenever she Bolsters or Berates within one of their Spheres of Influence, the Diplomancer may choose to Bolster and Berate in the same action, and the total number of people that can be bolstered or berated at once is equal to their Diplomancer level, not half their Diplomancer level.

Great Gossiper (Ex): At 11th level, the Diplomancer gains a +3 bonus on all Gather Information, Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), and Knowledge (Local), checks, as well as a +3 bonus to any Diplomacy check made to Berate or Slander.

He's With Me (Ex): At 11th level, the Diplomancer may choose to change an NPC's attitude towards another NPC or player character to be the same as that NPC's attitude towards her, as long as their attitude towards the Diplomancer is higher. For this to happen, she must say a phrase in a language the NPC understands that indicates the other NPC or player character is friends with her, for example "Have you met my friend Lidda?" The Diplomancer then makes a Diplomacy roll with a DC equal to half of the normal DC of adjusting an NPC's attitude from whatever their base point was to what the new point will be. For example, Gertrude is an 11th-level Diplomancer and Hoss, the tavern's racist bartender, is helpful towards her. The Tavernkeeper is less friendly with Krusk, Gertrude's half-orc barbarian friend. Hoss regards Krusk with an unfriendly attitude. Gertrude slides up to the bar and notices Hoss eyeing Krusk oddly, she puts her arm around her barbarian friend's shoulders and says "Don't worry about the half-orc, Hoss, he's with me." The DC of taking an unfriendly NPC to helpful is 40, so Gertrude only has to roll half of that, a 20, an easy roll for an 11th level Diplomancer to make. Were she to try to convince her fanatical followers of similar bigotry of Krusk's awesomeness, her DC would be 60, a much more difficult roll to make which she may fail if she doesn't take the proper measures beforehand. Should the roll fail, their attitude remains the same, even if your roll would be high enough to adjust their attitude part way up.

I Get the Gist of it (EX): At 12th level, the Diplomancer may make a DC 30 sense motive check to understand something being said in a language she does not speak. This check will miss the finer details, but gives a broad idea of what they're trying to communicate (for example, they may not understand "don't go down the ravine, it's trapped" but will definitely get "this ravine is a very bad place"). The DC is reduced by 2 for every language the diplomancer speaks that shares an alphabet with the one she is attempting to comprehend.

Winning Performance (Ex): At 12th level, the Diplomancer may make a perform check to make others more susceptible to their sway. She makes a perform roll and gains a bonus to diplomacy checks on anyone who experiences the performance (for a performance that is language-reliant like reciting poetry, they must speak the language, for a performance that requires sight like dancing they must see the performance, etc). The bonuses are shown on the table below.

Table D-5: Winning Performance

Check Result
Diplomacy Bonus

5 or less
-6

6-10
-4

11-15
-2

16-20
+0

21-25
+2

26-30
+4

31-35
+6

36-40
+8

41 or more
+10

Beseech the Skies (Ex): Once per day per point of charisma modifier, the Diplomancer may make a diplomacy check to convince reality to grant her the help of a friendly outsider. In order to make this check, she must have a clear view of the sky and the ability to shout in a loud, clear voice for a minute. This follows all the rules for the Lesser Planar Ally spell except as follows:

There is no hard cap for the creature's hit-dice. Instead, the check DC is 60 +3 for every HD the creature has above your Diplomancer level and -2 for every HD it has less than your Diplomancer level (when requesting the aid of multiple outsiders, use their total HD to determine the DC).

There is no EXP cost. Instead, the Diplomancer must pay an additional 1000 GP compared to the normal costs outlined in the spell Lesser Planar Ally.

The costs are reduced by 100 GP for every 2 points you beat the DC by.

The Diplomancer may make a Winning Performance check as part of this action.

When the action is initiated, the first minute is spent shouting at the sky to gain the attention of the outsider The Diplomancer wishes to bargain with. Their attention is gained, and the remaining nine minutes are spent bargaining and on the Winning Performance if she chose to make one. Afterwards, the check result is matched to the DC and if the Diplomancer succeeds the outsider takes the payment and agrees to help. If she fails, they leave without helping her. If the Diplomancer fails her check by 10 or more, the outsiders will take half of the payment and leave without helping.

Show-off (Ex): At 13th level, the Diplomancer gains a +3 bonus to perform checks as well as a +3 bonus to diplomacy checks made to bolster.

Voice for Many (Ex): At 14th level, the Diplomancer may bolster or berate as though they were within one of their spheres of influence even if they are not, as long as they maintain at least one sphere of influence that contains at least 10,000 people (campaigns may want to adjust that figure based on what constitutes a realistic population in their setting).

Actions Speak Loudest (Ex): At 15th level, the Diplomancer can attempt a diplomacy check on a creature that she does not share a language with. This check is made at a -10 penalty, and as part of it the Diplomancer must do something that shows her solidarity with the creature. If her action comes at a noticeable cost, a significant physical effort, or puts her in a small amount of jeopardy then the penalty is halved. If the action comes at a great cost, requires an incredible amount of physical effort, or puts her in a great amount of jeopardy then the penalty is waived entirely.

Swords to Plowshares (Ex): At 16h level, the Diplomancer may remove the will to fight from everyone capable of hearing her once per day. Everyone who hears her speak must succeed on a will save (DC 10 + 1/2 the Diplomancer's level + Charisma modifier) or lose all hostile emotions as per the Calm Emotions spell. If any of these people or their friends are attacked, this effect is broken, but hostile feelings are only felt towards the attacker. This effect lasts one hour for every 4 ranks in Diplomacy the Diplomancer has. The DC and duration are both doubled within the Diplomancer's sphere of influence.

Let's Make a Deal (Ex): At 17th level, any time the Diplomancer would make a diplomacy check AND pay a GP cost, the Diplomancer may choose to raise the DC by any amount and lower the GP cost by 100 GP per DC increased, or may choose to increase the GP cost and lower the DC on their check by one for every 100 GP increased.

Beseech the Heavens (Ex): At 18th level, once per day per point of Charisma modifier, the Diplomancer may attempt to ask a god for a favor. This functions as the Cleric spell Miracle, except as explained below.

Beseeching the Heavens takes ten minutes. The first minute is spent shouting at the sky to gain the attention of a deity, the next nine minutes are spent discussing terms and making requests with that deity and making a Winning Performance to adjust the odds in the Diplomancer's favor should she choose to do so.

The DC for this check is 100, with modifiers as detailed below

There is no EXP cst for Beseeching the Heavens, instead the Diplomancer must pay 50,000 GP per beseech attempt.

When using Let's Make a Deal with Beseech the Heavens, each point of DC increased refunds 500 GP and each point decreased costs 500 GP.

The DC is increased by 5 if the deity's alignment is one step from the Diplomancer's and +10 if it is further than that. If the Diplomancer has a patron deity, she gains a +2 bonus on all Beseech the Heavens attempts to ask a favor of that deity but a -1 penalty on attempts with any other deity. The Diplomancer receives a further +2 bonus if the deity's ideologies favor the request and a -2 penalty if they oppose. If the Deity drastically opposes the request, they will refuse outright every time.

Ever Expanding Influence (Ex): At 19th level, the Diplomancer gains all the benefits of being in their Sphere of Influence no matter where they are as long as they have at least one Sphere of Influence maintained except for the bonuses to Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (History), and Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) as well as their discounts on goods and services. Within their Sphere of Influence, their discounts on goods and services are doubled and they are treated as having diplomatic immunity.

Speaking From the Heart (Ex): At 20th level, the Diplomancer has learned how to communicate effectively even if they do not share a language with the person they want to communicate with. They can hear and understand any language and can speak any language flawlessly, however they are not capable of reading or writing in any languages that are not on their languages known list. Additionally, they cannot understand mindless or emotionless beings unless they are speaking a language on their language list. They gain an additional +4 bonus to Diplomacy and Sense Motive checks made in a language that is on their languages list.

The class is a tad weak in combat early on, being a poor intimidator or cheerleader for the first few levels. Ideally this is made up for somewhat by their out of combat utility and abilities as party support, in addition to the fact that it shouldn't be long before they never lack for an ally to help them. At level 6 they gain either a bonus to the leadership feat or a weak cohort to help shore up their combat weakness, and eventually they gain some incredibly powerful combat relevance. They're not totally gamebreaking until they start getting their spheres of influence going, but at that point they're quite capable of campaing-derailingly high diplomacy rolls. Their ability to Beseech the Skies for extraplanar allies and later to Beseech the Heavens for divine intervention give them caster-level utility from that point onwards. The class is definitely T2 mundane, even if you consider their Beseeches to be (Su) and not (Ex).

Psyren

2014-08-30, 08:10 PM

I'm fine with mundane time stop.

I disagree, or rather, I think that the downsides should be on a different scale. Magic should be better at some things. For an arbitrary list, maybe flight, AoE damage, divination, and perhaps BFC effects. Mundane should be better at some other things. For a less arbitrary list, for it is based on the stuff that mundane folks can already do, maybe convincing folks of stuff, stealthing about, and single target damage.

Mundane is indeed "better" at stealth. Hide and Disguise can even beat true seeing, but no illusion or darkness spell can do so. However, they are more time-consuming than shapeshifting or illusions.

Mundane is also better at single-target damage, minus extreme mailman-style orb optimization and metamagic shenanigans. Just look at any charger build.

The current issue is that the list of things that magic is better at is far longer than the mundane list, and magic folk can approximate the mundane list far better than the mundane folk can approximate the magic list.

Thing is, I don't see that as being an "issue." Magic is more versatile for a variety of reasons - it just makes sense from a fantasy/narrative perspective, and from a gamist perspective it gives less experienced groups a wider toolbox to solve specific problems. Need to stealth and the rogue isn't available? The bard can go invisible

That requires you to ignore the myriad of ways spellcasters have to get around the things that supposedly shut them down.

To paraphrase Roy: "A spellcaster whose countering the counters to him is a spellcaster who's not winning D&D solo. I'll take two, thanks." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0865.html)

In other words, if they have to devote resources to dealing with things like dispels, counterspells, SR/immunities and antimagic, those are resources they wouldn't have to spend if you weren't using those things on them.

Thanatosia

2014-08-30, 08:16 PM

Because this is a game, and some people want to play non-casters, and it's harder to do that in a fun way if the class isn't capable of keeping up.
This is a legitimate issue, and my answer is, you don't have to be a caster to be magic. You can't really make a mundane keep up with magic without something that feels like 'magic under a different name', you can however make magic systems that dont work like spell casting.

That is how magic in D&D 3.5 currently works. That's not at all how magic in D&D 3.5 necessarily has to work. Magic could be not that big of a source of power.
now you are talking about nerfing magic down to mundane levels, not buffing a mundane to be equal to magic. That's certainly a way to go, but I don't think it was the goal of the thread.

eggynack

2014-08-30, 08:33 PM

Mundane is indeed "better" at stealth. Hide and Disguise can even beat true seeing, but no illusion or darkness spell can do so. However, they are more time-consuming than shapeshifting or illusions.

Mundane is also better at single-target damage, minus extreme mailman-style orb optimization and metamagic shenanigans. Just look at any charger build.
Indeed, that is why I listed them. The point is that mundane-folk get this short list of stuff over here, while over there casters are rocking a massive list, while still approximating the short list pretty well.

Thing is, I don't see that as being an "issue." Magic is more versatile for a variety of reasons - it just makes sense from a fantasy/narrative perspective, and from a gamist perspective it gives less experienced groups a wider toolbox to solve specific problems. Need to stealth and the rogue isn't available? The bard can go invisible
I don't necessarily agree with the idea that magic need necessarily be more versatile, but even if it is, then magic should be less versatile than it currently is (though more than mundane perhaps), or better yet, less powerful than mundane stuff in general. As is, casters tend to be able to do all of this stuff, and do it about as well as the mundane-folk, if not better. Such is the definition of those higher tiers, after all.

now you are talking about nerfing magic down to mundane levels, not buffing a mundane to be equal to magic. That's certainly a way to go, but I don't think it was the goal of the thread.
The point is that the way you've stated things isn't a necessary quality of magic. At the same time, not having the same potential of magic isn't a necessary quality of mundane stuff. You can go either way, or perhaps best of all, do both.

aleucard

2014-08-30, 08:35 PM

Yeah, being a spellcaster and being magical are not permanently glued to each other. Several concepts exist out there that accomplish this; most Castlevania PC's for instance (Leon from Lament of Innocence for standard Castlevania Hunter-type and Hector from Curse of Darkness for Familiars (technically, it's the ID casting, not you)), and most Dragonball Series characters as well, with varying degrees of subtlety.

Me, I think that it would've been better if WotC said that everyone has magic, it's just how they use it; the 'Mundane' classes for instance focus on personal enhancement to push them to post-human levels, while the 'Magical' classes use it more actively. Mundane/Extraordinary abilities work in AMF and such because it's all internal, and if it affected them, it'd have to affect things like golems and undead too. This would put the whole setting wide open for more interesting things for Martials to do, because that 'Mundane<Magic' mental block would be nonexistent as it applies to the setting.

PsyBomb

2014-08-30, 09:07 PM

I'm fine with mundane time stop.

Let's take this a bit further. What kind of spell-like stunts would you deem able to act as Mundane?

Urpriest

2014-08-30, 09:29 PM

Let's take this a bit further. What kind of spell-like stunts would you deem able to act as Mundane?

To contribute, the Celerity line is another obvious one. Most of the Ranger "I shoot an arrow differently" spells. Any self-buffing psionic powers without obvious visual effects. Any bard spells fluffed to be purely music-based.

And actually, Planar Binding, but that's only from the point of view that spellcasting is something mundane characters can do, while magical characters are those with SLAs/Su abilities/other non-trained magic. :smalltongue:

Psyren

2014-08-30, 10:13 PM

Because this is a game, and some people want to play non-casters, and it's harder to do that in a fun way if the class isn't capable of keeping up.

Keeping up with what? The Monster Manual? Because that is the only yardstick that matters, and mundanes can keep up with CR-appropriate encounters just fine.

Indeed, that is why I listed them. The point is that mundane-folk get this short list of stuff over here, while over there casters are rocking a massive list, while still approximating the short list pretty well.

Yeah, they can approximate the mundane list - but they must do so with magic, which as I've said previously has inherent disadvantages of its own, such as being detectable and easily removed.

Let's take this a bit further. What kind of spell-like stunts would you deem able to act as Mundane?

It's probably easier to start from what I don't think is mundane. Things like healing others, raising the dead, controlling minds, conjuring creatures and objects, and evoking large amounts of energy over an area.

eggynack

2014-08-30, 10:19 PM

Yeah, they can approximate the mundane list - but they must do so with magic, which as I've said previously has inherent disadvantages of its own, such as being detectable and easily removed.
There are indeed disadvantages to approximating the mundane list, small though they may sometimes be. It doesn't really matter that much though. You can factor those disadvantages into the lists, and the caster list will still come out ridiculously ahead. The fact of the matter is, the mundane guy needs things like diplomancy, and he needs more of them than exist currently. Also, the mundane method might be even more troubled than the magic method, as it tends to pull from game-wide resources, whether they be as small as skill point investment, or as huge as feat or level investment. Really, I don't need to argue that casters are way better all that much, because you already very much know that.

toapat

2014-08-30, 10:40 PM

Mithril Leaf

2014-08-30, 10:48 PM

Give the class a +1 bonus to skills that increases by +1 per level and stacks with itself (Total of +1 at 1, +3 at 2, +6 at 3, +10 at 4, etc...) as well as a floating bonus feat per level and standard +1 BAB per level, +8 skill points, all good saves.

So would anyone be able to tell me what is actually not Tier 2 about this class? It gets craft GP gain (which increases incredibly fast), Diplomancy, true seeing (or near enough) and enough feats and stats to become an excellent uber-charger. Maybe toss pounce on, but eh. You get damage enough that you can one shot anything, the ability to convert any sentient enemy to you cause, and the ability to destroy WBL. The skills and standard BAB allow it to have decent utility in any average situation as well.

ben-zayb

2014-08-30, 11:03 PM

NichG

2014-08-30, 11:06 PM

So would anyone be able to tell me what is actually not Tier 2 about this class? It gets craft GP gain (which increases incredibly fast), Diplomancy, true seeing (or near enough) and enough feats and stats to become an excellent uber-charger. Maybe toss pounce on, but eh. You get damage enough that you can one shot anything, the ability to convert any sentient enemy to you cause, and the ability to destroy WBL. The skills and standard BAB allow it to have decent utility in any average situation as well.

There are two factors working against this being Tier 2. One is mostly a matter of what the Tier system tries to do - its an analysis method that compares classes, not item loadouts. A good item loadout can emulate a Tier 1 character and can be used by a commoner, so if you consider item loadouts as contributing to the tier of a class, it tends to wash out the differences that the analysis is trying to focus on. Because of this, fair or not, items generally aren't factored into the evaluation of the Tier of a class.

The other factor is that Tier is evaluated at equal levels of optimization. That is to say, you don't compare a fireball-wizard to a commoner who is fully exploiting infinite gp loops, Diplomancy, etc. You have to compare the fireball-wizard to someone equally un-optimized.

The class you describe has a reasonable optimization ceiling, but the floor is really low. Someone who is playing mid- or low- op with that class will still not have the versatility or power in their focus that Tier 1 and Tier 2 characters have at the same level of optimization. The reason is that the major pillars of power you're proposing for the class involve things which are a bit too exploitative to belong in a mid-op game: Craft-based gold production loops and Diplomancy. Neither requires that much rules savvy, but both of them are very binary - either you don't use them, or you end up having a character who is going to have a hard time fitting in at a mid-op table.

Its sort of like when people slap a +100 to hit on the Fighter and say 'Tier 3!'. It helps, kinda, but it does so in a way that doesn't really resolve the big issues with the class, and at the same time makes it unlikely to be accepted at most tables.

That doesn't mean that the idea can't be salvaged, but it does mean that relying on the base game's exploits to do it is probably not the best way to go. Instead, its probably best to try to take the idea of Diplomancy and the idea of wealth amplification and remake them as a sequence of more specific, staged abilities such that it can be used well in a low-op, mid-op, and high-op game.

OldTrees1

2014-08-30, 11:11 PM

Mithril Leaf

2014-08-30, 11:26 PM

*SNIP*

The floor of optimization actually gives you diplomancy for free if you actually try to use the action. Furthermore the tier system inherently assumes mid tier optimization level. So no to weapon focus line, but yes to power attack and maybe a charge multiplier or two. Wizards also have a very low optimization floor.

To Old Trees, I could toss up a table, but it really would just be a series of copy pastes of class features. It has full BAB, all good saves, a D12, and the 2 class features mentioned which are improved at each level.

EDIT: What would any suggestions be, keeping it simple?

Lans

2014-08-30, 11:59 PM

Super detective skills are in the realm of mundane and can replicate things like contact other plane

icefractal

2014-08-31, 12:05 AM

You know reading this thread I've been struck by a thought.

As much as we talk about how unbalanced 3.5 is and as much as people talk about the issues of mixing certain concepts together... a lot of people seem to really, really enjoy the fact that a character who isn't a full spellcaster can't compete with someone who is.For me, it's not that. It's the fact that I see class selection as a buffet. In 3.5, it's a huge pan-cuisine buffet where the chinese food is really tasty, but the sushi is a bit stale, and the salad bar is just terrible. Some people see that as being not a very good restaurant, on average. I see it as being a great chinese buffet with some other stuff that I ignore.

Then in 4E, they really improved the salad bar a lot. There's more variety now. But ... the chinese food just isn't as good. In fact, nothing at the new buffet is as good as that original chinese food was. So I don't go there.

So - boost the non-casters up to parity? Sure, I'd love to see it!
Say that we need to scale the casters way back? Not on board anymore. Even though yes, it definitely would be the simplest way to balance things.

Because at the end of the day, I care more about having 1+ classes to play that are awesome than I do about how many of those classes there are or what aesthetics they have.

Emperor Tippy

2014-08-31, 12:06 AM

Good game design would have no Tier 2+ classes as they are defined as classes that outright break the game unless the DM goes to exceptional lengths to work with/around them.

That being said, why in the world should a "mundane" character be able to compete with a magic user?

A magic user has access to powers that, by definition, break the rules that the mundane operates under. Gravity says that individuals can't fly, magic tells gravity to take a hike. Or biology, which says that it takes X amount of time for wounds to heal while magic just tells the body that it is all better now.

Making good melee or even ranged classes that aren't like traditional magic users? That is an entirely different story.

Take a straight Fighter and then have him undergo magical "rituals" as he increases in level. Maybe at level 3 he undergoes a ritual to constantly surge revitalizing positive energy through his body that provides fast healing equal to HD/3. Maybe at level 6 he undergoes a ritual that improves his senses (low light and dark vision at level 6, see invisible at level 9, scent at level 12, True Seeing at level 15, Blindsight at level 18). Maybe at level 9 he undergoes another ritual that let's him ignore the bounds of physics for a time (permanent flight with average maneuverability, increasing to good at level 12 and perfect at 15). And so on.

Hell, let the "Fighter" pick between melee and ranged "ritual paths" with different abilities that are outright magical and are better in their given area than what the various caster classes can generally do but at the expense of being so focused.

You can make a whole bunch of classes that are focused on different areas or with different themes.

How about a Nightcrawler like melee character who's entire focus is tactical teleportation and who's capstone is that anyone he attacks is always treated as flat-footed unless they have an ability that makes them impossible to be flat-footed. Maybe he also gets level*10 feet of free teleportation per turn to use however he sees fit and at level 8 he can use it as an Immediate action (instead of a free action that can only be used on his turn).

Or how about a straight up Juggernaught? Give him "This character is immune to any harm for the rest of the turn, this is an Immediate action that lasts until the start of the characters next turn. This ability can be used a number of times per day equal to the characters level in this class.". Throw in a number of other synergistic abilities of the same vein so that you end up with a class that can force its self into melee range against most any foe, survive anything that can be thrown at it, and dominate in his own area while being decent in other ways.

Or take the Barbarian. Perhaps Barbarians undergo a ritual to link themselves to the rage and anger of a captured god. Maybe they start relatively "mundane" but a level 20 Barbarian should be the Hulk.

---
Note the common theme in all of that though. None of the classes is "mundane". Why? Because the idea that someone without any beyond normal power can stand toe to toe with someone who makes the very rules of existence their plaything is absurd and needs to die in a fire.

The mistake that WotC made was failing to give the non casting classes nice things that are of comparable utility.

eggynack

2014-08-31, 12:12 AM

That being said, why in the world should a "mundane" character be able to compete with a magic user?

A magic user has access to powers that, by definition, break the rules that the mundane operates under. Gravity says that individuals can't fly, magic tells gravity to take a hike. Or biology, which says that it takes X amount of time for wounds to heal while magic just tells the body that it is all better now.

I disagree on this one. Yes, magic users break the rules of reality by definition, but that's not necessarily a thing that's going to be particularly effective. Like, what if you had the ability to fly, but it were in the form of the spell "fly", obtained as a 9th level spell? What if it were like that, and the casting time were an hour? What if that were the upper limit on magic's capabilities, and there weren't so many other spells that wizards would become especially versatile? I wouldn't particularly count out the ability of melee fellows to compete in that circumstance. Hell, you don't even have to go that far. Just make fighters into warblades, and wizards into adepts, and the warblade is probably fully capable of competing.

Jeff the Green

2014-08-31, 12:15 AM

OldTrees1

2014-08-31, 12:20 AM

To Old Trees, I could toss up a table, but it really would just be a series of copy pastes of class features. It has full BAB, all good saves, a D12, and the 2 class features mentioned which are improved at each level.

EDIT: What would any suggestions be, keeping it simple?

Well some standard things for mundanes to seek on their trip to/thru Tier 3 are: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11381.0 and http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items
I would list Flight, Freedom of Movement(and weaker versions), Buffing others, Extra Actions, Debuffing and Miss Chance as easily mundane themed. Of those competent Flight and Debuffing can be reached with feats alone. The others are harder to patch. Although you could do 2 class feature families: a mobility family granting concealment/weaker Freedom of Movement/extra actions and an Aura/Music/Morale family that buffs allies.

However I do not see the point in attempting to reach Tier 2 and Tier 1. By their definitions (I refuse to be blinded by the examples for that devolves into caster vs noncaster rather than Tier vs Tier) Tiers 1 and 2 are differentiated from Tier 3 by a negative game element. Aka the ability to break the game.
On the other hand, that is what the OP requested.

Emperor Tippy

2014-08-31, 12:34 AM

I disagree on this one. Yes, magic users break the rules of reality by definition, but that's not necessarily a thing that's going to be particularly effective. Like, what if you had the ability to fly, but it were in the form of the spell "fly", obtained as a 9th level spell? What if it were like that, and the casting time were an hour? What if that were the upper limit on magic's capabilities, and there weren't so many other spells that wizards would become especially versatile? I wouldn't particularly count out the ability of melee fellows to compete in that circumstance. Hell, you don't even have to go that far. Just make fighters into warblades, and wizards into adepts, and the warblade is probably fully capable of competing.

A Warblade can't compete with a Wizard, Sorcerer, Psion, or Cleric even in his specialty (melee combat) if the caster feels like doing it better.

As for the other point, magic is defined as the supernatural. In other words as "things that are unnatural and against the natural laws of the world". Anything that is limited by those natural laws is going to be inferior to someone who does the same thing but is not limited by those laws. And by definition anything that is "mundane" is so limited.

So no, a "mundane" character can't fake a Time Stop. He can't move so fast that he treats the world as if it doesn't move. That would be The Flash and you know where his speed comes from? The universal embodiment of movement. Nor can a "mundane" character do things like steal time from the future or cut a hole in space-time to travel across a continent.

eggynack

2014-08-31, 12:44 AM

A Warblade can't compete with a Wizard, Sorcerer, Psion, or Cleric even in his specialty (melee combat) if the caster feels like doing it better.
Yes, definitely. Super-agreed.

As for the other point, magic is defined as the supernatural. In other words as "things that are unnatural and against the natural laws of the world". Anything that is limited by those natural laws is going to be inferior to someone who does the same thing but is not limited by those laws. And by definition anything that is "mundane" is so limited.
No, definitely not. Wizards aren't the whole of the supernatural, after all, and while there are definitely supernatural things in the game that are better than any mundane thing in the game, that is not a thing intrinsic to the designation. A warblade is presumably limited to those natural laws, at least to the extent that you can claim that anything in this game is. A healer is not limited to those natural laws. If we're not talking about a 17th level healer, and we discount sanctified and corrupt spells (they didn't necessarily have to exist, after all), then the warblade is going to be a lot better than the healer, particularly at fighting. In D&D, magic often means power. That doesn't mean that magic in general necessarily means power, or even that D&D magic always means power. The ceiling for magic is obviously higher, but there's a floor there that dips below the ceiling of melee power.

So no, a "mundane" character can't fake a Time Stop. He can't move so fast that he treats the world as if it doesn't move. That would be The Flash and you know where his speed comes from? The universal embodiment of movement. Nor can a "mundane" character do things like steal time from the future or cut a hole in space-time to travel across a continent.
Sure, a mundane character can't fake a time stop. Let's assume that's true. That doesn't mean that the arbitrary supernatural being gets timestop either. The ability to break reality one way doesn't necessarily imply the ability to break reality in all the ways, and some modes of reality breaking are pretty ineffective.

Friv

2014-08-31, 12:53 AM

The only real way to do it is for a Tier 1-2 "mundane" character to bend coincidence nearly to the breaking point, with the player acting as the hand of a mischievous Fate, granting routine easy access to absurd tricks that can be used on a resource budget, but which the character doesn't know about.

You can't teleport, but you can stumble across the one wizard capable of casting Teleport in the area, and he just happens to need something you're carrying at the exact moment that you need to get across the continent. You can't control minds, but gosh darn it, this orc bandit is a guy who you went to school with and is naturally Friendly towards you because you two palled around back then. You can't hide in plain sight, but you can retroactively declare that you were hidden the whole time and pop out of a pot when it's most narratively convenient. You fire an arrow, and it hits the one spot on the dragon that's missing a scale, bypassing his AC and killing him instantly. And wow, you just always have exactly the right one-use magical item stored in your backpack for the problem that you're dealing with at this moment. It's amazing, these coincidences. And they all are coincidences. The character doesn't have magic powers, and her utterly absurd luck isn't referenced as such in-game. It's just a class that commands narrative convenience.

Obviously, it would rather strain the idea that the PC is the one in control of their actions, rather than the player, so a lot of D&D players would not be thrilled with it. But it would do the trick, with no actual magic involved.

Story

2014-08-31, 12:54 AM

Me, I think that it would've been better if WotC said that everyone has magic, it's just how they use it; the 'Mundane' classes for instance focus on personal enhancement to push them to post-human levels, while the 'Magical' classes use it more actively

Isn't this essentially 4ed?

OldTrees1

2014-08-31, 12:55 AM

Sure, a mundane character can't fake a time stop. Let's assume that's true. That doesn't mean that the arbitrary supernatural being gets timestop either. The ability to break reality one way doesn't necessarily imply the ability to break reality in all the ways, and some modes of reality breaking are pretty ineffective.

If you nerf everyone down to the point that 20th level is within mundane(real world) expectations, then you are cutting out a good deal of meat(balance-able power) with the fat(game-breaking power).

However as I type this I get the feeling that I am misinterpreting what you were trying to say. (others may also be misinterpreting)

eggynack

2014-08-31, 01:00 AM

If you nerf everyone down to the point that 20th level is within mundane(real world) expectations, then you are cutting out a good deal of meat(balance-able power) with the fat(game-breaking power).

However as I type this I get the feeling that I am misinterpreting what you were trying to say. (others may also be misinterpreting)
My main point is just that there's nothing intrinsic about magic that makes it necessarily better than mundane. I don't think that any of these balancing mechanisms should really be put into place, but the idea that such a balancing mechanism fundamentally cannot exist, because altering reality is so much better than not doing so, seems somewhat ludicrous to me.

Emperor Tippy

2014-08-31, 01:14 AM

eggynack

2014-08-31, 01:19 AM

The very definitions of the words in question make magic better than "mundane".

Again, anything that a mundane character can do is, by definition, something that anyone can do. If that wasn't the case then "mundane" would not be the descriptor.

Magic is, by definition, exceeding and acting outside of those same limitations.
The issue is, there are some mundane things that not all magic folk get access to. I mean, it's pretty trivial to look at the warblade, and see that it can do some stuff that a healer cannot do. Yes, magic acts outside of the limitations of the mundane, but that doesn't say that they can do it particularly well, and it also doesn't say that they can act with impunity within the limitations of the mundane. I'd probably be more useful in a game context with the ability to swing a sword really well than I would be with the ability to make things that are green a slightly brighter shade of green on a once per object basis, after all.

Arbane

2014-08-31, 01:26 AM

Mundane is indeed "better" at stealth. Hide and Disguise can even beat true seeing, but no illusion or darkness spell can do so. However, they are more time-consuming than shapeshifting or illusions.

Blindsight, tremorsense, and all the other stealth-hosers say 'hi'. :smallannoyed:

Thing is, I don't see that as being an "issue." Magic is more versatile for a variety of reasons - it just makes sense from a fantasy/narrative perspective,

No, it really doesn't. In most stories, the wizard isn't the main character. If they are, there's usually a whole raft of reasons why they CAN'T just use their magic to sail past every obstacle. (Otherwise, it would be a boring story.)

And it's entirely possible to have a system of magic that, for one reason or another, isn't as versatile or useful as mundane effort - for doing mundane things. for example, imagine if you will a system where if you need a building built, get a construction team. If you need a building exorcised, THEN you call in the spellcaster. (As opposed to D&D3.5, where the correct solution to ALL problems is 'magic', because magic is always better than mundane.)

now you are talking about nerfing magic down to mundane levels, not buffing a mundane to be equal to magic. That's certainly a way to go, but I don't think it was the goal of the thread.

Over the last decade, I've read dozens of variations on this thread, and they all come down to the same thing: To compete with the spellcasters, either everyone else needs actual Honest-To-Stan-Lee superpowers, or the magicians need to be beaten with the nerfbat until they beg for mercy - and then get beaten even more.

That being said, why in the world should a "mundane" character be able to compete with a magic user?

Because in better-designed systems, being a magician has drawbacks. Like being physically weakened from spellcasting. Or having a significant chance of being one-shotted in mid-spell. Or gradually going insane. Or having to watch television 8 hours a day.

A magic user has access to powers that, by definition, break the rules that the mundane operates under. Gravity says that individuals can't fly, magic tells gravity to take a hike. Or biology, which says that it takes X amount of time for wounds to heal while magic just tells the body that it is all better now.

Presumably, magic has its own rules, which would specify what it can and can't do. (For example, in Exalted, even the mightiest sorcery can't reverse time or bring back the dead. Those things are just not allowed.)

Unfortunately, in D&D, those 'rules' seems to be 'magic can do anything'.

Note the common theme in all of that though. None of the classes is "mundane". Why? Because the idea that someone without any beyond normal power can stand toe to toe with someone who makes the very rules of existence their plaything is absurd and needs to die in a fire.

I notice the complete absence of the notion that if you make the rules of existence your plaything, they get to return the favor. (See: Mage: the Awakening/Ascension's Paradox rules.)

As for the other point, magic is defined as the supernatural. In other words as "things that are unnatural and against the natural laws of the world". Anything that is limited by those natural laws is going to be inferior to someone who does the same thing but is not limited by those laws. And by definition anything that is "mundane" is so limited.

Hey, vampire. Count these seeds before you come in, OK? I'll just string up some garlic...
Hey, ghost, I"m on the other side of this river. Notice the ninety-degree bend in the bridge - have fun getting across.
Hey, ogre, sure you can become a giant, but can you become a mouse?
Hey, devil - lookit the cross I just carved in this tree-trunk! Wanna hang around up there 'til the church-bells ring, or shall we make a deal?
Hey, catch this horseshoe! Oh, you ARE a fairy - thanks, I wasn't sure.

In real-world myth/folklore, supernatural stuff has its OWN rules, and they can be just as weird and inconvenient as this 'gravity' stuff us snivelling mortals have to deal with.

Anlashok

2014-08-31, 01:28 AM

Well, we have to remember that in the context of D&D "mundane" doesn't actually mean mundane. Instead it simply refers to someone who isn't relying on traditional spellcasting/Su/SLAs to do their work.

Extraordinary abilities already explicitly call out the fact that they can break the laws of physics and do things far beyond what a normal human can do. So sure, Mundane time stop and celerity is perfectly valid. So is mundane Dimension Door and a whole host of other things.

I mean we already have stuff like Time Stands Still and Island in Time, both of which are Ex and have similar functions at least conceptually to some of the stuff we've talked about. Hell, the latter is basically Greater Greater Celerity anyways.

Isn't this essentially 4ed?
Naw. 4e's more like.. "everyone is tome of battle". Ish.

Plus 4e's solution to the issue is to simply gut sweeping narrative power. Nothing comparable to a wish/mindrape/ice assassin. Instead your narrative options are trivial things like bonuses to bluff or using spellcraft to intimidate.

OldTrees1

2014-08-31, 01:29 AM

The very definitions of the words in question make magic better than "mundane".

Again, anything that a mundane character can do is, by definition, something that anyone can do. If that wasn't the case then "mundane" would not be the descriptor.

Magic is, by definition, exceeding and acting outside of those same limitations.

Remember "mundane" has at least 4 definitions being used in this thread. eggynack and you were using the "not magic" definition of "mundane". Please do not change to the "what literally anyone can do" definition. That would not be conducive to discussion.

eggynack's point was that when you have a system that permits magic, the mundane(not magic) vs magic gap depends on how permissive that system's physics are to magic. The mundane(not magic) vs magic gap in Harry Potter is much smaller than the mundane(not magic) vs magic gap in a Tippyverse. Theoretically there is a set of systems that have physics that permit magic but are not permissive enough to allow a significant mundane(not magic) vs magic gap. We can prove this by graphing the points real life(not magic >> magic) and Tippyverse(not magic << magic) and connecting them with a line that crosses the not magic = magic line.

eggynack

2014-08-31, 01:31 AM

Blindsight, tremorsense, and all the other stealth-hosers say 'hi'. :smallannoyed:

Darkstalker says hi in return.

NichG

2014-08-31, 01:38 AM

Pan151

2014-08-31, 01:45 AM

My main point is just that there's nothing intrinsic about magic that makes it necessarily better than mundane. I don't think that any of these balancing mechanisms should really be put into place, but the idea that such a balancing mechanism fundamentally cannot exist, because altering reality is so much better than not doing so, seems somewhat ludicrous to me.

There is the intrinsic property that magic surpasses the limits mundane people are bound to.

You can't just put two identical characters, one with access to supercomputers and submaschineguns, the other with access to rocks and an abacus, and expect the two to be balanced with one another. You would have to either buff the effectiveness of rocks and other mundane stuff to ludicrous levels or nerf the high-tech stuff to equally ludicrous levels, or both - either way relegating technology to just a vastly more complex and expensive method to do the same thing anybody could do, to the point where you have to wonder why it exists in the first place.

That's not to say that a magic user class and a mundane class cannot ever be balanced, but you cannot ever balance magic itself with the mundane, because doing so automatically renders the practice of magic pointless.

Arbane

2014-08-31, 01:47 AM

The very definitions of the words in question make magic better than "mundane".

Again, anything that a mundane character can do is, by definition, something that anyone can do. If that wasn't the case then "mundane" would not be the descriptor.

Magic is, by definition, exceeding and acting outside of those same limitations.

There's a difference between something that 'everyone can do' and something that 'everyone could do'. And even then, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people who lack both the training and possibly the innate potential to be open-heart surgeons, tightrope walkers, theoretical physicists, Shaolin monks, public speakers, rock climbers, cryptographers, pickpockets, linebackers, contortionists, or artists.

And being able to commune with the Clockwork Elves of the 6th Dimension probably won't help much with any of those. It might even interfere with the often-important 'pass for normal' skill.

That's not to say that a magic user class and a mundane class cannot ever be balanced, but you cannot ever balance magic itself with the mundane, because doing so automatically renders the practice of magic pointless.

Not necessarily, if magic is good for tasks that mundane effort isn't useful for. Need a curse lifted? That's a job for a shaman. Need to kill someone? That's a job for a warrior.

Divide by Zero

2014-08-31, 01:48 AM

Keeping up with what? The Monster Manual? Because that is the only yardstick that matters, and mundanes can keep up with CR-appropriate encounters just fine.

If the caster is played by an intelligent player, then one of a few things will happen:

1) The caster steamrolls all the encounters, making the noncaster feel useless.
2) The DM increases the CR of encounters to compensate for the caster's power, making the noncaster feel useless and/or dead.
3) The caster's player deliberately holds back. This is obviously the best solution, but if you have to hold back to make the other characters not useless then something is fundamentally wrong.

eggynack

2014-08-31, 01:54 AM

There is the intrinsic property that magic surpasses the limits mundane people are bound to.
That is an intrinsic property of magic, but surpassing the limits of mundane people doesn't necessarily make you better than them.

You can't just put two identical characters, one with access to supercomputers and submaschineguns, the other with access to rocks and an abacus, and expect the two to be balanced with one another. You would have to either buff the effectiveness of rocks and other mundane stuff to ludicrous levels or nerf the high-tech stuff to equally ludicrous levels, or both - either way relegating technology to just a vastly more complex and expensive method to do the same thing anybody could do, to the point where you have to wonder why it exists in the first place.
Except magic isn't necessarily supercomputers and submachine guns. Maybe instead, it's just rocks that occasionally arbitrarily change direction mid-throw. Very cool, but not nearly as useful as the regular rock.

That's not to say that a magic user class and a mundane class cannot ever be balanced, but you cannot ever balance magic itself with the mundane, because doing so automatically renders the practice of magic pointless.
Not necessarily. The trick, as I've mentioned, is giving magic its power in areas different than those that mundane has power in. I think that the beguiler/warblade comparison works well for that. Beguiler are way better than warblades at certain things, like deception and trickery, and warblades are way better than beguilers at certain things, like hitting things really efficiently. Neither is all that much more powerful than the other, and to specifically address the point you raised, practicing either one is not pointless in the least.

Edit: I'm not really sure how you get from magic is balanced to magic is pointless at all, incidentally. It's not like magic in 3.5 is ludicrously more expensive than beatstickery, so if the two are perfectly balanced with each other somehow, it's likely that taking one path would have just as much point as taking the other. If you really think magic is that expensive, you could always factor that cost into the balancing, increasing the power of magic by a bit over that of mundane.

OldTrees1

2014-08-31, 01:58 AM

There is the intrinsic property that magic surpasses the limits mundane people are bound to.

You can't just put two identical characters, one with access to supercomputers and submaschineguns, the other with access to rocks and an abacus, and expect the two to be balanced with one another. You would have to either buff the effectiveness of rocks and other mundane stuff to ludicrous levels or nerf the high-tech stuff to equally ludicrous levels, or both - either way relegating technology to just a vastly more complex and expensive method to do the same thing anybody could do, to the point where you have to wonder why it exists in the first place.

That's not to say that a magic user class and a mundane class cannot ever be balanced, but you cannot ever balance magic itself with the mundane, because doing so automatically renders the practice of magic pointless.

It is an intrinsic property that magic methods break some of the limits on mundane methods. However this does not imply a 1 dimensional model (supercomputer vs abacus).

Let us assume a world where mundane methods are restrained by "conservation of energy" and "no action at a distance" but magic is only restrained by "conservation of energy" at the cost of the additional restraint of "more study required to produce equal output". In this case magic would be useful a minor levitation(breaking a limit of mundane methods) however it would not replace cranes since mundane methods also surpass a limit of magical methods(they are quicker to study).*

So yes magic is different than mundane and is different in a way that it inherently will be better at some things. However that does not imply it is not also surpassed by mundane methods.

*I think this would result in mundane being used at macro scales but magic being used at micro scales.

Pan151

2014-08-31, 02:00 AM

Not necessarily, if magic is good for tasks that mundane effort isn't useful for. Need a curse lifted? That's a job for a shaman. Need to kill someone? That's a job for a warrior.

Which furthers my point: You could have the shaman class be roughly balanced with the warrior class, but if you take two twins and give one access to magic, both are equally good at killing things, but twin B can now also lift curses.

OldTrees1

2014-08-31, 02:03 AM

Which furthers my point: You could have the shaman class be roughly balanced with the warrior class, but if you take two twins and give one access to magic, both are equally good at killing things, but twin B can now also lift curses.

Unless access to magic comes at a cost/opportunity cost like less time to train as a warrior. So Twin B can lift curses but quickly falls behind Twin A in combat prowess. Since mortals have a finite lifespan, it is entirely possible that the magic twin will never catch back up to the mundane twin when it comes to martial prowess.

Emperor Tippy

2014-08-31, 02:11 AM

Arbane

2014-08-31, 02:16 AM

Why? Because if the non magical way is faster, better, and more efficient then the magical way would have never been developed or taught.

Yes.

Note how much spellcasting most people do on a daily basis here in REAL LIFE.

Not much, is it? You seem to be kind of stuck on the whole 'Spellcasters are omnipotent' concept, which obviously doesn't HAVE to be true in all games.

Emperor Tippy

2014-08-31, 02:17 AM

It is an intrinsic property that magic methods break some of the limits on mundane methods. However this does not imply a 1 dimensional model (supercomputer vs abacus).

Let us assume a world where mundane methods are restrained by "conservation of energy" and "no action at a distance" but magic is only restrained by "conservation of energy" at the cost of the additional restraint of "more study required to produce equal output". In this case magic would be useful a minor levitation(breaking a limit of mundane methods) however it would not replace cranes since mundane methods also surpass a limit of magical methods(they are quicker to study).*

So yes magic is different than mundane and is different in a way that it inherently will be better at some things. However that does not imply it is not also surpassed by mundane methods.

*I think this would result in mundane being used at macro scales but magic being used at micro scales.

And then the mage gets smart and says "hey, why don't I just go and use this energy sitting in that active volcano over there to lift this block". The work gets done and you reduce the chance that the volcano goes boom. Or more fun, you take the energy that gravity is exerting on the object and use it to counteract the energy that gravity is exerting on this other object. Now both objects have become effectively is zero g as the first has the energy used to accelerate it downward instead being used to accelerate the second upward which in turn counteracts the downward acceleration that gravity is exerting on that second object.

Twice the work for zero net energy investment.

---
Or you have D&D where things like fireballs get there energy by tapping the Elemental Plane of Fire, which has infinite energy.

OldTrees1

2014-08-31, 02:31 AM

And then the mage gets smart and says "hey, why don't I just go and use this energy sitting in that active volcano over there to lift this block". The work gets done and you reduce the chance that the volcano goes boom. Or more fun, you take the energy that gravity is exerting on the object and use it to counteract the energy that gravity is exerting on this other object. Now both objects have become effectively is zero g as the first has the energy used to accelerate it downward instead being used to accelerate the second upward which in turn counteracts the downward acceleration that gravity is exerting on that second object.

Twice the work for zero net energy investment.

---
Or you have D&D where things like fireballs get there energy by tapping the Elemental Plane of Fire, which has infinite energy.

You are assuming that the mage can do that in 1 step rather than have to store the volcano of energy inside himself. (That was a failure of my example not of the point of my example. Thank you for showing that flaw in the example.)
You didn't touch the "magic takes more study per output" law in my example.

However I thought you had already agreed with the proof that there exists systems with physics such that magic and not-magic would have roughly equal power. Agreed dismissively perhaps, but agreed none the less.

Arbane

2014-08-31, 03:40 AM

Thanatosia

2014-08-31, 04:17 AM

However I thought you had already agreed with the proof that there exists systems with physics such that magic and not-magic would have roughly equal power. Agreed dismissively perhaps, but agreed none the less.
I think it's pointless to argue that you can design any arbitrary system that gives the yields you want it to yield. Yes, you can design a game system where magic is so horrible and requires so much investure to develop that it's no better then mundane means. What you've described is pretty much the punchline to invaders from the 4th dimension OOTS comic from Snips & Snails, why bother spending years practicing magic when you can be just as powerful by hanging out in a bad neighberhood.

That just brings the circular argument back around, the only way to make mundanes equal to magic is to nerf magic to pointlessness. As long as magic is an advantage, then those who have access to it have an intrinsic advantage over those who do not.

NichG

2014-08-31, 04:20 AM

What this all comes back to is a flaw in the conceptual design of the 'default D&D setting' - that is to say, 'magic' was used as a code word for 'anything we want to have happen now, or might want to have happen in the future'. This means that naturally the category 'magic' is something that expands to be inclusive, but also dissolves the ideas that there are limits. Look at spell research - if I describe a spell effect that I want to research, the natural response of most people is to try to assign it a spell level rather than ask whether arcane magic can do it at all. The problem is that we have so many examples of this or that thing which are included, that it leads to the thought process that 'of course magic should be able to do absolutely anything'.

But if you throw out all of that, its clear that it doesn't have to be that way. You could start from the basis of saying in a very narrow sense what magic can do, where the default assumption is that if it isn't on that list then it isn't possible for magic. You could also do this based on rules for things that very specifically magic simply cannot do, and make those rules more restrictive than things which are doable without magic through indirect ways. Both of those approaches lead to systems in which magic doesn't have the extra baggage of 'everything that can be imagined is possible, and is priced affordably' that D&D has.

For example - 'fire, water, air, and stone are the domain of magic. 'Magic' is the ability of people to direct the motions of those substances in their nearly-pure forms by force of will. Mixtures are inaccessible to magic, and magic cannot create any of those substances from nothingness or destroy them. Magic can exert great forces on them, can hold them up against gravity, can make them survive where they normally shouldn't, etc, but that is all it can do. In order to exert magic upon something, the magic user must touch the thing to be controlled (though this can be done remotely, so long as there is a direct connection made of the same, pure, element)' It has specific abilities and specific limits. You can build a city in an instant with a thought within those limits if you're on stony ground, or suffocate someone (who isn't wearing a wet cloth over his mouth), or shroud yourself in fire (though you can't protect yourself from being burnt...) But you can't heal a wound, or destroy a town made of baked mud, or a dozen other things which can be done in mundane ways.

And if it takes 20 years of study to approach competency in a single element, well, then you're still going to get people using the magic (because being able to cause rivers to get out of the way, or repair buildings of stone with a touch, or other such things is still incredibly useful), but you're also going to get people using other things.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 09:34 AM

Or you do the thing that doesn't shatter disbelief and just give everyone magic of one kind or another.

Why? Because anyone who actually wants to do anything super-humanly impressive goes out and learns how to use some type of magic because it's a better way to do whatever.

Magic is all about the short cut, the cheat, the work around. It is all about doing a given task faster, better, and more efficiently than doing that task without the magic would be.

Why? Because if the non magical way is faster, better, and more efficient then the magical way would have never been developed or taught.

Want a normal person who refuses to use magic and trains really hard to be the best melee combatant ever? Then you have a Fighter or possibly a Warblade.

Want a normal person who is perfectly willing to use magic and train really hard to be the best melee combatant ever? Then you have a Psion 20. Why? Because that is how you make the most generally effective melee combatant; fully capable of handing any Warblade their head in a straight up melee fight.

The guy who refuses to use magic should not be rewarded for his stupidity. A world where everyone is equal just because they all want to be special snowflakes is a stupid world that shatters disbelief.

So are you the guy who wants to stop time? Well you don't do that by running a lot or shouting really loudly or whatever other absurd justification you want to come up with. You do it by spending the time and effort to figure out how to manipulate that force that D&D calls "magic" to stop time. Why? Because it is something that said force can do.

*claps* Bravo.
The only thing I'll add is that D&D needs more ways to manipulate the force that D&D calls magic, besides spells and powers. A truly skilled fighter or rogue should either gain access to those systems themselves, or key supernatural abilities that allow them to cheat the curriculum entirely.

Yes.

Note how much spellcasting most people do on a daily basis here in REAL LIFE.

Not much, is it? You seem to be kind of stuck on the whole 'Spellcasters are omnipotent' concept, which obviously doesn't HAVE to be true in all games.

No, just the ones where magic exists. Your analogy to the real world is pointless here.

If the caster is played by an intelligent player, then one of a few things will happen:

1) The caster steamrolls all the encounters, making the noncaster feel useless.
2) The DM increases the CR of encounters to compensate for the caster's power, making the noncaster feel useless and/or dead.
3) The caster's player deliberately holds back. This is obviously the best solution, but if you have to hold back to make the other characters not useless then something is fundamentally wrong.

I find the assumption that a challenged caster means his player is not intelligent to be strongly distasteful. No matter how intelligent you are, the DM simply has more information than you do. It's a very common and wrong assumption around here that intelligence = knowledge when they are not the same thing at all.

Your scenarios also leave out a large number of other possibilities. How many encounters are we having today? One of the assumptions of limited spells is that running out should be a danger, otherwise why have the limit at all? And if you do, or you are overly fastidious with your castings, explain then what the noncasters would be doing during that time? Are we using PF polymorph, which is functional without allowing you to replace the melee on a whim without fantastic stat rolls? How about I add an enemy caster who dispels or counterspells your caster's shapeshifting, summoning and control - how does that make the noncaster feel useless and dead? Indeed, if the two casters are in stalemate, the noncaster becomes critical to the group's success. How about if I slap the caster with a few negative levels, or get him caught in a grapple by a surprise foe on the back ranks, would the noncaster be useless then? And lastly, what spells are allowed? Not every layout contains all the tools an arcanist or divine caster needs.

And yes, you can probably sit here on this forum and come up with counterstrategies to everything I've listed above, quite missing the point that if you prepare for all of it at once you'll be even less properly equipped to try to marginalize anyone else at the table, and need the support of your noncaster party members all the more.

Jormengand

2014-08-31, 10:18 AM

Well, I tried to make it work... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369537-The-Champion-PEACH&p=18032892#post18032892)

Psyren

2014-08-31, 10:25 AM

Ex infinite healing, Ex controlling people's actions and Ex turning people fanatic in less than 6 seconds. I get that it's a joke, but... actually, I guess that's all that needs to be said.

Jormengand

2014-08-31, 10:27 AM

Ex infinite healing, Ex controlling people's actions and Ex turning people fanatic in less than 6 seconds. I get that it's a joke, but... actually, I guess that's all that needs to be said.

But healing, controlling people's actions and turning people fanatic are all things people can do in real life. :smalltongue:

aleucard

2014-08-31, 10:27 AM

Isn't this essentially 4ed?

Nope. 4e has every class be basically the same thing (or only a very limited number of things, as defined by the traditional spots in an MMO party) with a few of the numbers tweaked. This would mean that they all use magic in a different way. Traditional 'Mundane' classes focus nigh-exclusively on 'passive' buffs to themselves and maybe to their equipment, Casters go for actively screwing with the fabric of reality and all its individual threads, and ToB-style classes and gishes go somewhere in between, with them leaning towards their respective sides.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 10:30 AM

But healing, controlling people's actions and turning people fanatic are all things people can do in real life. :smalltongue:

Assuming you're not still joking - Not in <6 seconds, generally. That's the big difference between, say, Geas and Diplomacy, though 3.5 Diplomacy is borked anyway.

Urpriest

2014-08-31, 10:33 AM

Assuming you're not still joking - Not in <6 seconds, generally. That's the big difference between, say, Geas and Diplomacy, though 3.5 Diplomacy is borked anyway.

Was about to say, in 3.5 Diplomacy just suffers a -10 penalty to be used in <6 seconds.

Jormengand

2014-08-31, 10:34 AM

Assuming you're not still joking - Not in <6 seconds, generally. That's the big difference between, say, Geas and Diplomacy, though 3.5 Diplomacy is borked anyway.

I was kinda joking, hence the sticky-outy-tongue, but...

Ehh. Can't we use the "Just that good" justification? I mean, player characters, especially ones over about 5th level, are basically superhuman anyway. Just because no-one in the real world can actually do it doesn't mean it's fundamentally magical.

Was about to say, in 3.5 Diplomacy just suffers a -10 penalty to be used in <6 seconds.

But don't worry, at 20th level I can do either of those things in less than 3 seconds instead. :smalltongue:

Psyren

2014-08-31, 10:48 AM

Was about to say, in 3.5 Diplomacy just suffers a -10 penalty to be used in <6 seconds.

Which is why I prefer PF - you can still use Diplomacy quickly, but the most you can get to is Helpful. Fanatic devotion without enslavement via magic is left to roleplay, as it should be.

I was kinda joking, hence the sticky-outy-tongue, but...

Ehh. Can't we use the "Just that good" justification? I mean, player characters, especially ones over about 5th level, are basically superhuman anyway. Just because no-one in the real world can actually do it doesn't mean it's fundamentally magical.

"Just that good," is, as Tippy pointed out, a justification that snaps suspension of disbelief over its knee for many people. It might work for you, and I wish you all the best with it, but it will never, ever work for me.

Anlashok

2014-08-31, 10:56 AM

"Just that good," is, as Tippy pointed out, a justification that snaps suspension of disbelief over its knee for many people.
Unless you're, of course, a wizard. Then who cares.

Jormengand

2014-08-31, 11:04 AM

"Just that good," is, as Tippy pointed out, a justification that snaps suspension of disbelief over its knee for many people. It might work for you, and I wish you all the best with it, but it will never, ever work for me.

I still don't understand why "I'm faster than you" or "I'm better with words than you" isn't a perfectly valid justification for why you should - gosh - be faster or better with words than someone else. Sure, magic allows you to replicate being faster or better or stronger than someone, but that's only because you're telling reality to sit down and shut up, or asking your god to tell reality to sit down and shut up. And that only works for a while, and when it stops, You cease to be a wizard and become a fragile pointy-eared monkey. While I? I am still a Fighter. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html)

I kinda liked the way that the Warhammer games handled magic, even if it was a little too powerful. You see that level 4 lore of life wizard? Yeah, he can make himself Toughness 7, fine... but when a close-combat chaos lord gets into combat with him, he's still only making one S3 WS3 attack, while the lord is smashing him in the face. If you're a fire or metals wizard, you can barely help yourself at all in combat (well done, Flaming Sword allowed you to miss me with a slightly higher-strength attack!) and nothing will actually change the fact that anyone who is actually in close combat with your wizard will wreck his face (unless he's like a loremaster of hoeth or something, but then he's clearly a gish anyway).

I mean, sure, you could always Transformation of Kadon yourself into a dragon, but then you're not a wizard any more. Basically, you weren't allowed to be a wizard and a combat monster at the same time, you have to choose one.

Wizards can break the laws of reality without necessarily being better than everyone at everything.

aleucard

2014-08-31, 11:10 AM

Darkstalker says hi in return.

Mindsight, Lifesense, and Touchsight pop their heads in the door and say 'Why weren't WE invited?'

Honestly, I agree with Tippy here. Unless if there exists something mundane in the way of high-tech, magic is categorically unequaled in 3.5. Where magic doesn't do something better straight-up or completely nullifies the need to even think of it, it makes the mundane method even better than without. What is needed for balance (assuming that we aren't going to gut entire systems, which has more negative connotations than otherwise for obvious reasons) is to make it so that everyone who trains and improves themselves to high-enough levels (read; gets levels) uses magic in some way, with varying degrees of subtlety. I've already described my idea on how to configure this.

eggynack

2014-08-31, 11:25 AM

Mindsight, Lifesense, and Touchsight pop their heads in the door and say 'Why weren't WE invited?'
There are indeed counters for it. They're just not usually the easiest thing to pull off, and countering magical stealth tends to be easier.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 11:50 AM

Unless you're, of course, a wizard. Then who cares.

That isn't "the wizard" being "just that good." It's magic being "just that good." As expected.

I still don't understand why "I'm faster than you" or "I'm better with words than you" isn't a perfectly valid justification for why you should - gosh - be faster or better with words than someone else. Sure, magic allows you to replicate being faster or better or stronger than someone, but that's only because you're telling reality to sit down and shut up, or asking your god to tell reality to sit down and shut up. And that only works for a while, and when it stops, You cease to be a wizard and become a fragile pointy-eared monkey. While I? I am still a Fighter. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html)

You realize you're making my point for me? Magic can be interfered with or turned off. "Being just that good" cannot.

Sorry, I've never played Warhammer.

There are indeed counters for it. They're just not usually the easiest thing to pull off, and countering magical stealth tends to be easier.

Precisely.

Jormengand

2014-08-31, 11:51 AM

You realize you're making my point for me? Magic can be interfered with or turned off. "Being just that good" cannot.

Which is why being just that good is allowed to do things in situations when magic couldn't do those things.

OldTrees1

2014-08-31, 12:07 PM

I think it's pointless to argue that you can design any arbitrary system that gives the yields you want it to yield. Yes, you can design a game system where magic is so horrible and requires so much investure to develop that it's no better then mundane means. What you've described is pretty much the punchline to invaders from the 4th dimension OOTS comic from Snips & Snails, why bother spending years practicing magic when you can be just as powerful by hanging out in a bad neighberhood.

That just brings the circular argument back around, the only way to make mundanes equal to magic is to nerf magic to pointlessness. As long as magic is an advantage, then those who have access to it have an intrinsic advantage over those who do not.

Why bother writing anything since people post faster than they can read? The non-strawman version of your question would be: "Why bother spending years studying when all you get is more versatility and some power rather than some versatility and more power?". The answer to that is dependent on the person with no obvious right or wrong path (aka balanced).

But since we both disagree about nerfing everyone as a means of balance, why would I be trying to prove equality can be reached by that method? Because the loudest voices (Tippy and eggynack) were derailing with their argument that only existed due to miscommunication. Ignoring such tends to cement the derailment. Solving the miscommunication is unlikely to work but does reverse the derailment when it does. Once the method was recognized as valid, the detractors would focus on the easy proof that it is too costly a method despite being valid.

Emperor Tippy

2014-08-31, 12:19 PM

I still don't understand why "I'm faster than you" or "I'm better with words than you" isn't a perfectly valid justification for why you should - gosh - be faster or better with words than someone else. Sure, magic allows you to replicate being faster or better or stronger than someone, but that's only because you're telling reality to sit down and shut up, or asking your god to tell reality to sit down and shut up. And that only works for a while, and when it stops, You cease to be a wizard and become a fragile pointy-eared monkey. While I? I am still a Fighter. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html)

I kinda liked the way that the Warhammer games handled magic, even if it was a little too powerful. You see that level 4 lore of life wizard? Yeah, he can make himself Toughness 7, fine... but when a close-combat chaos lord gets into combat with him, he's still only making one S3 WS3 attack, while the lord is smashing him in the face. If you're a fire or metals wizard, you can barely help yourself at all in combat (well done, Flaming Sword allowed you to miss me with a slightly higher-strength attack!) and nothing will actually change the fact that anyone who is actually in close combat with your wizard will wreck his face (unless he's like a loremaster of hoeth or something, but then he's clearly a gish anyway).

I mean, sure, you could always Transformation of Kadon yourself into a dragon, but then you're not a wizard any more. Basically, you weren't allowed to be a wizard and a combat monster at the same time, you have to choose one.

Wizards can break the laws of reality without necessarily being better than everyone at everything.

Think about it this way. Your goal is to the best swordsmaster in the history of the planes.

Your first step isn't to pick up a sword, it's to figure out how to become eternally young. Why? Because your competition is creatures that have had, in some cases, millions of years to master the sword; you will never be better than them in the hundred or so years a human has naturally.

So you have figured out immortality, now is it time to pick up a sword? No, you now need to figure out how to improve your strength, speed, hand-eye coordination, and reflexes to superhuman levels because your competition is either that good naturally or has already undergone a similar process.

Well ok, now you are the physical equal to the best swordsman around so it is time to start learning to wield a blade. You train and learn and then go and fight that best swordsman but you loose because he is carrying a demiplane's laws of reality around with him and get's twice as much time as you. Well then you go and figure out how to match that but you loose again because he knows how to turn his blade to ethereal mist and back instantly and uses that to bypass your sword during a critical block.

---
It's not "Wizard vs. melee" or the like. It's melee that uses magic of one type or another (and note that ToB classes use something called Martial Magic) to complement their melee capabilities and let them exceed the limits of non magical capability.

Jormengand

2014-08-31, 12:24 PM

Think about it this way. Your goal is to the best swordsmaster in the history of the planes.

Your first step isn't to pick up a sword, it's to figure out how to become eternally young. Why? Because your competition is creatures that have had, in some cases, millions of years to master the sword; you will never be better than them in the hundred or so years a human has naturally.

So you have figured out immortality, now is it time to pick up a sword? No, you now need to figure out how to improve your strength, speed, hand-eye coordination, and reflexes to superhuman levels because your competition is either that good naturally or has already undergone a similar process.

Well ok, now you are the physical equal to the best swordsman around so it is time to start learning to wield a blade. You train and learn and then go and fight that best swordsman but you loose because he is carrying a demiplane's laws of reality around with him and get's twice as much time as you. Well then you go and figure out how to match that but you loose again because he knows how to turn his blade to ethereal mist and back instantly and uses that to bypass your sword during a critical block.

---
It's not "Wizard vs. melee" or the like. It's melee that uses magic of one type or another (and note that ToB classes use something called Martial Magic) to complement their melee capabilities and let them exceed the limits of non magical capability.

That's not "Why magic must, all the time, be categorically better than mundane all of the time." That's "Why not everyone enjoys playing in the Tippyverse."

Kennisiou

2014-08-31, 01:12 PM

I want to interject here that I'm seeing a lot of discussion in this thread fall prey to the Guy at the Gym fallacy/URL]. Remember, D&D is a game where reading enough books or being devoted enough to an idea can grant you the power to break reality on a fundamental level. We call that "magic" and say that makes it okay and that it doesn't strain credibility but that's the thing. Yes. Yes it totally does strain credibility. Because you can't really break reality by being devoted to an ideal or by being smart. In a world where the only obstacle between a person and the sky is a few levels of wizard rather than a plane ticket, why can another path to the sky not just be "being very strong?" If I can be smart enough or devoted enough to take extra turns through magic, why can't I be fast enough to do it through sheer reflexes? If I can find an ancient tome of knowledge which allows me to craft a new powerful magic item, why can't I just craft a new powerful non-magic item by being that good? It's an ancient tome, the knowledge they're full of in the real world is usually stuff we've figured out long ago, stuff we realized was wrong long ago, or [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/31/us-joke-odd-idUSKUA14785120080731]bad jokes that don't translate well. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy) But in D&D world ancient tomes are useful and powerful. So why can't people who lift be that useful and powerful? Why can't the guy who spends his whole life over an anvil make a non-magic sword capable of cutting mountains because he's the most skilled craftsman of any age? Why can't the guy who spends all his days swimming with progressively more weight holding him back eventually swim through the sky?

The reason is someone decided "this is magic, and it's more powerful than not magic, because otherwise it doesn't make sense" when in a fantasy world that doesn't have to be the case.

Darkweave31

2014-08-31, 01:40 PM

Because you can't really break reality by being devoted to an ideal or by being smart.

Oh, don't mind me, I'll just go back to my science... speaking of which a high enough level gramarist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?291019-By-the-Inferior-Science-of-our-Enemies-Gramarie-Mark-II)is technically not magical

Psyren

2014-08-31, 02:37 PM

That's not "Why magic must, all the time, be categorically better than mundane all of the time." That's "Why not everyone enjoys playing in the Tippyverse."

It's not "categorically better than mundane all the time." You can't counterspell a maneuver or skill check for instance.

I want to interject here that I'm seeing a lot of discussion in this thread fall prey to the Guy at the Gym fallacy/URL]. Remember, D&D is a game where reading enough books or being devoted enough to an idea can grant you the power to break reality on a fundamental level. We call that "magic" and say that makes it okay and that it doesn't strain credibility but that's the thing. Yes. Yes it totally does strain credibility. Because you can't really break reality by being devoted to an ideal or by being smart. In a world where the only obstacle between a person and the sky is a few levels of wizard rather than a plane ticket, why can another path to the sky not just be "being very strong?" If I can be smart enough or devoted enough to take extra turns through magic, why can't I be fast enough to do it through sheer reflexes? If I can find an ancient tome of knowledge which allows me to craft a new powerful magic item, why can't I just craft a new powerful non-magic item by being that good? It's an ancient tome, the knowledge they're full of in the real world is usually stuff we've figured out long ago, stuff we realized was wrong long ago, or [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/31/us-joke-odd-idUSKUA14785120080731]bad jokes that don't translate well. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy) But in D&D world ancient tomes are useful and powerful. So why can't people who lift be that useful and powerful? Why can't the guy who spends his whole life over an anvil make a non-magic sword capable of cutting mountains because he's the most skilled craftsman of any age? Why can't the guy who spends all his days swimming with progressively more weight holding him back eventually swim through the sky?

The reason is someone decided "this is magic, and it's more powerful than not magic, because otherwise it doesn't make sense" when in a fantasy world that doesn't have to be the case.

The question you need to ask yourself is simple - why is it so often the case? If this "fallacy" of yours is truly a fallacy, then surely someone would have made the RPG you seem to want, where mundanes can be "just that good" and be on par with magic. So why haven't they? Why haven't you, or any of the others who yearn for this utopian product?

Anlashok

2014-08-31, 02:42 PM

Not sure what's with the snide attitude Psyren but.. uh.. there are games like that. Not sure why that's relevant though to whether or not d20 could use improvements.

aleucard

2014-08-31, 02:49 PM

There are indeed counters for it. They're just not usually the easiest thing to pull off, and countering magical stealth tends to be easier.

Mindsight's got multiple methods for multiple types of caster (Telepath 5 can get it straight up, Mindbender 1 does not interrupt Caster progression in the slightest, Crystal Master does both this and a permanent version of Touchsight easily, etc.), Touchsight is an easily-accessible power for anyone with access to the Psion/Wilder list, and Crystal Master as previously mentioned), and Lifesense is available to entire categories (undead and construct are the most obvious, though I'm fairly sure there's at least 1 PrC out there that removes your Con score). That's ignoring the fact that these are all 1) always-on, 2) easily compatible with other things that various character builds would already be interested in (thus reducing opportunity cost to a single feat more often than not), and 3) have benefits aside from just being able to render almost all kinds of stealth (magic included) basically if not literally useless.

Even with these removed, more methods of passively negating non-magical stealth exist than do the same to magical.

eggynack

2014-08-31, 04:00 PM

Even with these removed, more methods of passively negating non-magical stealth exist than do the same to magical.
I don't see how you got from that stuff up there to this down here. By my understanding, most of those things are going to bypass invisibility of various forms just as easily, as will the stuff that fails to impact darkstalker.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 04:59 PM

Not sure what's with the snide attitude Psyren but.. uh.. there are games like that. Not sure why that's relevant though to whether or not d20 could use improvements.

Where? Which ones? Why aren't they more popular/compelling/attractive, if this is truly a void people believe needs filling?

If I have an attitude, it's because I'm perplexed by the notion that D&D is somehow "doing it wrong" by assuming magic should be inherently superior, when the folks making that claim have yet to show me an example of a system that does not do this and isn't a critical or commercial flop. In other words, if you're asking "why isn't this done more" the answer could simply be "because people don't find it compelling." But that's not the answer that the "magic equalist" faction doesn't want to hear, so they ignore it.

aleucard

2014-08-31, 05:11 PM

georgie_leech

2014-08-31, 05:16 PM

Where? Which ones? Why aren't they more popular/compelling/attractive, if this is truly a void people believe needs filling?

If I have an attitude, it's because I'm perplexed by the notion that D&D is somehow "doing it wrong" by assuming magic should be inherently superior, when the folks making that claim have yet to show me an example of a system that does not do this and isn't a critical or commercial flop. In other words, if you're asking "why isn't this done more" the answer could simply be "because people don't find it compelling." But that's not the answer that the "magic equalist" faction doesn't want to hear, so they ignore it.

One I frequently jump to is Shadowrun. While Magic has powerful and unique effects, so too do non-magical people. Mages might be able to access the Astral Plane, but Deckers can infiltrate the Matrix to ferret out useful information or conduct sabotage. Shamans can summon spirits that can perform autonomous services, but Riggers can command drone armies. A Mage can cause massive damage anywhere in LoS, but no matter how powerful can't target something he can't see, while the meanest grunt can shoot blindly around corners. I think it generally succeeds at showing that Magic can be powerful and varied without intrinsically overshadowing everything else.

Finally, this doesn't mean I want to play Shadowrun over everything else. it just proves it's possible to be balanced. What people are saying is that they would like it if one of their favourite RPG's was even better, not that the excessive gap between Magic and Non-magic completely ruins the experience.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 05:30 PM

Emperor Tippy

2014-08-31, 05:33 PM

One I frequently jump to is Shadowrun. While Magic has powerful and unique effects, so too do non-magical people. Mages might be able to access the Astral Plane, but Deckers can infiltrate the Matrix to ferret out useful information or conduct sabotage. Shamans can summon spirits that can perform autonomous services, but Riggers can command drone armies. A Mage can cause massive damage anywhere in LoS, but no matter how powerful can't target something he can't see, while the meanest grunt can shoot blindly around corners. I think it generally succeeds at showing that Magic can be powerful and varied without intrinsically overshadowing everything else.

Finally, this doesn't mean I want to play Shadowrun over everything else. it just proves it's possible to be balanced. What people are saying is that they would like it if one of their favourite RPG's was even better, not that the excessive gap between Magic and Non-magic completely ruins the experience.

Shadowrun has "Always gank the mage first" as a rule that successful runners live by for a very good reason.

It is also a setting where the most powerful combat characters are magic users of one kind or another. The only reason that hackers take the spot as most powerful characters overall is that the sheer amount of infrastructure that they can make into their play things puts them there.

---
Adepts are flat out better than even a fully optimized street sam rocking delta grade bio and nanoware.

Oh yeah, it is also a setting where the vast majority of the worlds major players are magic users of one kind or another.

georgie_leech

2014-08-31, 05:35 PM

Shadowrun has modern guns, computers, cybernetics and other advanced technology. The standards for "mundane" there would easily be considered "magical" in any published D&D setting. This is a very poor example.

So what you're saying is that when mundanes are sufficiently powerful enough with enough options they can compete with magic users? Shocking. :smallamused:

What differentiates magic from mundane doesn't have to be power level. It can be the tools used to do what they do, and the different kinds of things the different tool sets use, rather than the impact they have.

EDIT:

Shadowrun has "Always gank the mage first" as a rule that successful runners live by for a very good reason.

It is also a setting where the most powerful combat characters are magic users of one kind or another. The only reason that hackers take the spot as most powerful characters overall is that the sheer amount of infrastructure that they can make into their play things puts them there.

---
Adepts are flat out better than even a fully optimized street sam rocking delta grade bio and nanoware.

Oh yeah, it is also a setting where the vast majority of the worlds major players are magic users of one kind or another.

Yes, Magic is an extremely powerful force. A Shadowrun team consisting entirely of magic users is one that has multiple gaps in its capabilities however. I didn't say they were perfectly balanced, but it is a system where magic isn't as much of an instant win button, capable of doing everything always, as it is in D&D.

Raven777

2014-08-31, 05:42 PM

In my humble opinion, remaining "purely mundane" in a world where magic is readily available makes no sense. The fix for mundanes is not for mundane things to be fluffed as awesome, but for mundane things to start incorporating magic fluff as their users level up. The 20th level Fighter should not run over lava because he has amazing endurance, he should because his old mentor told him to tap into the Force.

Arbane

2014-08-31, 05:45 PM

Where? Which ones? Why aren't they more popular/compelling/attractive, if this is truly a void people believe needs filling?

You know, it's really friggin' depressing to reel off a list of games in which this is a solved problem, only to find that I've apparently been typing in Swahili, since apparently NOBODY CAN READ WHAT I WROTE. :smallmad: Let's see if THIS post comes through in English.

Shadowrun's been mentioned.
Call of Cthulhu.
Witchcraft.
GURPS.
Exalted. (Spellcasting isn't better than Charms - but both are vastly superior to the actions of snivelling mortals)
Unknown Armies.
Hero System.
Those are all just off the top of my head, and achieved some commercial success. Admittedly, less than Dungeons and Dragons, but that's like saying that a computer program is a 'flop' because it didn't sell like Windows.

The 'Casters overshadow everyone else to the point of irrelevancy, and they're not SUPPOSED to' problem seems to be at its worst in one edition of D&D, which, despite the attitude sometimes heard in this forum, is not the be-all and and-all of RPGs.

If I have an attitude, it's because I'm perplexed by the notion that D&D is somehow "doing it wrong" by assuming magic should be inherently superior, when the folks making that claim have yet to show me an example of a system that does not do this and isn't a critical or commercial flop.

Which is why Wizards of the Coast is still publishing D&D 3.5, RIGHT?

If spellcasters are supposed to overshadow everyone else, then why does the game system insist that one level of wizard is 'worth' as much as one level of fighter? (Or worse, one level of Commoner. :smallconfused:)

-------

AND ANOTHER THING.

What makes you think that warping the fundamental substructure of the universe is going to be EASY? I can easily imagine a system where doing anything with magic more impressive than lighting a candle takes minutes to hours to accomplish, and where LEARNING to any one specific thing takes years. And where doing so costs months off your lifespan.

Obviously, in that setup, NOBODY would use magic - unless it's good for things that you can't possibly do by mundane means _at all_. Like cursing an untouchable noble to death.

Yes, this is going way too far in the opposite direction in a deliberate effort to make magic useless for player-characters, but I think my point stands: please pay attention to your basic assumptions. They are not universal.

Emperor Tippy

2014-08-31, 05:51 PM

Yes, Magic is an extremely powerful force. A Shadowrun team consisting entirely of magic users is one that has multiple gaps in its capabilities however. I didn't say they were perfectly balanced, but it is a system where magic isn't as much of an instant win button, capable of doing everything always, as it is in D&D.

Stealth Focused Adept, Face Adept, Melee Adept, Ranged Adept, Blaster Mage, Summoner Mage, Technomancer is actually pretty much the best runner group. The only real quibble being with the Technomancer as a well built hacker can usually outperform.

Thanatosia

2014-08-31, 05:53 PM

Anyone who thinks mundanes hold a candle to magic in shadowrun isn't playing magic right. First, Initiative is everything in shadowrun, it makes initiative rolls in D&D look like nothing, not only is it going first, but it's also actions economy (you get an extra action every 7 initiative behind your roll). With a simple, cheap, spell lock a magic user can get +8+4d6 initiative for almost no investment. A street samarai can get +6+3d6 initiative (wired reflexes lv3) by spending 5 of his 6 essence points on that one piece of cyberware. Once you establish the mage is always going first, if he's not having to split his magic pool into defending against an enemy mage, he can just let go with a force 1 spell and dump his entire magic pool offensively, blowing the everloving S*** out of everything with no drain and bypassing most mundane defenses. Thats not even getting into the ways a mage can follow you astrally and do all sorts of bad things to you without you even knowing he's there. A shadowrun mage might not be up to the absurd levels of a lv20 D&D wizard in his private demiplane, but if played even remotely well they overshadow the everloving hell out of mundanes.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 06:28 PM

So what you're saying is that when mundanes are sufficiently powerful enough with enough options they can compete with magic users? Shocking. :smallamused:

But technology isn't "being just that good" either - it's depending on an external crutch that can be taken away or interfered with just like magic can. In which case, how is that functionally different than just handing out magic?

Answer - it isn't.

In my humble opinion, remaining "purely mundane" in a world where magic is readily available makes no sense. The fix for mundanes is not for mundane things to be fluffed as awesome, but for mundane things to start incorporating magic fluff as their users level up. The 20th level Fighter should not run over lava because he has amazing endurance, he should because his old mentor told him to tap into the Force.

Exactly. But for some reason there is a big aversion to this.

You know, it's really friggin' depressing to reel off a list of games in which this is a solved problem, only to find that I've apparently been typing in Swahili, since apparently NOBODY CAN READ WHAT I WROTE. :smallmad: Let's see if THIS post comes through in English.

Shadowrun's been mentioned.
Call of Cthulhu.
Witchcraft.
GURPS.
Exalted. (Spellcasting isn't better than Charms - but both are vastly superior to the actions of snivelling mortals)
Unknown Armies.
Hero System.
Those are all just off the top of my head, and achieved some commercial success. Admittedly, less than Dungeons and Dragons, but that's like saying that a computer program is a 'flop' because it didn't sell like Windows.

All right, I'll humor you - let's run down this list.

Shadowrun - if you're not relying on magic or ki, you're relying on technology. Either way, it's something external to you, so it might as well be called magic (and indeed would be, in D&D.)
CoC - Isn't the whole point of this game disempowerment? Magic and mundane are equal in the sense that they are both screwed by something beyond their ken. That is far from the principal engagement D&D is going for, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
GURPS - Isn't GURPS a generic, almost fluff-less system? You could call every spell "mundane arts" if you wanted and it would change nothing.
Exalted - you're kidding, right? There is nothing "mundane" about Exalted.
Unknown Armies - never heard of it, but a cursory glance is showing me modern firearms and technology yet again, not to mention horror and sanity like CoC yet again.
Hero system - How are superheroes supposed to be mundane, exactly?

The few on here that are even analagous to D&D are not examples of mundanes achieving parity.

The 'Casters overshadow everyone else to the point of irrelevancy, and they're not SUPPOSED to' problem seems to be at its worst in one edition of D&D, which, despite the attitude sometimes heard in this forum, is not the be-all and and-all of RPGs.

You can certainly argue that it wasn't as bad in 1e or 2e but that is just splitting hairs. The casters still were affecting events on orders of magnitude far greater than any mundane could hope to do. I didn't see any 2e fighters opening Gates, or trapping enemies in forcecages, or teleporting around.

Which is why Wizards of the Coast is still publishing D&D 3.5, RIGHT?

No, someone else is and making bank for it. QED.

If spellcasters are supposed to overshadow everyone else, then why does the game system insist that one level of wizard is 'worth' as much as one level of fighter? (Or worse, one level of Commoner. :smallconfused:)

For ease of play maybe? I don't see why it's such a big deal. All of us here figured out that one level of X is not equivalent to one level of Y. (Or, for a specific example, that the 17th level of Wizard is not equivalent to the 17th level of fighter or rogue.)

-------

AND ANOTHER THING.

What makes you think that warping the fundamental substructure of the universe is going to be EASY? I can easily imagine a system where doing anything with magic more impressive than lighting a candle takes minutes to hours to accomplish, and where LEARNING to any one specific thing takes years. And where doing so costs months off your lifespan.

Obviously, in that setup, NOBODY would use magic - unless it's good for things that you can't possibly do by mundane means _at all_. Like cursing an untouchable noble to death.

Yes, this is going way too far in the opposite direction in a deliberate effort to make magic useless for player-characters, but I think my point stands: please pay attention to your basic assumptions. They are not universal.

I never said they were universal - just that they are pervasive, and there is a reason for that.

To go outside that, you either (as your examples have shown) have to go to horror - a genre where nobody is expected to be powerful - or to superheroes/technology, where there are no true mundanes left. What you have not shown me is a system that carries a mundane/magic divide, yet shows mundanes altering reality by flexing or whatever other silliness has been advocated in this and prior threads.

Anlashok

2014-08-31, 06:36 PM

Why aren't they more popular/compelling/attractive, if this is truly a void people believe needs filling?
Because D&D is king. Seems like a silly argument. A product being better doesn't necessitate that it's more popular. The larger problem here is that this is really a nonargument (it's also one that's flipped around really easily).

If I have an attitude, it's because I'm perplexed by the notion that D&D is somehow "doing it wrong" by assuming magic should be inherently superior
I don't see how you can see it as anything but wrong when a game holds a section of classes as arbitrarily weaker than others for reasons that are mostly summed up as "because I like it" and then does so in secret.

I mean at least stuff like Ars Magica is upfront about the fact that wizards win everything.

But that's not the answer that the "magic equalist" faction doesn't want to hear, so they ignore it.
Sort of like how rather than discussing the merits and demerits of having martial classes that aren't terrible you keep trying to shift the argument to talk about other systems because you realize you aren't putting forward any compelling points on the actual topic?

Shadowrun has modern guns, computers, cybernetics and other advanced technology. The standards for "mundane" there would easily be considered "magical" in any published D&D setting. This is a very poor example.

And the standards for "mundane" in D&D would be considered "magical" by real life standards. All that does is make the argument that non-spellcasters need to be held to some arbitrarily lower standard seem worse.

edit:

Exalted - you're kidding, right? There is nothing "mundane" about Exalted.
At this point I can't help but think you're being intentionally obtuse about the issue.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 06:41 PM

Er, I'm fine with "martial classes that aren't terrible." I've supported ToB, right? My only issues with it are a handful of Shadow Hand and Devoted Spirit maneuvers lacking the Su tag.

I don't think things like reviving the dead and controlling minds are prerequisites to "not be terrible" however.

As for being better != being popular, I'm a believer in the notion that cream rises to the top. That if there was a system that managed to make mundane = magic without shattering disbelief, it would be more widespread. (And no, cybernetics and modern technology are not "mundane " in a D&D setting.)

Finally, "being secret" - We figured it out pretty quickly, didn't we? I know I'm not irreversibly scarred by the knowledge, is anyone else?

At this point I can't help but think you're being intentionally obtuse about the issue.

Ah, veiled insults, the last resort of those who have no actual arguments to make.

squiggit

2014-08-31, 06:41 PM

I once had a friend claim the reason 4e was bad was because its fighters and rangers were top tier.

So I guess there's that.

Anlashok

2014-08-31, 06:48 PM

Er, I'm fine with "martial classes that aren't terrible." I've supported ToB, right? My only issues with it are a handful of Shadow Hand and Devoted Spirit maneuvers lacking the Su tag.
Still don't see what's the big deal with Devoted Spirit... but even ToB is kinda eh in the long game when you look at the wizards and archivists of the world.

I don't think things like reviving the dead and controlling minds are prerequisites to "not be terrible" however.
I can actually see both of these happening in the context of my last comment here.

As for being better != being popular, I'm a believer in the notion that cream rises to the top. That if there was a system that managed to make mundane = magic without shattering disbelief, it would be more widespread. (And no, cybernetics and modern technology are not "mundane " in a D&D setting.)Eh, maybe. There's some decidedly uncreamy things around when I look at stuff that's risen to the top of various other forms of media though.

Though, frankly, on the Shadowrun front, there are some (silly) mundane things that happen irrespective of the cyber itself.

Finally, "being secret" - We figured it out pretty quickly, didn't we? I know I'm not irreversibly scarred by the knowledge, is anyone else?
We did, yes, but lots of other people don't. I mean, we've all seen Monkday. And there's a surprisingly large number of people on the Paizo forums that sincerely believes that the PF Wizard is in dire need of improvements so it can keep up with things like Barbarians.

Ah, veiled insults, the last resort of those who have no actual arguments to make.
Veiled insult? I thought it was pretty out in the open. Like. A really direct insult.

In any case, the point there that is "there's nothing mundane about it" seems to be missing the point, because 3.5 mundane doesn't mean mundane. 3.5 mundanes can already do stuff like swim through lava and jump out of airplanes and there's maneuvers that do things like let you take an entire turn as an immediate action. Clearly there's nothing mundane about it.

So this constant insistence by you that "mundane" actually means mundane seems to be missing the point entirely, because no one over here is seriously arguing that. Exalted is actually more or less a perfect example of that: Handwavey bull****y "He's just that awesome" martial arts techniques that are basically magic without filling the same niche as traditional spellcasting (which also gets to be awesome in different ways).

Emperor Tippy

2014-08-31, 07:02 PM

Sort of like how rather than discussing the merits and demerits of having martial classes that aren't terrible you keep trying to shift the argument to talk about other systems because you realize you aren't putting forward any compelling points on the actual topic?
Um I have repeatedly said that I would like martial classes that aren't just not terrible but are in fact perfectly viable play choices in higher level, higher op, play.

In point of fact, a solid 70% of my own class creations for D&D are martial related. That does not, however, mean that they are non magical.

Hell, none of my own class designs offer power and versatility comparable to D&D 3.5's Tier 1 classes and few even offer it on the Tier 2 level (and those that do are mostly because it is pretty inherent in what those classes are all about).

aleucard

2014-08-31, 07:07 PM

Honestly, possibly the best way to bring Mundanes into the realm of the Tier 1's without giving them magic directly is to draw inspiration from the Superhero-type genre. Magic, Superheroics, and Tech are the only 3 things I can think of that would be able to get to parity with Magic in 3.5 without shattering the suspension of disbelief, and of the latter two only the second gets mentioned at all (ToB and friends). Anyone got a better idea for how to pull something like that off?

NichG

2014-08-31, 07:09 PM

Where? Which ones? Why aren't they more popular/compelling/attractive, if this is truly a void people believe needs filling?

If I have an attitude, it's because I'm perplexed by the notion that D&D is somehow "doing it wrong" by assuming magic should be inherently superior, when the folks making that claim have yet to show me an example of a system that does not do this and isn't a critical or commercial flop. In other words, if you're asking "why isn't this done more" the answer could simply be "because people don't find it compelling." But that's not the answer that the "magic equalist" faction doesn't want to hear, so they ignore it.

And if we provide examples, will you just move the goalpost again and say 'anything that isn't D&D is a critical/commercial flop'?

7th Sea: Magic is powerful and highly narrow in focus. You get one gimmick, and it costs you about half of your starting character build points. You can do some neat things with it, but a Panache-focused swordsman will be better at killing stuff/defeating his enemies, etc.

L5R: PC-Mages (Shugenja) get some nice things, but Bushi get the mechanically broken stuff. And there's at least one particular way to make a totally mundane martial character who uses a single skill for any skill check they want (Kakita Descendent, I believe).

d20 Future: There's lots of tech-based stuff which rivals or beats out magic (or 'FX users'), at least for the first ten levels. With splat support it can go either way. Urban Arcana is sort of 'hey, magic isn't broken enough in this d20 product, lets fix that!', but then there's also lots of splats that bring in super-tech.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 07:11 PM

We did, yes, but lots of other people don't. I mean, we've all seen Monkday. And there's a surprisingly large number of people on the Paizo forums that sincerely believes that the PF Wizard is in dire need of improvements so it can keep up with things like Barbarians.

Isn't "monkday" just any post related to monks in this subforum on that day? They could be complaining that monks are weak, talking about monks that were particularly strong in one game they had, suggesting a monk fix or anything else really. I'm not seeing the relevance.

Your second statement is actually at odds with your position. If real people in real games are commonly seeing wizards underperform, that indicates the level of capability they show in practice is being exaggerated/overblown.

Veiled insult? I thought it was pretty out in the open. Like. A really direct insult.

I suggest you refamiliarize yourself with these. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)

In any case, the point there that is "there's nothing mundane about it" seems to be missing the point, because 3.5 mundane doesn't mean mundane. 3.5 mundanes can already do stuff like swim through lava and jump out of airplanes and there's maneuvers that do things like let you take an entire turn as an immediate action. Clearly there's nothing mundane about it.

And that's a license to throw disbelief out the window and let them do anything under the sun, is it? Why even have classes then?

EDIT:

And if we provide examples, will you just move the goalpost again and say 'anything that isn't D&D is a critical/commercial flop'?

Which goalpost did I move? Do you honestly consider cybernetics and computers to be mundane? I'd love to see the commoner rocking those kinds of upgrades.

7th Sea: Magic is powerful and highly narrow in focus. You get one gimmick, and it costs you about half of your starting character build points. You can do some neat things with it, but a Panache-focused swordsman will be better at killing stuff/defeating his enemies, etc.

Swordsmen are better at killing in D&D too. A well-built charger can one-shot dragons all day long almost without stopping for breath.

L5R: PC-Mages (Shugenja) get some nice things, but Bushi get the mechanically broken stuff. And there's at least one particular way to make a totally mundane martial character who uses a single skill for any skill check they want (Kakita Descendent, I believe).

And which martial skill, pray tell, lets a bushi do this, (http://l5r.wikia.com/wiki/Step_Between_the_Stars) or this, (http://l5r.wikia.com/wiki/Animate_the_Dead) or this? (http://l5r.wikia.com/wiki/Unmake_the_World)

Arbane

2014-08-31, 07:19 PM

Exalted is actually more or less a perfect example of that: Handwavey bull****y "He's just that awesome" martial arts techniques that are basically magic without filling the same niche as traditional spellcasting (which also gets to be awesome in different ways).

Well, Exalted Charms are quite explicitly powered by the same force that makes Sorcery work - it's just that Charms are faster, often less plot-devicey, and have less risk of making you explode if you get wounded in mid-use.

Also, Exalted Sorcery generally consist of know a few extremely powerful spells, rather than a D&D wizard's compendium of dozens.

As for being better != being popular, I'm a believer in the notion that cream rises to the top.

And that's why Baywatch is the best television show, ever.

(And no, cybernetics and modern technology are not "mundane " in a D&D setting.)

Not every game is D&D.

But technology isn't "being just that good" either - it's depending on an external crutch that can be taken away or interfered with just like magic can.

You mean like a fighter's sword and armor?

CoC - Isn't the whole point of this game disempowerment? Magic and mundane are equal in the sense that they are both screwed by something beyond their ken. That is far from the principal engagement D&D is going for, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Spoken like someone who's never played Tomb of Horrors. :smallbiggrin:

GURPS - Isn't GURPS a generic, almost fluff-less system? You could call every spell "mundane arts" if you wanted and it would change nothing.

man what? GURPS has a magic system (several, actually), AND a psionics system, AND stuff for superpowers, in addition to rules for play ol' boring normal stuff.

It's a point-buy system. Keep the PC's point-totals below 'superhuman' levels, and the magician won't have enough points to be good at all the magic (ALL OF IT) _and_ be competent at normal stuff. (Plus, in the default system, using magic tires you out, so there's an upper limit on how much casting you can do in one day.)

Unknown Armies - never heard of it, but a cursory glance is showing me modern firearms and technology yet again, not to mention horror and sanity like CoC yet again.

One of the main themes of the game is 'what are you willing to do for power'? It's one of the best magic-has-a-price-tag systems I'm aware of.

Hero system - How are superheroes supposed to be mundane, exactly?

Batman. :smallwink:

You can certainly argue that it wasn't as bad in 1e or 2e but that is just splitting hairs. The casters still were affecting events on orders of magnitude far greater than any mundane could hope to do. I didn't see any 2e fighters opening Gates, or trapping enemies in forcecages, or teleporting around.

I've only got the 1st ed AD&D PHB, and according to it, you also generally didn't see WIZARDS doing those, since very few survived to the levels where Gate was possible (and by the rules text, it was a crapshoot as to what would arrive and what it would do), and Teleport had a nonzero chance of resulting in instant death. (And Forcecage wasn't even in the PHB.)

And it really wasn't as bad - 3rd has pretty systematically removed every paltry limitation spellcasters had on their REAL ULTIMATE POWER.

To go outside that, you either (as your examples have shown) have to go to horror - a genre where nobody is expected to be powerful - or to superheroes/technology, where there are no true mundanes left.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, once you get past around sixth level in D&D, there AREN'T any mundanes left. It's just that some of the superheroes are unfairly gimped compared to the others due to some contrafactual notion of 'realism'. Because a non-spellcaster thief who steals thoughts from somebody's head is 'obviously' a 'superhero'.

(Edit to add:)

Honestly, possibly the best way to bring Mundanes into the realm of the Tier 1's without giving them magic directly is to draw inspiration from the Superhero-type genre. Magic, Superheroics, and Tech are the only 3 things I can think of that would be able to get to parity with Magic in 3.5 without shattering the suspension of disbelief, and of the latter two only the second gets mentioned at all (ToB and friends). Anyone got a better idea for how to pull something like that off?

One approach I can think of would be Legendary Skills:
The rogue can hide in his own shadow, steal the teeth from a dragon's head, and lie well enough to convince people they're wallabies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html), and sneak past magical barriers.
The fighter can break spells by physically smashing them with her mace, block spells with her shield, cut right through even the toughest defenses, leap tall castles in a single bound, wrestle giants and win, kill you by ripping your arm off and beating you to death with it, and hit you five times, drink a potion, AND restring their bow in the time it takes a normal person to swing a sword once.
A craftsman can make a magic sword without being a spellcaster, spin straw into gold (or at least silk), or make clockwork animals that are almost alive.
And so on.

And that's a license to throw disbelief out the window and let them do anything under the sun, is it? Why even have classes then?

Don't ask me, most of my favorite games are point-buy systems. Class & Level systems are a relic at this point.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 07:42 PM

You mean like a fighter's sword and armor?

I have no problem with a sword and armor, provided they are not also generic/mundane. If you have a sword like, say, Excalibur or Masamune or Soul Edge, you can justify all kinds of reality-defying stunts without violating that suspension of disbelief.

Spoken like someone who's never played Tomb of Horrors. :smallbiggrin:

A joke module Gygax made to kill his friends != D&D. Come on man, it's not even horror - more like comedy.

man what? GURPS has a magic system (several, actually), AND a psionics system, AND stuff for superpowers, in addition to rules for play ol' boring normal stuff.

It's a point-buy system. Keep the PC's point-totals below 'superhuman' levels, and the magician won't have enough points to be good at all the magic (ALL OF IT) _and_ be competent at normal stuff. (Plus, in the default system, using magic tires you out, so there's an upper limit on how much casting you can do in one day.)

GURPS' selling point is in letting you build whatever you want - not in providing you believable worlds already fleshed out. You certainly could make a world where non-magic characters are capable of doing all the things that magical ones can in this system, but such a world is not the main reason people come to GURPS - rather, it is to build worlds of their own.

D&D meanwhile, does let you build your own thing too, but it also presents you with a number of fully-realized worlds for you to simply run with. And even the SRD, stripped of nearly all fluff, is built on that assumption - giving you the skeleton of a planar cosmology to work with, and other considerations like resurrection and the existence of creatures like outsiders and undead to provide the blank setting with direction.

Batman. :smallwink:

Relies on technology. :smalltongue:

I've only got the 1st ed AD&D PHB, and according to it, you also generally didn't see WIZARDS doing those, since very few survived to the levels where Gate was possible (and by the rules text, it was a crapshoot as to what would arrive and what it would do), and Teleport had a nonzero chance of resulting in instant death. (And Forcecage wasn't even in the PHB.)

And it really wasn't as bad - 3rd has pretty systematically removed every paltry limitation spellcasters had on their REAL ULTIMATE POWER.

But they were intended to get to those levels. Some OD&D/Basic quotes:

"Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low level magical types until they have worked up."

"Magic-users start as the weakest characters, but can become the most powerful!"

I'll agree that they did remove what few limitations casters did have - stuff like spells aging them and taking multiple rounds to cast. But I would argue that the game has gained far more than it lost. Yeah, you've got the occasional guy who can marginalize the noncasters if he chooses, but I find that happens far more rarely than the one who either is cognizant of being in a team and doesn't want to hog the spotlight, or who doesn't

As has been pointed out repeatedly, once you get past around sixth level in D&D, there AREN'T any mundanes left. It's just that some of the superheroes are unfairly gimped compared to the others due to some contrafactual notion of 'realism'.

Okay, I'll agree with that - there shouldn't be any mundanes left past 6th level. But that doesn't mean everyone should be equally powerful either, or capable of the same things. I would agree that a Warblade is not mundane, but not that that means he should be binding efreeti or dominating ogres.

Don't ask me, most of my favorite games are point-buy systems. Class & Level systems are a relic at this point.

Must be why 5e and PF and nearly every modern CRPG ditched the concept oh wait.

Kennisiou

2014-08-31, 07:47 PM

Oh, don't mind me, I'll just go back to my science... speaking of which a high enough level gramarist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?291019-By-the-Inferior-Science-of-our-Enemies-Gramarie-Mark-II)is technically not magical

Discovering the rules of reality is not breaking reality. But, then, there's a good argument to be made that what we know as possible or impossible is constantly changed so the "rules of reality" is a pretty bad term.

Also, as for, "where is the system where mundanes can do what magic-users do?" 4E? Some GURPS fantasy systems? Vampire the Masquerade? (yes, Mage the Awakening is the strongest setting of WoD, but it's stated in several places that the WoD's different sourcebooks like VtM and MtA and Changeling aren't supposed to go together) Parts of ToB? Crusaders are actually more effective combat healers than Clerics and even Healers. Warblade gaining scent makes them significantly more perceptive than magic users for several levels and they can remain situationally more perceptive even after mages gain access to a number of their perception spells. Swordsages can literally just walk on the sky. They can do that. Is there a reason flight for casters needs to be accessible at a low level but a Swordsage balancing on air is only a high level ability?

NichG

2014-08-31, 07:49 PM

Which goalpost did I move? Do you honestly consider cybernetics and computers to be mundane? I'd love to see the commoner rocking those kinds of upgrades.

This is exactly what I mean by moving the goalposts - saying 'its powerful, therefore by my definition its magic' is of course going to create a tautology where 'powerful = magic'.

Anyhow, I absolutely consider those things to be mundane. In the modern world we have computers. We even have some cybernetics. We do not have magic, and those things are not supernatural. The extent to which they're taken in a game is of course a form of fiction which exaggerates their current qualities, but the division in question is not fiction vs non-fiction. You asked if there are systems which have magic and yet also have mundane things which are better than magic.

Even taking things that are completely doable in the modern world if you had Batman-like levels of wealth and influence, you could make some pretty interesting character mechanics. We're just about at the tech level where you could have a computer augment your visual field in realtime with the identities of people around you, names/prices of products/etc. Its not too much of a stretch to say that you feed those things into the kind of machine learning algorithms that Netflix uses to predict user preferences, and to get statistics about everyone around you and their likelyhood of being muggers, murderers, what kinds of corruption they engage in, etc. Access to a database of faces and fingerprints could give a character realtime recognition of wanted criminals. The tendency of things to use wifi when available combined with how easy it is for a sufficiently powerful computer to reconstruct WPA-based encryption keys and the like means snooping on internet traffic of people around you in near real-time. So without anything that couldn't be done in the real world, you could easily have characters with seemingly supernatural information gathering abilities that are completely within the boundaries of what is actually possible (given funding and access to intelligence agency databases, at least).

Swordsmen are better at killing in D&D too. A well-built charger can one-shot dragons all day long almost without stopping for breath.

And which martial skill, pray tell, lets a bushi do this, (http://l5r.wikia.com/wiki/Step_Between_the_Stars) or this, (http://l5r.wikia.com/wiki/Animate_the_Dead) or this? (http://l5r.wikia.com/wiki/Unmake_the_World)

The same spell that lets a Shugenja use Iaijutsu for every skill check - oh wait. This is moving the goalpost again. You asked for systems in which there's equality, not systems in which mundanes can do everything mages can do but better. Shugenja can talk to rocks and ask who passed by recently. That's a cool thing that they get that martial characters don't. Bushi can use the swarming of a mob to become unhittable, use Iaijutsu to perform a tea ceremony, socially manipulate someone, etc. The different sources of power have different specialities. Which is exactly what you asked for in the previous post - magic and mundane being equal. Not mundane being categorically better than magic in all things.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 08:17 PM

This is exactly what I mean by moving the goalposts - saying 'its powerful, therefore by my definition its magic' is of course going to create a tautology where 'powerful = magic'.

That's not my definition at all. Here is my definition:

- A natural or universal force that is external to any one character or object.
- Capable of being manipulated or channeled to produce a variety of effects.

That's it! It's that simple. Let's run through some examples:

- The Force in Star Wars: check.
- The One Power in Wheel of Time: check.
- Magicka in Elder Scrolls: check.
- Signs in the Witcher: check.
- Biotics in Mass Effect: check.
- Psionics in Starcraft: check.
- Nanotechnology in Deus Ex: check.
- Cybernetic augmentation in Shadowrun: check.
- Plasmids and Vigors in Bioshock: check.

Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Middle-Earth, check, check, check.

The level of power of those effects is not actually relevant. That most often depends on the person using it - their potential as determined by the cosmos or their bloodline, or their level of training, or a macguffin they've found, or even simple chance. Power is also relative to the setting itself - in a low-magic setting like Westeros, even the tiniest spells can have devastating impact, but they would be barely noticed in a setting like Eberron.

The same spell that lets a Shugenja use Iaijutsu for every skill check - oh wait. This is moving the goalpost again. You asked for systems in which there's equality, not systems in which mundanes can do everything mages can do but better. Shugenja can talk to rocks and ask who passed by recently. That's a cool thing that they get that martial characters don't. Bushi can use the swarming of a mob to become unhittable, use Iaijutsu to perform a tea ceremony, socially manipulate someone, etc. The different sources of power have different specialities. Which is exactly what you asked for in the previous post - magic and mundane being equal. Not mundane being categorically better than magic in all things.

Er... are you honestly attempting to tell me that a tea ceremony is equal to creating impervious extradimensional space or eradicating matter?

georgie_leech

2014-08-31, 08:29 PM

That's not my definition at all. Here is my definition:

- A natural or universal force that is external to any one character or object.
- Capable of being manipulated or channeled to produce a variety of effects.

That's it! It's that simple. Let's run through some examples:

By that definition, isn't electromagnetism, a force that is universal, isn't inherently tied to one particular character or object, and capable of being manipulated to produce effects ranging from computers to radio waves to lightning to heat to light to the internet we're posting on, magic?

PsyBomb

2014-08-31, 08:35 PM

Alright, things I've pulled from this thread:

1) Mundane was probably the wrong word to use. Martial or else non-Primary-Spellcasting would have been better
-In this context, things like the Supernatural Arts of ToB and MoI qualify, which I'd personally be fine with

2) The actual conditions need to be better defined
-There was massive disagreement of where "Mundane" blended into "Supernatural" and what this meant.

3) Nothing gets the blood going quite like a balance thread on this forum...

Anyway, we need to establish a common set of criteria for this discussion if we're going to get anywhere other than insults and balance arguments. Since I'm responsible for creating this thread, I'll attempt to set them out here.

1) The defining quality that marks the difference between Mundane and Magical is more than mere fluff. In DnD, being a Spellcaster with six or more levels of spellcasting is well past this line, and the 4-level casters are in a dark grey zone. Gaining scads of SP abilities counts.

2) The idea is to be a guy whose initial purpose was NOT to use Magic (or Psionics or the Force or High Technology or whatever else you want to call it) as his primary means of making his way, but could possibly use it in SUPPORT of his main deal (whether that is being able to steal the teeth out of dragon's mouth, mounted-charge through a castle wall, split a bullet with an Iaijutsu strike, or pick a single gnat out of a cloud and shoot it, hitting none of the others)

3) "Mundane" is NOT meant to limit people to what is possible in the world we currently inhabit! Past level 6, physics is meant to be more of a suggestion even for completely non-magical techniques. By 20, it's not even a very strong suggestion, more like the check box next to "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions" thing.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 08:36 PM

By that definition, isn't electromagnetism, a force that is universal, isn't inherently tied to one particular character or object, and capable of being manipulated to produce effects ranging from computers to radio waves to lightning to heat to light to the internet we're posting on, magic?

Bold is the key part of your question. How do you manipulate such a force in D&D? Just about any means you can devise would be tantamount to magic, and therefore the answer to your question would easily be yes.

georgie_leech

2014-08-31, 08:38 PM

Bold is the key part of your question. How do you manipulate such a force in D&D? Just about any means you can devise would be tantamount to magic, and therefore the answer to your question would easily be yes.

Let me rephrase that. Those are all qualities possessed by electromagnetism in real life. By this definition, computers run thanks to magic? :smallconfused:

Anlashok

2014-08-31, 08:42 PM

Psyren

2014-08-31, 08:43 PM

Let me rephrase that. Those are all qualities possessed by electromagnetism in real life. By this definition, computers run thanks to magic? :smallconfused:

I'm not sure why you're rephrasing it, because the point is the same. Yes, things we consider par for the course today would be considered magic in D&D :smallconfused: I mean, just look at the diseases or alchemical items chapters.

So then you've changed your position on diplomacy mind control then?

Diplomatic skill, like any other skill, is not a force that is external to a character.

Anlashok

2014-08-31, 08:53 PM

Diplomatic skill, like any other skill, is not a force that is external to a character.

No, but the act of vibrating the air through specific gestures and utterances to convey a message of power clearly is the act of manipulating an external force. Hell, it even sounds magical.

Emperor Tippy

2014-08-31, 08:58 PM

2) The idea is to be a guy whose initial purpose was NOT to use Magic (or Psionics or the Force or High Technology or whatever else you want to call it) as his primary means of making his way, but could possibly use it in SUPPORT of his main deal (whether that is being able to steal the teeth out of dragon's mouth, mounted-charge through a castle wall, split a bullet with an Iaijutsu strike, or pick a single gnat out of a cloud and shoot it, hitting none of the others)

3) "Mundane" is NOT meant to limit people to what is possible in the world we currently inhabit! Past level 6, physics is meant to be more of a suggestion even for completely non-magical techniques. By 20, it's not even a very strong suggestion, more like the check box next to "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions" thing.

On point one, Tome of Battle explicitly calls what its classes can do "magic". It's a non traditional form of magic that isn't arcane or divine but it is explicitly not mighty thews or raw natural skill or the like.

On the second point, one of the most common complaints about high level D&D is that the Barbarian can fall from orbit and walk away just fine or go for a morning swim in lava and get nothing worse than sunburn. The easiest solution to that problem is to do the reasonable thing and just say "It's magic.

---
As for the general question, you just take the various spells that make a class Tier 2, throw them on any old base, give them those spells as (Ex) abilities, and call it mundane.

The problem with doing that is that it shatters disbelief for the vast majority of people. Are you really turning yourself into the form of any creature that you desire along with all of its abilities because of your mighty thews? Or are your farts so special that they just force outsiders to appear before you and obey you? Or are your punches just so special that you can produce utterly loyal copies of any creature that you can think of by punching a tree?

Tier 2 classes are Tier 2 because of Shapechange, Gate, the Planar Binding line, Simulacrum/Ice Assassin, and/or possibly Mindrape. A class that has any one of those abilities has the raw power required for Tier 2 and virtually no class without at least one of those abilities is considered Tier 2.

The bare handful of classes that have one of those abilities and aren't Tier 2 are that way because the rest of the class is generally utter crap (Truenamer, Healer). The one actual exception is Factotum as it is a good class and does have native access to Planar Binding, I have also argued before that it really should be tier 2 because of that fact.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 09:06 PM

No, but the act of vibrating the air through specific gestures and utterances to convey a message of power clearly is the act of manipulating an external force.

Air is not a force, and there is no power inherent to the message. The value of a diplomatic treatise/offer depends entirely on the actors involved; it's mundane. And I've already said that 3.5 Diplomacy is badly designed. (The Giant agrees (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) as well.)

Compare to a charm spell - there is a universal force (magic, the weave, what have you) that adjusts their attitude against their will and regardless of what you actually say. In fact, what you say is the same every time (i.e. the verbal component) regardless of the circumstance/scenario, target (beyond basic legality) and even what you hope to achieve.

On point one, Tome of Battle explicitly calls what its classes can do "magic". It's a non traditional form of magic that isn't arcane or divine but it is explicitly not mighty thews or raw natural skill or the like.

On the second point, one of the most common complaints about high level D&D is that the Barbarian can fall from orbit and walk away just fine or go for a morning swim in lava and get nothing worse than sunburn. The easiest solution to that problem is to do the reasonable thing and just say "It's magic.

---
As for the general question, you just take the various spells that make a class Tier 2, throw them on any old base, give them those spells as (Ex) abilities, and call it mundane.

The problem with doing that is that it shatters disbelief for the vast majority of people. Are you really turning yourself into the form of any creature that you desire along with all of its abilities because of your mighty thews? Or are your farts so special that they just force outsiders to appear before you and obey you? Or are your punches just so special that you can produce utterly loyal copies of any creature that you can think of by punching a tree?

Tier 2 classes are Tier 2 because of Shapechange, Gate, the Planar Binding line, Simulacrum/Ice Assassin, and/or possibly Mindrape. A class that has any one of those abilities has the raw power required for Tier 2 and virtually no class without at least one of those abilities is considered Tier 2.

The bare handful of classes that have one of those abilities and aren't Tier 2 are that way because the rest of the class is generally utter crap (Truenamer, Healer). The one actual exception is Factotum as it is a good class and does have native access to Planar Binding, I have also argued before that it really should be tier 2 because of that fact.

+1 again.

georgie_leech

2014-08-31, 09:23 PM

I'm not sure why you're rephrasing it, because the point is the same. Yes, things we consider par for the course today would be considered magic in D&D :smallconfused: I mean, just look at the diseases or alchemical items chapters.

Then I'm not sure what productive dialogue can be had when things that are evidently non-magic can be considered magic. You've taken your premise (that magic is more powerful than non-magic) and appear to be using it to argue that extremely versatile and powerful non-magic (like technology such as computers) is magic.

aleucard

2014-08-31, 09:35 PM

As for the general question, you just take the various spells that make a class Tier 2, throw them on any old base, give them those spells as (Ex) abilities, and call it mundane.

The problem with doing that is that it shatters disbelief for the vast majority of people. Are you really turning yourself into the form of any creature that you desire along with all of its abilities because of your mighty thews? Or are your farts so special that they just force outsiders to appear before you and obey you? Or are your punches just so special that you can produce utterly loyal copies of any creature that you can think of by punching a tree?

Tier 2 classes are Tier 2 because of Shapechange, Gate, the Planar Binding line, Simulacrum/Ice Assassin, and/or possibly Mindrape. A class that has any one of those abilities has the raw power required for Tier 2 and virtually no class without at least one of those abilities is considered Tier 2.

The bare handful of classes that have one of those abilities and aren't Tier 2 are that way because the rest of the class is generally utter crap (Truenamer, Healer). The one actual exception is Factotum as it is a good class and does have native access to Planar Binding, I have also argued before that it really should be tier 2 because of that fact.

I'm thinking that it's less these specific spells that should be added and refluffed and more that 'Mundanes' should have abilities that accomplish the end results with comparable success. How exactly such a thing would be accomplished is beyond my understanding, but still, isolating what the issue is helps.

So, what do all of these have in common? Being under the umbrella of Minionmancy would be technically correct, but as the Summon Monster series and its relatives isn't on that list, there must be something else they have in common. My theory is that the driving point is the truly obnoxiously wide range of abilities that these give, but such a thing would be hard to make viable for a Mundane character while both maintaining that feel and making it Minionmancy with the exception of something to the tune of Leadership, and that way lay madness. What needs to happen, thus, is for Mundanes to be able to stand in for a lot of the utility that you'd call in those Minions for, preferably good enough to justify the characters that take these classes using up party slots at appropriately-optimized tables. Failing that, they need to be able to stand in what few areas they CAN cover to a greater degree than any level-appropriate Minion that could be found at that level of optimization. The issue is that these fields are rarely of the 'heavy assault' and 'meat shield' varieties past low-op, which is a large part of what non-stealth Mundane characters are all about.

You know, Tippy, I'm actually interested in seeing your Homebrew 'Mundane' classes, and possibly any other Homebrew you have. any chance you could post a link?

EDIT: Georgie, as far as I at least am concerned, the issue is not that Tech is Magic, but that (in 3.5) it is amazingly difficult to have Tech have a distinct feel from Magic in practicality, whether it is Casting or Magic Items. Of course, there's also the problem of me not really having much of an idea of a 'feel' that hasn't already been taken by something else in 3.5, but hopefully you get the idea.

Arbane

2014-08-31, 09:47 PM

Let me rephrase that. Those are all qualities possessed by electromagnetism in real life. By this definition, computers run thanks to magic? :smallconfused:

****ing magnets, how do they work?

The Insanity

2014-08-31, 09:51 PM

I'm wondering what kind of use would Time Stop be to a mundane character (other than just fleeing), considering the spells limitations?

Psyren

2014-08-31, 10:01 PM

Then I'm not sure what productive dialogue can be had when things that are evidently non-magic can be considered magic. You've taken your premise (that magic is more powerful than non-magic) and appear to be using it to argue that extremely versatile and powerful non-magic (like technology such as computers) is magic.

I suppose not.

I'm wondering what kind of use would Time Stop be to a mundane character (other than just fleeing), considering the spells limitations?

It isn't, but we already have the martial version - the Time Stands Still maneuver from ToB.

Pan151

2014-08-31, 10:02 PM

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arcane magic manipulates raw elemental energy, according to certain laws and principles that only arcane casters are sufficiently familiar with.
Technology manipulates raw energy according to certain laws and principles that only technichians are sufficiently familiar with.

No, technology is not mundane.

Psyren

2014-08-31, 10:04 PM

sonofzeal

2014-08-31, 10:10 PM

T2 Mundane Class?

By the definitions...... "Skull Knight (http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120213083107/powerlisting/images/c/cd/Skull_Knight_Sword_of_Resonance.jpg)". It's exactly like Fighter, except instead of the lvl 12 feat, it gets "Sword of Resonance (Ex)" where, 1/round as a Standard Action, it can cut a rift between planes - functions as Plane Shift, except with total precision in arrival location, and you can see that location before you decide to complete the action (people on the other side don't see you though).

There. Not a class I'd advocate playing, but technically T2.

eggynack

2014-08-31, 10:40 PM

Pan151

2014-08-31, 11:01 PM

I come to the opposite conclusion. Magic is mundane.

I come to the conclusion that we first need to decide on a universal definition of mundane before we can continue the discussion...

eggynack

2014-08-31, 11:11 PM

I come to the conclusion that we first need to decide on a universal definition of mundane before we can continue the discussion...
Possibly. I think the idea is that the premises at hand can support either conclusion though. As is, it looks like the main definition at work is common or banal, which is more dependent on the setting than on the object itself. In particular, a machine gun is pretty mundane here, and not in D&D world, while magic is probably pretty mundane in D&D world, and not here. By that reasoning, magic and mundane aren't mutually exclusive, but neither are they mutually inclusive, if that's a phrase that exists.

Arbane

2014-08-31, 11:51 PM

I come to the opposite conclusion. Magic is mundane.

Well, D&D magic has about as much awe and mystery as order an Extra Value Meal, but I don't know if I'd go THAT far... :smallbiggrin:

Er... are you honestly attempting to tell me that a tea ceremony is equal to creating impervious extradimensional space or eradicating matter?

It's been a long time since I looked at L5R's rules, but I don't think ANYONE gets that level of power in that setting. Nope. All hail our Caster Overlords in yet another game.

Raven777

2014-08-31, 11:54 PM

I come to the conclusion that we first need to decide on a universal definition of mundane before we can continue the discussion...

I think "mundane", in this thread's context, might stand for "accomplishing one's goals through one's own physical abilities".

Which is why I keep believing that expecting "mundane" characters to reach the same level of power as those enhancing their abilities through magic is patently inane. It would be like expecting a superbly trained marathon runner in cotton shorts to outrun a guy who uses a top of the line bicycle and performance enhancing drugs. Doable, but unlikely. Just like in D&D.

I'm not saying that nobody should play the marathon runner. I'm saying we should at least give him rollerblades.

Pan151

2014-09-01, 12:24 AM

Possibly. I think the idea is that the premises at hand can support either conclusion though. As is, it looks like the main definition at work is common or banal, which is more dependent on the setting than on the object itself. In particular, a machine gun is pretty mundane here, and not in D&D world, while magic is probably pretty mundane in D&D world, and not here. By that reasoning, magic and mundane aren't mutually exclusive, but neither are they mutually inclusive, if that's a phrase that exists.

For me, it generally comes down to how simple or obscure the general principles of a particular device are to the average modern day person, rather than the average in-setting person.

A gun is a relatively simple device - it may or may not have some sophisticated components, depending on the model, but the basic principles of it are really simple - pulling the trigger ignites some explosive, the explosion pushes a chunk of metal through a narrow tube at high speed in a straight line, piercing anything in its way. It is decently understood, therefore it is mundane.

On the other hand, the average person will be hard pressed to differentiate between the principles behind an iron golem and an ATX motherboard, so you might as well claim that both are magical, and few people would be able to prove you wrong.

Psyren

2014-09-01, 12:45 AM

It's been a long time since I looked at L5R's rules, but I don't think ANYONE gets that level of power in that setting.

Then you should probably click the three links in my post.

I think "mundane", in this thread's context, might stand for "accomplishing one's goals through one's own physical abilities".

Which is why I keep believing that expecting "mundane" characters to reach the same level of power as those enhancing their abilities through magic is patently inane. It would be like expecting a superbly trained marathon runner in cotton shorts to outrun a guy who uses a top of the line bicycle and performance enhancing drugs. Doable, but unlikely. Just like in D&D.

Yep.

squiggit

2014-09-01, 01:03 AM

Yep.

I guess I don't really understand this one. Why is setting an arbitrarily high, magical limit on what one can accomplish through study something acceptable but a similar concept applied to physical development suddenly is nonsensical? It's the same principle and the same execution. Once we get to the stage where someone's trained their mind to the point where they can think an enemy into an ally or a hole into reality I guess I just don't get why it's so weird for a similarly superhuman, similarly disciplined and similarly trained hero to do something similar with oratory or physical might or what have you.

As far as I can tell though this thread seems to be more about arguing over the definition of mundane than anything else though.

Utimately this is all incredibly off-topic though, since the point of the thread appears to be what a T2 martial (better term than mundane IMO since it begets less quibbling) might look like, not whether martials should be allowed to have that much power or not and probably even less so whether or not that's fluffitistically appropriate.

rockdeworld

2014-09-01, 01:03 AM

I submit to your discretion a link to a somewhat-badly-designed class (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Rogue_2.0_%283.5e_Class%29) that achieves roughly this tier while attempting to remain "mundane."

I've been thinking about going back and editing that...

aleucard

2014-09-01, 01:25 AM

Thank you, particularly for the Arthur C. Clarke quote. Somebody gets it.

But, but, I mentioned that quote too..... ;-;

I think the best way to go about this, after we decide exactly what qualifies as Mundane and what among that group would fit in 3.5 (or at least fit the fluff we want for our new class), we make a class that can stand in T2+. Preferably, it won't be using ToB for reasons already mentioned by others, but if no better ideas are presented to fit the gaps then oh well. The most pressing issue then becomes as follows; what in the name of Bea Arthur are we going to have this soon-to-be-arisen monstrosity be able to actually DO? We need it to be able to be visually and thematically different from any non-Mundane class, while still hitting enough home-runs to qualify as T2, while also remaining distinctly Mundane (whatever that means). Something that builds off of Leadership could qualify, but even the baseline feat can easily bring a Commoner into T2 territory so such things shouldn't count. My current idea involves allowing for interesting class features that augment how attributes work (for example, multiplying the various strength-related bonuses like skills or carry capacity, or counting Constitution as DR with the amount being multiplied at higher levels), with a few new tricks in similar style to Stunning Fist. Maybe allow the user to select a general type of combat (sword-n-board, 2-handed, bows, etc.) and have a Warblade-like ability to swap out abilities in a given category with a couple minutes of shadowboxing or whatever fits. If it allows for something that normal magic (and possibly even Tippyverse magic in some select cases) simply can not replicate, even better as long as it's not an infinite loop or something comparably absurd.

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 03:57 AM

People are biased and won't get my point, arguing that manga sucks etc

I grew up reading Dragonball.
Super Saiyans are mundane (Ex, not Su) that have greatly exceeded common expectations (cyborgs are mundane as well)

Not only they *are* gamebreaking from a D&D standpoint (they can travel so fast it trivializes most distances, greatly change geography, or even destroy a planet with minimal effort)

If they are strong enough, they counter magic.
A magic ray is trying to transform me into a cookie? I'll blow it back.
Mind control? Can be broken with badassery.
Vegetto gets turned into a candy. So what? He keeps fighting as "the world's strongest candy" and eventually convinces the caster that he should be turned back into human.
Buu absorbs him, but he has that barrier that negates the effect.
Another great exaple is the time chamber. Buu gets locked in another dimension. He literally screams so hard that the dimensions rip apart, creating a temporary gate.
It's basically Iron Heart Surge in Dragonball.

"Why should people use magic if it's not inherently better" ?
Why did Babidy use magic when he could have trained himself? Because he would never become strong enough. He was well-versed in Magic though, so he chose that road.
Different people have different inclinations, and can choose different ways to achieve power.
And... it makes sense, despite what people say.

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 04:06 AM

Wait, so computers are magical? Really now?

Okay, let's have a syllogism here; I feel we need one:

In reality, magic does not exist.
In reality, computers do exist.
Therefore, computers are not magic.

I'm not sure you can say anything that exists in reality is "Magic," so it must be mundane, which I was assuming meant "Not-magic" (I mean, it could mean "Normal" or "Boring" but anything which is either of those things doesn't deserve to be called Extraordinary.)

In fact, that's a good point. Look at what all the ability tags are actually called. "Extraordinary" and "Supernatural". So "Beyond the capabilities of normal humans" and "Beyond the fundamental laws of reality." Ex healing people, Ex moving really fast, those make sense because, y'know what, they're beyond the capacities of normal humans, but that doesn't mean no-one, anywhere, ever, can do them. Hey, even Ex Plane Shift works: I mean, in real life, there aren't any locations that you can't at least hypothetically go to just by moving there normally - anyway, in Norse Mythology I'm pretty sure you can get between the planes just by climbing up and down Yggdrasil; there's nothing about it being another plane of existence or whatnot that means you can't walk between them without magic - "You can't just walk into Baator because you couldn't do that in real life" makes about as much sense as "You can't just be an elf because you couldn't do that in real life".

That's another thing. Just because no-one can do it in real life doesn't mean it's magic. I mean, elves don't suddenly stop existing in an anti-magic field. Why? Because there's nothing inherently magical about being a pointy-eared, graceful, frail, mildly insomniac humanoid. It doesn't happen in real life, sure. But then, as previously pointed out, falling at terminal velocity, swimming in lava, and then being perfectly fine afterwards doesn't happen in real life, and having hit points isn't even an Ex ability. Compared to the suspension of disbelief you have to pull for people to do so much as have that many hit points, Ex'ing all of the things doesn't seem that terrible.

This is pretty much an extended version of the whole Guy at the Gym malarkey, only it goes from "The guy at the gym can't do it, so no-one can" to "No-one can do it, therefore it must break the fundamental laws of reality." And even if it does, it's not as though the subordinate clause of literally the first sentence in the Ex ability description doesn't exist. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities) (That said, I don't like the idea of abilities which break the laws of physics but still have an Ex tag. If something breaks the laws of physics, it is literally, definitively supernatural).

Because breaking the fundamental laws of reality is what we're really talking about whenever we say "Magic" or even "Supernatural". Computers aren't magic. Guns aren't magic. Moving really fast isn't magic. Using your intelligence score in combat, dumbass, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html) isn't magic. Hell, the druid's animal companion isn't even magic. Healing people certainly isn't magic; I'd have died at birth if it was. Seeing really well in the dark? Not magic. Being good with words, to the point of turning people fanatical in six seconds flat? Sorry, not magic: I'm not seeing the broken laws of physics here - hey, maybe you just have a really sexy voice or something. Knowing a lot of stuff? Nope, not magical. Being fearless, and utterly immune to every poison and disease known to man? Pushing it, but I'm pretty sure that that's more the laws of biology being broken than the laws of physics, and you're allowed to break those. More seriously, just being hard enough that you're functionally immune even if not technically immune (id est, to the point of no mechanical effect) makes sense. Being so scary you daze people? Yeah, that's not magical either.

There are tons of ways that you can justify the mundane equivalents of... honestly, most spell effects, as has already been mentioned in a post about bombs. We just don't, because we have this preconception that magic has to be able to defeat mundane at everything - the idea (can't remember whether it was Tippy or Psyren who said it) that the magical way of doing something wouldn't have been researched if it wasn't strictly better than the mundane way of doing it is clearly absurd: first, perhaps someone would like to explain to me how the Paladin's first-level spell which grants you a single temporary hit point came to be, as the barbarian sees your temporary hit point and raises you a D12 hit die.

The second reason that makes no sense... well, why would you create a new gun if it weren't strictly better than another type of gun? Well, maybe it's better at some things, but worse at others? A missile launcher may be a bigger and flashier weapon than a compact submachinegun, sure, but if you're fighting on a staircase, inside a building, at close range, you're going to want the SMG. There are two ways of doing it, and one is better in some situations, and the other is better in others! It's almost like that was the entire point of D&D 3.5 having different classes in the first place!

The third reason it's utterly messed-up is that even if there is a strictly-better version of something you can produce, chances are, it's harder to get your hands on. Yeah, you could have a railgun, but that would be really expensive and take ages to construct. Why not just invest in a few cruise missiles instead? Similarly, yes, you could become a paragon of physical strength by tirelessly training... but when you can get half as much anyway out of cheating with magic? Suddenly, magic seems a lot easier. That said, railguns do exist, and in D&D, people who actually train physically to do things the old-fashioned way should exist, and they should come out better than the people who temporarily screw about with reality to get the same effect.

That's what I was saying when I was talking about WHFB, and you don't have to know anything about WHFB to understand the main point of what I'm saying. Yes, you can cheat out some decent stats, but even a fourth-level (the highest in WHFB) wizard just isn't going to be anywhere near as good in close combat as a chaos lord (crazy-strong melee guy) unless he's decided to turn into a dragon (and if he does that, he loses his wizard levels, assuming he even succeeds at casting the spell), in which case he may as well just have been a dragon in the first place.

So in Warhammer, yes, spellcasters do some things mundanes can't. But mundanes also do some things spellcasters can't. I mean, go back to D&D and look at the justification for Wiz/Sor having different weapon proficiencies, even. If you're busy learning to tell reality to go away (or control your innate inborn ability to tell reality to go away, same thing), you're not learning how to hit people with sticks, or dodge everything ever, or even heal people. You're learning to cheat at The UniverseTM so that you can fake being able to do those.

Of course, that's not how 3.5 actually works, more than how I'd like it to work. Well, wasn't that, like, the entire point of making a T2 or higher mundane in the first place? So you don't get the whole "Spellcasters are better than mundanes 4eva!" thing? Is this not a thing we're doing, rather than trying to convince people that computers are magic?

Of course, the OP never really meant to talk about mundanes, but fighter-type things. To that effect, one way of doing it would be to slap more stuff on Disciple Apparent (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?356108-Momentum-A-martial-class-project-%28WIP-PEACH%29) and friends, which were meant to be T3, but if you just give them more stuff I'm pretty sure they can go up a tier. More combos, more finishing moves, more to choose from and more to have access to, and ones which break reality harder, and so forth.

r2d2go

2014-09-01, 04:34 AM

I've made two classes that are mundane and could be T2. One of them is pretty close to wizard spells with different progression mechanics and fluff (nowhere near finished), while the other is pretty close to just broken (the funny part is, making it was a request from a friend to balance an utterly broken version, and make it into a base class). Here they are:

Battle Chemist (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Battle_Chemist_(3.5e_Class))
Mechanus Knight (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Mechanus_Knight_(3.5e_Class))

So... what does it take to have a mundane T2 class? Psuedoscience and explosives! :smallbiggrin:

Pan151

2014-09-01, 05:41 AM

Holy wall of text, Batman Anthropomorphic Bat Factorum

The whole problem is that magic is not really "breaking the rules of reality" as much as it's merely using an expanded version of them.

Magic is not omnipotent, magic is not chaotic - a mighty wizard with his mighty spells obeys the rules of reality every bit as a commoner with a wooden stick does - it just happens that the commoner just does not have the means to access the higher-grade rules that bypass the lower-grade ones.

If casting a fireball breaks the rules of reality, then so does using a flamethrower. If Meteor Strike breaks the laws of reality, then so does a nuclear bomb. If Scry breaks the laws of reality, then so does a satelite scan.

So no, computers are not magic. But they are not mundane either. Not by my definition of the term, at least.

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 05:51 AM

If casting a fireball breaks the rules of reality, then so does using a flamethrower. If Meteor Strike breaks the laws of reality, then so does a nuclear bomb. If Scry breaks the laws of reality, then so does a satelite scan.
Enlarge person. True Creation (Ever hear of conservation of mass?). Invisibility. In any case, fireball would be all very well if you had a bomb rather than a piece of bat crap. Meteor strike wouldn't be at all magical if you had a way to pull asteroids out of space. Scrying wouldn't be magical if you were using a video camera instead of a mirror or a paddling pool.

But clearly you're breaking reality - it's not that these things cannot be done at all (explosions, seeing stuff, dropping meteors on people... all of them are possible, even if the last one is a bit iffy), but more that you're spontaneously (or preparedly, ha ha) making them out of thin air, and that is where reality breaks. Really, I don't think that saying that fireball is non-magical just because you could replicate it mundanely is really going to help - the point is, you're not replicating it mundanely, you're creating an explosion out of thin air.

Pan151

2014-09-01, 06:08 AM

Enlarge person. True Creation (Ever hear of conservation of mass?).

Easily achieved by deconstracting matter from around the target of the spell down it its base barticles and reconstracting it to produce the end result. I see no reality breaking here...

Invisibility.

Easily achieved by manipulating the trajectory of photon particles around the target of the spell so as to force them to curve around it rather than be reflected off of/be absorbed by it. I see no reality breaking here.

Just because modern day technology has not yet managed to produce such effects does not mean there isn't a scientifically plausible explanation for them.

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 08:46 AM

Easily achieved by deconstracting matter from around the target of the spell down it its base barticles and reconstracting it to produce the end result. I see no reality breaking here...

Where are you getting the energy to do that?

Magic. That's where.

Also, you're conveniently forgetting what I wrote in the second bit of the post:

In any case, fireball would be all very well if you had a bomb rather than a piece of bat crap. Meteor strike wouldn't be at all magical if you had a way to pull asteroids out of space. Scrying wouldn't be magical if you were using a video camera instead of a mirror or a paddling pool.

But clearly you're breaking reality - it's not that these things cannot be done at all (explosions, seeing stuff, dropping meteors on people... all of them are possible, even if the last one is a bit iffy), but more that you're spontaneously (or preparedly, ha ha) making them out of thin air, and that is where reality breaks. Really, I don't think that saying that fireball is non-magical just because you could replicate it mundanely is really going to help - the point is, you're not replicating it mundanely, you're creating an explosion out of thin air.

Jacob.Tyr

2014-09-01, 08:55 AM

Easily achieved by manipulating the trajectory of photon particles around the target of the spell so as to force them to curve around it rather than be reflected off of/be absorbed by it. I see no reality breaking here.

Just because modern day technology has not yet managed to produce such effects does not mean there isn't a scientifically plausible explanation for them.

Pretty sure this one definitely has a scientifically plausible explanation, and we're just waiting for material sciences and manufacturing to catch up enough for us to make what you need.

But, y'know, doing it by waving your hand and spouting gibberish is not the same as dropping a few million in high-tech filaments and compact power sources. One of them is manipulating light via actual things with concrete physics behind how each piece functions, the other just happens 'cause narrative power.

Jormengand, you are awesome.

Seppo, Superman is also strictly Mundane. Hell, I can't really think of a super hero that I wouldn't label as mundane (Okay, Thor). Just because something can fly doesn't make it supernatural (birds), moving really fast doesn't either (cheetahs), creating a clone-army of yourself has been done to death (Komodo Dragons, a ****load of other lizards plus other animal groups and invertebrates), and super-heating matter while creating a concussive blast that knocks out living creatures in your way is also pretty mundane for some biological organisms (pistol shrimp).

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 09:03 AM

Just because something can fly doesn't make it supernatural (birds)

I'd say superman's specific method of flight is supernatural - I mean, I'd be happy with it if he actually had, y'know, wings, or some other plausible method of flight, but he just points his fist in the air and takes off - I'm gonna say that's (Su) for the same reason as fireball-even-if-yes-technically-a-bomb-could-do-the-same-thing is magical.

Jacob.Tyr

2014-09-01, 09:06 AM

I'd say superman's specific method of flight is supernatural - I mean, I'd be happy with it if he actually had, y'know, wings, or some other plausible method of flight, but he just points his fist in the air and takes off - I'm gonna say that's (Su) for the same reason as fireball-even-if-yes-technically-a-bomb-could-do-the-same-thing is magical.
Maybe his digestive tract just isn't capable of dealing with earth-food in any sensible manner? At any rate, he isn't magical, just an alien. This is why we should dissect the crap out of super heroes if given the opportunity.

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 09:06 AM

Seppo, Superman is also strictly Mundane
Of course he is. He's explicitly weak against Magic, as well.

Just because something can fly doesn't make it supernatural (birds), moving really fast doesn't either (cheetahs), creating a clone-army of yourself has been done to death (Komodo Dragons, a ****load of other lizards plus other animal groups and invertebrates), and super-heating matter while creating a concussive blast that knocks out living creatures in your way is also pretty mundane for some biological organisms (pistol shrimp).
Speaking of Superman, he's that guy who can go back in time traveling FTL.

Mundane T2s should be like super heroes (or, to a certain extent, manga heroes)

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 09:09 AM

he isn't magical, just an alien

Sorry, but aliens who break the laws of physics are magical too. I mean, if they explained it as him being able to filter less dense gases into his lungs (or be so strong that he can maintain a low pressure on the inside of his body), reducing his mass to the point where he can fly, I miiiight roll with it.

Don't know much about superman, though, so ehh. :smalltongue:

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 09:11 AM

Sorry, but aliens who break the laws of physics are magical too. I mean, if they explained it as him being able to filter less dense gases into his lungs (or be so strong that he can maintain a low pressure on the inside of his body), reducing his mass to the point where he can fly, I miiiight roll with it.

Don't know much about superman, though, so ehh. :smalltongue:
Well Magic exists in DC canon and Superman is defined as non-magical. He's weak against magic, to be more precise.

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 09:17 AM

Well Magic exists in DC canon and Superman is defined as non-magical. He's weak against magic, to be more precise.

To be fair, they're probably using a more specific definition of "Magic." An obvious example I can think of is the Inheritance books - there is one, clearly defined thing that is Magic, but that doesn't stop dragons breathing fire without technically using "Magic."

It's like the D&D difference between spells and supernatural effects. One is Magic, the other is just magic, but when it comes down to it they're both equally magical.

toapat

2014-09-01, 09:20 AM

Pretty sure this one definitely has a scientifically plausible explanation, and we're just waiting for material sciences and manufacturing to catch up enough for us to make what you need.

But, y'know, doing it by waving your hand and spouting gibberish is not the same as dropping a few million in high-tech filaments and compact power sources. One of them is manipulating light via actual things with concrete physics behind how each piece functions, the other just happens 'cause narrative power.

Jormengand, you are awesome.

Seppo, Superman is also strictly Mundane. Hell, I can't really think of a super hero that I wouldn't label as mundane (Okay, Thor). Just because something can fly doesn't make it supernatural (birds), moving really fast doesn't either (cheetahs), creating a clone-army of yourself has been done to death (Komodo Dragons, a ****load of other lizards plus other animal groups and invertebrates), and super-heating matter while creating a concussive blast that knocks out living creatures in your way is also pretty mundane for some biological organisms (pistol shrimp).

Meta materials are superior to photo displacement, and unlike they current stuff, would work forever

Also superman is a plant, who secretes an endothermic venom and can fly through very controlled breathing. Granted, his flt flight and heat vision can't be explained but that is a typical DC thing where superheroes have way too varied skill sets or the explanation is bull****

Flash Wonder Woman, zantana, and aquaman are all magic heroes in DC

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 09:22 AM

heat vision

Don't snakes have that in real life?

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 09:22 AM

I don't know, keep in mind that Superman absorbs the energy of the Sun, maybe his biology allows energy manipulation in a way that grants him limited telekinetic abilities.
This theory is actually quite popular among Superman fans.
It's telekinesis with a biological explaination.

Now, let's say a person can train really hard and learn how to manipulate energy in a similar way. It could be the energy from his own body.
This is Dragonball's flight, and it's not magic, it's a technique.

One Piece has mundane flight as well - if you're fast and strong enough, you can "kick" air and basically fly as long as you keep jumping.
I wouldn't mind if high level monks could do this.

Swordsages already can, although the stance was classified as SU for coherence's sake I guess

toapat

2014-09-01, 09:28 AM

This theory is actually quite popular among Superman fans.
It's telekinesis with a biological explaination..

Superman being a plant is canon. The fact he doesn't have telekinesis as a power makes the theory less viable, as several DC heroes have such and use it to fly in universe. Jon Jons being the only one I remember

Jacob.Tyr

2014-09-01, 09:30 AM

To be fair, they're probably using a more specific definition of "Magic." An obvious example I can think of is the Inheritance books - there is one, clearly defined thing that is Magic, but that doesn't stop dragons breathing fire without technically using "Magic."

It's like the D&D difference between spells and supernatural effects. One is Magic, the other is just magic, but when it comes down to it they're both equally magical.

Meta materials are superior to photo displacement, and unlike they current stuff, would work forever

Also superman is a plant, who secretes an endothermic venom and can fly through very controlled breathing. Granted, his flt flight and heat vision can't be explained but that is a typical DC thing where superheroes have way too varied skill sets or the explanation is bull****

Flash Wonder Woman, zantana, and aquaman are all magic heroes in DC
Didn't realize Flash was magic. The others if I had thought about it might have popped up, but maybe not. Even so remember, Ex doesn't have to follow the laws of physics as we know them.

I don't know, keep in mind that Superman absorbs the energy of the Sun, maybe his biology allows energy manipulation in a way that grants him limited telekinetic abilities.
This theory is actually quite popular among Superman fans.
It's telekinesis with a biological explaination.

Now, let's say a person can train really hard and learn how to manipulate energy in a similar way. It could be the energy from his own body.
This is Dragonball's flight, and it's not magic, it's a technique.

One Piece has mundane flight as well - if you're fast and strong enough, you can "kick" air and basically fly as long as you keep jumping.

See, this is why I wouldn't care if the government was capturing and studying supers. ****, I'd probably sign on for it if I could. They do stuff that doesn't make sense, but in most cases we can theorize about it and come up with some psuedo-plausible explanations. Then we would, of course, need to run experiments. Wizards et al just have the cheat codes to reality, regardless of their physiology.

Telekinesis, telepathy etc exist throughout the X-Men comics, and are all also biological in explanation. I, for one, would love to open up Xaviers skull and wire him up to a few machines. The real crime is that he hasn't submitted himself for this sort of testing, and is denying humanity valuable information on neuroscience.

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 09:51 AM

Now, let's say a person can train really hard and learn how to manipulate energy in a similar way. It could be the energy from his own body.
This is Dragonball's flight, and it's not magic, it's a technique.

It is magic, because in reality, humans can't actually fire energy out of their bodies to power themselves. Not "No human can do that" but "It is literally impossible for any human ever to do that."

One Piece has mundane flight as well - if you're fast and strong enough, you can "kick" air and basically fly as long as you keep jumping.

The strength required to "Jump" off air would probably cause a nuclear explosion at some point in the proceedings.

Okay, consider. When you swim up, you are pretty much "Jumping" off water. You can do that because of water's high density (relative to air, at the very least). Think of how hard you need to kick to move forwards about 10 feet.

Now, multiply that by something in the region of eight hundred, becuase that's about the difference in density. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density#Densities) Oh, and then start noticing that gravity exists. If D&D is to be believed, you fall 500 feet/round, meaning that you need to be kicking 50 times as hard as that just to stay at the same height, and a few more times on top of that if you want to go anywhere useful, let's say 60 instead of 50.

Okay, so the energy required to move a let's-say-60 kilogram human at 30 (well, 30.48, but shh) m/s is 2.7 megajoules.

Suppose you pick up a five gram pebble. With that amount of energy, you could throw it at 1080 kilometres/second. That's about c/300, or mach three thousand.

There is nothing natural about this super.

(Incidentally, did no-one else think of the simple solution of "You're best buds with a giant eagle?")

Ex doesn't have to follow the laws of physics as we know them.

Yeah, we know, but mundane does. Whether or not something has an Ex tag is not really the point, because you can give anything an Ex tag and say it's an Ex ability that just so happens to break the laws of physics.

PsyBomb

2014-09-01, 09:58 AM

It is interesting to note that Superman, in his original incarnations (the first comics and the original cartoon shorts) couldn't actually fully fly. He just jumped REALLY far ("able to leap tall buildings in a single bound"). The Superman of those comics was MUCH more along the lines of the Mundane. Simply having very good Strength and Con, awesome DR and saves, plus enhanced speed and skill checks for Strength and Wis -based skills.

Psyren

2014-09-01, 10:06 AM

I guess I don't really understand this one. Why is setting an arbitrarily high, magical limit on what one can accomplish through study something acceptable but a similar concept applied to physical development suddenly is nonsensical? It's the same principle and the same execution. Once we get to the stage where someone's trained their mind to the point where they can think an enemy into an ally or a hole into reality I guess I just don't get why it's so weird for a similarly superhuman, similarly disciplined and similarly trained hero to do something similar with oratory or physical might or what have you.

Arbitrary or not, it's pervasive enough that attempts to just grant oratory or physical might the same powers routinely fall flat/shatter disbelief.

People are biased and won't get my point, arguing that manga sucks etc

I grew up reading Dragonball.
Super Saiyans are mundane (Ex, not Su) that have greatly exceeded common expectations (cyborgs are mundane as well)

They do all that by manipulating ki, which is considered Su in D&D/PF. Ki in the DB universe can be detected by others and interfered with during fights - it can be sensed and manipulated external to the user themselves. It's also capable of damaging and even destroying the user's body if overused, proving that it is a separate force.

I don't consider the vast majority of the major players in the DBU to be "mundane." Pretty much everyone who has harnessed their ki to the extent that they can fly - which basically means everyone who isn't Bulma or Yajirobe - has transcended that status.

squiggit

2014-09-01, 10:29 AM

Arbitrary or not, it's pervasive enough that attempts to just grant oratory or physical might the same powers routinely fall flat/shatter disbelief.
I'm asking why it shatters your disbelief though. Neither character is attempting to pass as a normal person, so why hold it to normal standards?

Frankly though I'm not entirely sure it does routinely fall flat. Comic settings, Anime settings and sci fi/fantasy settings routinely put wizards up against superhumanly skilled or talented martials and I don't see many people cry foul when Captain America breaks the enchantress' nose or a space marine beats a chaos sorcerer to death or that guy with the weird haircut beats up the other dude in that one anime I can't remember the name of. Ancient myths and epics have mighty warriors performing feats even beyond what people in this thread are suggesting and they generally aren't considered in poor form because of it.

The latter one is probably what irks me the most. D&D draws a ton of inspiration from said Epics and Myths and Legends, but draws a line in the sand when it comes to letting someone be Sun Wukong or Cu Chulainn. That seems more mean spirited than worried about what's appropriately realistic.

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 10:59 AM

I don't consider the vast majority of the major players in the DBU to be "mundane." Pretty much everyone who has harnessed their ki to the extent that they can fly - which basically means everyone who isn't Bulma or Yajirobe - has transcended that status.
Then it's just a matter of definitions :smallsmile:
(ss a matter of fact, though, they aren't magical either. ki exists in all living beings, and is just another way of defining stamina)

But if I had to conform to your definition of Magic, accepting that "ki" is just a different kind of magic (as it is in D&D, but is not in many other fictional sources) then my opinion would be the following:
High level D&D should not have mundanes
At some point, mundanes should transcend their status somehow, in any way that's compatible with "intense physical training" in a fictional setting.
The game can't work properly if mundane as you defined them and magical users coexist at the same level.
Level should be a reliable indicator of power. Same level, same power (roughly)
An inherently worse class is conceptually wrong.
Either limit magical users or enhance mundanes in ways that resemble mundane enough (in my opinion Dragonball does it, in your opinion it does not, as I said, a matter of definitions)

Just for completeness, let's analyze One Piece Rokushiki? I think they're pretty good stuff for average level mundanes
It's not "ki" - there is something like that in One Piece, called Haki, but the Rokushiki don't use it.
A user who mastered the rokushiki can
-move so fast he's effectively invisible to the untrained eye (source: the author, stating CP9 memebers move as fast as Captain Kuro but with full control. Kuro became invisible to common people when moving at his top speed)
-make their own body extremely flexible, comparable to a paper sheet
-fly kicking the air
-create blades of air by kicking that hit as ranged attacks
-piercing people with fingers
-harden the body to absorb enormous amounts of damage

There is Hokuto no Ken as well.

My point of view is that "if it comes from physical training, I can classify it as mundane".
I don't really care about definitions. Even if at some point it couldn't be called mundane anymore, it wouldn't matter.
I don't want a T2 mundane, I want a T2 physical guy.

Psyren

2014-09-01, 11:52 AM

I'm asking why it shatters your disbelief though. Neither character is attempting to pass as a normal person, so why hold it to normal standards?

- Because it makes magic cease to be special if anyone can mimic it by flexing.
- Because I can't find any logical or thematic connection between flexing and many applications of magic, such as binding outsiders or resurrecting the dead.
- Because if "being really strong" allowed you to bend reality, why wouldn't every ogre, giant and golem have fantastic powers?
- Because so-called "Ex Magic" skews balance even further by presenting a power source that can't be detected, interfered with or countered.

Frankly though I'm not entirely sure it does routinely fall flat. Comic settings, Anime settings and sci fi/fantasy settings routinely put wizards up against superhumanly skilled or talented martials and I don't see many people cry foul when Captain America breaks the enchantress' nose or a space marine beats a chaos sorcerer to death or that guy with the weird haircut beats up the other dude in that one anime I can't remember the name of.

I have no problem with "Captain America breaking the enchantress' nose." That's something a physically strong character should be able to do. I don't even have a problem with him resisting her mental control or withstanding her lightning blast.

But firing lightning of his own, or controlling minds, or transforming into a giant bird - those are things that I would not want or expect Captain America to do.

Ancient myths and epics have mighty warriors performing feats even beyond what people in this thread are suggesting and they generally aren't considered in poor form because of it.

The latter one is probably what irks me the most. D&D draws a ton of inspiration from said Epics and Myths and Legends, but draws a line in the sand when it comes to letting someone be Sun Wukong or Cu Chulainn. That seems more mean spirited than worried about what's appropriately realistic.

Then I will ask you what is routinely asked of me in these discussions - what sort of superhuman abilities do you think a warrior/martial class should be allowed to do?

High level D&D should not have mundanes
At some point, mundanes should transcend their status somehow, in any way that's compatible with "intense physical training" in a fictional setting
...
I don't want a T2 mundane, I want a T2 physical guy.

I'm fine with the first part of this, but as far as getting to T2 - this goes back to Tippy's question. How do you do that without toolbox shapeshifting and toolbox summoning?

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 12:09 PM

I'm fine with the first part of this, but as far as getting to T2 - this goes back to Tippy's question. How do you do that without toolbox shapeshifting and toolbox summoning?
By being less versatile, but equally gamebreaking. That's why they would be T2, and not T1.
Isn't Superman good enough for you?
He can travel anywhere in an instant (does not really need teleport), he can see and hear through things at incredible distances, or notice minimal detail on a crime scene (he does not need divinations) he moves so fast he can travel through time (does not need magical time travel or time stop) on top of being physically capable of destroying things on a planetary level, which is alone quite gamebreaking (although focused on destruction instead of being focused on utility).
Not sure if that's tier2 to you - if it's not, why?

Oh, and, Kenshiro can press tsubo to heal, buff, debuff and force save-or-die on people.

Raven777

2014-09-01, 12:37 PM

So Superman is basically a Teramach (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?286983-3-5-Base-Class-quot-I-want-to-live-inside-a-castle-built-of-your-agony!-quot)?

Emperor Tippy

2014-09-01, 12:53 PM

...Superman is not "mundane".

He was born of a species whose members have limitless power when under the light of a yellow sun.

In point of fact, Superman is arguably less mundane than a D&D wizard as anyone can theoretically learn D&D magic.

---
His power doesn't come from technology, training, or any other "mundane" source. In point of fact, in at least some of DC's official continuities his power comes from being a direct descendant of Rao.

---
Again, no one has yet said that they have a real problem with high power martial characters. The thing is that those high power martial characters are at that level because they are using some non mundane source to have that power.

That could be something like Naruto verse chakra or Dragonball Ki or special magic or whatever. The point is that none of the characters you have named are as powerful as they are because of something "mundane" like running lots of laps. They are that powerful because they have gained access to, and often times massed through intensive training, some external supernatural power source.

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 12:59 PM

Dragonball Ki [...] The point is that none of the characters you have named are as powerful as they are because of something "mundane" like running lots of laps. They are that powerful because they have gained access to, and often times massed through intensive training, some external supernatural power source.No, KI in Dragonball is the same as stamina.
Ki depletion makes you physically tired. Eating and resting replenish KI.
It gets trained along with physical training.

Yes it requires concentration and focus. And learning how to control it allows for better usage with less expenditure, making you effectively more powerful.
Not all athletes can use it.
But everybody has it. It's not "external".
It's stamina used well.

Emperor Tippy

2014-09-01, 01:08 PM

No, KI in Dragonball is the same as stamina.
Ki depletion makes you physically tired. Eating and resting replenish KI.
It gets trained along with physical training.

Yes it requires concentration and focus. And learning how to control it allows for better usage with less expenditure, making you effectively more powerful.
Not all athletes can use it.
But everybody has it. It's not "external".
It's stamina used well.

Physical stamina does not let you teleport to the other side of the galaxy. It does not let you ignore gravity. It does not let you shoot balls of energy that blow up moons.

An individuals Ki might increase through physical training but that doesn't make Ki remotely "mundane".

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 01:09 PM

Physical stamina does not let you teleport to the other side of the galaxy. It does not let you ignore gravity. It does not let you shoot balls of energy that blow up moons
Because you haven't learned how to channel it.
They're called techniques for a reason.

Anyway, If you want to keep arguing that it's not mundane, I'm ok with it anyway. I don't really care. As I said, it's a matter of definitions.
If, for you, Dragonball is not mundane, then when I'm talking to you I'll say "I don't want a mundane tier2, I want a physical Tier2 whose power is achieved through martial training and works like stamina"
so we can communicate effectively.
In my mind that's still mundane, but it's not the point.

Raven777

2014-09-01, 01:15 PM

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 01:17 PM

Because you haven't learned how to channel it.
They're called techniques for a reason.

And vancian casters have the intellectual honesty to admit to being casters for a reason.

Channeling your inner might does not give you a free pass to blindside the laws of physics. I don't see what's so hard about that.

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 01:22 PM

I actually think we can meet from both ends of the argument if we agree that things like "Ki", be they mundane or not by each party's definition, present a valid concept to shore up fighter-types to higher tiers while maintaining their theme of "physical prowess"
Yes.
Not only KI, though. The Teramach does a pretty good job with destruction-based tier2 effects.

I can get behind that. Then again, once we step onto that path, we basically get to basically what ToB did. Ain't it wonderful?ToB is my favorite supplement for 3.5, but the reason is not the wuxia theme - ToB makes combat more tactical and interesting, and I love it for it

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 01:25 PM

And vancian casters have the intellectual honesty to admit to being casters for a reason.

Channeling your inner might does not give you a free pass to blindside the laws of physics. I don't see what's so hard about that.
Because Dragonball characters aren't violating physics.
The Bukujutsu is just a very difficult application of physical laws.
Apparently, KI, which is stamina, can be manipulated into becoming kinetic energy.
Which allows you to fly.
In Dragonball canon, common people aren't capable of consciounsly manipulating their KI/stamina to produce energy balls or fly, leading them to believe it's impossible. Instead, they simply lack the necessary training.

However, I'm not really interested in this semantic debate. I see Dragonball ki as mundane. Other people are, quite obviously, free to believe otherwise.

Emperor Tippy

2014-09-01, 01:31 PM

Because you haven't learned how to channel it.
They're called techniques for a reason.

Anyway, If you want to keep arguing that it's not mundane, I'm ok with it anyway. I don't really care. As I said, it's a matter of definitions.
If, for you, Dragonball is not mundane, then when I'm talking to you I'll say "I don't wamt a mundane tier2, I want a physical Tier2 whose power is achieved through martial training and works like stamina"
so we can communicate effectively.
In my mind that's still mundane, but that's not the point.

Physical stamina does not let you do all of that. Magic that is powered, to some extent, by physical stamina might, however, let you do all of that.

In Dragonball that magic is called Ki.

---
Pure physical training is not going to ever let a plain vanilla human exceed certain hard physical limits. There is a reason that none of the characters you have named achieved their feats as pure, vanilla, humans without supernatural advantages of some kind.

Divine blood and divine blessings are the two most common and after that comes magic of one kind or another.

---
On top of all of that, Tier 2 is practically impossible to get via purely physical means. The requirement for Tier 2 is having one method that can solve virtually every problem in an entire campaign.

Shapechange is the quintessential Tier 2 example. Need to be somewhere? Shapechange into an Archon. Need to use a magical item? Shapechange into a Lilitu. Need to see through illusions? Shapechange into a Balor. Need to be immune to magic and fly perfectly? Shapechange into a Shadesteel Golem. Need to be invisible? Shapechange into an Invisible Stalker. Need to create magic items? Shapechange into a Midgard Dwarf. Need to walk through a door? Shapechange into a Wraith.

Unless you can solve 99% of the problems that you run into by saying "I do X" then you aren't Tier 2.

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 01:33 PM

Because Dragonball characters aren't violating physics.
The Bukujutsu is just a very difficult application of physical laws.
Apparently, KI, which is stamina, can be manipulated into becoming kinetic energy.
Which allows you to fly.
In Dragonball canon, common people aren't capable of consciounsly manipulating their KI/stamina to produce energy balls or fly, leading them to believe it's impossible. Instead, they simply lack the necessary training.

However, I'm not really interested in this semantic debate. I see Dragonball ki as mundane. Other people are, quite obviously, free to believe otherwise.

But... it breaks the laws of physics.

I'm sorry, but you cannot actually do that with physics. You would need some pretty extreme cybernetics to do that.

Jacob.Tyr

2014-09-01, 01:33 PM

And vancian casters have the intellectual honesty to admit to being casters for a reason.

Channeling your inner might does not give you a free pass to blindside the laws of physics. I don't see what's so hard about that.

Then the idea behind this thread is flawed, as is the very premise of Mundane as a character. Hell, no character should be mundane anyway in D&D. PC's can and do things that, honestly, are not mundane, unless you play in an incredibly gritty low-power game. I've been using the idea of Mundane as someone not channeling external magical or supernatural forces, someone who just works differently on basic physiological, chemical, mental levels that allows them to do extraordinary things. It is in all honesty a piss-poor tag to throw on it, though. It works initially in D&D because "Mundane" might just be any non-caster, but now we're arguing that anything that isn't achievable by humans in our world is beyond mundane characters.

In D&D magic is an ever-present part of the world, that people interact with via spells and spell-like abilities. There are magical/elemental/etc forces in the planes that magical characters can interact with. "Mundane" characters, then, should just be those who don't interact with those forces. They don't create energy where it wasn't, don't spontaneously create matter, etc etc. That doesn't mean that they are still bound by what a human body can do. I'm just going to go ahead and call them Extraordinary Classes from now on.

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 01:36 PM

I'm 99% sure JaronK wouldn't agree.

To be Tier2 you only need to have a few campaign smashing abilities.

Versatility is not required. He even states that T2 classes are usually less versatile than T3, but so much more powerful.

But... it breaks the laws of physics.

I'm sorry, but you cannot actually do that with physics. You would need some pretty extreme cybernetics to do that.
(assuming Dragonball was real) Yes you can do that with physics, but you still don't know how

Physical stamina does not let you do all of that. Magic that is powered, to some extent, by physical stamina might, however, let you do all of that.
In Dragonball that magic is called Ki.
In Dragonball Ki is part of the physical world. If a scientist discovered Yamcha, he could study him, and he would learn that he didn't know physics (and the human boundaries) well enough.

Emperor Tippy

2014-09-01, 01:46 PM

I'm 99% sure JaronK wouldn't agree.

To be Tier2 you only need to have a few campaign smashing abilities.

Versatility is not required. He even states that T2 classes are usually less versatile than T3, but so much more powerful.

That is all only a single campaign smashing ability. It is called Shapechange.

You get Tier 1 because you have Shapechange, and Planar Binding, and Gate, and Ice Assassin, etc. to the point where you can virtually always solve a given situation in multiple ways.

---
Tier 2 "mundane" would be: "I get to the Astral Plane by punching a hole in the world", "I get rid of the magical effect by punching it", "I get rid of the enemy army by punching the air so hard that the atoms in it split and cause a nuclear explosion", "I bring him back to life by punching the concept of death out of his body."

If you have a whole collection of abilities that taken as a whole allow you to meaningfully contribute to virtually every challenge and possibly even solve those problems on your own then you aren't Tier 2, you are a powerful Tier 3.

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 01:46 PM

(assuming Dragonball was real) Yes you can do that with physics, but you still don't know how

You're assuming dragonball was real. You may as well assume magic is real.

Then the idea behind this thread is flawed, as is the very premise of Mundane as a character.

*Ahem*

I'm not sure you can say anything that exists in reality is "Magic," so it must be mundane, which I was assuming meant "Not-magic" (I mean, it could mean "Normal" or "Boring" but anything which is either of those things doesn't deserve to be called Extraordinary.)

Mundane is my key-word for "No breaking the laws of physics" because if you're Ex, you specifically can break them.

Tier 2 "mundane" would be: "I get to the Astral Plane by punching a hole in the world", "I get rid of the magical effect by punching it", "I get rid of the enemy army by punching the air so hard that the atoms in it split and cause a nuclear explosion", "I bring him back to life by punching the concept of death out of his body."

See, at least my Champion has slightly better justifications than these. :smalltongue:

Jacob.Tyr

2014-09-01, 01:53 PM

You're assuming dragonball was real. You may as well assume magic is real.

*Ahem*

Mundane is my key-word for "No breaking the laws of physics" because if you're Ex, you specifically can break them.

See, at least my Champion has slightly better justifications than these. :smalltongue:
How is punching so hard you cause a nuclear explosion more in line with physics than kicking the air so hard you can fly?

Psyren

2014-09-01, 01:54 PM

He can travel anywhere in an instant (does not really need teleport), he can see and hear through things at incredible distances, or notice minimal detail on a crime scene (he does not need divinations) he moves so fast he can travel through time (does not need magical time travel or time stop) on top of being physically capable of destroying things on a planetary level, which is alone quite gamebreaking (although focused on destruction instead of being focused on utility).
Not sure if that's tier2 to you - if it's not, why?

Disbelief shattered repeatedly. I'm fine with running really fast being Ex, but teleportation and time travel - no. I'm fine with noticing minute details, but seeing through solid/opaque objects - no.

Oh, and, Kenshiro can press tsubo to heal, buff, debuff and force save-or-die on people.

I wouldn't call anything this guy does mundane. For starters, he, like many anime protagonists before him, owes his potential to bloodline/heritage, not merely practice and skill. To me this is no different than a sorcerer's ancestor having boned a dragon at some point in the past. Secondly, those points he presses are reservoirs of ki, or energy. Nothing mundane about that either. (In fact, the D&D analogue to what he does - Quivering Palm - is classified Su, and rightly so.)

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 01:57 PM

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 01:58 PM

How is punching so hard you cause a nuclear explosion more in line with physics than kicking the air so hard you can fly?

Ask Tippy, not me. I never said anything about that.

Although, the amount of energy you would need to expend to fly by kicking the air would quite possibly be similar to the amount of energy you would need to cause a nuclear explosion by hitting atoms. Anything expressed in Megajoules is not something you want to stand near.

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 02:00 PM

Disbelief shattered repeatedly
It's a limit of yours, or a matter of taste at best.
I understand your preferences, but it's not a valid point.

I wouldn't call anything this guy does mundane. For starters, he, like many anime protagonists before him, owes his potential to bloodline/heritage, not merely practice and skill. To me this is no different than a sorcerer's ancestor having boned a dragon at some point in the past. Secondly, those points he presses are reservoirs of ki, or energy. Nothing mundane about that either. (In fact, the D&D analogue to what he does - Quivering Palm - is classified Su, and rightly so.)
D&D decided Ki was Su
HnK goes with the pseudo-scientific explaination. Naruto goes with the pseudo.scientific explaination as well.

There is no reason to assume Ki couldn't be explained scientifically, if it was real.

Magic can't, by definition, since it "breaks" the law of physics.
Ki, on the other hand, doesn't. It just interact with physics in a way our science hasn't yet figured out.

What's so strange about this concept? It's not a difficult one either.

Jacob.Tyr

2014-09-01, 02:01 PM

Ask Tippy, not me. I never said anything about that.

Although, the amount of energy you would need to expend to fly by kicking the air would quite possibly be similar to the amount of energy you would need to cause a nuclear explosion by hitting atoms. Anything expressed in Megajoules is not something you want to stand near.

I must have missed something, then. I assumed by "champion" you meant that Tippy was championing your cause in some capacity. What post were you referring to?

Psyren

2014-09-01, 02:02 PM

The definition of Tier2 states that "they can't always have the right tool for the job".
Now, either I don't understand what you're trying to say, or your definition of T2 is different from the original

This is ridiculous. If you can break the game, how do you not have the right tool for the job? Either you can solve the problem outright, or you can make it irrelevant by changing the rules. T2 might have less methods of approaching a problem than T3 does, but that doesn't make them any less effective at surpassing it.

It's a limit of yours, or a matter of taste at best.
I understand your preferences, but it's not a valid point.

If it's not valid, then I ask you once more to point me to the plethora of games that are fine with this concept and critically acclaimed.

D&D decided Ki was Su
HnK goes with the pseudo-scientific explaination.
There is no reason to assume Ki couldn't be explained scientifically, if it was real.

No reason except, once again, suspension of disbelief. If ki could be explained scientifically, we would be using it ourselves the same way they do, instead of the extremely vague and limited "ki" techniques that exist in the real world.

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 02:03 PM

This is ridiculous
Go read it then.

Psyren

2014-09-01, 02:04 PM

Go read it

I'm sorry your argument makes no sense, but that's hardly my fault.

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 02:06 PM

Ki, on the other hand, doesn't. It just interact with physics in a way our science hasn't yet figured out.

You can say the same about anything you like, though.

I must have missed something, then. I assumed by "champion" you meant that Tippy was championing your cause in some capacity. What post were you referring to?

This champion. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369537-The-Champion-PEACH)

Emperor Tippy

2014-09-01, 02:10 PM

The definition of Tier2 states that "they can't always have the right tool for the job".
Now, either I don't understand what you're trying to say, or your definition of T2 is different from the original

Shapechange isn't always the right tool for the job and it is rarely the absolute best tool fort the job. What it is is a single tool that can solve virtually every problem in one way or another.

How is punching so hard you cause a nuclear explosion more in line with physics than kicking the air so hard you can fly?

It's not. Both are equally absurd and disbelief shattering, which is the point that I was going for.

Now to change things slightly.

" I get to the Astral Plane by using my sword that has been enchanted to be able to cut through anything that I can envision being cut to cut a hole in the world", "I get rid of the magical effect by using my sword that has been enchanted to be able to cut through anything that I can envision being cut to cut the magic effect away from existence", "I get rid of the enemy army by using my sword that has been enchanted to be able to cut through anything that I can envision being cut to cut the atoms in the air in twain and cause a nuclear explosion", "I bring him back to life by using my sword that has been enchanted to be able to cut through anything that I can envision being cut to cut the concept of death out of his body."

That change will still have people taking issue with the power level of the ability in question (an enchanted sword that can cut anything, including concepts) but it isn't going to shatter disbelief. Why? Because the reason it can be so physics breaking is explained right in the description "magic" and "magic" is already accepted as being able to do things like those examples.

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 02:11 PM

I'm sorry your argument makes no sense, but that's hardly my fault.
That wasn't an argument. It was a quote.

If it's not valid, then I ask you once more to point me to the plethora of games that are fine with this concept and critically acclaimed
my argument wasn't about games specifically. It was about pseudo-scientific superpowers as a concept, which are very popular. See x-men

No reason except, once again, suspension of disbelief. If ki could be explained scientifically, we would be using it ourselves the same way they do, instead of the extremely vague and limited "ki" techniques that exist in the real world.Ki use could be explained scientifically if it was possible to use stamina that way.
Spiderman powers could be explained scientifically if it was possible to use radiations that way

The difference with magic is that, while Ki and Spiderman are also impossible in our world, Magic is defined as something that breaks the laws of physics, therefore physics can't explain it.
Otherwise it wouldn't be Magic. It would be Science. Which by definition explores the laws of physics.
Ki -and Spiderman- are not magic for this very reason.
It's not meant to break the laws of (the fictional universe's) physics. It works within them not outside them.

And, yes, it makes a lot of sense.

Jacob.Tyr

2014-09-01, 02:14 PM

This is ridiculous. If you can break the game, how do you not have the right tool for the job? Either you can solve the problem outright, or you can make it irrelevant by changing the rules. T2 might have less methods of approaching a problem than T3 does, but that doesn't make them any less effective at surpassing it.

That is how the definitions are setup by JaronK, though. T2 has a great way to approach a ton of challenges, and a limited capacity to completely derail the world/setting. T1 has a handy garage full of tools for destroying narrative conventions, plots, nations, continents, planets, and planes of existence.

If it's not valid, then I ask you once more to point me to the plethora of games that are fine with this concept and critically acclaimed.

Personally I'm not very familiar with any games that do this, but at the very least there is a ton of media that follows this. Seppo has even gone so far as to present multiple examples, as well as the explanations from those examples. You choose to ignore them.

No reason except, once again, suspension of disbelief. If ki could be explained scientifically, we would be using it ourselves the same way they do, instead of the extremely vague and limited "ki" techniques that exist in the real world.
Well, suspend your disbelieve and accept that via special whateverthehell some people can physically manipulate force without it being magic, in ways that aren't really important to our world because they don't exist here due to biology/physiology of organisms on Earth, or at least ones we routinely interact with.

Is a blue-ringed octopus magic? If I told you I could turn myself invisible, it'd have to be magic, though. Because humans on earth can't do that.

Likewise if I said I could snap my fingers, creating a burst of heat that rivals the temperature of the sun, or literally hundreds of other crazy examples of things with different biology than Earth Humans do routinely, without training or magic.

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 02:17 PM

Ki use could be explained scientifically if it was possible to use stamina that way.
Spiderman powers could be explained scientifically if it was possible to use radiations that way

The difference with magic is that, while they are both impossible in our world, Magic is defined as something that breaks the laws of physics, therefore physics can't explain it.

But magic could be explained scientifically if it were possible to create explosions and heal wounds that way, it's just not.

Emperor Tippy

2014-09-01, 02:18 PM

It's a limit of yours, or a matter of taste at best.
I understand your preferences, but it's not a valid point.

D&D decided Ki was Su
HnK goes with the pseudo-scientific explaination. Naruto goes with the pseudo.scientific explaination as well.

There is no reason to assume Ki couldn't be explained scientifically, if it was real.

Magic can't, by definition, since it "breaks" the law of physics.
Ki, on the other hand, doesn't. It just interact with physics in a way our science hasn't yet figured out.

What's so strange about this concept? It's not a difficult one either.

No, it doesn't. Naruto goes with all of the superhuman abilities being the result of Chakra which is the result of Kayuga eating the "fruit" of a primordial deity and stealing his power and then using her new power to pass out that same divine power to her supporters until, by the time the manga starts, everyone has access to that divine power.

Naruto is a story where people stole divine power by consuming the incubating child of a primordial deity and then, after getting affronted when said primordial deity took issue with their temerity, used that deities own power to rip its soul from its body, split it into nine pieces, rewrite reality to turn its body into an indestructible statue, throw said statue into space, and then created a moon around said statue.

"Mundane" never even enters into the equation.

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 02:20 PM

But magic could be explained scientifically if it were possible to create explosions and heal wounds that way, it's just not.
See my previous post, I edited it to make my point clearer.

If it breaks the laws of physics, it can't be explained by science. Science can only explain what happens in the realm of physically possible things.

In the Marvel Universe, Spiderman is physically possible. It can be explained by science.
Therefore, it's not breaking any physical law, an therefore he's not magic.

As soon as you define something as capable of ignoring the laws of physics though, it becomes a non-scientific concept.

It's unavoidable. A given thing can't be both scientific and beyond science. (if it hasn't been explained yet, it's not beyond science in general, it's beyond current science)

If it's compatible with a scientific explaination, it's not really breaking any physical law.

Ki is just like Spiderman, in this context. It does not break the laws of physics, it just interact with them in a way science hasn't been able to explain yet. It's not inherently unexplainable nor incompatible with a scientific explaination.

No, it doesn't
True, you're right here.

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 02:26 PM

See my previous post, I edited it to make my point clearer.

If it breaks the laws of physics, it can't be explained by science. Science can only explain what happens in the realm of physically possible things.

And that's why flying with ki or whatever cannot be explained by science.

In the Marvel Universe, Spiderman is physically possible. It can be explained by science.
Therefore, it's not breaking any physical law, an therefore he's not magic.

Replace "Marvel" with "D&D", "Spiderman" with "Mordenkainen," and see your problem.

We're not talking about things which could be done if the laws of physics were different. We're talking about things which can be done with the laws of physics as they are.

Psyren

2014-09-01, 02:29 PM

my argument wasn't about games specifically. It was about pseudo-scientific superpowers as a concept, which are very popular. See x-men

Right, but those powers aren't mundane (and neither are mutants.)

Ki use could be explained scientifically if it was possible to use stamina that way.
Spiderman powers could be explained scientifically if it was possible to use radiations that way

The difference with magic is that, while Ki and Spiderman are also impossible in our world, Magic is defined as something that breaks the laws of physics, therefore physics can't explain it.
Otherwise it wouldn't be Magic. It would be Science.

That's only half the equation though. Yes, it breaks physics as we know them, but there still needs to be a plausible means of gaining access. Intense study of the building blocks of creation. A shortcut through accident of birth, or bargaining with dread beings from beyond the world. The favor of a divine entity. There has to be something to explain why Commoner Joe didn't up and decide to be a spellcaster someday, or for that matter Guardsman Joe who can swing a sword quite well.

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 02:30 PM

Right, but those powers aren't mundane (and neither are mutants.)

A mutant could be mundane, to be fair. :smalltongue:

Seppo87

2014-09-01, 02:31 PM

We're talking about things which can be done with the laws of physics as they are.You decided that. I do not agree.

I've always been speaking in-universe.

See, this is true for any given power: if it's compatible with an in-universe scientific explaination, it's not really breaking any in-universe physical law.

squiggit

2014-09-01, 02:32 PM

Why are we arguing over whether or not it breaks the laws of physics? Ex is allowed to break the laws of physics anyways.

Then I will ask you what is routinely asked of me in these discussions - what sort of superhuman abilities do you think a warrior/martial class should be allowed to do?
For combat purposes, superhuman strength, speed and agility. Some moderate energy manipulation. Plane hopping. Maybe some teleportation (as a subset of previously mentioned speed), reaction times bordering on precognition and the ability to attack in ways or at angles normally impossible. Oh and the biliary to shrug off, destroy or reflect magic, obviously.

For a skill monkey we're basically looking at epic skill usage available much earlier. Obviously with some expansions.

Probably an expansion on ideas like a master spy's capstone, only more baseline and easily accessible.

Possibly a return of things like the 2e fighter becoming a lord or a 2e thief becoming a guildmaster

Regarding stuff they shouldn't have... BFC, summoning, shapeshifting, divinations and illusions I suppose. Now, naturally, one might point out that those are the best parts of spell casting, and they are. So the martial gets ultimately more powerful but less flexible options in his toolbox to deal with that.

The ultimate end goal here creates a figure who solves problems less efficiently than a wizard, but has methods that are much harder to overcome and is ultimately unstoppable in his primary field. Rather than, y'know just being worse at everything.

Jacob.Tyr

2014-09-01, 02:33 PM

You can say the same about anything you like, though.

This champion. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369537-The-Champion-PEACH)

Ahh, good show!

I had an idea for something similar once. The character was, in effect, an Avatar of Mundane-ness. He didn't so much as get tons of skills and abilities, he just lived in a world where a bunch old men in bath robes yelled gibberish for no reason at him before he stabbed them to death. Once in awhile someone would attack him with a "magic" sword, that really just seemed to shatter against his shield, spraying shards of metal in the attackers face. Basically put a medieval knight into a D&D setting, except for all intents and purposes things around him function just as they do here. Anything magical he interacts with stops being magic, typically in a way that is catastrophic if they're being used to fight him.

Pick up a +1 sword, turns out it was just masterwork. Parry a blow from a +5 sword? Damned thing broke and lodged in the neck of the guy swinging it (5d6 damage). People talk a lot about spells, but damned if he's ever seen someone cast one. Unless "Throw poo" is a spell, cause that seems to keep happening.

Psyren

2014-09-01, 02:34 PM

That is how the definitions are setup by JaronK, though. T2 has a great way to approach a ton of challenges, and a limited capacity to completely derail the world/setting. T1 has a handy garage full of tools for destroying narrative conventions, plots, nations, continents, planets, and planes of existence.

I know what JaronK wrote. I'm just interpreting it differently than you. When he says T3 has a wider toolbox, he means things like "A Factotum can get past the guards with a skill check or using an item, as well as with innate powers." A sorceer meanwhile would have pretty much no options outside of spells. But that doesn't mean they can't both get past the guards. The T2 is not stymied.

Personally I'm not very familiar with any games that do this, but at the very least there is a ton of media that follows this. Seppo has even gone so far as to present multiple examples, as well as the explanations from those examples. You choose to ignore them.

I'm not ignoring them, I simply disagree that they are examples. Naruto, DBZ and X-Men may not call what they do "magic," but the basics are still there - the power is not something just anyone can access, and the source is something from outside the user.

Well, suspend your disbelieve and accept that via special whateverthehell some people can physically manipulate force without it being magic, in ways that aren't really important to our world because they don't exist here due to biology/physiology of organisms on Earth, or at least ones we routinely interact with.

The very idea is abhorrent.

Is a blue-ringed octopus magic? If I told you I could turn myself invisible, it'd have to be magic, though. Because humans on earth can't do that.

That's camouflage, not invisibility. Humans can camouflage just fine.

Likewise if I said I could snap my fingers, creating a burst of heat that rivals the temperature of the sun, or literally hundreds of other crazy examples of things with different biology than Earth Humans do routinely, without training or magic.

But how would you attain those different biologies without magic?

Jormengand

2014-09-01, 02:34 PM

You decided that. I do not agree.

I've always been speaking in-universe.

See, this is true for any given power: if it's compatible with an in-universe scientific explaination, it's not really breaking any in-universe physical law.

But an in-universe scientific explanation could be made for magic, completely invalidating that entire point. You can say that anything you like works because the laws of physics are different in another universe.