What does it mean to be Mundane in D&D? And other mundane issues

[Lans]

Tangent from the balance to the wizard thread


At what point does a character stop being mundane in DND?

How high of level can a character be in before he stops being mundane?

Other mundane questions and issues are alllowd

[johnbragg]

My answer is idiosyncratic, but it's the best one I have.

"Mundane", for these discussions, means noncasters. It does NOT mean nonmagical, because we're talking about creatures of a magical universe. Imagine draconic "Houses and Humans" players talking about "nongravitational characters."

We are talking about a magical universe. If that is to mean anything more than "Because a wizard did it", or "because the DM/setting designer said so", magic has to be part of the essential structure of the universe.

So what is magic? Magic is using will to reshape the world around you in various ways. The most common form of magic is spells, both arcane and divine. These are regularized, standardized applications of magic, made routine by centuries or millenia of use, with defined rules and predictable ranges of effects. But casters are not the only people with willpower to change things. REducing classes to the UA basic trinity, the spellcaster projects his magic through using spell formulas. The warrior projects his magic through his sword (more broadly, through combat). The expert projects his magic through skills and talents and stuff. (Diplomancy/Jumplomancy, rolling a 30+ to Hide In Plain Sight, etc)

So we can look at character level (and Hit Dice) as essentially a measurement of how much ability you have to change things. Consider a D&D universe as a Matrix-style simulation. Level corresponds to some form of energy reserve, or mana, etc. The spellcaster projects some mana to create a fireball flung at the warrior. The warrior, sword drawn and armored up, uses mana to defy and negate the effects of the flame. The rogue-type uses mana to, say, momentarily change his coordinates to a parallel dimension without a fireball in it.

(This probably means E6, because a whole lot of high-powered types running around tear huge holes in the simulation)

[Apricot]

General definition seems to be: a class without a spell list. Classes with incomplete spell progression or who are limited to various kinds of magicky abilities with no spell list could possibly be called half-mundanes. Either way, it's a good way of capturing a certain type of class.

As for when a class stops being mundane: it's really just a descriptor for a certain type of playstyle inherent in a class, where the class has basically no access to magic and has to rely on their equipment, feats, and ability scores to get things done. You could argue that they stop being mundane when they start performing superhuman feats, or that they can only stop being mundane when they have to actively make flashy hand motions and say FIREBALL really loudly. I don't think the distinction matters too much outside of the flavor that an individual wants their character to have, because the way things currently stand, none of the classes we call mundane can ever properly escape that fate (outside of multiclass/PrCs, which is really just evading the issue there).

The reason that being mundane is a problem is twofold: first, as one gets to higher levels, enemies very quickly stop being mundane. Fights stop being on even footing. Second, D&D is not very good at giving ability progression to mundanes. A Barbarian 1, a Barbarian 10, and a Barbarian 20 are going to be doing more or less the same thing the entire time: using Rage and hitting people. Full-progression casters, on the other hand, get their choice of dozens of new tricks every other level in Core alone. Using splatbooks, they get far more. Items are a way to somewhat circumvent this, but casters get almost as much choice in itemization while also getting nice class things.

If these problems did not exist, "mundane" wouldn't exist as a balance/playstyle consideration as much as it existed as a flavor consideration. At present, the two are deeply interlinked and resist efforts to be separated.

[Florian]

Tangent from the balance to the wizard thread


At what point does a character stop being mundane in DND?

How high of level can a character be in before he stops being mundane?

Other mundane questions and issues are alllowd

It is a completely meaningless phrase. This bing a High Magic game, any class can reach any level of magic anytime.
Heck, a +1 sword is more expensive than a 9th level scroll.

[martixy]

I've always considered it "a character whose primary contribution to combat is limited to poking things with a pointy stick" or variations thereof.
This includes classes like paladins, rangers(who do have a spell list and spellcasting) and also ToB classes, who practically use "martial magic", but it still boils down to "pointy bit goes in".

And while Bards and Psychic Warriors can make good stick-it-iners, they can be built beyond that, so they fail to qualify as mundane.

[OldTrees1]

At what point does a character stop being mundane in DND?
Depends on whose post you are reading and the context in those posts. This is highly crucial to recognize.

Common meanings are:
1*) Non caster
1b) Non prep and forget
1c) At Will/Always available options only

2*) Non magical
2b) Non supernatural
2c) Realistic

3) Boring(often used to derail or strawman someone using one of the other meanings)

4) *whatever else I did not list*

*This may include something that has such abilities but never uses them and they are crossed out. It may also not include such.

How high of level can a character be in before he stops being mundane?
1) NI under reasonable rules
1a) NI under reasonable rules
1b) NI under reasonable rules
2) NI under reasonable rules
2b) Not NI (although I could be wrong on this)
2c) Quite low
3) irrelevant
4) ???

[Âmesang]

Not sure how fair of a comparison this is, but I've a 3rd level human ranger in Pathfinder with a 12 Con and Toughness possessing 27 hit points (max 1st level, average rest). With the Heart of the Wilderness alternate racial ability she dies when her health drops to –13.

I recall the DUNGEON MASTER'S Guide saying that a shotgun does 2d8 damage; so max damage is 16, and a critical doubles to 32. 27 hp minus 32 damage equals –5 hp, with which she remains conscious and acts as disabled thanks to the Diehard feat.

So you can press a shotgun against her body, do max/crit damage, and she can walk away and effectively sleep it off over the course of a week (with a mix of normal 8-hour rest or full 24-hour rest, and augmenting it with the Heal skill if given the opportunity).

And she's 3rd level.

In my mind "mundane" isn't so much a wholly non-magical character, but a character who's stats and abilities are closer to what might be considered an "ordinary" person; 'cause I'm pretty damned sure a shotgun at point-blank range is fatal, and those that do survive surely ain't going to recover after a week of ordinary bed rest.

[Zancloufer]

Mundane would be a character who mostly uses non-magical (Ex) skills/class features. Pretty much if it has no spell-casting, active Su abilities, or SLAs it can be considered fully mundane.

Mind you ToB classes, Paladins, Ranger and Monks are all generally "Mundane" classes, though they have some magical abilities. Would probably be better to sort classes by their role than a magic/not magic divide.


It is a completely meaningless phrase. This bing a High Magic game, any class can reach any level of magic anytime.
Heck, a +1 sword is more expensive than a 9th level scroll.

9th level scroll costs 2k+ GP while a +1 sword is >1.2k GP to create. Also the ability to use magic doesn't necessarily make one magic. In the same way that using a robot doesn't make someone a robot.

[ryu]

Mundane would be a character who mostly uses non-magical (Ex) skills/class features. Pretty much if it has no spell-casting, active Su abilities, or SLAs it can be considered fully mundane.

Mind you ToB classes, Paladins, Ranger and Monks are all generally "Mundane" classes, though they have some magical abilities. Would probably be better to sort classes by their role than a magic/not magic divide.



9th level scroll costs 2k+ GP while a +1 sword is >1.2k GP to create. Also the ability to use magic doesn't necessarily make one magic. In the same way that using a robot doesn't make someone a robot.

Yeah become a robot is much higher on the tech tree. Considering we only have robotic prosthetics at this point full robo-conversion is at least a few decades out I would assume. Totally considering it if safe, affordable, and with minimal negative side effects. Could get over a lot of the annoying human limits like not having replaceable parts.

[Florian]

9th level scroll costs 2k+ GP while a +1 sword is >1.2k GP to create. Also the ability to use magic doesn't necessarily make one magic. In the same way that using a robot doesn't make someone a robot.

I´m just pointing out that is a common assumption that a class is tied to a role, should be equipped to enhance that role to be effective and not infringe on other classes roles.

Additionally, we mostly separate task by type, either "mundane" or "magic" and expect certain classes and roles to excel at tackling this task types.
So a class, or better, the intended role tied to the class, is "mundane" when it can take only the tasks we do consider to be "mundane" and can´t go at the "magic" tasks without infringing on another classes intended role.

The near insulting part here is, that we expect the "Beatstick" to invest heavily on direct combat abilities and not infringe on the other classes intended roles by abstaining from packing some Wishes, Gates and a Staff of Life, limiting him by gentleman agreement to keep going at "mundane" tasks, then remove exactly those "mundane" tasks from the game.

(Before you ask: A Fighter is only 3 feats away from doing his own wish and gate stuff at his leisure)

So, we expect the, let´s use Fighter here as an example, to stick to his role, buy or craft that +5 holy adamant greatsword and go at the very "mundane" task of hitting something with that. Part of the intended role here is that this Fighter is responsible for his own efficiency and therefore must be able to beat the targets DR.
We do not expect that same Fighter from just buying a +1 Holy Greatsword, a higher CL scrolls of GMW, using a scroll of Teleport to go in, break 4 Candles of Invocation and watch the show. Seems to "break" his intended role, right?

[Arbane]

(Before you ask: A Fighter is only 3 feats away from doing his own wish and gate stuff at his leisure)


I'll bite. Which three?

[Beheld]

Mundane is a terrible word that means nothing and no two people mean the same thing by it.

If you want to have a conversation with someone, you shouldn't use it. But if for some reason you are having a conversation with someone who uses the word mundane, ask them if a Balor is mundane. If they say yes, run away from that conversation as fast as possible. Then ask them if this class (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50472) would be considered Mundane. If they say yes, then just tell them "then mundane is a meaningless term, and doesn't describe anything we care about, so let's not use it."

[OldTrees1]

Mundane is a terrible word that means nothing and no two people mean the same thing by it.

If you want to have a conversation with someone, you shouldn't use it. But if for some reason you are having a conversation with someone who uses the word mundane, ask them if a Balor is mundane. If they say yes, run away from that conversation as fast as possible. Then ask them if this class (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50472) would be considered Mundane. If they say yes, then just tell them "then mundane is a meaningless term, and doesn't describe anything we care about, so let's not use it."

Mundane is a terrible word that, within its use as an adjective for classes/characters in RPGs, means nothing and people tend to mean different things by it.

However, sounds with no prior meaning are quite useful when there is no good word/short phrase for naming what you are talking about (this is how Shakespeare invented words like Elbow). The problem with inventing new words to ease communication is that it requires work on both the part of the writer and reader. The writer has to introduce the new word with enough context that the word is defined. The reader needs to be willing and able to accept the usage based on the definition resulting from the context.

For example:
I want help creating a mundane warrior being one that has a variety of martial abilities available to them each of which is available whenever the mundane warrior wishes.

The benefit of such user defined terms is that one can now reference that entire 17 word definition with a simple 2 word phrase (same reason we use Pronouns like "you" rather than writing out full unique identifiers each time).

That said, when one is having a conversation with someone that is unwilling to do their part, then one ought not attempt to ease the communication via creating a temporary term. Since they are unwilling to do their part such a term would actually increase confusion and misunderstanding. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to evaluate if this forum counts as a willing or unwilling person.