Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

[Dublinmarley]

All of this insistence that wizards need specific, detailed worldbuilding and encounter design to keep in line while fighters don't seems to be an admission that maybe wizards are too powerful.

No its more that DMs need to use the resources available to them to control the game. The system is not broken but the mindset of players and DMs is broken. Just the fact that wizard characters are created expecting to get high enough level to take a dip in this prestige class and with the right feats and skills means your players feel entitled to succeed. Your encounters don't scare them. The drama isn't drama and the scene is not set and they don't expect to die. The party to me would feel more like a bunch of kids who start screaming in the store when they don't get ice cream if you allow them to get everything they want. The reward for succeeding and roleplaying is really nothing if all you do is get rewarded. Now if you struggled many times and now you finally got a character high enough who can take a prestige class then the reward and investment in that character makes it just way more satisfying. Its just inconceivable to me god wizard PCs and complaining about it is even a thing.

Arrows with silence cast on them alone nerfs most wizards and there is no save since its not cast on you. Several archers with low level clerics plus scrolls hiding way behind the lines makes quick work of them. Evil parties can gather information on enemies just as easy as the party can. If a new sheriff(PCs) comes into town and starts wiping out groups of bad guys with tons of spells then the info about them gets around fairly quick. Enemies will prepare and react accordingly. Once you start doing crazy things to mess with their power they will eventually curb behavior and start killing everything wasting spell power. That's when the real fun begins. Then the big bad attacks and oh so sad you wasted your spells on killing nobodies. Your wizards should be paranoid about casting a spell that could be used in another encounter.

Dead magic zones are always fun.

[Satinavian]

If you are playing a hard simulationist game then more power to you. But denying that most RPG rules are purely simulationist and include no gamist or narrative elements (to say nothing of other concerns not modeled by the "big 3") is a bit naive.I wrote "one of them", not "the only one" or "the most important". And while i actually do prefer simulation heavy games, i don't talk about pure ones. As pure games of any kind basically never happen because they are boring.

But while the importance of the simulation aspect of rules varies, only by going to e.g. pure narrative games it will actually vanish.


To use an example, in the 20th anniversary edition of the White Wolf games Player characters and important NPCs have 7 health levels while the vast majority of NPCs have only 3. Such superhuman toughness is never mentioned anywhere in the setting, as far as I can tell it is purely a narrative mechanic to keep combat moving quickly while at the same time keeping PCs tough enough that you don't have to stop the game to roll a new character every twenty minutes.Always understood it as meaning those individuals have exceptional toughness and could act far longer than one would expect given species and body structure.


I remember reading an article talking about Wild Bill Hickok. Now, he has a reputation as a legendary gunfighter because he survived more shoot-outs than anyone else, but the author of the article asserted that it was merely a statistical anomaly. Someone had to be the lucky guy who survived more shootouts than anyone else, and it just so happened to be him. People noticed this and attributed it to him having super combat skills and a legend grew around him, but in truth (at least according to the article's author) it was just dumb luck.Surviving a shootout may be luck, but it is not a 1 in 1000 chance. Surviving 10 shootouts in a row will get you to 1 in 1000 if each of them had a 50:50 chance of survivl. But afaik shootouts were far not nearly that deadly.

So yes, the whole career of Bill Hickok may be roughly as likely as one of those rare heroic deed discussed earlier. And don't forget that he died in a shooting.

So even if that is still pure luck with no skill involved at all, that would completely be in line with my former argument.


But doesn't saying "that doesn't work, it's not what your magnetism powers should do" cheapen the verisimilitude of magnetism powers?

Basically because "having power over X" doesn't mean "able to influence every microscopic thing somehow interacting with or through X at an arbitrary scale". Even superpowers have limits and powerlevels. Because otherwise nearly every superpower would be omnipotence as everything interacts with everything else.

[noob]

No its more that DMs need to use the resources available to them to control the game. The system is not broken but the mindset of players and DMs is broken. Just the fact that wizard characters are created expecting to get high enough level to take a dip in this prestige class and with the right feats and skills means your players feel entitled to succeed. Your encounters don't scare them. The drama isn't drama and the scene is not set and they don't expect to die. The party to me would feel more like a bunch of kids who start screaming in the store when they don't get ice cream if you allow them to get everything they want. The reward for succeeding and roleplaying is really nothing if all you do is get rewarded. Now if you struggled many times and now you finally got a character high enough who can take a prestige class then the reward and investment in that character makes it just way more satisfying. Its just inconceivable to me god wizard PCs and complaining about it is even a thing.

Arrows with silence cast on them alone nerfs most wizards and there is no save since its not cast on you. Several archers with low level clerics plus scrolls hiding way behind the lines makes quick work of them. Evil parties can gather information on enemies just as easy as the party can. If a new sheriff(PCs) comes into town and starts wiping out groups of bad guys with tons of spells then the info about them gets around fairly quick. Enemies will prepare and react accordingly. Once you start doing crazy things to mess with their power they will eventually curb behavior and start killing everything wasting spell power. That's when the real fun begins. Then the big bad attacks and oh so sad you wasted your spells on killing nobodies. Your wizards should be paranoid about casting a spell that could be used in another encounter.

Dead magic zones are always fun.
Personally I used casters quite a bit and in fact silence arrows would not be as much a problem as you say.
1: Arrows specifically have a good chance of being destroyed when shot(due to the arrow rules).
2: The opponent basically lose an attack to neutralize you until you use a move action to get out of silence to cast your spells(yes you can move right after an arrow is shot near you and silence have a short range) I mean it have a 20-ft radius which means that if you have a 30 foot move speed you can get out of it in a single move action(and most people have a 30 foot move speed especially if he can cast flight)
3: Many generic boost spells helps crazily to get out of the silence zone like boosts that make you incorporeal(helps moving away when you can go thought thin walls), magic jar(just shift in the body of one of the archers), overland flight(moving in 3d helps a lot),spider climb(now the archers needs to shoot arrows that sticks in walls and that is homebrew since by raw an arrow hitting a wall is destroyed since it is an attack at the wall) and a lot of others.
4: Prepare some silent spells or use the silent metamagic or cast one of the spells that allows to still cast while silenced or take one of the 5000000 prcs that gives a way to auto silent all the spells.


So arrows with silence are not as much a problem as you believe(Unless in very very very cramped zones(in which case your archers and cleric would die clubbed by the druid turning in a dangerous thing(which is why some people says that druids are T1 even if you have no idea how to play)) which are extremely dangerous to fighters because it prevents them to flee hydras).
On the other hand tanglefoot bags with silence are more a problem but since tanglefoot bag needs a short range touch attack and that a caster probably have mirror image and creates solid fogs it is not as easy to use as you believe(because if you miss he can just walk away and then cast a spell on his turn and you did spend your attack).

And guess who you needed for having that many silence generating objects?
A bard or a cleric! Which are both casters!(3/4 caster and full caster and bard is famously known for being awesome and purely better than mundanes at everything(basically it is high tier 3))
Oh and your opponent needs for spamming silence(which they will need since silence is not a all day lasting spell so you should cast it only when the battle is close) to have either not so low level clerics or multiple clerics and in both cases know that silence have a vocal component.
(Which is why in my group we joke about the fact that silence is in fact a spell where you just scream so strong that no noise other than your scream can be heard)
Since those archers are low level if you act first you can just neutralize them all in one spell(unless you like overcred encounters in which case it means that it was not easy to counter the caster) and if the archers and the cleric are all high level then the adventurers probably have a high level caster and so have overland flight all day(which means that you need to dispel them before countering them with silence arrows)

If you are low level enough for being harmed by archers then it was a balanced encounter and so if you spend one good spell to beat them it was normal since a balanced encounters are supposed to spend 25% of the party resources.
If you are high level enough for the encounter to be lower cr than you then you probably spend some of your low level spells to beat it(like that variant of fireball that deals low damage over an huge aoe) and so spent spell slots which does not matters when you meet the bbeg.(do not forget that casters are not obligated to use their highest level spells when casting spells)

[Cluedrew]

IGN has him at number 1 (http://www.ign.com/lists/comic-book-heroes/1), and that was the first result I got for "most popular superheroes 2017". Obviously it's possible there's some other list where Batman is #1, but I doubt that Superman is anywhere outside the top 5 on any list you could find, so I think the point still stands.I think it was an overall stat over their entire life time, I would have to track down the professor again to know for sure. But regardless I realized I actually replyed to the wrong thing. What I should have been asking is what does "The rules breaking down is just another self-fulfilling failure." mean?

[Darth Ultron]

in your locked door example, my team would usually ask the following:

I all ways find most players that have not gamed with me before don't really understand that they can ''try to do anything''. Like the character has a door they can't open, and they can't pick the lock or break the door...so they just shut down. They are really amazed when someone suggests something like ''going through the wall'' or ''ok, we take the door off of it's hinges'' or even ''ok, we wait for someone else to open the door...then".



do you notice how late in the questions relevant sheet reading is necessary? and we're not "old-school gamers" either. we just try to cultivate "outside the sheet thinking"

Outside the Sheet thinking.

[Cosi]

You really don't see how a character with limits to their power is more flavorful than someone who can do everything?

I'm saying that flavorful limits are not limits. They can be if you couple them with mechanical limits, but then you don't really need the flavorful limits.


Also, getting into pseudo-magnetism and electromagnetic photon interactions isn't really dealing with "magnetism" as it is defined and does not break my verisimilitude any more than saying that night crawler can't also time travel because technically space and time are the same thing.

But it does for some people. Charles Stross's space opera series (Singularity Sky and Iron Sunrise) works the way it does because he was working from the position that faster-than-light travel implies time travel. You are not the only person playing the game.


Out of curiosity, what does you're ideal game look like?

Like 3e, but with better balance and good implementations of some of the ideas from 4e.

From 3e:
-A variety of character classes with a variety of resource management systems (e.g. Binders, Crusaders, and Sorcerers all play differently).
-Characters have powers that have the potential to change the world (e.g. fabricate, teleport, planar binding).
-Character power progression is fairly rapid.

From 4e:
-Skill Challenges were a good idea. The implementation was bad, but if you change from counting failures to counting rounds to determine when the challenge ends, you have a fairly good system to use for adjudicating non-combat encounters.
-Tiers were a good idea. The Heroic/Paragon/Epic distinction does, in theory, a good job of delineating different power levels where different concepts are appropriate. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies do a good job of allowing Fighters or Rogues to scale to high level without having to make the classes themselves magical.
-The direction the game went with monster classes has potential. Saying something is "an artillery monster" or "a brute monster" is more useful in a lot of ways than saying it is "an outsider" or "a dragon". Also, something like the Solo/Elite/Normal/Minion distinctions is good.
-Rituals cost too much, assumed too many combat abilities, and didn't do enough, but the separation of combat and non-combat powers is a good idea.

Other:
-Random magic items are the best solution for making magic items feel impressive. However, that necessitates that magic items not be required for defeating challenges.
-The game should have good systems for mass combat and kingdom management.
-The game needs a better default setting.
-The game needs a better advancement system than XP.

I think that covers most of it.


What system do you usually play? What power level? What optimization level?

3e, mid to high optimization. I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between "power level" and "optimization level".


If you only want to play games with super powered wizards go for it, it is only the insistence that it has to be that way that I am objecting to.

If you read my posts. that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the game should support having characters who are, across the board, ahead of whatever benchmark that you are setting as "peak mundane". Not because I specifically want to be stronger than you, but because I want to reach benchmarks that are higher than you are willing to allow your character to match. I am absolutely on board with the game doing Lord of the Rings. What I am opposed to is your belief that your LotR character must be allowed in every possible campaign, while my character concepts need not.


Basically because "having power over X" doesn't mean "able to influence every microscopic thing somehow interacting with or through X at an arbitrary scale". Even superpowers have limits and powerlevels. Because otherwise nearly every superpower would be omnipotence as everything interacts with everything else.

Sort of. On the one hand there are specific things Magneto can't do. But that doesn't inherently mean that "magnet powers" can't do those things. Just that Magneto can't. Hell, Magneto's power varies across various incarnations, but they all have the same nominal power. Even characters who don't have as focused of a power set have things they can't do because they happen not to have that particular level of power.


I think it was an overall stat over their entire life time, I would have to track down the professor again to know for sure. But regardless I realized I actually replyed to the wrong thing. What I should have been asking is what does "The rules breaking down is just another self-fulfilling failure." mean?

I mean that designers say "people don't play high level" so they don't put in the work at high level, so it doesn't work well, so people don't play high level. I firmly maintain that people totally would play high level/high power campaigns if the rules worked as well for them as they do for low level/low power campaigns.

[Talakeal]

I'm saying that flavorful limits are not limits. They can be if you couple them with mechanical limits, but then you don't really need the flavorful limits.

I don't follow. You can design from fluff or crunch. Are you saying that no fictional character has ever had flavorful limits to their powers?


But it does for some people. Charles Stross's space opera series (Singularity Sky and Iron Sunrise) works the way it does because he was working from the position that faster-than-light travel implies time travel. You are not the only person playing the game.

You are welcome to play your guy who can teleport through time and space or who can manipulate all electromagnetic interactions.

What I am saying is that it is weird that it breaks your verisimilitude for me to play a character who DOES have limits.


3e, mid to high optimization. I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between "power level" and "optimization level".

By the first I mean what in game level do you normally play at, like 1-20, or 11+, or e6, or EL only, etc. For optimization level I mean does your group tend to make use of "forum exploits" like chain gating solars or Pun-Pun, and if so which ones.


If you read my posts. that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the game should support having characters who are, across the board, ahead of whatever benchmark that you are setting as "peak mundane". Not because I specifically want to be stronger than you, but because I want to reach benchmarks that are higher than you are willing to allow your character to match. I am absolutely on board with the game doing Lord of the Rings. What I am opposed to is your belief that your LotR character must be allowed in every possible campaign, while my character concepts need not.

I am not saying a LoTR character is viable at all levels of play either.

What I am saying is that in level 1-20 D&D a mundane character can already handle most every situation in the game if they are built for it. In 3.X the problem with mundane characters is that they are one trick ponies who are annoying to play. Creating some more versatile mundane characters, say a hypothetical class with War-Blade combat abilities, Bard skills, and Monk defenses, could easily hang with a full caster at 20th level without breaking the game from either a fluff or mechanical perspective.

There are also a lot of broken spells, but I don't think you are opposed to fixing those, and even if you aren't there is nothing stopping a mundane character from simply buying a magic item and going all in on the crazy.

Now sure, if you want to play a variant campaign that takes place at super high epic levels or where you alter the rules so that everyone has a ton of at will supernatural abilities or whatever then yeah, maybe mundane characters don't have a place there, but we aren't talking about such a hypothetical game but rather what standard 1-20 3.5 D&D should be.


I mean that designers say "people don't play high level" so they don't put in the work at high level, so it doesn't work well, so people don't play high level. I firmly maintain that people totally would play high level/high power campaigns if the rules worked as well for them as they do for low level/low power campaigns.

I guess its a sort of chicken and the egg thing then. I guess we will just have to disagree about whether balance problems cause disinterest or disinterest causes imbalance, although there is probably some degree of truth in both ideas.

[Mutazoia]

I'm saying that flavorful limits are not limits. They can be if you couple them with mechanical limits, but then you don't really need the flavorful limits.[?QUOTE]

Fluff limits that have no actual mechanical effects are not limits. A limit has to be something that can and will occur/be encountered. Superman's weakness to Kryptonite is a limit. Superman having a weakness to a specific species of space hamster, that can only live in a 10 meter area of the planet Dolomite, in the Shasta galaxy, in Dimension 12 is not a limit.

[QUOTE=Cosi;22578520]I mean that designers say "people don't play high level" so they don't put in the work at high level, so it doesn't work well, so people don't play high level. I firmly maintain that people totally would play high level/high power campaigns if the rules worked as well for them as they do for low level/low power campaigns.

The problem is, you have to design your framework to handle high level/high power play from the beginning. The challenge is, planning THAT far ahead, when you are unsure that your game is going to sell enough/be popular enough, to justify all that work. If you don't do it from the start, and try to patch things in with splats later, you are going to end up with 3.X levels of brokenness, with 20 different splats, that were barely checked with the core system, combining with each other into monstrosities of class/power combo's that nobody could have seen coming.

This is the basic problem with D&D: OD&D capped out at level 10. AD&D raised that bar to 18, but they didn't really adjust the rule set to compensate...just added tougher monsters and bigger spells, and things started getting a little shaky. 2nd Ed. raised the bar another 2 levels (initially) with out re-adjusting the rules. Then the "expert" rules came out and things went to hell in a hand basket pretty quickly. But then, TSR was trying to push out as much product as they could toward the end there, as their other RPG's weren't selling so well.

3.X came along and things started descending into the lower planes of hell like a lead filled duck. Wizards got a HUGE power boost, while at the same time, had most of their balancing shackles removed. Initial play tests showed wizards to be quite OP, so what does WoTC do? Buff the rest of the world to compensate. But they forgot (or didn't realize it would be necessary) to buff the mundane classes as well. Which, honestly, would have worked out better by just adjusting the power levels of wizards (and the rest of the world) back down to original levels. All the extra splats, with new classes, PRC's and feats just keep things lurching further and further, until the higher levels/power levels just kick the system right over on its ass.

There were reasons WoTC's D20 system flopped in the game stores when they released it the first time. It wasn't balanced. Copy pasta in most of the 2nd Ed. AD&D data verbatum, and the imbalance from one system aggravates the imbalance from the other, and you get the perfect storm of instability...especially at the higher levels that were never originally intended to exist..

IMHO I think the original game designers for WoTC just REALLY liked playing casters, and just wanted them to be more badass, and less dependent on the Mundane classes tanking for them.... I've seen this happen in LARPs, when people set down to update the rules, people tend to try to make their favorite class stronger, and nerf the classes that would normally be able to counter them.

[Darth Ultron]

The problem is, you have to design your framework to handle high level/high power play from the beginning. The challenge is, planning THAT far ahead, when you are unsure that your game is going to sell enough/be popular enough, to justify all that work.

This is very true. Though I always start right at the beginning and assume the game will last.

Of course making a game last is really a whole other topic, but you really need to pick your players...and not just ''game with your friends'' or ''game with anyone you can''.




3.X came along and things started descending into the lower planes of hell like a lead filled duck. Wizards got a HUGE power boost, while at the same time, had most of their balancing shackles removed. Initial play tests showed wizards to be quite OP, so what does WoTC do? Buff the rest of the world to compensate. But they forgot (or didn't realize it would be necessary) to buff the mundane classes as well. Which, honestly, would have worked out better by just adjusting the power levels of wizards (and the rest of the world) back down to original levels. All the extra splats, with new classes, PRC's and feats just keep things lurching further and further, until the higher levels/power levels just kick the system right over on its ass.

This is the problem right here. And I would note, adding back in the 2E shackles works great.

[Zale]

Ok, now replace "author" with "rules of the game".

Bob wasn't "more powerful" than the grizzly bear in universe, but he won because the author said so.

Likewise the level 9 fighter isn't "more powerful" than the dragon in universe, but he still stands a good chance of winning because the game rules say so.

Both of them are meta-game influences that don't necessarily have any direct correlation to any force inside of the fiction.


Or to put it another way, sure let's go with #4, maybe the game runs on confirmation bias. Say in the fictional world a thousand adventurers fight a thousand dragons every century, and 999 of them died a horrible burning death. But we are going to sit down and down and tell the story of the one guy who was lucky enough to come out on top.

I mean, if a person can consistently kill dragons, I don't think it's wrong to say they are, at least, better at fighting than a dragon.

"Power" is a really abstract concept, so a fighter can be less powerful than a dragon, but still beat one in a fight. If the dragon can turn the entire area into an ash-laden hellscape, ruining entire kingdoms with the power of her poison breath, or whatever, then she could still be considered more powerful than someone who's really good at killing dragons.

If that makes sense?

[Mutazoia]

This is very true. Though I always start right at the beginning and assume the game will last.

Of course making a game last is really a whole other topic, but you really need to pick your players...and not just ''game with your friends'' or ''game with anyone you can''.

I'm actually talking about designing the system itself to handle high level/high power play. If the mechanics of your rule set break down before your players get pass the "half way mark" of level progression, you have a serious problem

[Cosi]

I don't follow. You can design from fluff or crunch. Are you saying that no fictional character has ever had flavorful limits to their powers?

There's a difference between "things you can't do" and "limits on your powers". Consider a Shadowrun Mage. There are, presumably, various spells this mage might or might not know. He might know heal or levitate or stun bolt or physical mask. Or he might not know those spells. But I don't think you could reasonably claim that the spells he didn't know somehow represented "limits" on him in the sense that we're talking about. Even if he doesn't know physical barrier now, he could just go out and learn that later.

Similarly, the "limits" on Magneto are in essentially two categories. First, his abilities have to somehow be "magnet powers". Second, he has whatever amount of magnet powers this particular incarnation of Magneto has. Sometimes his powers have a very high degree of precision. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes he flies. Sometimes he doesn't. My contention is that the real limit is better understood in terms of the specific powers he does or doesn't have, rather than the abstract "must have magnet fluff" limit. Particularly, this model is better at explaining the power discrepancies between different incarnations of Magneto than one that understands him as having a flavorful limit.


What I am saying is that in level 1-20 D&D a mundane character can already handle most every situation in the game if they are built for it. In 3.X the problem with mundane characters is that they are one trick ponies who are annoying to play. Creating some more versatile mundane characters, say a hypothetical class with War-Blade combat abilities, Bard skills, and Monk defenses, could easily hang with a full caster at 20th level without breaking the game from either a fluff or mechanical perspective.

This is not true. That character does not compete with our hypothetical Druid/Planar Shepherd. He doesn't fight as well as the Druid does. He doesn't have utility that competes with the Druid. He doesn't have minions that compete with the Druid. He doesn't have strategic level powers in the way the Druid does.

Also, you've picked a class that is repeatedly criticized as "not mundane", a class whose mundane abilities end at their skill list and Bardic Knowledge (bardic music is Su or Sp, spells are spells), and a class that draws on supernatural power and eventually turns into an outsider. How exactly is that "mundane"?


There are also a lot of broken spells, but I don't think you are opposed to fixing those, and even if you aren't there is nothing stopping a mundane character from simply buying a magic item and going all in on the crazy.

Sort of. I'm in favor of making it so that you don't randomly get a world-conquering demon army because someone forgot to check if "things that you can summon with planar binding" and "things that can cast planar binding" overlap. I am absolutely in favor of you eventually getting a world-conquering demon army (or angel army, or elemental army, or whatever).


Fluff limits that have no actual mechanical effects are not limits. A limit has to be something that can and will occur/be encountered. Superman's weakness to Kryptonite is a limit.

I think weaknesses are different from limits. Barring things like "immunity to kryptonite" there are no powers Superman can't have because of his Kryptonite weakness.


The problem is, you have to design your framework to handle high level/high power play from the beginning. The challenge is, planning THAT far ahead, when you are unsure that your game is going to sell enough/be popular enough, to justify all that work. If you don't do it from the start, and try to patch things in with splats later, you are going to end up with 3.X levels of brokenness, with 20 different splats, that were barely checked with the core system, combining with each other into monstrosities of class/power combo's that nobody could have seen coming.

I don't think you have to do the work in advance. You have to have a high level understanding of how things fit together, but you don't have to do all the work. I also think that pretty much any edition of D&D is a lock to sell enough books to justify putting in the work.


This is the problem right here. And I would note, adding back in the 2E shackles works great.

No, it wouldn't. There are good ideas in earlier editions (there are good ideas in most editions). For example, random magic items probably are better than purchased ones. Also, moving the HP curve down again is a good idea just from an accounting perspective. But the DMing advice in 2e, and the way casters work, and the ways spells were written are all terrible, and we should not go back to them.

[GreatWyrmGold]

1) Magic is extremely limited.
At this point, there's really no reason to have dedicated magic-users and mundane characters. You might have low-mythic characters who are mostly mundane with one or two magical tricks, or animesque characters who use magic to perform everything vaguely within human limits at once, but you wouldn't have a guy with a bow and a guy with bow-like magic missiles. If you're going to have different character types, you need them to do different things.


2) Magic is limited not in effect, but in use.
This is close to how D&D is supposed to work; spellcasters are awesome, but they can't be awesome all the time, so they need allies to be marvelous when the casters are stuck being just pretty cool. But this doesn't work that well in practice. 15-minute adventuring day aside, you have a lesser version of Shadowrun's decker problem.
In short, deckers are (unsurprisingly) mostly good at hacking. They don't have the resources to be good at both hacking and combat or whatever. Hence, they take the spotlight when hacking problems come up, but can't contribute much outside of those situations. As long as they can contribute a little, that's not terrible for them, but it does mean there are significant sections of the game where only one player is relevant to solving the current obstacle. That's not always terrible, but when you're playing at a tabletop, having half or two-thirds of the table just sitting around isn't generally a good thing.
Limited-use magic isn't exactly the same, but it's similar. Sometimes the wizard is doing awesome and the rest of the party isn't as engaged; sometimes the rest of the party is awesome and the wizard isn't engaged. It's hardly optimal. Limiting the use of magic can support other balancing methods, but it's not good on its own.

Anything where magic is limited over the course of a character's lifetime (e.g, 1000 spell levels and you're done, or lose 1 HP permanently each time you cast a spell, or something) is ridiculously hard to balance. Some characters would hoard their resources, ending up far less powerful than expected; others would blow through their resources (and characters) rapidly. It leads to a potentially-interesting campaign dynamic, especially if long-lived characters get boons that don't easily transfer to other party members if they die, but it's not going to work all the time.


3) Magic is unreliable.
There are two extremes. There's technical unreliability (in dice terms, 4d10+29) where the result is reasonably predictable, with only a small chance of randomness going awry. Then there's extreme unreliability (1d100), where a given action could solve the challenge, do nothing, anything in between, or maybe even make the problem worse. The first (obviously) doesn't solve the problem; the second serves to frustrate more than balance, unless the game is slapsticky enough that it could be funny. I'm not sure there's a happy medium.


4) Boost mundanes instead of nerfing casters.
Some variation of this would probably work. Though, as you mentioned, it probably makes "mundanes" into essentially users of different magic. I, personally, see that as a feature and not a bug. I'd rather have characters differentiated by what they do than how they do it.


5) Hyper-specialized casters.
And here we're back to the decker problem.


6) Magic is just better, change the "one character" paradigm.
I don't have enough experience in multi-character games to comment on this.


When your house falls down, you should check to see if the problem was in the walls or the foundations. If it was the walls, your job is simple. However, I think the problem is in the foundations.
Why do you need separate archetypes of characters who only use magic and characters who never use magic? (Or at least characters who are only good at magic and characters who are no good at magic.) Sure, you have fantasy archetypes like Aragorn and Gandalf, but putting aside questions of if you should try to adapt literary characters to a completely different medium without changing them, you don't need to keep such an extreme divide between them. (After all, even Aragorn had a little magic, and even Gandalf used a sword one or twice.)
I'm inclined to view magic as a tool that people can use. In our world, there is (to simplify) no such thing as a divide between specialized computer-users and specialized non-computer-users. There are people who mostly develop computer skills and don't have a lot of other skills, and people who focus on other skills but still use computers when they're convenient, but there is also a continuum of people in between, and the extremes are barren. Similarly, perhaps create a world where everyone (or at least everyone of PC caliber) can use both magic and nonmagic skills. There might be a defender who uses armor, magical shields, and sheer stubbornness to prevent others from harming his allies. There might be a ranged attacker who uses arrows to precisely target spells at targets they cannot strike. There might be healers who use both mundane herblore and divine prayers to make people better. And so on.


You might not like this specific idea, and that's fine. You can use my foundation without taking the walls. The important point to take home is something I said earlier: Distinguish characters by what they do, not how they do it. Figure out the "how" later. You'll get what you want more simply and effectively if you do that.




Magic tends to provide out-of-context solutions or create out-of-context problems.
Which is mostly because magic is practically defined as "anything in the setting which would be out-of-context in our world". That, in turn, is why I don't think magic/mundane is a good way to divide up character specialties. Or anything else--I mean, it's all in-context to them.

[Zale]

So let's talk about Exalted's Sorcery.

In Exalted, everyone is basically a BADASS KUNGFU DEMIGOD (Which is also the name of a TTRPG system (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?756645-Second-Draft-Badass-Kung-Fu-Demigods)).

Everyone has awesome powers, and they aren't "magic" in the sense of D&D. They're not anymore unnatural than a bird flying, really. They're natural outgrowths of people's personal abilities and capacities most of the time, viewed through a strange lens.

But there isn't a "null magic zone" that makes them go away. They're part of the world, not an overlay (like how they are in D&D).

The reason I bring this up is that Sorcery exists, and casting a spell is different from using your charms to punch someone over a mountain.

Charms are the powers Exalts get because of who and what they are, which resonate with certain themes and stem naturally from some part of the Exalt-

Spells are a grab-bag of seemingly unrelated effects that people who know sorcery can learn and cast. This is one of their major advantages- depending on what sort of Exalt you are, there are things you can't really do. Solars are the exalts of human perfection and radiant sunlight, so they can't drain people's lifeforce or turn into birds.

Spells, however, can be created that allow them to do those things.

But being a Sorcerer isn't necessarily better than not being one. Spells are a handy tool, but even if you don't pick them up you'll still be an incredibly competent person with a lot of amazing powers. Lunars can turn into a bear and eat people's faces without ever having to cast a spell, and a Solar can battle an army to a standstill all on their on.

Of course, most people would argue that the way Exalted solves the problem is just by giving everyone magic, and they aren't wrong- but the magic isn't like the way D&D views magic. In D&D, Magic is an artificial overlay over the "real world". We know this, because you can turn it off and everything continues to work.

Creating the equivalent in Exalted, an area where Exalt's Charms don't work, would basically be the same as making the area cease to exist. A "Null-Essence" area would remove the fundamental underpinnings that make up physical matter and govern natural laws.

Just a thought.

[Talakeal]

I mean, if a person can consistently kill dragons, I don't think it's wrong to say they are, at least, better at fighting than a dragon.

"Power" is a really abstract concept, so a fighter can be less powerful than a dragon, but still beat one in a fight. If the dragon can turn the entire area into an ash-laden hellscape, ruining entire kingdoms with the power of her poison breath, or whatever, then she could still be considered more powerful than someone who's really good at killing dragons.

If that makes sense?

Yes, that absolutely makes sense.

However, just because you "can" do something or even "did" do something does not mean you are better at it, it could just be a lucky fluke.

My initial point was that a plucky underdogs who defeat superior odds through intangible things like heart, cunning, tenacity, or playing on their opponent's overconfidence is, in my mind, more heroic than a big power house who simply crushes his opponents because he is smarter, stronger, faster, better, etc.

[Lord Raziere]

So let's talk about Exalted's Sorcery.

In Exalted, everyone is basically a BADASS KUNGFU DEMIGOD (Which is also the name of a TTRPG system (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?756645-Second-Draft-Badass-Kung-Fu-Demigods)).

Everyone has awesome powers, and they aren't "magic" in the sense of D&D. They're not anymore unnatural than a bird flying, really. They're natural outgrowths of people's personal abilities and capacities most of the time, viewed through a strange lens.

But there isn't a "null magic zone" that makes them go away. They're part of the world, not an overlay (like how they are in D&D).

The reason I bring this up is that Sorcery exists, and casting a spell is different from using your charms to punch someone over a mountain.

Charms are the powers Exalts get because of who and what they are, which resonate with certain themes and stem naturally from some part of the Exalt-

Spells are a grab-bag of seemingly unrelated effects that people who know sorcery can learn and cast. This is one of their major advantages- depending on what sort of Exalt you are, there are things you can't really do. Solars are the exalts of human perfection and radiant sunlight, so they can't drain people's lifeforce or turn into birds.

Spells, however, can be created that allow them to do those things.

But being a Sorcerer isn't necessarily better than not being one. Spells are a handy tool, but even if you don't pick them up you'll still be an incredibly competent person with a lot of amazing powers. Lunars can turn into a bear and eat people's faces without ever having to cast a spell, and a Solar can battle an army to a standstill all on their on.

Of course, most people would argue that the way Exalted solves the problem is just by giving everyone magic, and they aren't wrong- but the magic isn't like the way D&D views magic. In D&D, Magic is an artificial overlay over the "real world". We know this, because you can turn it off and everything continues to work.

Creating the equivalent in Exalted, an area where Exalt's Charms don't work, would basically be the same as making the area cease to exist. A "Null-Essence" area would remove the fundamental underpinnings that make up physical matter and govern natural laws.

Just a thought.

Yeah, exactly. this is what people fail to understand about this type of "magic" Exalted runs on a lot of ancient old world logic, and in ancient times, magic was just the word people used for events all around them: lightning strikes something? magic, some god struck something because they're angry. guy suddenly starts acting weird? magic, they've been possessed. food suddenly spoils? magic, some decay spirit got to it and screwed it up. none of it was thought as "unnatural" or something "beyond" the world, it was just as intrinsic to the world's existence as gravity or the nuclear forces. in short, it was the primitive word for physics, because they were too ignorant to actually know how things worked. therefore all natural events they couldn't explain? MAGIC.

clear magic you can just turn on and off is a very modern idea. and kind of a boring one.

[Talakeal]

This is not true. That character does not compete with our hypothetical Druid/Planar Shepherd. He doesn't fight as well as the Druid does. He doesn't have utility that competes with the Druid. He doesn't have minions that compete with the Druid. He doesn't have strategic level powers in the way the Druid does.

Also, you've picked a class that is repeatedly criticized as "not mundane", a class whose mundane abilities end at their skill list and Bardic Knowledge (bardic music is Su or Sp, spells are spells), and a class that draws on supernatural power and eventually turns into an outsider. How exactly is that "mundane"?

Yes, druids are broken. I did not say a mundane character could compete with a full caster (as they currently exist), merely that they could handle most anything that the DMG would suggest is an appropriate challenge for a character of their character (barring an NPC T1 caster obviously).

IMO the only thing that is not mundane about the war-blade is that they forget their maneuvers at odd times. And yes, I was talking about the bard's skills and Bardic knowledge, which is why I explicitly said the bard's skills.

I don't see a monk's defenses as being in any way supernatural. Saving throws are clearly not supernatural and I can find a mundane class with every good saving throw, just not at the same time. AC bonus, Evasion, and Still mind are all EX abilities that don't seem supernatural in any way (unless you are sticking to strict RAW and letting evasion move you into hammer-space). Purity and wholeness of body are a bit supernatural, I didn't think about those but the game thinks they are EX and they don't really matter that much.

And spell resistance is indeed listed as a SU ability, but in my mind there is nothing more realistic than magic not being able to do something as we all know magic doesn't exist.

[Cosi]

Everyone has awesome powers, and they aren't "magic" in the sense of D&D. They're not anymore unnatural than a bird flying, really. They're natural outgrowths of people's personal abilities and capacities most of the time, viewed through a strange lens.

No. Stop. That's not how it works. "Magic" isn't unnatural in D&D. The laws of nature are different in D&D. You are making a distinction without a difference.


Yes, druids are broken.

Yes, which is why the game balance should be rebalanced so they aren't broken. But if you think the solution to make them not broken needs to be "take away abilities" rather than "change challenges", you are explicitly saying that the game shouldn't support my character concept, exactly like I have been claiming you are saying and you have been denying saying all along.

And to be clear, that is fine, but if that is what you are saying about my concept I see no reason why I should support the game including yours.

[Zale]

No. Stop. That's not how it works. "Magic" isn't unnatural in D&D. The laws of nature are different in D&D. You are making a distinction without a difference.


They aren't so different that the world radically changes from ours when the magic is turned off.

The mere fact that it's possible to "turn off the magic" indicates that the magic is not strongly integrated into the functioning of the setting. Sure there are places in D&D where the world operates under different principles, but those so scarcely interact with how magic works that it's disingenuous to link them.

Oh, this plane is made of fire and so fire spells are marginally more powerful.


D&D magic feels like a random assortment of magical effects that have been stripped of their metaphysical origins and justifications, rammed together and placed without roots into a setting.

In some versions of Exalted, for example, it's possible to almost trivially call up the spirits of the dead to talk to them. Anyone can do it, because it just takes blood and a bunch of half-muttered words.

You can do a lot of magical seeming things just by talking to the spirits that are in charge of them. A village shaman can do a lot without ever casting what the setting defines as "a spell" purely by propitiating the right local gods.

It's a different set-up than how D&D works.

[Cosi]

They aren't so different that the world radically changes from ours when the magic is turned off.

So, what, Exalted is "more magic" because they didn't put antimagic field in it?

Yeah, not buying it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, what, Exalted is "more magic" because they didn't put antimagic field in it?

Yeah, not buying it.

No, it's "more magic" because there is no such thing as mundane. There is no "magic-user/muggle" divide. Everyone and everything embodies magic. If somehow you had an antimagic field, the area itself would cease to be. Creation itself is made of magic.

I think this is a much better way to go. Separate "casters" from "non-casters," (a separation of how, not what, they can do) but abandon the idea that there are non-magical "muggles" (at least as player characters). Having one group of characters whose concept is "can do anything" and another who are inherently limited to "things normal people can do" is a good way to cause a mess. Instead, let everyone be "magical," just in different ways.

[Max_Killjoy]

They aren't so different that the world radically changes from ours when the magic is turned off.

The mere fact that it's possible to "turn off the magic" indicates that the magic is not strongly integrated into the functioning of the setting. Sure there are places in D&D where the world operates under different principles, but those so scarcely interact with how magic works that it's disingenuous to link them.

Oh, this plane is made of fire and so fire spells are marginally more powerful.


D&D magic feels like a random assortment of magical effects that have been stripped of their metaphysical origins and justifications, rammed together and placed without roots into a setting.

In some versions of Exalted, for example, it's possible to almost trivially call up the spirits of the dead to talk to them. Anyone can do it, because it just takes blood and a bunch of half-muttered words.

You can do a lot of magical seeming things just by talking to the spirits that are in charge of them. A village shaman can do a lot without ever casting what the setting defines as "a spell" purely by propitiating the right local gods.

It's a different set-up than how D&D works.


Indeed. D&D magic feels like a long catalogue of choices of "black boxes" that impose or overlay overtly magical (but discrete and predetermined) effects on a world operating on an otherwise fairly recognizable set of physics. Some creatures are overtly "magical" in some ways but otherwise seem to operate in a rather recognizable sort of way. The magic doesn't seem to be at all integrated into the functioning of the world overall.

[Tanarii]

D&D has dragons, displaced beasts, blink dogs, demons and Devils. They are inherently magical in their existence. Even an AMF doesn't turn off their existence. But if magic ceased to exist entirely in a place, they would die out.

That's pretty integrated as far as I'm concerned.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm actually talking about designing the system itself to handle high level/high power play. If the mechanics of your rule set break down before your players get pass the "half way mark" of level progression, you have a serious problem

I agree.



No, it wouldn't. There are good ideas in earlier editions (there are good ideas in most editions). For example, random magic items probably are better than purchased ones. Also, moving the HP curve down again is a good idea just from an accounting perspective. But the DMing advice in 2e, and the way casters work, and the ways spells were written are all terrible, and we should not go back to them.

Well, I can tell you they work great in my game. Like:

*Teleport mishap-I use the Ye Old D&D Expert boxed set table...it has a high chance of a mishap for ''seen once places'' and such. I like having teleporting a dangerous.
*System Shock Rolls for shape changing, again, makes it dangerous.
*Wishes that can...maybe..''do anything'', but all ways at a cost.



My initial point was that a plucky underdogs who defeat superior odds through intangible things like heart, cunning, tenacity, or playing on their opponent's overconfidence is, in my mind, more heroic than a big power house who simply crushes his opponents because he is smarter, stronger, faster, better, etc.

Agreed.

I like the game where the player must use their own mind and abilities to overcome things and not a player that just picks a character ability to use to ''win the game''.

[Morty]

I can think of many better ways to make magic risky and inconvenient than a random chance to lose your skin every time you cast something.

[Darth Ultron]

I can think of many better ways to make magic risky and inconvenient than a random chance to lose your skin every time you cast something.

Well....''loosing something'' is what ''risk'' is all about. 3e started the trend of making ''risk'' like ''oh no if you fail your character will take 1d2 damage''. And I think that was a bad move.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Yes, which is why the game balance should be rebalanced so they aren't broken. But if you think the solution to make them not broken needs to be "take away abilities" rather than "change challenges", you are explicitly saying that the game shouldn't support my character concept, exactly like I have been claiming you are saying and you have been denying saying all along.
If your character concept is that dependent on game-mechanical constructs, you need to have a long, hard think about what you want out of a game.



D&D has dragons, displaced beasts, blink dogs, demons and Devils. They are inherently magical in their existence. Even an AMF doesn't turn off their existence. But if magic ceased to exist entirely in a place, they would die out.

That's pretty integrated as far as I'm concerned.
The different magic things aren't un-integrated because they can be turned off, but because there's no rhyme or reason to them. They can do different things, but not consistently in the same or even similar ways. They all exist, but they're all random in the first place.
If you'll pardon the biology major: It's like the difference between a naturally-evolved biosphere which lends itself to neat Linnaean classification and one which includes plants with feathers, snakes with gills, and other random things, only applied to every field of science at once.

[Morty]

Again, there are many ways to introduce the risk of losing things or injecting complications that don't rely on a 15% to die every time you do a thing. Random chance to die and lack of any consequences aren't your only options.

[Pex]

Well....''loosing something'' is what ''risk'' is all about. 3e started the trend of making ''risk'' like ''oh no if you fail your character will take 1d2 damage''. And I think that was a bad move.

I think it's a bad move to make a character kill himself to do what he is supposed to do, like fail a system shock roll for casting a polymorph spell. I'm glad D&D moved beyond that. You don't punish a character for existing.

[Cosi]

If your character concept is that dependent on game-mechanical constructs, you need to have a long, hard think about what you want out of a game.

I don't think any of those things are "game mechanical constructs". Or rather, insofar as they are "game mechanical constructs", they are constructs that represent particular abilities and enable particular stories. Let's take a look at some of the specific things this Druid/Planar Shepherd can do.

First, we'll assume that the character in question is a Druid 5/Planar Shepherd 10 and is attuned to a plane that is full of demons. To save the time of having to look up all the demons in every splatbook, I'm going to assume this plane contains both demons and devils, but only the ones in the core rules.

Second, this is a somewhat loose overview, so for the most part I'm not going to dive into specific feat selections, or try to catalog the entire breath of what the character can do. This isn't because those things don't contain anything I value, it's because I don't want to dump an entire build into an argument that its not really related to.

So, the character has the following abilities:

1. Able to travel to and from their attuned plane, twice per day. I list this first not because it is the most important of the character's abilities, but because it's one which has no obvious mundane equivalent. A mundane might be able to kill armies or have minions, but its not clear how you can have planar travel and still be "mundane".
2. Access to a staggering variety of SLAs. greater teleport at-will is an obvious standout, but its far from alone. At-will access to AoEs like chaos hammer, unholy blight, call lightning, cone of cold, ice storm, or blade barrier make him adept at shredding armies. He also gets utility spells like charm monster, dispel magic, various illusion spells, and commune. Yes, he's somewhat limited in what abilities he throws around, but he can get a lot out of a form like Marith or Ice Devil.
3. Between capstone DR and potential regeneration, he's almost impossible to kill without specialized gear, allowing him to wade through and destroy armies of essentially arbitrary size.
4. Traditional wild shape offers utility too, including mobility forms, combat forms, infiltration forms, and others. In particular, he probably has some shape that allows him to fight in any environment without advanced preparation.
5. He can use awaken to generate animal or plant minions, in very large numbers (XP costs are admittedly real, but can be mitigated, particularly if he's evil).
6. He can create extreme weather events on a scale wide enough to wipe out cities or armies, and in conjunction with his movement abilities can demolish a small to medium sized nation inside a week. Inside a day, maybe, because control weather follows him when he teleports ("centered on you").
7. wall of stone allows for rapid construction. move earth also allows more constructive environmental alteration.
8. He can bring back the dead with reincarnate.
9. And, of course, his combat abilities are no joke. This is obviously pretty dependent on optimization, and therefore difficult to benchmark, but its not difficult to imagine that this character can shred an archangel (Solar) or demon lord on his own, or destroy a host of lesser celestials.

So in summary, you have someone who can plausibly destroy an entire kingdom on a whim, demolish any army that stands against him, has swarms of animal minions, and can beat down the most powerful servants of gods. And honestly, there are some abilities I would probably add to the character. Like an explicit mechanic for having a personal fortress, or some way of coming back from death.

But yes, that's the kind of character I would like to be able to play or fight. I would like to be able to do stories like The Incursions/Time Runs Out (the multiverse is dying, heroes have to fight off multiversal threats and rival super-teams to survive, all while trying to find out what's happening), The Authority (a superhero team that decides that they should not only save, but change the world), Malazan (literally just a guy's D&D campaign), Dominions (god-kings struggle to become over-deities, employing powers like "turn off the sun" and "summon dead gods"), or even lower powered things like House of Blades (basically a shonen anime), The Chronicles of Amber (a family of world-walking demigods fight over succession), The Fifth Season (mages with powers that control earthquakes try to use ancient artifacts to control the orbit of the moon), The Second Apocalypse (conquer hell and end damnation), or The Laundry Files (survive the techno-Lovecraftian apocalypse/singularity). All of those are cool, interesting stories and all of them are firmly in "mundanes need not apply" territory.


I think it's a bad move to make a character kill himself to do what he is supposed to do, like fail a system shock roll for casting a polymorph spell. I'm glad D&D moved beyond that. You don't punish a character for existing.

Yes, exactly. I have no idea why anyone ever thought "using your abilities has a chance to kill you" was a good mechanic, but I'm glad we don't think that any more.

[Talakeal]

Stuff.

How exactly does this character work from a mechanical perspective? Just like the shape-change spell but comes online a few levels earlier and not quite as broken?

And again, if you like a character who is that powerful why not actually play a system actually designed around nigh-omnipotent beings rather than one where it happens by accident as the result of a handful of poorly thought out spells and abilities?

Or heck, one where an even more broken character like one of the various incarnations of Pun-Pun can't simply blink your character out of existence on a whim.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I don't think any of those things are "game mechanical constructs". Or rather, insofar as they are "game mechanical constructs", they are constructs that represent particular abilities and enable particular stories.
-snip-
You then proceed to describe a series of very specific abilities with no obvious common elements. The only explanation you provide linking them is:

So in summary, you have someone who can plausibly destroy an entire kingdom on a whim, demolish any army that stands against him, has swarms of animal minions, and can beat down the most powerful servants of gods. And honestly, there are some abilities I would probably add to the character. Like an explicit mechanic for having a personal fortress, or some way of coming back from death.
So, either you started with the mechanics and added this explanation to justify why all of them are needed for your "character concept," or you started with the idea of "I want to create an insanely dangerous character, more like a WMD than a shining knight or a government agent or whatever". The former is exactly what I was implying criticism of; the latter is indicative of far deeper issues.

[Darth Ultron]

Again, there are many ways to introduce the risk of losing things or injecting complications that don't rely on a 15% to die every time you do a thing. Random chance to die and lack of any consequences aren't your only options.

True. Are you thinking I said death was the only way to go?

Like if a teleport is off target, it does not equal instant death. A character might teleport too high, and fall say 50 feet to the ground. But that 5d6 damage won't kill most characters of a high enough level to cast teleport.


I think it's a bad move to make a character kill himself to do what he is supposed to do, like fail a system shock roll for casting a polymorph spell. I'm glad D&D moved beyond that. You don't punish a character for existing.

Lol...it's not punishing a character for existing....that would be like ''roll a 1d20 every round; if you roll a one your character dies."

It is a price for power, a very common and accepted thing. Modern D&D has it too. Like for example in 3X and PF barbarians get fatigued after using their rage.

[Cosi]

How exactly does this character work from a mechanical perspective? Just like the shape-change spell but comes online a few levels earlier and not quite as broken?

I don't necessarily know what you mean. Do you want me to go into more detail as to how that build works? Do you want me to detail what that character might look like in a more ideal ruleset?


And again, if you like a character who is that powerful why not actually play a system actually designed around nigh-omnipotent beings rather than one where it happens by accident as the result of a handful of poorly thought out spells and abilities?

You mean like the game system that allows you to make that character? Or maybe the system with a book called The Epic Level Handbook that allows you to make characters more powerful than that? Or the system with a book called Deities and Demigods which stats up the gods as adversaries you can face with abilities you can attempt to acquire? Or maybe the system which has "Epic Destinies" including Prince of Hell, Demigod, Lord of Chaos, Dragon King, seven types of Avatar, Godhunter, and Godmind? Or maybe the one with a sourcebook called "Immortals" that details characters who "give [the multiverse] order and purpose"? Or maybe the one with a book with rules for becoming a Dragon King or weird psychic angel?

There has literally never been an edition of D&D (except maybe 5th) that did not at least claim to provide the kind of power I'm calling for. Not since the earliest editions of the game. If you don't want characters that are epic and do crazy crap in your game, find a different game.


You then proceed to describe a series of very specific abilities with no obvious common elements. The only explanation you provide linking them is:

There are some very obvious links there. The character basically has "nature powers" and "demon powers". Hell, you swap the awaken for elemental minions, give him elemental wild shape instead, and maybe tweak reincarnate somehow, and the character just has "elemental powers" instead of "nature powers". Honestly, there are actually reasonably good thematic links between demons and nature, if you take a look at the more primordial/anti-civilization side of nature.


So, either you started with the mechanics and added this explanation to justify why all of them are needed for your "character concept," or you started with the idea of "I want to create an insanely dangerous character, more like a WMD than a shining knight or a government agent or whatever". The former is exactly what I was implying criticism of; the latter is indicative of far deeper issues.

Again, that character (by the listed abilities) is actually pretty tight thematically.

Your second objection is, as far as I can tell, that you don't like the particular power level that character falls at, to which I can only say -- so?

[Talakeal]

You mean like the game system that allows you to make that character? Or maybe the system with a book called The Epic Level Handbook that allows you to make characters more powerful than that? Or the system with a book called Deities and Demigods which stats up the gods as adversaries you can face with abilities you can attempt to acquire? Or maybe the system which has "Epic Destinies" including Prince of Hell, Demigod, Lord of Chaos, Dragon King, seven types of Avatar, Godhunter, and Godmind? Or maybe the one with a sourcebook called "Immortals" that details characters who "give [the multiverse] order and purpose"? Or maybe the one with a book with rules for becoming a Dragon King or weird psychic angel?

Ever notice how none of the sample characters in all of these "epic level" supplements you talked about don't look anything like the NI loophole TO characters you toss around as being the ideal balance point? Or that none of the campaign settings are post scarcity magical utopias? Or that there are epic level characters and even gods who put most or all of their levels into fighter? Or that the game thinks I giant beetle with no magic and a whole lot of HP is a challenge for level 50+ characters?

And yes, the Basic D&D immortals boxed set actually did try and change the scope of the game once you got to a certain level rather than pretending everything would always be exactly the same just with bigger numbers. It is exactly the sort of game system I would suggest you try because it can do it a hell of a lot better than 3.5.


I don't necessarily know what you mean. Do you want me to go into more detail as to how that build works? Do you want me to detail what that character might look like in a more ideal ruleset?

Essentially I am asking is the core of your character simply "I transform into whatever form has the perfect ability to solve whatever problem I find myself in at the moment as an at will ability?"

Because we can talk about character concepts and planar shepherd thematics, but it really seems like you're argument is just "I like 3.X because shape changing is super broken," which is a much simpler discussion and, coincidentally, the exact reason why neither myself nor any of my friends have played 3.X in the last 12 years.

[Snowbluff]

I think it's a bad move to make a character kill himself to do what he is supposed to do, like fail a system shock roll for casting a polymorph spell. I'm glad D&D moved beyond that. You don't punish a character for existing.

Which summarizes the thread basically.

[Cosi]

Ever notice how none of the sample characters in all of these "epic level" supplements you talked about don't look anything like the NI loophole TO characters you toss around as being the ideal balance point?

Which of those abilities is a NI? The only one I think you can make a case for is the awakened minions, because that is a resource that accumulates without limit, if admittedly slowly. But frankly, that ability is fairly minor in terms of his power. Acting in multiple places at once is nice, but its far from impressive compared to his other abilities.

Which of those is a "loophole"? Is it the thing where he uses control weather to control the weather? Is it thing where he uses the Planar Shepherd's ability to turn into outsiders to turn into outsiders? Is it the thing where he uses at-will AoE damage to deal with large numbers of weak enemies? The thing where he uses abilities that make him immune to normal weapons to ignore people wielding normal weapons? The thing where he uses move earth and wall of stone to create structures made of earth and stone? Seriously, which of the abilities I actually listed are "loopholes"?


Or that none of the campaign settings are post scarcity magical utopias?

Why are none of the campaign settings technologically modern? They have civilizations that have lasted as long as our own, with members as intelligent as we are (I mean, one assumes), so why the hell are swords and crossbows still the most impressive technology out there.

Also, Darksun, Spelljammer, and Planechase are all pretty clear based on the presence of large numbers of high level characters.


Or that there are epic level characters and even gods who put most or all of their levels into fighter? Or that the game thinks I giant beetle with no magic and a whole lot of HP is a challenge for level 50+ characters?

But there are also epic characters with exactly the kind of power I'm asking for. Do they just not count? Should we accept that those guys have to allow "I have a really big BAB" guy into the party because that's how it works now? How can you take that stance and ask for any changes to the game at all?


Essentially I am asking is the core of your character simply "I transform into whatever form has the perfect ability to solve whatever problem I find myself in at the moment as an at will ability?"

Well, no. Obviously, transformation is a part of it, but that aspect is largely focused on combat, or combat-time utility, though there are some exceptions. The strategic abilities are important too. As far as concept goes, I'd probably start with (as mentioned) the idea of a more primal take on druidic power, drawing from something like Warhammer's chaos gods. Someone focused on nature, or maybe some particular aspect of it (like predation, or community, or decay) to the exclusion of their humanity, and with the power to personally enact that agenda. Of course, that's just one character, and a more negative bent at that.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You mean like the game system that allows you to make that character? Or maybe the system with a book called The Epic Level Handbook that allows you to make characters more powerful than that? Or the system with a book called Deities and Demigods which stats up the gods as adversaries you can face with abilities you can attempt to acquire? Or maybe the system which has "Epic Destinies" including Prince of Hell, Demigod, Lord of Chaos, Dragon King, seven types of Avatar, Godhunter, and Godmind? Or maybe the one with a sourcebook called "Immortals" that details characters who "give [the multiverse] order and purpose"? Or maybe the one with a book with rules for becoming a Dragon King or weird psychic angel?

There has literally never been an edition of D&D (except maybe 5th) that did not at least claim to provide the kind of power I'm calling for. Not since the earliest editions of the game.
See, here's the thing. Those claims are pretty shallow. Sure, the rules are there, but they're widely considered to be the most ill-considered optional rules in a game infamous for its ill-considered rules. There are systems designed from the ground up to work with that kind of power level, and to work well. Raise your standards, Cosi--you deserve better.


There are some very obvious links there. The character basically has "nature powers" and "demon powers". Hell, you swap the awaken for elemental minions, give him elemental wild shape instead, and maybe tweak reincarnate somehow, and the character just has "elemental powers" instead of "nature powers". Honestly, there are actually reasonably good thematic links between demons and nature, if you take a look at the more primordial/anti-civilization side of nature.
If that's true, I have a question for you: Why do you seem so insistent on having that specific set of nature and demon powers? You seem opposed to the idea of getting rid of any of those just because of petty concerns like game balance, because they're all important to your character concept...so why are they?


Your second objection is, as far as I can tell, that you don't like the particular power level that character falls at, to which I can only say -- so?
It's not that I don't like the power level, it's that I don't like how your character is defined by power level. If you'll tolerate an oversimplification, it's like the difference between Son Goku and Superman--one is defined by his power and desire to gain more and is also a hero, while the other is defined by his unshakable moral code and is also powerful. Or, to put it another way, it sounds disturbingly close to this (https://youtu.be/CIj49_mqcMs?t=14m27s), only not intentionally-obnoxious and more ambitious in scope.

[Cosi]

In the interest of clarity, I thought I'd go back and explain where I think each of these abilities should show up in the game's progression. In order to do that, I should probably outline what I think that progression should look like. Roughly speaking, I think something like 4e's tiers is the way to go. For the interest of simplicity, I'll keep the names and level ranges, but change the definitions slightly:

Heroic Tier: Characters largely lack any abilities that operate at scales beyond the personal. Characters are weak enough that calling in the army would effectively defeat them. Characters cannot use abilities like plane shift, teleport, or raise dead under their own power. No flying archers for at least the first half of the tier.
Heroic Tier Characters: Conan, Captain America, Batman (the most common, street-level version of the character), most characters from Avatar (exceptions being the spirit kaiju from LOK S2, the giant mecha from LOK S4, maybe Avatars in the Avatar State, and maybe powerful firebenders under Sozen's comet), Jedi, Game of Thrones, Jorg, Lord of the Rings, Buffy

Paragon Tier: Characters command armies and kingdoms, and have personal abilities that are effective, though not decisive at those scales. Characters have the ability to travel to other planes or across the world without taking up significant table time or resources. Characters are expected to develop strategies to cheat death, though not necessarily immediately.
Paragon Tier Characters: Corwin of Amber, Essun, Travelers from the Traveler's Gate Trilogy, Lord of Light, Kylar Stern, Iron Man, The Second Apocalypse, the various "hidden powers" (or whatever term Lawrence uses) in the Broken Empire, Batman (in incarnations like Kingdom Come where he plays more to the gadgeteer aspect), the Gatewatch

Epic Tier: Characters are expected to fight, and kill, gods. Characters regularly deploy abilities that would drive entire adventures for Heroic or Paragon tier characters.
Epic Tier Characters: Sargeras, Dominions, Nicol Bolas, Urza, Doctor Strange (at the end of Time Runs Out)


1. Able to travel to and from their attuned plane, twice per day. I list this first not because it is the most important of the character's abilities, but because it's one which has no obvious mundane equivalent. A mundane might be able to kill armies or have minions, but its not clear how you can have planar travel and still be "mundane".

I would expect this to come online at 11th level, or close to it. It's a pretty limited form of planar travel, which means it can't happen that far into Paragon, but it is player-directed planar travel, so it clearly needs to be Paragon.


2. Access to a staggering variety of SLAs. greater teleport at-will is an obvious standout, but its far from alone. At-will access to AoEs like chaos hammer, unholy blight, call lightning, cone of cold, ice storm, or blade barrier make him adept at shredding armies. He also gets utility spells like charm monster, dispel magic, various illusion spells, and commune. Yes, he's somewhat limited in what abilities he throws around, but he can get a lot out of a form like Marith or Ice Devil.

This is several different abilities. The AoE stuff is probably somewhere in Paragon, depending on exact numbers. greater teleport at-will isn't actually that unbalanced, but it pokes holes in the setting because it makes it plausible for the character to address any issue relevant to him, which cuts out the options for low level characters. Therefore, it probably needs to wait til Epic, making it rare enough (and the interests of characters with it broad enough), that it won't tread on the setting too much. The utility abilities are complicated, but I think most of them work at the levels they're at in 3e, give or take.


3. Between capstone DR and potential regeneration, he's almost impossible to kill without specialized gear, allowing him to wade through and destroy armies of essentially arbitrary size.

This is just "low level enemies scale off the RNG". I think this should be a continuous process that happens throughout the game so that a Level X character is always immune to Level X - N characters, give or take a level or two.


4. Traditional wild shape offers utility too, including mobility forms, combat forms, infiltration forms, and others. In particular, he probably has some shape that allows him to fight in any environment without advanced preparation.

The big deal here is the ability to pull out whatever movement mode you need, which I could see being a good enough swiss army knife to have to wait until at least late Heroic or early Paragon.


5. He can use awaken to generate animal or plant minions, in very large numbers (XP costs are admittedly real, but can be mitigated, particularly if he's evil).

The thing I want here is a kingdom full of intelligent animals, which is a Paragon tier ability (about on par with a kingdom full of humans).


6. He can create extreme weather events on a scale wide enough to wipe out cities or armies, and in conjunction with his movement abilities can demolish a small to medium sized nation inside a week. Inside a day, maybe, because control weather follows him when he teleports ("centered on you").

Doing this to one city at a time is probably an appropriate ability somewhere in the back half of Paragon. Doing it to a whole kingdom at once is Epic.


7. wall of stone allows for rapid construction. move earth also allows more constructive environmental alteration.

Depends on exactly how good this is. Probably early Paragon.


8. He can bring back the dead with reincarnate.

Early Paragon for others, mid Paragon for self.


9. And, of course, his combat abilities are no joke. This is obviously pretty dependent on optimization, and therefore difficult to benchmark, but its not difficult to imagine that this character can shred an archangel (Solar) or demon lord on his own, or destroy a host of lesser celestials.

This is almost completely up in the air. I would say that killing a bunch of mid-grade celestials is somewhere past the mid-point of Paragon depending on what you mean by "bunch" and "mid-grade". The archangel is probably a single encounter in early Epic levels. The Demon Lord is a boss in encounter in early-to-mid Epic.

[Cosi]

See, here's the thing. Those claims are pretty shallow. Sure, the rules are there, but they're widely considered to be the most ill-considered optional rules in a game infamous for its ill-considered rules. There are systems designed from the ground up to work with that kind of power level, and to work well. Raise your standards, Cosi--you deserve better.

Yes, the game has tried and failed to do that. If it had tried and succeeded, I wouldn't be pushing for a new version of the game to do better, I would be playing with the good version of those rules.


It's not that I don't like the power level, it's that I don't like how your character is defined by power level.

Different power levels allow you to tell different stories. You cannot do Chronicles of Amber if you do not mandate that all the PCs have plane shift. All characters are defined by their power level. Lord of the Rings happens the way it does because Gandalf can't cast teleport. The Second Apocalypse happens the way it does because Khellus can.

No one ever asks people to justify why not having polymorph is important to their character concept. Why should I have to justify why having polymorph is important to mine?

[Pex]

Lol...it's not punishing a character for existing....that would be like ''roll a 1d20 every round; if you roll a one your character dies."

It is a price for power, a very common and accepted thing. Modern D&D has it too. Like for example in 3X and PF barbarians get fatigued after using their rage.

That's what is happening. Cast polymorph. Roll system shock. Oh rolled too high, you're dead.

I'm not too thrilled with 3E/Pathfinder barbarians getting fatigued either. In my previous Pathfinder group not only the barbarian player but also the DM was getting annoyed that every time his rage ends and loses the CON bonus he loses twice his level in hit points and almost dies. When he did actually die the DM was p'd off about it because he didn't deserve it. (You had to be there.) He fiated he didn't die and right then and there house ruled the extra hit points from the CON increase during a rage were temporary hit points. Cue Pathfinder a month later coming out with the revised barbarian in their Unchained book making it temporary hit points as well.

[Mutazoia]

It is a price for power, a very common and accepted thing. Modern D&D has it too. Like for example in 3X and PF barbarians get fatigued after using their rage.

And I keep getting the impression that people don't WANT to pay for their power...they just want all of the advantages, and absolutely no drawbacks, of what ever character concept they can dream up (or find on a forum).

"Checks and balances!? To hell with that! ALL ENGINE, NO BREAKS!"

[Psyren]

From what I've seen so far, Starfinder has brought "casters" and "mundanes" much closer together. IIRC, the system was designed such that 4 Soldiers could be a viable party.

[Satinavian]

No, it's "more magic" because there is no such thing as mundane. There is no "magic-user/muggle" divide. Everyone and everything embodies magic. If somehow you had an antimagic field, the area itself would cease to be. Creation itself is made of magic.

I think this is a much better way to go. Separate "casters" from "non-casters," (a separation of how, not what, they can do) but abandon the idea that there are non-magical "muggles" (at least as player characters). Having one group of characters whose concept is "can do anything" and another who are inherently limited to "things normal people can do" is a good way to cause a mess. Instead, let everyone be "magical," just in different ways.
In D&D wizard magic is something people just learn. Theoretically everyone could do it. It is just existing natural laws and powers and knowing how to use them.

So ... i do have problems seeing D&D as a system with an inbuilt magic/mundane divide.

Yes, the way it is played usually assumes that most people don't learn any magic and thus effectively become mundane, but there is never a real justification for it.

[Glorthindel]

But if you think the solution to make them not broken needs to be "take away abilities" rather than "change challenges", you are explicitly saying that the game shouldn't support my character concept,


All of those are cool, interesting stories and all of them are firmly in "mundanes need not apply" territory.


If you don't want characters that are epic and do crazy crap in your game, find a different game.

The problem is the hypocrisy - you complain that someone suggests that your character concept shouldn't exist, but then immediately turn around and say that other peoples character concept (those who want to play bad-ass mundanes) shouldn't exist.

That is my problem with posters like PhoenixPhyre's continued assertions that the game should just throw out non-magic characters - people want to play those characters. From the beginning the game has been citing talented mundanes as character archetypes; Sir Galahad, Robin Hood, Saladin, the guy off Gladiator, and people want to play them. To be told "sorry, its mage or manga character" isn't an acceptable solution (except for people who want to play the super-power characters and don't want to be limited by catering to people who want bad-ass mundanes), since it alienates a chunk of players.

So lets lay off the "players of Rogues and Fighters can just f*** off" 'solutions'.


And I keep getting the impression that people don't WANT to pay for their power...they just want all of the advantages, and absolutely no drawbacks, of what ever character concept they can dream up (or find on a forum).

"Checks and balances!? To hell with that! ALL ENGINE, NO BREAKS!"

The problem is that a lot of solutions tend to be all-or-nothing, and there is never going to be a solution at either end of the spectrum that makes everyone happy. I can certainly sympathise with the Wizard player who doesn't want to lug a crossbow or bunch of throwing darts around due to a danger of death every time they cast a Frostbolt, because they want to be a Wizard, not a crap Rogue. But that said, there is a big difference between a Magic Missile and a Gate, and there is certainly space for creating a nuanced system that allows free casting of low power spells, but brings in an element of danger when the mage is going full Nova.

In Dark Heresy, most spells have two states, a "normal" effect, and an "overcast" version, which ramps up the effect of the spells dependant on how much power you use to manifest it. And the way spells are cast in that, pushing the power into it in order to achieve high overcast results is markedly more dangerous. A system like that, where Wizards could cast the default version of the spell safely, but incur risk if they want the supercharged version, might solve the problem, as a spellcaster gets to be a spellcaster without having potential death hanging over his head at every turn, but some of the more gamebreaking spells could be rolled into weaker spells as their "overcast" varient.

[Frozen_Feet]

No one ever asks people to justify why not having polymorph is important to their character concept.

This actually false. Just in discussions like this thread, examples abound: "Why it important your Fighter not use magic?" "Why is it important your Wizard not use a crossbow?" "Why is it important your telekineticist not be able to change shape?" "Why is it important for your Wizard to not be able to use healing magic?"

Characters are as much defined by what they can't do as what they can.

Granted, not all these kind of questions are smart, nor all all the answers. ("Why is it important your pyrokineticist not be able to create ice... oh wait.")

[Max_Killjoy]

And I keep getting the impression that people don't WANT to pay for their power...they just want all of the advantages, and absolutely no drawbacks, of what ever character concept they can dream up (or find on a forum).

"Checks and balances!? To hell with that! ALL ENGINE, NO BREAKS!"

Do these kids also need to get off your lawn and/or get a haircut?


Stupid oversimplified insulting caricature meets stupid oversimplified insulting caricature...

[Max_Killjoy]

The problem is the hypocrisy - you complain that someone suggests that your character concept shouldn't exist, but then immediately turn around and say that other peoples character concept (those who want to play bad-ass mundanes) shouldn't exist.

That is my problem with posters like PhoenixPhyre's continued assertions that the game should just throw out non-magic characters - people want to play those characters. From the beginning the game has been citing talented mundanes as character archetypes; Sir Galahad, Robin Hood, Saladin, the guy off Gladiator, and people want to play them. To be told "sorry, its mage or manga character" isn't an acceptable solution (except for people who want to play the super-power characters and don't want to be limited by catering to people who want bad-ass mundanes), since it alienates a chunk of players.

So lets lay off the "players of Rogues and Fighters can just f*** off" 'solutions'.


The problem that PhoenixPhyre is trying to point out is what I would call "you can't have your cake and eat it too". We're not saying that wanting to play a Sir Galahad, Robin Hood, Saladin, the guy off Gladiator, etc, is in any way bad. We're not telling those players to "F off". What we're saying is, you can't have everything.

Something has to give.

You can have those "not magical" characters, and spellcasters who are balanced to be viable in the same game, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.

You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but are still magic for that setting and can keep up with those spellcasters, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.

You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, and a setting that has people being able to do those things baked into its "physics", and is not incoherent and not dissonant.

You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, and a setting that doesn't reflect that and IS incoherent and IS dissonant... that is, objectively bad worldbuilding.

You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters and cannot keep up with those spellcasters, and accept the imbalance between character types, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.

What you CANNOT have is spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, no reflection of that in the worldbuilding, AND a setting that makes any damn sense at all.

Something has to be sacrificed.


Again, there's nothing wrong with wanting to play spellcasting demigods, or physical demigods, or "totally mundane" heroic characters who have no magic at all, or gritty-level spellcasters, or whatever.

The problem comes from trying to cram them all into the same campaign, the same game, the same "fictional reality", while asserting that they're all mutually viable together -- you just end up with the Curse of the Kitchen Sink. This is why Kitchen Sink Gaming, of which D&D is the God Emperor, will always lead to problems. Every time we come around to this stuff about balance, or caster-vs-"mundane", or whatever, I'm tempted to just post "The Curse of the Kitchen Sink Strikes Again!"

Play those characters (Sir Galahad, Robin Hood, Saladin, the guy off Gladiator, etc) to your heart's content. Play spellcasting demigods to your heart's content. Play them in the same campaign if you're willing to accept the imbalance. But don't expect any system or GM to actually succeed at what is literally impossible.

[Pex]

And I keep getting the impression that people don't WANT to pay for their power...they just want all of the advantages, and absolutely no drawbacks, of what ever character concept they can dream up (or find on a forum).

"Checks and balances!? To hell with that! ALL ENGINE, NO BREAKS!"

It's not a balance that my character can die for using its ability to do something. Not wanting that is not the same thing as wanting unlimited power.

Let's go with polymorph. What has been done instead of roll a percentage chance you die.

Pathfinder - Made multiple polymorph spells of different levels providing defined specific buffs. The spell tells you what you can get, not the creature you turn into. You need to be high level for the real juicy stuff, but then such power is appropriate for the level. Not liking the high power of that level is a matter of taste, not the fault of the game.

5E - Limited the type of creatures you can turn into. Specifically denied the ability to cast spells until when the campaign is almost over. Specifically denied creature abilities until at a level the ability is appropriate, for example when wild shaping druids get to turn into a flying creature.

5E also limited spellcasting in general with fewer spell slots than previous D&D games and the Concentration mechanic.

This same principle applies to loathing critical fumbles. My warrior should not risk injuring or killing himself for the audacity of swinging his weapon in combat to attack.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In D&D wizard magic is something people just learn. Theoretically everyone could do it. It is just existing natural laws and powers and knowing how to use them.

So ... i do have problems seeing D&D as a system with an inbuilt magic/mundane divide.

Yes, the way it is played usually assumes that most people don't learn any magic and thus effectively become mundane, but there is never a real justification for it.

That's a particularly 3.5e conceit, and a very RAW (fluff doesn't exist) view. Arcane magic (in all the books, in the settings, etc) requires talent. It may not be genetic talent, but in the same way that I'll never be an NBA star, most people don't have the capability of learning non-trivial spells. Most people don't get PC classes.



That is my problem with posters like PhoenixPhyre's continued assertions that the game should just throw out non-magic characters - people want to play those characters. From the beginning the game has been citing talented mundanes as character archetypes; Sir Galahad, Robin Hood, Saladin, the guy off Gladiator, and people want to play them. To be told "sorry, its mage or manga character" isn't an acceptable solution (except for people who want to play the super-power characters and don't want to be limited by catering to people who want bad-ass mundanes), since it alienates a chunk of players.

So lets lay off the "players of Rogues and Fighters can just f*** off" 'solutions'.


That's not my point at all. Mine is more of a meta-point--we should accept that fighters and rogues (along with all other characters and foes) are inherently magical, thus liberating them from the shackles of the Guy at the Gym. Everything in a fantasy world is magical, because none of it could happen in real life.

I'm going to formalize the definition of magic that I've been using:

Magic (n): whatever properties, characteristics, capabilities, talents, or abilities a fictional entity has that are impossible in real life as we know it.

Using this definition, even in 3.5 rogues are magical (evasion anyone?). All higher level (by which I mean level 2 or 3 at most) characters can survive things (and heal from things) that would kill normal people. Robin Hood? Magical (his arrow precision in the stories is way beyond what's really possible). Sir Galahad? Super magical. And the stories reflect that--"My strength is as ten because my heart is pure." Saladin? Same deal. The Gladiator dude? Survived when he shouldn't have.

None of these are overt magic (casting spells), but all of these, like just about any other mythical or fictional hero, are well beyond the capabilities of RL people. Thus magic. Not very strong magic in most cases, but compared to their opponents, magical enough. And that's what matters. Playing Robin Hood (and insisting that you should be just as effective as anyone else) in an 3.5e Epic Level T1 campaign? That's what's a problem. Same with playing Cosi's Druid/Planar Shepherd character in a low-power (by which I mean "has anything other than PO T1 characters or threats") game.

[Pelle]

This same principle applies to loathing critical fumbles. My warrior should not risk injuring or killing himself for the audacity of swinging his weapon in combat to attack.

What would you think of a house rule where when you roll a 1, you get the option to re-roll, and if you fail on that you get a critical fumble? If you don't want to fumble, just don't take the re-roll.

I can't understand it, but some people feel they are worse off when they are given an extra option to take a risk.

Personally, I like the image of the desperate mage, overextending trying to cast a spell he normally can't control, with great risk to himself. Haven't really seen it well implemented, but I think that would be an interesting mechanic. Like, you normally can cast polymorph, and have fun with that, but in a perilous situation you may try to cast super-polymorph with some risk.

[Lacco]

This same principle applies to loathing critical fumbles. My warrior should not risk injuring or killing himself for the audacity of swinging his weapon in combat to attack.

I understand that this goes against any power-fantasies, but...

...in real combat? You risk injuring or killing yourself. Even with your own weapon. There's just so many variables...

You can get your finger crushed during parrying (happened to my friend during friendly sparring match because he put his finger little too forward during bind), you can slip and not only sprain your ankle but cut into your shin, you can swing and forget there's a shelf that your weapon can get stuck on if you overswing (happened to me *while practicing at home*, my wife almost killed me), you can step into a hole in the ground and fall on your own sword handle face-on, your weapon can get beat so hard it flies to your face...

...ok, maybe it's just my clumsiness :smallbiggrin:

...and while I agree the 1 in 20 chance is perhaps a bit high for veteran warrior, the chance is always there. And it should be part of the game.

Unless we are talking the anime/power-fantasy "I must be invincible or I'm not gonna enjoy myself" stuff (or "it should be possible to defeat my build only by things that have level X-2 or better!"). In that case, I'm outta here :smallbiggrin:

[Tinkerer]

What would you think of a house rule where when you roll a 1, you get the option to re-roll, and if you fail on that you get a critical fumble? If you don't want to fumble, just don't take the re-roll.

I can't understand it, but some people feel they are worse off when they are given an extra option to take a risk.

In the system that I am currently running (Savage Worlds) a critical fumble on a warrior means that they have damaged their weapon, a critical fumble on a mage means that they injure themselves. And the critical fumble chance is considerably lower, ranging between 4% for the unskilled and 0.8% for the hyper-competent.

[Max_Killjoy]

I understand that this goes against any power-fantasies, but...

...in real combat? You risk injuring or killing yourself. Even with your own weapon. There's just so many variables...

You can get your finger crushed during parrying (happened to my friend during friendly sparring match because he put his finger little too forward during bind), you can slip and not only sprain your ankle but cut into your shin, you can swing and forget there's a shelf that your weapon can get stuck on if you overswing (happened to me *while practicing at home*, my wife almost killed me), you can step into a hole in the ground and fall on your own sword handle face-on, your weapon can get beat so hard it flies to your face...

...ok, maybe it's just my clumsiness :smallbiggrin:

...and while I agree the 1 in 20 chance is perhaps a bit high for veteran warrior, the chance is always there. And it should be part of the game.

Unless we are talking the anime/power-fantasy "I must be invincible or I'm not gonna enjoy myself" stuff (or "it should be possible to defeat my build only by things that have level X-2 or better!"). In that case, I'm outta here :smallbiggrin:

The "You just want an unbeatable power fantasy!" caricature rears its ugly head yet again. Maybe it's time to let the poor thing rest for a few decades...

There are plenty of ways that combat is dangerous and risky for RPG characters, and plenty of "opportunities" for setback and failure, that don't require shoehorning in hackneyed random "you hit yourself with your own weapon" or "you just happen to drop your weapon" events.

[Tinkerer]

The "You just want an unbeatable power fantasy!" caricature rears its ugly head yet again. Maybe it's time to let the poor thing rest for a few decades...

There are plenty of ways that combat is dangerous and risky for RPG characters, and plenty of "opportunities" for setback and failure, that don't require shoehorning in hackneyed random "you hit yourself with your own weapon" or "you just happen to drop your weapon" events.

The words from their example literally just appeared on the previous page. The biggest problems that I see are 1) poor fluffing on critical failures by GMs and 2) the fact that in D&D and several other systems the probability doesn't alter based on user skill or weapon type. However more in line with this thread is the fact that warriors have to worry about them and no other archetype does (aka doesn't apply to skills or magic). So in D&D and more specifically 3.X I definitely agree that it should be removed.

[Zanos]

You can get your finger crushed during parrying (happened to my friend during friendly sparring match because he put his finger little too forward during bind), you can slip and not only sprain your ankle but cut into your shin, you can swing and forget there's a shelf that your weapon can get stuck on if you overswing (happened to me *while practicing at home*, my wife almost killed me), you can step into a hole in the ground and fall on your own sword handle face-on, your weapon can get beat so hard it flies to your face...
Cool.

How many demons have you killed, exactly?

Legendary demon slaying heroes shouldn't trip and sprain their ankle. And it definitely shouldn't be more likely the more legendary they are (4 attacks per round vs 1).

[Max_Killjoy]

The words from their example literally just appeared on the previous page. The biggest problems that I see are 1) poor fluffing on critical failures by GMs and 2) the fact that in D&D and several other systems the probability doesn't alter based on user skill or weapon type. However more in line with this thread is the fact that warriors have to worry about them and no other archetype does (aka doesn't apply to skills or magic). So in D&D and more specifically 3.X I definitely agree that it should be removed.

I'm having trouble finding the post where those words occur and actually link opposition to random fumbles with wanting to be invincible or be immune to all possible failure on the part of the person voicing the opposition.

[Morty]

Just as it is with randomly exploding when trying to cast a spell, there are many better ways to introduce risk, danger and tension into martial combat than a 5% chance to trip over your shoelaces every time you make an attack. And that's true whether we're talking about a gritty realistic system, an action-packed fantasy one or anything in between or off to the side. "Random mishaps" versus "risk-free" power trip is a false dichotomy the size of an adult gold dragon. In addition to being condescending and dishonest.

[Tinkerer]

I'm having trouble finding the post where those words occur and actually link opposition to random fumbles with wanting to be invincible or be immune to all possible failure on the part of the person voicing the opposition.


This is just "low level enemies scale off the RNG". I think this should be a continuous process that happens throughout the game so that a Level X character is always immune to Level X - N characters, give or take a level or two.

Not specifically referring to fumbles however since the viewpoint was shared it explicitly states that this is an expectation that some people within this thread have.

Back when I was running D&D I often fluffed critical fumbles quite differently based on the level. For a high level warrior against a high level opponent I would quite often fluff it as leaving a gap in their defenses which an opponent immediately took advantage of as a free action, or the warrior getting knocked back by the sheer weight of an opponents attack.

I am quite curious as to where people keep getting that "the warrior attacks and injures themselves" from. Fumbles haven't been an official D&D rule for almost 20 years... actually come to think of were they even in 2nd edition? Anyways since 3rd at least it has always been an optional variant. And even within those optional variants it hasn't been "the warrior attacks themselves", it's been the warrior loses their next turn or something equivalent. We can't fix a rule which doesn't exist.

EDIT: Yeah that's what I thought, they were never a rule in D&D. So not really relevant for discussions on how to change the caster beats mundane paradigm.

[Footman]

Interesting Topic.

To solve the Issue i would make Martials a bit better, they should get showy Warriory Stuff like Great Cleave, for free. Basically cutting down on the Insane Feat Taxes in Pathfinder for example would help a lot.

When it comes to Magic, i have a different Idea altogether. Remove Spell Slots. Casters can cast all Day. BUT Magic should be more Risky the more Powerfull it is AND require Rare Material Components which the Caster first would have to collect. Now Wizard is like the Fighter really equipment depandent. Magic should not be easy or Safe. Also no Spell stacking, you can only be affected by one beneficial Spell Effect at the same Time. Also many Spells need to be made more Interesting, some Spells like Forcecage are just like: Well unless you have a Teleport/specific countermeasure with you, you just lose. Thats boring. Or the Fly Spell. Can't Fly? Haven't invested in Ranged Attacks?

Some Examples:
The Common Fireball only needs a bit of bat Guano. Yes you have to carry a lot of Bat excrement around with you. Now getting that is trivial, but like an Archer you now are limited in the Number of Shots you can take, and enemies can take away your ammunition.

Teleportation
If you want to Teleport Safely you need 5 Casters, with at least one at a certain High Lvl, and three Days of Work, to Draw Magical Circle, to arrive at your Destination unscathed, as well as a Unicorns Horn and a Scale of a Green Dragon. If you do this alone you can draw the Circle in 1 Hour, but you have 50% chance of ending up anywehre on the World, or even another Plane.

Animate Dead
You can Make as many Undead as you want, but each Undead requires 1 Gallon of Virgins blood to animate. Also high concentrations of Negativ Energy attract other Undead. So don't be suprised if Vampires show up if you run around with a Zombie army. The more Undead you have the more Undead you Draw to yourself, which get increasingly Powerfull. Some may be friendly, others will try to kill you and take over your Army.

Dominate Person
The Person being controlled here gets a save every Rounds, and can still think/Speak, but it has to obey the Caster, on a Made Save, the Dominated Person, can act like itself for 1 Round, but the Effect Still persists, until the Rest of the Day. This makes Dominate Person sooooooo much more Interesting, and makes for Nice Drama. (I,... can't control myself! Run! Leave me and Run!), (No! I will rather die than be your Slave! *coup the Graces himself*).

Time Stop
You literally Stop Time, and you can do ANYTHING you want. But such a Disruption of Space Time, calls an Army of invitables on your Ass, very very quickly. You also need the Hour Glass of a Grim Reaper, the Howl of a Banshee, a Nail from a Lich, and the Head of a very Powerful (Cr17 or higher) Invitable being to use this Spell.


Maze Spell
You put all Enemies you can see in an Extradimensional Maze, where they trapped, until they find their way into the Middle of the Maze, where a Sphinx sits. If they can answer the Riddle of the Sphinx, the they leave the Maze, and they can decide to appear directly near the Mage that trapped them. Also since they answered the Riddle of the Sphinx they can take a Powerfull Boon/Magic Weapon with them to slay the Caster that trapped them. This Boon/Weapon exsists/stays Active for a Number of Days equal to the Caster Lvl of the Caster that cast Maze.

Summoning in general
I really hate those, "yeah i snap with my Finger and Stuff just happens" Spells. Summoning Demons Should NEVER be Safe, or quick. You can Summon and Bind Demons, but there is a 50% Chance that the Demon breaks free. During his bound time you roll a percentile Dice every Day, to see if the Demon breaks free. Though nothing compels him to Attack immideatly, he can wait until he sees you in Peril. High Lvl Demons get a Chance to break free practically Every Round. The higher Lvl you get the lesser the Chance for the low Lvl Demons, but it should never be under 10%. Also you need, the Name of the Demon, and components again.

Devils would be another matter, because they always have to keep their contracts, and will do so to the letter! However they follow the same rules.

The mightier the Magic, the Worse the Drawback.

Magic would still be Interesting and VERY Powerfull, but limited in it's practicallity. If you need a Dragons Heart, a Genies Tear, and an Angels Feather to cast Wish, just getting Components for the High Lvl Caster will be Quests on their own right. The GM can also directly intervine here, since Spells that would destroy the Story, will just not have their Components avivable. Also due the only 1 Buff Rule, Wizards and other Casters would be far more Fragile, and would depend on their Martial buddies more.

Mudanes, will get their moments of Awesome all the Time, when they slay Dragons, to get the Casters their Components, and being All around Badasses all the Time. The Magic Users will still be very usefull all the Time, and they will get their Moments of Awesome, when they worked to get those Components together, and they finally can cast the Big Fat Spell off Mass Destruction.


Magic right now in pathfinder is far too easy controlled and Safe. Magic should be more Wild, dangerous and hard to use.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Chronicles of Amber[/I] if you do not mandate that all the PCs have plane shift. All characters are defined by their power level. Lord of the Rings happens the way it does because Gandalf can't cast teleport. The Second Apocalypse happens the way it does because Khellus can.
You're not completely wrong, but you're not remotely right.
First off, under no circumstances should a character be entirely defined by power, whether it's the power to defeat kingdoms single-handedly or the power to cut through wolverine claws and stuff. Your claimed character concept is all about the power fantasy. There's nothing wrong with wanting a power fantasy, but don't claim that it's a character and expect me to believe you.
Second, power level influences plot, but it doesn't create plot, and it sure as HFIL doesn't create character. Speaking of HFIL, let's look at the original power levels. Dragon Ball started with Goku at a superhuman level of strength, able to lift cars and boulders but not to destroy mountains or anything like that. By the time of DBZ, planets were fair game for blowing up, Broly destroyed a galaxy, and as of Dragon Ball Super, universes are on the line. It's hard to argue that there aren't meaningful power level differences across the series, even if scouters have been long forgotten. Yet you still have much the same characters going through much the same plots.
Or let's look at DC and Marvel. For a while, DC heroes were ridiculously powerful (aside from Batman, but his levels of preparation (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/CrazyPrepared/Batman) should probably count as a superpower) while Marvel heroes were relatively grounded. I mean, yeah, the Hulk was holding up mountains, but the top-tier DC heroes could casually move planets around. I could talk about the similarities between the two companies' stories and characters, but while that's a valid point, I'd instead like to bring up how Marvel has been subtly increasing the power levels of their heroes to "catch up" in the Who Would Win battles that people seem so weirdly passionate about. But does this matter? No. The Hulk is moving continental plates instead of mountains, but he's still the same Hulk doing the same smashing. For that matter, compare the Silver Age's madness (e.g, Superman sneezing planets around) to more modern comics. Sure, the stories told have changed, but not because of power levels so much as comics taking themselves seriously; the more serious Silver Age stories have modern parallels, and their characters are still essentially the same.
But let's keep superheroes in mind for a second, because you're conflating two different ideas of power. You say that LotR happens the way it does because Gandalf can't teleport. Neither can Superman. That's part of his power set, but not his power level. Understand the difference? Your description of how all your specific abilities tied together was:

So in summary, you have someone who can plausibly destroy an entire kingdom on a whim, demolish any army that stands against him, has swarms of animal minions, and can beat down the most powerful servants of gods.
That's power level, not power set. You could easily have the same power set at a different power level by tweaking how things work (say, by adding prep time or reducing numbers), but then you wouldn't be able to easily destroy kingdoms and armies, you wouldn't have a swarm of minions, and godly servants wouldn't be your bitches.


No one ever asks people to justify why not having polymorph is important to their character concept. Why should I have to justify why having polymorph is important to mine?
First off, see "power set vs. power level". Second, if your character is an actual character, it doesn't matter if you character has polymorph or not. They don't have to justify it because it doesn't matter.



You can have those "not magical" characters, and spellcasters who are balanced to be viable in the same game, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.
You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but are still magic for that setting and can keep up with those spellcasters, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.
You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, and a setting that has people being able to do those things baked into its "physics", and is not incoherent and not dissonant.
You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, and a setting that doesn't reflect that and IS incoherent and IS dissonant... that is, objectively bad worldbuilding.
You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters and cannot keep up with those spellcasters, and accept the imbalance between character types, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.
What you CANNOT have is spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, no reflection of that in the worldbuilding, AND a setting that makes any damn sense at all.
Something has to be sacrificed.
The first thing to sacrifice is your verbosity. The second...well, D&D's vanilla worldbuilding is already threadbare at best and definitely not what people are playing the game for, so it's another good sacrifice. Skim the Monster Manual, full of ideas from a dozen mythologies and a hundred nightmares, each of which went through several permutations (sometimes just from edition to edition, sometimes taking ideas from works earlier editions inspired), and tell me it isn't an enormous kitchen sink before a single PC steps into the world.


The "You just want an unbeatable power fantasy!" caricature rears its ugly head yet again. Maybe it's time to let the poor thing rest for a few decades...
One of the people in this thread described their character concept as "I can raze kingdoms and crush armies and slay the greatest servants of the gods". What do you call that?



Cool.
How many demons have you killed, exactly?
Legendary demon slaying heroes shouldn't trip and sprain their ankle. And it definitely shouldn't be more likely the more legendary they are (4 attacks per round vs 1).
I get where you're coming from, but I have to disagree on principle. Even the greatest experts can screw up. Look up the cosmological constant sometime.
"Legendary heroes don't just screw up" is a perfectly valid genre element that you can incorporate into your game, and saying "We're not doing fumbles because it goes against what I want our game to feel like" is valid. Saying "We're not doing fumbles because heroes can't screw up" is another thing entirely.

P.S. Max Killjoy, what would you call wanting to be a legendary demon-slaying hero who is immune to making mistakes?
P.P.S. No, the cosmological constant isn't dark energy. The two concepts have only a surface-level resemblance, and Einstein didn't throw in the constant because the universe's expansion was accelerating--he did it for close to the opposite reason.

[Zanos]

It's not about not making mistakes, it's about not making stupid mistakes, like literally tripping and spraining your ankle.

[Cosi]

The problem is the hypocrisy - you complain that someone suggests that your character concept shouldn't exist, but then immediately turn around and say that other peoples character concept (those who want to play bad-ass mundanes) shouldn't exist.

You're being confused by (admittedly confusing) terminology. When I'm saying "game" in those posts, I mean the game system. I don't care what the power level of your personal game is any more than I care whether your personal game includes Druids or Legacy Weapons or Twig Blights or whatever other thing that exists in the game system. My problem is with people who want to remove things from the system because they don't fit into their games. So really, the hypocrisy is coming from the other side. I want the system to support both mundane and magical characters, even if a given group can't support both at the same time. Talakeal on the other hand wants the game system to exclude anything that a mundane wouldn't be able to beat.


So lets lay off the "players of Rogues and Fighters can just f*** off" 'solutions'.

In favor, of course, of the "players of Wizards and Druids can just f*** off 'solutions'".


This actually false. Just in discussions like this thread, examples abound: "Why it important your Fighter not use magic?" "Why is it important your Wizard not use a crossbow?" "Why is it important your telekineticist not be able to change shape?" "Why is it important for your Wizard to not be able to use healing magic?"

Those are class distinctions. No one is asking people to justify why the game should support "badass mundane". That archetype is being taken as a given. So why do you need to justify the other end?


You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but are still magic for that setting and can keep up with those spellcasters, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.

You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, and a setting that has people being able to do those things baked into its "physics", and is not incoherent and not dissonant.

These things are not actually different. If you can do something, doing that thing is baked into "physics", because "physics" is just "our model of the world" and your model of the world necessarily includes all the things people in the world can do.


Cool.

How many demons have you killed, exactly?

Legendary demon slaying heroes shouldn't trip and sprain their ankle. And it definitely shouldn't be more likely the more legendary they are (4 attacks per round vs 1).

This. The story of how you lost because you accidentally shot yourself in the foot is not a good story. If you went to go watch Justice League and the conclusion was that Steppenwolf decapitated himself while smashing up a city, would you find that remotely satisfying?

[Tinkerer]

Snip

This is a possibility which has come up many, many times in the past. It is normally shot down. This was the exact solution which lead to Grod's Law. "Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use." By implementing it you make things worse since instead of reigning in the casters power you have instead wrapped the entire campaign around the caster. "If we want to go and fight the lich I guess we have to go on these 50 side quests for the mage first."

It seems great but trust me it is just a bad idea.

[Frozen_Feet]

...
There are plenty of ways that combat is dangerous and risky for RPG characters, and plenty of "opportunities" for setback and failure, that don't require shoehorning in hackneyed random "you hit yourself with your own weapon" or "you just happen to drop your weapon" events.
You are correct, in the sense that simply missing in combat is potentially life-threatening fumble as it allows an opponent to act for longer.

The corollary to that is that in dangerous situations, magic simply not being a surefire thing is sufficient to introduce much-desired risk into the game.

There are only two major reasons to add fumbles, or any other carrier effects, on failures:

1) to speed up play by preventing long chains of "nothing happens".
2) to create situations which wouldn't otherwise emerge from the game rules. For example, in combat, you don't need a fumble for the Fighter to drop their weapon, because a miss gives their enemy an opportunity to disarm them, creating the same result. But if swinging your sword at a wall, the wall is not legitimate user of "disarm" action, so under the simplest rules your sword could never be broken or fly off your hand. So a new rule needs to be added if it is acknowledged and desired that yes, if you swing your sword at a wall long enough and hard enough, something might happen.

[LibraryOgre]

No, it's "more magic" because there is no such thing as mundane. There is no "magic-user/muggle" divide. Everyone and everything embodies magic. If somehow you had an antimagic field, the area itself would cease to be. Creation itself is made of magic.

I think this is a much better way to go. Separate "casters" from "non-casters," (a separation of how, not what, they can do) but abandon the idea that there are non-magical "muggles" (at least as player characters). Having one group of characters whose concept is "can do anything" and another who are inherently limited to "things normal people can do" is a good way to cause a mess. Instead, let everyone be "magical," just in different ways.

Which gets us back to 4e... If my High-Int Warlord knows Ritual Magic and keeps up with his Ritual Book, he's just as good of a spellcaster as a Bard or a Cleric. Give them the same ritual book and they can all do the same "magical" things, but their class powers will differ... but, being as they're all Leaders, there will be a lot of similarity in the mechanics of those, too (why I chose bards over wizards for the example, in fact).

Does the appearance of a Bard's, Warlord's, and Cleric's powers differ? Sure. But all of them have a way to give someone a Healing Surge plus something extra.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It's not about not making mistakes, it's about not making stupid mistakes, like literally tripping and spraining your ankle.
Everyone makes stupid mistakes. They're misnamed; you don't need to be stupid to make them.
Take tripping, for instance. Just about everyone on this forum has decades of experience walking, yet sometimes they screw up. Maybe it's tough to see, maybe they're distracted, maybe something else is impairing them, but it happens. It's not because we're stupid, it's because we're imperfect, and because walking in the real world is trickier than it is in theory, because the real world is a douche.
Now, magnify that. People walk for hours most days of their life, but warriors rarely have real, life-and-death fights, and they might not even spar daily. (They certainly got a later start on learning, and will retire sooner.) Battles, by their very nature, tend to make things tough--tough to perceive (quickly enough, at least), tough to focus (especially if your opponent is tricky or not just one guy), and tough not to get impaired by fatigue or wounds or whatever. The legendary hero isn't stupid--they're just imperfect, and in a world which is not doing anything to make their job easier.



In favor, of course, of the "players of Wizards and Druids can just f*** off 'solutions'".
Do you understand what "nerf" means? It doesn't mean "render the target worthless," it means "bring them in line with everyone else". Wizards and druids won't be able to single-handedly raze kingdoms anymore, and they'll need help to defeat the most powerful servants of the gods, but they won't be incapable.


Those are class distinctions. No one is asking people to justify why the game should support "badass mundane". That archetype is being taken as a given. So why do you need to justify the other end?
So, wait.
You ask why people don't feel the need to justify why their characters can't use specific abilities.
Frozen Feet responds with an explanation which points out that certain groups of characters can justify not being able to use groups of abilities.
Logically, this would include specific characters within those groups not being able to use specific abilities within those groups. So, you naturally...complain that he's doing too much?


These things are not actually different. If you can do something, doing that thing is baked into "physics", because "physics" is just "our model of the world" and your model of the world necessarily includes all the things people in the world can do.
I've been arguing with you a lot, so I figured I'd point out a place where we agree.

[Footman]

This is a possibility which has come up many, many times in the past. It is normally shot down. This was the exact solution which lead to Grod's Law. "Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use." By implementing it you make things worse since instead of reigning in the casters power you have instead wrapped the entire campaign around the caster. "If we want to go and fight the lich I guess we have to go on these 50 side quests for the mage first."

It seems great but trust me it is just a bad idea.

Too keep things Fair, enemies need the same Components as well. So MR. Lich has maybe One or Two really Powerfull Components laying around, next to his normal Spells. Of course the Challenges you set need to be challanges, that can be overcome from mundanes mostly as well. Challanges that are like "haha you need this Exact Spell or GTFO" are bad. The Components for the really Powerfull Spells would essentially Turn into Plot Points. btw: Casters would get thos components as loot just like the Fighter gets a shiney new Sword.

I know that right now there are many challanges that a basically "have this Magic option or you automatically loose." These of course need to be changed and have the same limitations.

So sorry, no 50 Side Quest. By then the Cultists will have Sarificed the Princess! Oh whats this, they have a friggin Black Dargon! And now they are summoning a mighty Demon too! Wait, if we kill that Dragon, isn't his Heart just the component you need for that Banishment Spell? Yes, Yes quick now!"

EDIT: And as loot he would find the Components for a Meteor Swarm Spell, where he can rain Down Hell, once whenever he chooses.

[Cosi]

First off, under no circumstances should a character be entirely defined by power, whether it's the power to defeat kingdoms single-handedly or the power to cut through wolverine claws and stuff. Your claimed character concept is all about the power fantasy. There's nothing wrong with wanting a power fantasy, but don't claim that it's a character and expect me to believe you.

That's not what I said. What I said is that I want to be able to tell stories at a particular power level. I gave a bunch of examples of stories like that. Maybe you could look at those examples.


But let's keep superheroes in mind for a second, because you're conflating two different ideas of power. You say that LotR happens the way it does because Gandalf can't teleport. Neither can Superman. That's part of his power set, but not his power level. Understand the difference? Your description of how all your specific abilities tied together was:

That was a summary. You can tell by my use of the phrase "in summary", which is used to indicate that something is a summary. This is a thread about what the power level of the game should be, not whether some particular character or other is compelling, so obviously the focus is on the question "how powerful should a high level character be" not "what are the desires, beliefs, and challenges faced by this particular Druid".

I'm not sure what you want here. It's clearly not "what kinds of powers does this character have", because I said that -- "nature powers" and "demon powers" -- and you kept right on trucking. It's clearly not "a conceptual justification for having those powers", because I gave that -- a primal approach to nature that draws from Warhammer's chaos through a shared opposition to civilization and restraint -- and you kept right on trucking. It's clearly not "a set of stories you can tell that are particular to that character rather than similar ones", because you have rejected "stories with that character work differently" as an answer to your question.

So what exactly are you looking for?


First off, see "power set vs. power level". Second, if your character is an actual character, it doesn't matter if you character has polymorph or not. They don't have to justify it because it doesn't matter.

Yes, it does. Your character is not just a list of beliefs. It's also the actions he takes. The abilities you have matter because they change how your character can be actualized. If you take away Tony Stark's engineering talent, he's not the same character even if he still has the same personality and desires. Because if he doesn't have that engineering talent, when he's locked in a cave and told to make weapons he f****** dies. Because the abilities matter.


Do you understand what "nerf" means? It doesn't mean "render the target worthless," it means "bring them in line with everyone else".

Do you understand what "buff" means? It doesn't mean "make the characters exactly the same", it means "bring them in line with everyone else". Fighters and Barbarians will be able to punch out gods, and they'll have powers that let them change the course of battles, but they'll still be badass.


Wizards and druids won't be able to single-handedly raze kingdoms anymore, and they'll need help to defeat the most powerful servants of the gods, but they won't be incapable.

Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't raze kingdoms" is not a solution if the story I want to do is The Incursions. Because the ability to raze kingdoms (actually, worlds) is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot (as a PC). Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't travel to other planes" is not a solution if the story I want to do is The Chronicles of Amber. Because the ability to travel to other planes is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot. Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't fight the gods" is not a solution if the story I want to do is Dominions. Because the ability to fight other gods is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot.

If you don't want the game to support my concept, fine. But be honest about it. Don't insist that you can take powers away from a character and have the same character because that is obviously false.


Frozen Feet responds with an explanation which points out that certain groups of characters can justify not being able to use groups of abilities.

Yes, and you can justify having the abilities I've described. But where exactly are the calls for the system excluding people who don't have polymorph? Because I'm not making those calls, and as far as I can tell I'm taking the most radically pro powerful characters position in this thread.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure what you want here. It's clearly not "what kinds of powers does this character have", because I said that -- "nature powers" and "demon powers" -- and you kept right on trucking. It's clearly not "a conceptual justification for having those powers", because I gave that -- a primal approach to nature that draws from Warhammer's chaos through a shared opposition to civilization and restraint -- and you kept right on trucking. It's clearly not "a set of stories you can tell that are particular to that character rather than similar ones", because you have rejected "stories with that character work differently" as an answer to your question.



"Nature powers" isn't very much of a "kind of power." It's super-duper vague. Anything can be fluffed as a nature power, or a demon power, or... If your only limitation is that you can convince the DM that it fits your broad theme, then it's not much of a limitation and might as well not exist. Choosing a theme should both open doors and close doors. Opportunity costs and trade-offs make for better games.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not specifically referring to fumbles however since the viewpoint was shared it explicitly states that this is an expectation that some people within this thread have.

Back when I was running D&D I often fluffed critical fumbles quite differently based on the level. For a high level warrior against a high level opponent I would quite often fluff it as leaving a gap in their defenses which an opponent immediately took advantage of as a free action, or the warrior getting knocked back by the sheer weight of an opponents attack.

I am quite curious as to where people keep getting that "the warrior attacks and injures themselves" from. Fumbles haven't been an official D&D rule for almost 20 years... actually come to think of were they even in 2nd edition? Anyways since 3rd at least it has always been an optional variant. And even within those optional variants it hasn't been "the warrior attacks themselves", it's been the warrior loses their next turn or something equivalent. We can't fix a rule which doesn't exist.

EDIT: Yeah that's what I thought, they were never a rule in D&D. So not really relevant for discussions on how to change the caster beats mundane paradigm.





The first thing to sacrifice is your verbosity. The second...well, D&D's vanilla worldbuilding is already threadbare at best and definitely not what people are playing the game for, so it's another good sacrifice. Skim the Monster Manual, full of ideas from a dozen mythologies and a hundred nightmares, each of which went through several permutations (sometimes just from edition to edition, sometimes taking ideas from works earlier editions inspired), and tell me it isn't an enormous kitchen sink before a single PC steps into the world.


One of the people in this thread described their character concept as "I can raze kingdoms and crush armies and slay the greatest servants of the gods". What do you call that?



I get where you're coming from, but I have to disagree on principle. Even the greatest experts can screw up. Look up the cosmological constant sometime.
"Legendary heroes don't just screw up" is a perfectly valid genre element that you can incorporate into your game, and saying "We're not doing fumbles because it goes against what I want our game to feel like" is valid. Saying "We're not doing fumbles because heroes can't screw up" is another thing entirely.

P.S. Max Killjoy, what would you call wanting to be a legendary demon-slaying hero who is immune to making mistakes?
P.P.S. No, the cosmological constant isn't dark energy. The two concepts have only a surface-level resemblance, and Einstein didn't throw in the constant because the universe's expansion was accelerating--he did it for close to the opposite reason.


Well my ignore list explains why I'm not finding the "ultrapower" posts, and to be frank it's past pointless endless circular "discussions" about power levels and discrepancies that finally lead to that particular addition to my ignore list out of raw frustration at statements very much like those evidently being made here about how certain sorts of characters are supposedly supposed to be ultrapowerful and godlike and that's supposedly the whole point of the game.

As for "verbosity", based on past experience the alternative is yet another multipage derail over terminology and wording.

[Max_Killjoy]

You are correct, in the sense that simply missing in combat is potentially life-threatening fumble as it allows an opponent to act for longer.



I'd say that "fumble" in this context has a specific meaning, and it's best to not conflate it with "missing is dangerous".



The corollary to that is that in dangerous situations, magic simply not being a surefire thing is sufficient to introduce much-desired risk into the game.

There are only two major reasons to add fumbles, or any other carrier effects, on failures:

1) to speed up play by preventing long chains of "nothing happens".
2) to create situations which wouldn't otherwise emerge from the game rules. For example, in combat, you don't need a fumble for the Fighter to drop their weapon, because a miss gives their enemy an opportunity to disarm them, creating the same result. But if swinging your sword at a wall, the wall is not legitimate user of "disarm" action, so under the simplest rules your sword could never be broken or fly off your hand. So a new rule needs to be added if it is acknowledged and desired that yes, if you swing your sword at a wall long enough and hard enough, something might happen.


1) If "nothing happens" for long stretches, it's often because the opponents are evenly matched, or because the people playing the characters aren't going outside a very small box. Introducing random comedic pratfalls isn't going to improve that beyond "hey, someone died faster".

2) At least from that example, the random complication isn't necessary for that sort of stupidity on the part of the character to have an effect.

[Anymage]

Too keep things Fair, enemies need the same Components as well. So MR. Lich has maybe One or Two really Powerfull Components laying around, next to his normal Spells...

Two huge problems with this.

First, npcs won't have to face annoying sidequests to get their components. 99% of the time, they'll just have them. Even if you abstract the components away to just a gp price, you still have the npc burning treasure the pcs would get from winning every time they cast a spell.

Second, getting back to the main discussion, is the fact that we're talking about the wizard. Someone defined by their role. If a spell in Call of Cthulhu risks ability damage and/or summoning a demon to eat your face, that's more okay. The characters have their primary archetypes, spells are risky resources instead of your main shtick, and nobody's role is the spellcaster.

Going to Shadowrun, that gives a better idea how costs and risks can be arranged without being overly punitive. The gunbunny always has a chance of fumbling, but the chance noticeably goes down as skill goes up. The magician can cause serious or even fatal injury to themselves if they really push their limits, but for the most part they pay a small cost of being a bit winded. (And while SR has its own issues, it also reminds me that the d&d wizard/cleric style is not the norm. Most games make it costly or impossible for the caster archetype to have a broad spell selection.) But SR is at least proof of concept that it's possible to have a casting cost without bring overly onerous and/or undermining caster concept characters.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That's not what I said. What I said is that I want to be able to tell stories at a particular power level. I gave a bunch of examples of stories like that. Maybe you could look at those examples.
I have. None of them are defined first and foremost by their power level. Heck, the only decent characters I can think of defined primarily by their power level are side characters built as ideals for the protagonists to look up to and Saitama...and the latter only works because the entire story is built around it (things like how being that powerful makes him feel, and how it doesn't get him what he wants, and whatnot).


That was a summary.
Summaries generally go over the parts which are considered most important. The fact that you only talked about how much overwhelming power your character had in the summary is, I feel, quite telling.


This is a thread about what the power level of the game should be--
Actually, it's not. It's about ways to make sure that everyone in the game is at the same power level.


I'm not sure what you want here. It's clearly not "what kinds of powers does this character have", because I said that -- "nature powers" and "demon powers" -- and you kept right on trucking.
...
It's clearly not "a set of stories you can tell that are particular to that character rather than similar ones", because you have rejected "stories with that character work differently" as an answer to your question.
So what exactly are you looking for?
Did...did you read my post?
I'm looking for a reason why your character can only exist with that particular set of powers, if the concept for his powers is just "nature powers and demon powers". I never argued with the existence of those two powersets or their inclusion together, only why that needed to be the set of powers you mentioned and why the sheer power was so danged important to you that it was all you mentioned in your summary.


Yes, it does. Your character is not just a list of beliefs. It's also the actions he takes. The abilities you have matter because they change how your character can be actualized. If you take away Tony Stark's engineering talent, he's not the same character even if he still has the same personality and desires.
That much is true. However, he's essentially the same character whether his engineering talent extends to semi-practical inventions which he uses to defeat down-to-earth criminals, physics-shattering giant mecha which he uses to punch out lesser gods, or anything in between. Moreover, I'd argue that what makes Tony Stark Tony Stark (and not, say, Bruce Wayne or Bulma Briefs) is his personal life outside his powers--things like his hedonism and how his actions lead to him not trusting in uncontrolled vigilantes like himself.
TL;DR: If your character concept doesn't rely on being able to raze kingdoms, shatter armies, and slay the gods' greatest servants, power level doesn't matter. Stop conflating power level with power set.


Because if he doesn't have that engineering talent, when he's locked in a cave and told to make weapons he f****** dies. Because the abilities matter.
So, wait. You think it's absolutely critical to the story of Iron Man that he was, specifically, locked in a cave, told to make weapons, and broke out with a suit of power armor strong enough to deflect bullets? Is this true, or am I reading something wrong?


Do you understand what "buff" means? It doesn't mean "make the characters exactly the same", it means "bring them in line with everyone else". Fighters and Barbarians will be able to punch out gods, and they'll have powers that let them change the course of battles, but they'll still be badass.
First...do you know what "strawman" means? I have never argued that all characters should be exactly the same; in fact, I've argued the exact opposite! I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually care what I'm saying, aside from the fact that it's opposed to what you believe.
Anyways, the problem isn't that martial characters can't do everything that the casters can; it's that the casters can do more stuff than the martials, and do it better. Martial characters will never be able to single-handedly raze a kingdom, nor defeat any but the smallest or stupidest of armies, and they certainly can't defeat the greatest servants of the gods (let alone the gods themselves), no matter what you assert. If they could do those things, tiers wouldn't exist. (Probably.)


Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't raze kingdoms" is not a solution if the story I want to do is The Incursions. Because the ability to raze kingdoms (actually, worlds) is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot (as a PC). Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't travel to other planes" is not a solution if the story I want to do is The Chronicles of Amber. Because the ability to travel to other planes is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot. Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't fight the gods" is not a solution if the story I want to do is Dominions. Because the ability to fight other gods is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot.
Remember what I was saying about Iron Man's story? This is what I'm talking about.
Incursions (if it's the one I think you're talking about) isn't just a story about a few people going around destroying worlds. It's a story about a catastrophe which threatens everyone, where all parties involved fight and destroy each other in order to try and keep their own group alive a little longer. Aside from the "cleaning up our jumbled multiverse" angle, the same story could have been told on a smaller scale. Off the top of my head: An apocalyptic titan has come, and it will destroy anywhere that doesn't make enough blood sacrifices to it, so different nations start raiding each other. Or a kingdom starts to freeze, so people start killing their neighbors and burning their houses.
Chronicles of Amber isn't just about world-hopping, though if it was a few seconds' thought would reveal that the same could be accomplished by travelling to different places within one world/galaxy/unusually large city/whatever. But beyond that, it's a story about a man with amnesia discovering his past and claiming the power he feels should be his, then defending his realm from outside threats. Yes, this involves going from world to world to get things he needs or to deal with threats, but it shouldn't be hard to see that the actual location of these things is hardly essential to the plot. It would be much the same if Avalon and the Courts of Chaos and Earth and whatnot were replaced by different islands around the continent of Amber, or if they were different planets in a space opera, or even if they were different cities scattered across a harsh wilderness.
If the Dominions you're talking about is the one I found when Googling "dominions kill gods," well...its story is basically equivalent to Civilization or Age of Empires, crossed with a divine succession crisis. You could make a 4X game loosely based on the Westeros plot of A Song of Ice and Fire and have it work much the same, narratively and mechanically. Focusing on narrative, most of these (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuccessionCrisis) works could fit the bill.
You seem to have a bad habit of latching onto some cool, surface-level element that you like and assuming that it's a core part of the narrative. But it's not, any more than skin color is a core part of skeletal structure. Sure, skin color has some indirect impact on the skeleton--they're part of a complicated interconnected system--but you can have essentially the same skeleton under any color of skin.


If you don't want the game to support my concept, fine. But be honest about it. Don't insist that you can take powers away from a character and have the same character because that is obviously false.
...What?


Yes, and you can justify having the abilities I've described. But where exactly are the calls for the system excluding people who don't have polymorph? Because I'm not making those calls, and as far as I can tell I'm taking the most radically pro powerful characters position in this thread.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, either. Though given that I didn't understand your argument here in the first place, that's not surprising.




Well my ignore list explains why I'm not finding the "ultrapower" posts, and to be frank it's past pointless endless circular "discussions" about power levels and discrepancies that finally lead to that particular addition to my ignore list out of raw frustration at statements very much like those evidently being made here about how certain sorts of characters are supposedly supposed to be ultrapowerful and godlike and that's supposedly the whole point of the game.
Ah.
I might have to follow in your footsteps.


As for "verbosity", based on past experience the alternative is yet another multipage derail over terminology and wording.
Okay, fair enough. I've been guilty of the same. (Though I tend to prefer making shorter, more complicated statements instead of repeating variations on the same simple one. Personal taste, of course.)

[Zanos]

Everyone makes stupid mistakes. They're misnamed; you don't need to be stupid to make them.
Take tripping, for instance. Just about everyone on this forum has decades of experience walking, yet sometimes they screw up. Maybe it's tough to see, maybe they're distracted, maybe something else is impairing them, but it happens. It's not because we're stupid, it's because we're imperfect, and because walking in the real world is trickier than it is in theory, because the real world is a douche.
Now, magnify that. People walk for hours most days of their life, but warriors rarely have real, life-and-death fights, and they might not even spar daily. (They certainly got a later start on learning, and will retire sooner.) Battles, by their very nature, tend to make things tough--tough to perceive (quickly enough, at least), tough to focus (especially if your opponent is tricky or not just one guy), and tough not to get impaired by fatigue or wounds or whatever. The legendary hero isn't stupid--they're just imperfect, and in a world which is not doing anything to make their job easier.

Characters aren't real people. More importantly D&D characters are not ASoIaF characters. Typically D&D characters don't wrestle in the mud for a piece of bread and stab eachother in the face with rusty nails. You're describing level 2 human warriors(an npc class), not level 10 fighters.

Again as highlighted above, the paladin tripping over his improperly secured shinguard and impaling himself through the eye with his holy avenger is not interesting. It's slapstick, at best, and blatantly unfun. Not always succeeding isn't the same as constantly fumbling.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Characters aren't real people.
True, but making a change from "real people" should be an intentional choice based on the style of game you want to run, not the default you need to change away from.

[Zanos]

True, but making a change from "real people" should be an intentional choice based on the style of game you want to run, not the default you need to change away from.
D&D(and most RPGs, actually) is pretty explicitly a high magic land of epic heroes, where a single man can cut down 50 and live. That's been the "style" of most RPGs for decades. The vast majority of games are not about the playesr playing as the 5,000 starving peasants that die on the battlefield armed with pitchforks and dressed in rags. You can do something super low fantasy loaded with gritty realism, but it's actually not the norm in the genre because of the very conceits the setting needs to work. Specifically, that the PCs are generally more interesting and important than Joe the Mud Farmer.

[Lacco]

The words from their example literally just appeared on the previous page. The biggest problems that I see are 1) poor fluffing on critical failures by GMs and 2) the fact that in D&D and several other systems the probability doesn't alter based on user skill or weapon type. However more in line with this thread is the fact that warriors have to worry about them and no other archetype does (aka doesn't apply to skills or magic). So in D&D and more specifically 3.X I definitely agree that it should be removed.

Couldn't agree more - especially about no.2.

Considering human factor failure rate decreases tenfold between "untrained" and "trained", a veteran should have much lower chance.


Cool.

How many demons have you killed, exactly?

Legendary demon slaying heroes shouldn't trip and sprain their ankle. And it definitely shouldn't be more likely the more legendary they are (4 attacks per round vs 1).

And I agree with you!

A demon-slaying hero could trip only if the whole floor is covered in slimy demon blood - but he should be able to ignore the sprained ankle. But these examples were not given for a demon-slaying hero.

Considering I'm level -1 at best and the friend I mentioned is somewhere around LVL 1 or 2, these examples could be used for maybe level 0-3.

But... a demon-slaying hero still could overswing and hit & destroy an adjacent pillar, leading to the collapse of the ancient temple. Or jam the damn sword two feet deep into wall. Or even stick it so deep into the demon he loses grip and the sword sticks from the surprised demon's body :smallbiggrin:

Considering the opponents he faces, even a miniscule opening can be exploited - missed step is much worse when fighting high-level enemies.

And yes, the worst part is if a system increases the chances of fumble the more skilled the fighter is. That needs some serious fixing (there are systems that lower the probability with increase of combatants' skill).

I'm not against demon-slaying legendary heroes. I'm all for them - but even those guys should fumble once in a while. How often? Definitely much less than us, negative level guys :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Also, I'm one of the guys who plays games where 5000 peasants die on battlefield... that's why I usually provide low-magic solutions/examples.

EDIT 2: @GreatWyrmGold: As someone who still gets tunnel vision during sparring, I agree on most points. I'm quite proud of my footwork, yet I stumble too often when trying to coordinate everything at once. Practice makes it better. So, complete agreement.

@Max_Killjoy: Apologies for the caricature. I agree that a productive discussion does not lie that way - and I'm off to tend to my games :smallsmile:

[Tinkerer]

D&D(and most RPGs, actually) is pretty explicitly a high magic land of epic heroes, where a single man can cut down 50 and live. That's been the "style" of most RPGs for decades. The vast majority of games are not about the playesr playing as the 5,000 starving peasants that die on the battlefield armed with pitchforks and dressed in rags. You can do something super low fantasy loaded with gritty realism, but it's actually not the norm in the genre because of the very conceits the setting needs to work. Specifically, that the PCs are generally more interesting and important than Joe the Mud Farmer.

Which is why the problem is really in the fluff of the fumble. People keep presenting it as some comedy slapstick routine featuring a bumbling hero when what it really means is either your character made a slight error in attacking or something happened. Maybe they swung their sword too hard and the enemy dodged, causing the blade to be embedded in the nearby table. Maybe they missed the swing and left a split second critical opening allowing the enemy a free attack. Maybe there was a circumstance which was entirely beyond the control of the PC such as when fighting in the middle of a collapsing flying castle the ground gave way under the fighters foot causing them to go crashing to the floor below. That is what a fumble means to me and I've seen situations similar to those in nearly all high fantasy unrealistic settings in fiction.

And just to remind people again, the fumble is not a rule in a most RPGs, including D&D. The fact that it has stuck around as much as it has should be enough to prove that people seem to really want it for some reason, which is why I re-implemented it in several games after removing it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay, fair enough. I've been guilty of the same. (Though I tend to prefer making shorter, more complicated statements instead of repeating variations on the same simple one. Personal taste, of course.)


Forgot to answer this -- what I was trying to do there was lay out a set of differing options in such a way that I covered all the bases and got down to "but the one thing you can't do is have your cake and eat it too."

[GreatWyrmGold]

Which is perfectly fine if most people don't care about having it. "Having it" could apply to internally-consistent worldbuilding or keeping mundanes at guy-at-the-gym levels, but there are few people who care about both.

[Max_Killjoy]

Which is perfectly fine if most people don't care about having it. "Having it" could apply to internally-consistent worldbuilding or keeping mundanes at guy-at-the-gym levels, but there are few people who care about both.

They can have "keeping the mundanes at guy-at-the-gym levels" and "internally consistent worldbuilding" together -- that just means they have to give up one of the following: spellcasting demigod PCs or intercharacter balance (or playability of both spellcasters and "mundanes" together as PCs in the same campaign).

[Cosi]

"Nature powers" isn't very much of a "kind of power." It's super-duper vague. Anything can be fluffed as a nature power, or a demon power, or... If your only limitation is that you can convince the DM that it fits your broad theme, then it's not much of a limitation and might as well not exist. Choosing a theme should both open doors and close doors. Opportunity costs and trade-offs make for better games.

I still don't believe aesthetic/thematic limits are important, from a power perspective.


Actually, it's not. It's about ways to make sure that everyone in the game is at the same power level.

Which, given that everyone is not already on the same power level, requires changing the power levels of one or more things, which requires choosing a power level.


I'm looking for a reason why your character can only exist with that particular set of powers, if the concept for his powers is just "nature powers and demon powers". I never argued with the existence of those two powersets or their inclusion together, only why that needed to be the set of powers you mentioned and why the sheer power was so danged important to you that it was all you mentioned in your summary.

Because progress is important. And for that progress to be meaningful, it has to expand your character to new vistas of power and action.


So, wait. You think it's absolutely critical to the story of Iron Man that he was, specifically, locked in a cave, told to make weapons, and broke out with a suit of power armor strong enough to deflect bullets? Is this true, or am I reading something wrong?

I think that is an Iron Man story. If the character you are presenting as Iron Man is incapable of solving the problems various other Iron Men have solved, he is not Iron Man. No, that story isn't the make-or-break point, but the principal is important.


Anyways, the problem isn't that martial characters can't do everything that the casters can; it's that the casters can do more stuff than the martials, and do it better. Martial characters will never be able to single-handedly raze a kingdom, nor defeat any but the smallest or stupidest of armies, and they certainly can't defeat the greatest servants of the gods (let alone the gods themselves), no matter what you assert. If they could do those things, tiers wouldn't exist. (Probably.)

You are conflating how the game is balanced now with how it needs to be balanced.


Incursions (if it's the one I think you're talking about) isn't just a story about a few people going around destroying worlds. It's a story about a catastrophe which threatens everyone, where all parties involved fight and destroy each other in order to try and keep their own group alive a little longer. Aside from the "cleaning up our jumbled multiverse" angle, the same story could have been told on a smaller scale. Off the top of my head: An apocalyptic titan has come, and it will destroy anywhere that doesn't make enough blood sacrifices to it, so different nations start raiding each other. Or a kingdom starts to freeze, so people start killing their neighbors and burning their houses.
Chronicles of Amber isn't just about world-hopping, though if it was a few seconds' thought would reveal that the same could be accomplished by travelling to different places within one world/galaxy/unusually large city/whatever. But beyond that, it's a story about a man with amnesia discovering his past and claiming the power he feels should be his, then defending his realm from outside threats. Yes, this involves going from world to world to get things he needs or to deal with threats, but it shouldn't be hard to see that the actual location of these things is hardly essential to the plot. It would be much the same if Avalon and the Courts of Chaos and Earth and whatnot were replaced by different islands around the continent of Amber, or if they were different planets in a space opera, or even if they were different cities scattered across a harsh wilderness.
If the Dominions you're talking about is the one I found when Googling "dominions kill gods," well...its story is basically equivalent to Civilization or Age of Empires, crossed with a divine succession crisis. You could make a 4X game loosely based on the Westeros plot of A Song of Ice and Fire and have it work much the same, narratively and mechanically. Focusing on narrative, most of these (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuccessionCrisis) works could fit the bill.

For time reasons, I'm going to ignore the fact that you are wrong about some of these (for example, Amber explicitly has questions about what the world walking powers mean as part of what the characters care about), and point out that you've basically missed the entire point. Yes, at a high enough level of abstraction, stories are similar to other stories. But that doesn't mean those stories are the same. Superman and Captain America can both be reduced to "symbol of an idealized form of America". That doesn't make them the same character, because the specific abilities they have, the specific powers they have, and the specific stories they engage in change how that theme is interpreted.


You seem to have a bad habit of latching onto some cool, surface-level element that you like and assuming that it's a core part of the narrative. But it's not, any more than skin color is a core part of skeletal structure. Sure, skin color has some indirect impact on the skeleton--they're part of a complicated interconnected system--but you can have essentially the same skeleton under any color of skin.

Insofar as this is true, it is essentially a demand to enforce your aesthetic preferences over all other aesthetic preferences, which is stupid.

[Frozen_Feet]

This actually false. Just in discussions like this thread, examples abound: "Why it important your Fighter not use magic?" "Why is it important your Wizard not use a crossbow?" "Why is it important your telekineticist not be able to change shape?" "Why is it important for your Wizard to not be able to use healing magic?"


Those are class distinctions. No one is asking people to justify why the game should support "badass mundane". That archetype is being taken as a given. So why do you need to justify the other end?

Oh hey, missed this earlier.

Anyways. My reply to your "no-one ever asks you to justify why your concept should not use polymorph" was that it's trivially false. I do not understand why you think placing emphasis on class makes any sort of difference, as each class is also a (set of) character concept(s). For example, any argument for the Wizard class to not be able to wear heavy armor is automatically an argument for each individual Wizard to be conceptualized as not wearing heavy armor in that system.

Second, for "No one is asking people to justify why the game should support "badass mundane".... don't be ridiculous. You know that's trivially false, people have been doing that in threads like these for ages, YOU'VE BEEN THERE, participating. People, in this thread, have argued that the concept of "mundane badass" has no place in a fantasy games. I've argued, essentially, that the word "mundane" does not go together with any sort of badass.

Yet, you keep asking, why do you need to justify the other end? Well gee, maybe I & others wouldn't feel a need to ask you to do that if the hobby wasn't full of people who cannot grok the genres of magical realism, realism and horror (to give few examples), claiming with straight face that if one thing is unrealistic, everything must be.

I will gladly stop complaining about people who want high magic, high fantasy, high power games, once "realism" is no longer a curse word.

[GreatWyrmGold]

They can have "keeping the mundanes at guy-at-the-gym levels" and "internally consistent worldbuilding" together -- that just means they have to give up one of the following: spellcasting demigod PCs or intercharacter balance (or playability of both spellcasters and "mundanes" together as PCs in the same campaign).
You misunderstand. I'm not saying people can't have both, I'm saying they usually don't care about either. So...basically the opposite of that.



Yet, you keep asking, why do you need to justify the other end? Well gee, maybe I & others wouldn't feel a need to ask you to do that if the hobby wasn't full of people who cannot grok the genres of magical realism, realism and horror (to give few examples), claiming with straight face that if one thing is unrealistic, everything must be.
I feel your pain. It's all the worse when 99% of everything actually is realistic without anyone thinking about it (which it usually is). When the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics end up with a world that mostly looks like ours, just with wizards and dragons pasted on top, fiddling with those scientific laws should have some kind of consequences that bubble up into the visible world.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel your pain. It's all the worse when 99% of everything actually is realistic without anyone thinking about it (which it usually is). When the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics end up with a world that mostly looks like ours, just with wizards and dragons pasted on top, fiddling with those scientific laws should have some kind of consequences that bubble up into the visible world.

As a biologist, you should be familiar with convergent evolution. That is, on the surface things are realistic (same macro-state, to borrow a statistical mechanics term). The reasons that underpin that "realism" are completely different, however. You can't use real-world physical reasoning to construct (for example) gunpowder--while it may be true that mixing bat guano, burned wood, and brimstone in the right proportions makes a powder that burns furiously, it's not because there's a reaction between the potassium, carbon, and sulfur in the ingredients and the oxygen in the air. It's because (to make something up) the decay elementals in the guano and the burned wood, plus the crystallized evil of brimstone react with the ambient mana field when exposed to fire elementals. Even if the planet goes in an oval orbit around a central star (which is by no means assured), it could be that there are legions of invisible angels dedicated to pushing it along a fixed track.

None of these necessarily impact play directly, so they're ignored. Very few setting materials go into enough detail to say why things work, only what things work.


One thing I've tried to do is figure out why my setting is a kitchen sink (mostly). My goal is to figure out a reasonable place for all the races and classes in the official 5e D&D published materials. The setting itself is composed of the dream of a being who has become the "glue" that holds the setting together in the form of a great pseudo-mechanical interplanar construct. There are no atoms, no molecules. No evolution, no plate tectonics. What there are are sparks (intelligences, fragments of the Dreamer) and the anima (spirit energy) that they produce. Everything is built out of these building blocks. It results in a sorta-pantheistic/animistic environment, where there really are spirits in everything. Spells are resonances in this magic. The races have descended (through conscious modification by other races) from primordial races created by the Dreamer itself. Most of the weird ones (dragonborn, gnomes, halflings, beast-folk like lizardmen and tabaxi, etc) are descended from humans by direct "genetic" manipulation--blending the essences of animals or spirits directly with humans or goblins (who are human-kind's ancestors). Humans themselves were created, along with orcs, from hobgoblins by elves, who are themselves descended from the same root as modern angels (and devils, for that matter).

[Frozen_Feet]

As a biologist, you should be familiar with convergent evolution. That is, on the surface things are realistic (same macro-state, to borrow a statistical mechanics term). The reasons that underpin that "realism" are completely different, however. You can't use real-world physical reasoning to construct (for example) gunpowder--while it may be true that mixing bat guano, burned wood, and brimstone in the right proportions makes a powder that burns furiously, it's not because there's a reaction between the potassium, carbon, and sulfur in the ingredients and the oxygen in the air. It's because (to make something up) the decay elementals in the guano and the burned wood, plus the crystallized evil of brimstone react with the ambient mana field when exposed to fire elementals. Even if the planet goes in an oval orbit around a central star (which is by no means assured), it could be that there are legions of invisible angels dedicated to pushing it along a fixed track.

None of these necessarily impact play directly, so they're ignored. Very few setting materials go into enough detail to say why things work, only what things work.


One thing I've tried to do is figure out why my setting is a kitchen sink (mostly). My goal is to figure out a reasonable place for all the races and classes in the official 5e D&D published materials. The setting itself is composed of the dream of a being who has become the "glue" that holds the setting together in the form of a great pseudo-mechanical interplanar construct. There are no atoms, no molecules. No evolution, no plate tectonics. What there are are sparks (intelligences, fragments of the Dreamer) and the anima (spirit energy) that they produce. Everything is built out of these building blocks. It results in a sorta-pantheistic/animistic environment, where there really are spirits in everything. Spells are resonances in this magic. The races have descended (through conscious modification by other races) from primordial races created by the Dreamer itself. Most of the weird ones (dragonborn, gnomes, halflings, beast-folk like lizardmen and tabaxi, etc) are descended from humans by direct "genetic" manipulation--blending the essences of animals or spirits directly with humans or goblins (who are human-kind's ancestors). Humans themselves were created, along with orcs, from hobgoblins by elves, who are themselves descended from the same root as modern angels (and devils, for that matter).


See, I can totally grok that. I could totally play or hold a game in a setting like that.

But just as well I know that no setting has to be like that, fantastic or not. A game can be literally set on Earth with the sole exception of one man having the powers of a Superman, and he's not a player character.

And there are games in that space too that I want to play and hold.

[PhoenixPhyre]

See, I can totally grok that. I could totally play or hold a game in a setting like that.

But just as well I know that no setting has to be like that, fantastic or not. A game can be literally set on Earth with the sole exception of one man having the powers of a Superman, and he's not a player character.

And there are games in that space too that I want to play and hold.

As long as you're willing to give up "realism" (scare quotes intended), that's fine.

But I'm one to prioritize verisimilitude over fun. I'm not particularly bugged by setting dissonance unless it affects gameplay. I'm good at rationalising things :)

[Frozen_Feet]

Realism in my post and "realism" in yours aren't really the same concept, so I feel we're talking past each other.

[GreatWyrmGold]

As a biologist, you should be familiar with convergent evolution.
I'ma stop you right there.
Convergent evolution isn't a thing where similar creatures in different circumstances evolve similarly, it's a thing where different creatures in similar circumstances evolve similarly. Moreover, like evolution in general, it relies on there being some notion of fitness by which creatures are measured.
Using convergent evolution as a metaphor to explain why different worlds look similar fails on two accounts. One, any changes anywhere near big enough to handwave some element of magic would cause serious enough divergences that near-perfect convergence would be implausible. Second, there can be no selective force on entire worlds. (Well, there theoretically can, but it requires worlds to breed and for some to die and it's hard to work that into worldbuilding without the multiverse ending up as a major focus.)
Let's take your example.

[W]hile it may be true that mixing bat guano, burned wood, and brimstone in the right proportions makes a powder that burns furiously, it's not because there's a reaction between the potassium, carbon, and sulfur in the ingredients and the oxygen in the air. It's because (to make something up) the decay elementals in the guano and the burned wood, plus the crystallized evil of brimstone react with the ambient mana field when exposed to fire elementals.
This is pretty much the worst possible example you could have picked, but it's great for illustrating my point. Combustion of anything, whether it's a carefully-crafted artificial powder or a pile of wood, is a form of redox (reduction/oxidation) reaction. There is a reason that scientists have a name for that kind of reaction--it comes up frequently in chemistry, especially biochemistry. In fact, the process your body uses to turn sugar into energy is essentially the same as the process used to burn sugar, just with a bunch of extra bits thrown in to extract energy more efficiently and safely (and slowly). If you remove redox reactions, you need a new set of explanations for every redox reaction in nature, which in turn requires new explanations for how energy is stored and why we need food and so on, and the problems all pile up. All because you don't like chemistry.


None of these necessarily impact play directly, so they're ignored. Very few setting materials go into enough detail to say why things work, only what things work.
My thoughts exactly. But isn't it much simpler to say that things burn for the same reasons they do IRL than to wave your hands and create whole new physics? Isn't it simpler to just add new laws on top, such as some sort of extra source of energy that can be tapped somehow?


As long as you're willing to give up "realism" (scare quotes intended), that's fine.
Please define what "realism" means in this context. Neither your distaste for it nor the scare quotes make sense to me, so there's likely some miscommunication somewhere.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'ma stop you right there.
Convergent evolution isn't a thing where similar creatures in different circumstances evolve similarly, it's a thing where different creatures in similar circumstances evolve similarly. Moreover, like evolution in general, it relies on there being some notion of fitness by which creatures are measured.
Using convergent evolution as a metaphor to explain why different worlds look similar fails on two accounts. One, any changes anywhere near big enough to handwave some element of magic would cause serious enough divergences that near-perfect convergence would be implausible. Second, there can be no selective force on entire worlds. (Well, there theoretically can, but it requires worlds to breed and for some to die and it's hard to work that into worldbuilding without the multiverse ending up as a major focus.)
Let's take your example.


Analogies are analogous, not identical. All I meant was that things can look the same, but have very different characteristics "under the hood," so to speak.



This is pretty much the worst possible example you could have picked, but it's great for illustrating my point. Combustion of anything, whether it's a carefully-crafted artificial powder or a pile of wood, is a form of redox (reduction/oxidation) reaction. There is a reason that scientists have a name for that kind of reaction--it comes up frequently in chemistry, especially biochemistry. In fact, the process your body uses to turn sugar into energy is essentially the same as the process used to burn sugar, just with a bunch of extra bits thrown in to extract energy more efficiently and safely (and slowly). If you remove redox reactions, you need a new set of explanations for every redox reaction in nature, which in turn requires new explanations for how energy is stored and why we need food and so on, and the problems all pile up. All because you don't like chemistry.

My thoughts exactly. But isn't it much simpler to say that things burn for the same reasons they do IRL than to wave your hands and create whole new physics? Isn't it simpler to just add new laws on top, such as some sort of extra source of energy that can be tapped somehow?



Here's a big problem. I'm a physicist. There's exactly 1 known set of physical laws that produces anything like life. And that's ours. As soon as you say "oh, there's magic", you've thrown that out the window. Magic (anything not possible in real life) is definitionally incompatible with our real life physical laws. Your choices are:


Use the real world as a setting, with no magic whatsoever. Some do this, but :shrug: If I wanted to play in real life, I'd go outside. I'd rather not though--the sunlight, it burns me. And I'm allergic to all those green things. :smallwink:
Enable magic and come up with new explanations for everything, because the old ones don't work anymore.
Enable magic and paper over the cracks, relying on a suspension of disbelief and the lack of knowledge of most users.


There is no option 4. You can't say that things burn for the same reasons and throw away conservation of energy and mass and momentum (all essential to enabling dragons, for example). The laws of nature are self-consistent, complete, and minimal--you can change the parameters (changing any of which usually results in no matter, let alone life), but you can't alter the basic laws themselves without creating paradoxes. As a result, adding new laws isn't a possibility. You have to rewrite everything from scratch if you care about logical consistency.

Note: this also goes for science fiction (except for the really hard stuff). A setting where FTL travel is reasonably easy (as in, doesn't require super-giant-masses worth of energy) will, if you care about such things, be completely unlike real life. Most likely, it's one where carbon-based life as we know it can't exist. Causality is a mean mistress.

Most (all, in fact) settings that are actually playable take options 1 or 3. Creating a self-consistent set of laws for reality and tuning them to produce real-looking results is hard (as in, we can't do it for our reality with thousands of man-years of the best minds). The only difference is what the user is willing to overlook in the name of fun. None of the options are objectively better, only better for one purpose or another.



Please define what "realism" means in this context. Neither your distaste for it nor the scare quotes make sense to me, so there's likely some miscommunication somewhere.

"Realism" is the vain attempt to lock everything in a game setting into a fully-understood, logically-consistent framework. In my opinion this a waste of time. It's a waste of potential--the desire for the fantastic, to experience things that can't happen in reality, is a prime reason I play. It's impossible, since no setting builder (or even company of such) has the required expertise to even scratch the surface of what would have to be done. There will always be loopholes, places where there isn't a ready explanation. And that's ok. Heck--real life has those all the time. One-in-a-million coincidences that are not explainable, at least by mortals. The biggest poison to a game setting or system isn't logical inconsistency (there are systems built around illogic) but boringness. And not being able to include things just because they're fun is, to me, boring in the extreme.

Don't get me wrong. I don't do inconsistency on purpose, but I do consistency in a game setting as a retroactive explanation. I know where I need to get, what results I need and then come up with an explanation that fits. I know when I have the "right" explanation because it answers many further questions and enables fun, fantastic things to happen.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Analogies are analogous, not identical. All I meant was that things can look the same, but have very different characteristics "under the hood," so to speak.
Continuing to use the analogy: Convergent evolution works because there are similar forces working on (say) fish and dolphins. Both live in the ocean, both eat smaller marine animals, both have to deal with water pressure and (some) gravity, both are organic organisms, etc.
The idea of convergently-evolving universes requires that there be some underlying forces which direct universes to be the same. And, as I alluded to, that involves opening up a can of 4-dimensional eldritch worms.


Here's a big problem. I'm a physicist. There's exactly 1 known set of physical laws that produces anything like life. And that's ours. As soon as you say "oh, there's magic", you've thrown that out the window. Magic (anything not possible in real life) is definitionally incompatible with our real life physical laws.

Use the real world as a setting, with no magic whatsoever. Some do this, but :shrug: If I wanted to play in real life, I'd go outside. I'd rather not though--the sunlight, it burns me. And I'm allergic to all those green things. :smallwink:
Enable magic and come up with new explanations for everything, because the old ones don't work anymore.
Enable magic and paper over the cracks, relying on a suspension of disbelief and the lack of knowledge of most users.

There is no option 4. You can't say that things burn for the same reasons and throw away conservation of energy and mass and momentum (all essential to enabling dragons, for example).
Why would you need to throw away any of those? I see no reason why (as alluded to elsewhere) there couldn't be some source of energy external to what we consider "the universe," which some creatures can tap to (say) levitate or generate fire. Depending on how it's external, that might not require violating the laws of physics as we know them, but even if it does it only opens a small can of worms compared to rewriting everything.
(P.S. Why do dragons violate conservation of mass or momentum? Energy, I can see depending on the inherent assumptions, but the others confuse me.)


"Realism" is the vain attempt--
Automatic F. Define it without bias, so I can learn something other than the fact that you don't like realism. Because all I see there is a manifestation of your hatred towards certain implementations of so-called "realism," broadened to not only include similar implementations but the term itself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Continuing to use the analogy: Convergent evolution works because there are similar forces working on (say) fish and dolphins. Both live in the ocean, both eat smaller marine animals, both have to deal with water pressure and (some) gravity, both are organic organisms, etc.
The idea of convergently-evolving universes requires that there be some underlying forces which direct universes to be the same. And, as I alluded to, that involves opening up a can of 4-dimensional eldritch worms.


When we're discussing fictional universes, there is an underlying meta-force. The writers. We want universes we can play in and understand, so we make them (at least on the surface) similar to what we do, sort-of, understand. Fictional universes that don't meet those criteria don't do well--they're too alien to set good stories in.

This illustrates a fundamental problem with the mindset I see here. Settings are just that--settings. They're not actual universes that have independent existences. They exist to be played in, to be a stage for the players to act on. Anything that detracts from this is a flaw--including, occasionally, too strong a need for consistency.



Why would you need to throw away any of those? I see no reason why (as alluded to elsewhere) there couldn't be some source of energy external to what we consider "the universe," which some creatures can tap to (say) levitate or generate fire. Depending on how it's external, that might not require violating the laws of physics as we know them, but even if it does it only opens a small can of worms compared to rewriting everything.
(P.S. Why do dragons violate conservation of mass or momentum? Energy, I can see depending on the inherent assumptions, but the others confuse me.)


Because, definitionally, there can't be anything outside the observable universe that can interact with the observable universe.

The laws of our present reality have certain properties--


They're self-consistent. Plugging in a result from one of them back into that law produces the same effect.
They're complete. All observations are based on these principles. This also implies isometry (same everywhere), isotropy (same in every direction), and isotemporal (unchanging in time) for reasons that are PhD level classes, with math to match. Been there, done that, passed those. Don't want to do it on a forum.
they are minimal. There are no redundant or extra laws.


Self-consistency means that you can't change things without bringing the whole tower down on you. Completeness/isotropy/isometry means there can't be anything outside the laws. No "well, it's different here." Minimalism means that there's no space to add more laws.

All together, there's good reason to believe that the set of laws we are living in is the only such set that can result in matter and life anything like we know it.

Breaking one of the fundamental conservation laws is not a small can of worms. It's the entire can of worms. Everything else, all other laws depend critically on those basic conservation laws. Any exceptions means we have to start over from scratch--the whole thing comes tumbling down on our heads.

And dragons break all the laws. Conservation of mass--as soon as you allow them to shapeshift, it's broken right there and then. And also--energy/mass conservation are actually the same law. There's no way to get enough energy from food to do even 10% of what they can do in fiction, let alone fly. Set aside that the square-cube law would make them paper-fragile or crushed under their own weight (or cooked from the inside out). Conservation of momentum--a beast that massive would crack it's own wings trying to fly, let alone do aerial acrobatics. You can get something that looks like dinosaurs, but not dragons. Or wizards. Or elves. Or...the list goes on. And certainly not all of those at once. Every change produces ripple effects that block out other possibilities. Paradox ensues.

This is what I meant--no one can do this right. You can't add laws and expect consistency. It all falls apart. Much better to accept the one-drop rule of magic--adding any magic means that everything has to be rewritten. Does it have to be rewritten now? Absolutely not. But none of what you knew is sacrosanct. It's all on unsteady ground as soon as you add in anything unreal. Better to accept that and suspend your disbelief. Judge a setting only on its own terms, based on what it claims to do. If it fails to meet its own claims, condemn it as a failure. If it doesn't claim to do anything you find useful, it can be set aside. But that doesn't make it bad. It doesn't make it useless, just not useful to you, for these purposes. If it doesn't claim to hew to reality, don't condemn it for failing to do what it never set out to do. That's judging a fish for being a poor climber, or a rake for being a poor hammer.



Automatic F. Define it without bias, so I can learn something other than the fact that you don't like realism. Because all I see there is a manifestation of your hatred towards certain implementations of so-called "realism," broadened to not only include similar implementations but the term itself.

Note--your tone is coming across as very supercilious and condescending. You're not a teacher, this is not a class. Don't grade me, bro (intentionally not blue text). There is no such thing as definitions without bias. I prefer to be open about my bias to hiding the bias.

That aside--I'm hostile to the idea that the objection "But in real life..." or "historically..." or any such thing holds any objective weight in TTRPGs, let alone should be the default or dominant criteria. Reality only holds if we're in reality or if we explicitly import it. But, in fantasy settings at least, we're not in reality. Things are different there by definition. Sure, we can add real-life science/history/etc back in, but it's an addon, not an intrinsic part of the foundation.

Settings should be designed as stages for characters to play on. As playgrounds for the mind. As places to have fun. Adding in real-world physics, chemistry, history, or any such thing can enhance that fun, if done right and with the right people. But they're flavorings, they're spices. They're optional considerations. Many fun stories have been told in cartoon settings, where physics and chemistry, etc are right out (except when adding it would be funny). Many fun stories have been told in settings that would crumble under any serious scrutiny. In those cases, adding in more consistency would have dulled the point, would have destroyed the spark that made them enjoyable by adding more words. I hate to see promising places for interesting "what if's" crushed under the weight of academic "but in reality..." complaints.

I guess what I'm trying (badly) to say is "why so serious?" Not all fiction should be "hard" fiction (in the sense of hard science fiction). In fact, when people try to hew too much to historical accuracy or "how things really work," they usually leave bigger holes than if they just glossed over things. I'm much more critical of works that claim to be accurate reflections of X than ones that are more light-hearted or more driven by other considerations. Character-centric fiction (which is what RPGs do best) often gets overwhelmed by trying to explain too much.

In my experience, the dominant majority of the time, the observed difference between my option 3 (papering over the cracks, backfilling where needed) and option 2 (rebuilding everything up from the ground up) is that option 3 leaves many more hooks for fun and has less of a chance of railroading, specifically because less is decided in advance. The extra consistency from option 2 goes unnoticed by anyone but the creator.

[Talakeal]

Talakeal on the other hand wants the game system to exclude anything that a mundane wouldn't be able to beat.

Not quite.

I am saying that printed D&D already doesn't include anything that a mundane character wouldn't be able to beat outside of people who abuse a handful of broken "I-win button" spells and that every other edition of D&D manages to allow both martial and magical characters to shine.

3.X nerfed the martials and has a few spells that are essentially win buttons.

Buff martials back to AD&D levels and they can handle any 3.X encounter that does not rely heavily on enemies abusing said win button spells.

If you also nerfed those win-button spells you now have an environment where any archetype can play the game and contribute without trivializing CR appropriate encounters.






AFAICT Cosi likes the 3.5 level of balance because he wants to play high powered characters who get to look down on all the muggles and don't have to worry about limitations.

I prefer an AD&D level of balance because it allows everyone to contribute while still being able to play the archetype they want to play.

[Frozen_Feet]

My thoughts exactly. But isn't it much simpler to say that things burn for the same reasons they do IRL than to wave your hands and create whole new physics? Isn't it simpler to just add new laws on top, such as some sort of extra source of energy that can be tapped somehow?

Depends. If the new rules (of "physics") are sufficiently simple, it may indeed be easier to use them than the old rules. Most RPG sets fit this criteria. A problem then arises that the new rules are not sufficiently complex to create all the situations and all the phenomena required for the game to be interesting, usefull and immersive. The handiest way to get around this is to have a real, human person capable of using real knowledge serving as an oracle for the game, overwriting the rules and filling in the missing phenomena and situations where the new, simpler rules are inefficient for creatig them.

You may have heard of such a person. They're usually called a "game master". There might even be a game you know of which includes one.

---

@PhoenixPhyre:

Why, exactly, do you think using "realism" for anal-retentive pursuit of logical consistency, instead of how the term is actually used in art?

[Satinavian]

And dragons break all the laws. Conservation of mass--as soon as you allow them to shapeshift, it's broken right there and then. And also--energy/mass conservation are actually the same law. There's no way to get enough energy from food to do even 10% of what they can do in fiction, let alone fly. You could easily get around that by introducing new reservoirs/force fields that the dragon can access.
Which coincidently is how quite a few systems fluff magic. "Magic energy", "Magic fields" and stuff.

Also you only need conservation of energy if you want your physical laws to remain constant in time. But i would agree that it is usually worth keeping it. Well, except for settings full of time travel/timeless fey realms and similar stuff.

This is what I meant--no one can do this right. You can't add laws and expect consistency. It all falls apart. Much better to accept the one-drop rule of magic--adding any magic means that everything has to be rewritten.That introducing magic somehow changes everything does not mean that it effects everything to some noticable degree It is completely viable to say "everything is as we know it until explicitely told otherwise".


In my experience, the dominant majority of the time, the observed difference between my option 3 (papering over the cracks, backfilling where needed) and option 2 (rebuilding everything up from the ground up) is that option 3 leaves many more hooks for fun and has less of a chance of railroading, specifically because less is decided in advance. The extra consistency from option 2 goes unnoticed by anyone but the creator.That doesn't really match my experience. If the extra consistency is noted depends on if anyone is interested in those details. And railroading/no railroading has no correlation with how realistic the setting is whatsoever.

[Glorthindel]

What you CANNOT have is spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, no reflection of that in the worldbuilding, AND a setting that makes any damn sense at all.

Something has to be sacrificed.


See, this is where I disagree. The problem is we are wedding ourselves to some mechanics, and because of that we reach a situation where we reach a gulf in power we cant bridge.

When anyone who isn't a theorycrafter complains about balance between classes, what are they really complaining about? Damage. Every time. What is the single most popular Gish cantrip is 5th ed currently? Its either Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade. Why? It's certainly not because of the rider effects. It's the damage. They are a resource-free (unlike Fighter Maneuvers) means of getting extra damage on a melee attack, and for that reason every player who rolls up a melee class seriously considers whether to multiclass or take the Magic Initiate Feat in order to get it.

Nothing about worldbuilding mandates a longsword must always do D8 damage. So nothing would break if Fighters had an ability that increased the damage dice of weapons they weilded. A Fighter laying out 3 attacks, each with a higher crit change and doing multiple d10 damage with a single handed weapon (so he can still rock a shield, and not have to decide whether they need to run a Dex build in order to put out decent damage and have a high AC) suddenly doesn't look so weak compared to the Wizard. And no worldbuilding logic was hurt in the adjustment. I shook my head when I read the Battlemaster Maneuvers, because they were a perfect way to make Fighters awesome - but they couldn't resist limiting their use, and missing the mark (especially hilarious given that they chose to give Spellcasters spammable cantrips, but fighters got hit with the limited-use curse).

Its why I twitch when people start talking about what I class as manga-powers (leaping over buildings, causing walls to spring up by punching the ground), because this isn't what the fighter is, and what fighter players want the fighter to be. All it does is creates a different thing entirely. I firmly believe the solution with classes is niche-protection, not homogenisation - rather than giving Fighters utility abilities that make then wizards-by-another-name, give them things that strengthen their ability to get up in big creatures faces and lay out the pain. More damage dice, improved crit change, trips and knock back effects, and things like the 3.5 Cleave and Spring Attack Feats baked in. Now that is a bad ass Fighter. No Fighter player will be upset that a Wizard can throw fireballs and mow down the minion, if when the time comes to fight that Dragon, its the Fighter that gets to shine.

[Anymage]

You could easily get around that by introducing new reservoirs/force fields that the dragon can access.
Which coincidently is how quite a few systems fluff magic. "Magic energy", "Magic fields" and stuff.

Okay. Martials draw on chi to be able to perform anime-esque effects. Otherwise, please explain how huge swathes of the MM need to draw on this background magic in order to simply continue functioning (and in many cases, just to exist without collapsing under their own weight), while everybody else in the setting is limited to what earth physics and biology allow.


That doesn't really match my experience. If the extra consistency is noted depends on if anyone is interested in those details. And railroading/no railroading has no correlation with how realistic the setting is whatsoever.

Okay. Explain to me how elves can have human level metabolisms and similar biological rhythms on most levels, while having lifespans so much longer. Explain to me how dragon genes can interface with anything else to create viable part-dragon offspring, even when the dragon is shapechanged (and would presumably have the physiology - including the genes - of whatever they turned into).

And if we happened to be sitting around a table in real time instead of on an internet site where anybody could become an instant expert with fifteen minutes of google, I'd be asking you about the different kinds of rock, about the feed requirements for horses, or about how large a food base you need to support a certain number of apex predators. Requiring advanced knowledge of real-life scientific disciplines in order to be considered an acceptable DM is an even more ridiculous bar to set than expecting the DM to be able to perfectly account for the potential of every spell or ability ever published. I have enough work on my plate putting together an engaging story. Being allowed to default to action movie physics saves me a ton of hassle.


More damage dice, improved crit change, trips and knock back effects, and things like the 3.5 Cleave and Spring Attack Feats baked in. Now that is a bad ass Fighter. No Fighter player will be upset that a Wizard can throw fireballs and mow down the minion, if when the time comes to fight that Dragon, its the Fighter that gets to shine.

Absolute damage numbers mean little. 1 damage to a creature with 4 HP means more than thousands to a creature who has millions. So if the fighter has to sit around in noncombat situations twiddling his thumbs while the wizard has tailor-made spells, you have to figure out how the in-combat balance works. Does it become the wizard's turn to sit twiddling his thumbs? If the wizard is a bit behind the fighter, damage-wise, is the amount too small to be meaningful? If the wizard has abilities that blast right through HP (like 3.x's SoD/SoS), has the fighter been trivialized again? And if the wizard gives up damage in return for riders, have you just gone back to 4e's system where everyone's powers and roles have to be weighed against everyone elses?

I'm okay with fighters being action heroes while casters are mid-tier superheroes. But action heroes still have stuff to do even when they're not punching out bad guys. And most mid-tier supers have one shtick where they're good when they can apply it but let someone else take the lead when outside their niche. But "I'm good with a pointy stick and nothing else" vs. "I'm an omni-caster" is precisely what causes the problem.

[Glorthindel]

I'm okay with fighters being action heroes while casters are mid-tier superheroes. But action heroes still have stuff to do even when they're not punching out bad guys. And most mid-tier supers have one shtick where they're good when they can apply it but let someone else take the lead when outside their niche. But "I'm good with a pointy stick and nothing else" vs. "I'm an omni-caster" is precisely what causes the problem.

I get your point, but there are other classes for that. People who want to be toolboxes pick either Wizard (for magical toolbox), Rogue (for mundane toolbox), or Bard (for a bit of each). What does the player who "wants to be good with a pointy stick, and doesn't care about anything else" play if the Fighter gets pulled about all over the place to fulfill the roll of "just another toolbox".

For me, this is where the discussion starts to be unable to see the wood for the trees. We are wandering off into trying to make the Fighter as good as other classes in their niches (which it shouldn't be), rather than fix the true problem, which is making the Fighter competative in its own niche. THAT is the problem - that the Wizard is able to fulfill the Fighters (and the Rogues, which is a more tricky problem to solve) niche, whilst simultaneously filling its own.

And it leads to conflating the arguement, because there isn't a way to make a Fighter fill a Wizards niche without seriously crippling the Wizard (or transforming the Fighter into a superhero), which leads to replies from Wizard players like:



In favor, of course, of the "players of Wizards and Druids can just f*** off 'solutions'".

Which I most definitely don't want to do. When I play a Fighter, I want to be the best single-target direct-damage melee dealer on the field, not be "a bit worse than what the Druid and Wizard have just summoned" (But summoning should very definitely remain as an option for those times when I can't take 20 ogres on by myself). But I don't care that the Wizard can Teleport (as long as he brings me along - hell, it saves gold on buying horses), or that he can Fly (although, if there is a big flying nasty about, I would like it to be optimal for him to cast Fly on me, rather than do it himself or summon something that can fly instead). There is plenty of ways to make the Fighter the go-to heavy-hitter meatshield to a level that a Wizard cannot replicate, without crippling the Wizard or turning the Fighter into something that isn't a Fighter.

[Cluedrew]

To PhoenixPhyre: You have hit (part of) the reason I divided up "the literary definition of magic" from just "magic". I bring this up because of that exchange we had earlier where I drew that comparison what you have been saying recently has been making sense to me even though other people seem to not get it at all. I saw you define one side (magic as the impossible) but maybe pointing out it is different from the magic of spells and not we are trying to make everyone a caster might be useful? If I have understood you correctly.

There are many other things I could comment on, but I'm going to stay focused on something that might actually help.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You could easily get around that by introducing new reservoirs/force fields that the dragon can access.
Which coincidently is how quite a few systems fluff magic. "Magic energy", "Magic fields" and stuff.


Not if you want consistency. Add more mass (and energy is mass) and you suddenly have gravitational effects, up to and including the universe collapsing (slowly, but surely). You also have entropy effects that would be noticeable.



Also you only need conservation of energy if you want your physical laws to remain constant in time. But i would agree that it is usually worth keeping it. Well, except for settings full of time travel/timeless fey realms and similar stuff.
That introducing magic somehow changes everything does not mean that it effects everything to some noticable degree It is completely viable to say "everything is as we know it until explicitely told otherwise".


That's actually not possible--as soon as you step outside reality (by adding magic) everything falls apart. You can say "everything looks the same unless specified otherwise," (option 3), but you can't have everything be the same under the hood and still have magic. Unless you're willing to give up some amount of consistency (which is what people have been decrying).



That doesn't really match my experience. If the extra consistency is noted depends on if anyone is interested in those details. And railroading/no railroading has no correlation with how realistic the setting is whatsoever.

And most of the time, they're not. At least in my experience. Or they're interested in very different details than what you thought was important.

If you've built everything from first principles, there's very little room to modify if something else would be more fun. If a player suggests that maybe it's like X, but your explanations for things require Y and everything else depends on those explanations, changing is much harder. That is, enforcing hard consistency is harder to make a playable setting. That's why everyone who isn't playing in the real world (option 1) is playing in some version of option 3 (more or less fleshed out).

But this is very off topic at this point, so I'll stop there.


To PhoenixPhyre: You have hit (part of) the reason I divided up "the literary definition of magic" from just "magic". I bring this up because of that exchange we had earlier where I drew that comparison what you have been saying recently has been making sense to me even though other people seem to not get it at all. I saw you define one side (magic as the impossible) but maybe pointing out it is different from the magic of spells and not we are trying to make everyone a caster might be useful? If I have understood you correctly.


I thought I had, but you're right.

Magic: (n), anything that can't happen on Earth, anything that would violate Earth's physical laws.

Spells: magical resonances that produce effects.

Not all magic is spells, not all magic users are spell-casters. To take examples from 5e D&D--a barbarian's Rage is magical--it makes him harder to hurt, hit harder, etc. It can also only be used a certain number of times per day. It's magical (because real people can't do that), but it has nothing to do with casting spells. A rogue's Evasion? Also magical. Normal people don't get to nope a fireball. How does it work? Not really important. But it's magic, and not spells. And so on.

There are no mundanes, no muggles, but not characters aren't shounen anime heros or wizardly demi-gods. I'm not even talking about changing abilities, just how we see those abilities. I'm trying to dispel the idea that limiting one group of classes based on some strange sense of "this one must match Earth-reality" is useful. Let fighters (and rogues, and ...) do cool stuff.

You'll also never be able to balance an unbounded-potential set of characters (e.g. 3.5e clerics gain new powers every time someone publishes new spells, without spending any resources) against a sharply-limited set of characters (muggles). Since I'm not fond of unlimited characters (seems mary sue-ish--I always have the exact power I need!), I'd rather limit the unlimited, and relax the limits on the sharply-limited so they meet in the middle.

[Frozen_Feet]

@PhoenixPhyre:


That's actually not possible--as soon as you step outside reality (by adding magic) everything falls apart. You can say "everything looks the same unless specified otherwise," (option 3), but you can't have everything be the same under the hood and still have magic.

No-one is saying everything is "the same under the hood" when they're explicitly adding new rules. What you seem to forget that what's added does not have to have widespread implications, because in context of fiction it's totally legit to say that the new thing is restricted to specific black box oracle with limited impact.

Your entire argument seems hypocritical to me, really, because you are the one who is supposedly defending the fantastic, yet it is also you who can't step outside perspective of a physicist and acknowledge that in fictionland, the supernatural can be a thing, universality of physical laws can br false, and the notion that all things interacting with the universe are natural can vrphilosophically unsound.

---

Related, I've said it before, I'll say it again: redefining magic as "anything impossible in reality" is not usefull, it's not what people think or mean when they use the word in common parlance and it only confuses matters. Not the least because it is broad enough to cover hard scifi and other forms of speculative fiction which are a far cry from fantasy with faeries and wizards.

A speculative FTL drive in a hard scifi story is not and will not ever be magic, no matter how impossible it turns out to be in practice. So rather than endlessly, pointlessly redefining magic, you use the words that the wider spe-fi circles have been using for decades for your concept: speculative and novum (comes from Latin for "new thing").

[PhoenixPhyre]

@PhoenixPhyre:

No-one is saying everything is "the same under the hood" when they're explicitly adding new rules. What you seem to forget that what's added does not have to have widespread implications, because in context of fiction it's totally legit to say that the new thing is restricted to specific black box oracle with limited impact.

Your entire argument seems hypocritical to me, really, because you are the one who is supposedly defending the fantastic, yet it is also you who can't step outside perspective of a physicist and acknowledge that in fictionland, the supernatural can be a thing, universality of physical laws can br false, and the notion that all things interacting with the universe are natural can vrphilosophically unsound.



I think you misunderstand me. I'm specifically saying that if you demand that everything is the same as reality and all logical consequences are followed you can't add magic. You can't have your cake (magic) and eat it too (have everything else work like reality) and still claim consistency. One of those three has to go. You can choose to sacrifice consistency (magic as black box addition), you can choose to sacrifice magic (gaining consistency for free), or you can, as I prefer to do, accept that everything in a fantasy setting is magic and go from there. Any choice is valid, but we should be clear about which choice we're making. Personally, I prefer to jettison the laws of physics, then jettison consistency, and then jettison magic. Others can choose other priorities.

I was responding to a specific comment--that you have to follow the consequences of adding things like magic to a setting to their logical extent. I was showing that you can't do that in any reasonable fashion and still have a playable setting that looks anything like reality. That is, it was a disproof by exploring the consequences of requiring following the consequences.



Related, I've said it before, I'll say it again: redefining magic as "anything impossible in reality" is not usefull, it's not what people think or mean when they use the word in common parlance and it only confuses matters. Not the least because it is broad enough to cover hard scifi and other forms of speculative fiction which are a far cry from fantasy with faeries and wizards.

A speculative FTL drive in a hard scifi story is not and will not ever be magic, no matter how impossible it turns out to be in practice. So rather than endlessly, pointlessly redefining magic, you use the words that the wider spe-fi circles have been using for decades for your concept: speculative and novum (comes from Latin for "new thing").

When you're dealing with the consequences of changes to physical laws, it's all magic whether we call it speculative or novum, or magic. That's entirely semantic. Hard sci-fi and FTL travel don't go together. "Speculative FTL" is an oxymoron.

But in this context, I was specifically discussing fantasy worlds--hence the focus on things like wizards and dragons. In this context, calling anything impossible in real life "magic" makes complete sense and fixes a lot of problems. In a different context, I'd use a different definition. I'm fine with polysemy.

And I'd claim that my definition is useful because it obliterates the cause of the problem at hand--the restriction of "mundane" (muggle) characters to only those things possible in real life while allowing "magic" characters to do virtually anything because magic breaks the rules. Once we accept that they're all magic, just in different ways and using different tools, the conceptual barrier to letting fighters* have nice things goes away as does much of the barrier to focusing the caster-types down. It allows us to build useful models of how magic works in a particular setting that make predictions about the kind of powers certain characters would reasonably have in that setting.

*fighter here is metonymy for all muggle-type non-spell-casting archetypes.

[Satinavian]

Not if you want consistency. Add more mass (and energy is mass) and you suddenly have gravitational effects, up to and including the universe collapsing (slowly, but surely). You also have entropy effects that would be noticeable. Maybe there is mass and thus gravity. How would you ever notice ? We have difficulties measuring small gravitational forces with modern equippment. Mass fluctuations the size of shapeshifting dragons would hardly ever be noticed by way of gravitational differences.

Also i never assumed we should get rid of entropy. I like the way my timeflow has a direction.


That's actually not possible--as soon as you step outside reality (by adding magic) everything falls apart. You can say "everything looks the same unless specified otherwise," (option 3), but you can't have everything be the same under the hood and still have magic. Unless you're willing to give up some amount of consistency (which is what people have been decrying).I obviously meant "everything looks the same". Sure, it might be different, the real world physical laws might not discribe the world. But if the differences are beyond measurement tolerance in most cases that works pretty well. We never get to look under the hood.

And most of the time, they're not. At least in my experience. Or they're interested in very different details than what you thought was important.That depends. You probably know your players and it's likely you share at least some social circles with them hinting at overlapping interests otherwise. One of my current groups has physicists, material scientists, engineers and a programmer. If you do SF there you should be careful with the science parts. Another group i played in had three postdoc historians. It was usually fine, as long as your fantasy counterpart cultures did resemble the inspiration and were not full of ahistoric clichees. Sure, you could make your own stuff up instead but should always be prepared of your players analyzing the setting with professional enthusiasm.

[Max_Killjoy]

For a fantasy setting, you couldn't have a (unspecified, even) set of "laws" that produce a reality that functions and appears very similar to ours in most instances, but also allows for extraordinary effects that aren't possible in our reality?

[digiman619]

About the whole "Once you add magic, all of Physics crashes" argument, you do realize that there are plenty of things in our actual reality that physics can't yet explain (dark matter, the oddness of Tabby's Star, etc.). Why is it then impossible to believe that, in a fictional version of physics at least, "compatible with magic" isn't one of the things it does and we don't know why?

[PhoenixPhyre]

For a fantasy setting, you couldn't have a (unspecified, even) set of "laws" that produce a reality that functions and appears very similar to ours in most instances, but also allows for extraordinary effects that aren't possible in our reality?

You could, and in fact must to maintain consistency. That's option 2 (rebuild the whole thing from the ground up). I'd say that that's the idea underlying option 3 (paper over the cracks)--the world only appears to work like ours, but is really different at the core level, but most setting builders have other things on their plate other than redoing physics, chemistry, and biology from the root level. Doing this for real is really really hard and outside the skillset of most writers.


About the whole "Once you add magic, all of Physics crashes" argument, you do realize that there are plenty of things in our actual reality that physics can't yet explain (dark matter, the oddness of Tabby's Star, etc.). Why is it then impossible to believe that, in a fictional version of physics at least, "compatible with magic" isn't one of the things it does and we don't know why?

I'm only speaking of the actual laws, not the ones we necessarily know right now. And anything like dragons, fireball-throwing wizards, teleportation (of non-quantum masses), etc would shatter those wide open. Unlike the laws of man, the laws of nature can't be broken and still remain--the existence of such things (like dragons, wizards, etc) would have direct, observable consequences in the same way that Neptune's orbit was predicted by noticing its effect on the orbit of the other planets. Especially if magic had any ties to belief. The laws of physics can't care about things like that (otherwise you open a whole 'nother can of interdimentional worms, the kind that make Dune's sandworms look like nightcrawlers).


Maybe there is mass and thus gravity. How would you ever notice ? We have difficulties measuring small gravitational forces with modern equippment. Mass fluctuations the size of shapeshifting dragons would hardly ever be noticed by way of gravitational differences.


Let's do some napkin math. An adult dragon weighs on order multiple tons (say 2000 kg to make the math easy). An adult human weighs on order 100 kg. If the dragon shapeshifts into a human, you have (order of) 1900 kg of mass to get rid of somehow. Conservation requires that that mass go somewhere. If it's converted to (magical) energy with 100% efficiency, you're looking at approximately 1.7 x 10^20 J of energy. That's an extinction-level event (gigatons of TNT, on the similar order to a medium asteroid strike). And yes, we detect things of that order using gravity all the time--it's one way we look for oil, by noticing the deviations in the path of satellites due to the reduced density of the oil-bearing rock.



Also i never assumed we should get rid of entropy. I like the way my timeflow has a direction.

But bolting on energy transformations of that magnitude (or even that of a fireball) would have detectable entropy effects (changes in temperature, etc.) Those would be obviously noticeable by even crude instruments.



I obviously meant "everything looks the same". Sure, it might be different, the real world physical laws might not discribe the world. But if the differences are beyond measurement tolerance in most cases that works pretty well. We never get to look under the hood.

If all you do is bolt on magic, the direct consequences would be directly visible even to crude instruments. Now whether that matters--depends on the group as you say.For most people that's fine, as long you don't think too hard.

That's what I'm desiring--either accept that you can't think too hard about things or they'll fall apart or accept that everything is really different and only conveniently happens to act (on the surface) as our world does and that your "clever" tricks (Polymorph Any Object a rock into uranium! Instant nukes!) may not work as written and no amount of "but in the real world..." will save you from having rulebooks thrown at you.

Basically, I'm fine with any approach as long as we're honest and upfront about it. Are we making a popcorn action setting? The physics don't matter nearly as much as the rule of cool. Are we making a serious historical setting? Then the details matter quite a bit. But we shouldn't judge the first by the standards of the second (or vice versa).

[Darth Ultron]

About the whole "Once you add magic, all of Physics crashes" argument,

I never liked the idea that magic and science can't co-exist. That magic is anti- science or something. That magic somehow breaks science.

I have always seen everything as part of one universe. So that magic obeys the laws of reality and science...but we might not know the laws.

This is really no different then anything in history that was once unknown. Radiation has all ways existed and all ways had an effect on things in the world...but humans did not even know it existed until recently.

[digiman619]

I'm only speaking of the actual laws, not the ones we necessarily know right now. And anything like dragons, fireball-throwing wizards, teleportation (of non-quantum masses), etc would shatter those wide open. Unlike the laws of man, the laws of nature can't be broken and still remain--the existence of such things (like dragons, wizards, etc) would have direct, observable consequences in the same way that Neptune's orbit was predicted by noticing its effect on the orbit of the other planets. Especially if magic had any ties to belief. The laws of physics can't care about things like that (otherwise you open a whole 'nother can of interdimentional worms, the kind that make Dune's sandworms look like nightcrawlers).
With respect, most of these have accepted in-universe scientific explanations. A fireball isn't creating energy: it's opening a tiny aperture to the Elemental Plane of Fire and the fire violently rushes out. A dragon polymorphing into a mouse doesn't covert the excess mass to energy and blow up the planet, its mass is displaced into the Ethereal Plane.

In fact, that's a major reason that you can't judge D&D physics by its real world counterpart, as there are other levels of reality there. If your argument is "Adding all these variables destroys the equation" fails to take into account the possibility of them cancelling each other out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

With respect, most of these have accepted in-universe scientific explanations. A fireball isn't creating energy: it's opening a tiny aperture to the Elemental Plane of Fire and the fire violently rushes out. A dragon polymorphing into a mouse doesn't covert the excess mass to energy and blow up the planet, its mass is displaced into the Ethereal Plane.

In fact, that's a major reason that you can't judge D&D physics by its real world counterpart, as there are other levels of reality there. If your argument is "Adding all these variables destroys the equation" fails to take into account the possibility of them cancelling each other out.

But the existence of those other planes involves literally infinite amounts of energy (mass). Thus if we include anything like normal gravity (general relativity), the universe (including those planes) collapses into a black hole. Thus, gravity in D&D can't obey general relativity and thus can't be anything like our gravity except on the surface. The effects may be similar (to an untrained eye), but the causes are completely different.

As I said--I'm not trying to judge D&D by real world physics. I accept that it doesn't follow our laws. I just want other people to also accept that. I'm trying to show that you can't a) add magic, b) keep everything else the same, and c) have consistency. Those three are incompatible. I prefer dumping b) (which is the same assumption made in D&D-esque settings generally) and relaxing c) until we have to deal with it (retroactively justifying a setting element, tweaking our explanations to fit).

[Tinkerer]

Phew, it was getting a little chilly in here until a horde of cat-girls ran in and jumped into my furnace. I asked them why they were doing that and they pointed me to this thread.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Phew, it was getting a little chilly in here until a horde of cat-girls ran in an jumped into my furnace. I asked them why they were doing that and they pointed me to this thread.

Poor cat girls...I'll take some of them off your hands/claws/whatever if you don't want them :smallamused:

[Talakeal]

This thread seems to have gone from discussing the "Guy at the Gym," fallacy into perhaps the most aggressive application of the "But Dragons!" fallacy that I have ever seen.


Hard truth; fiction is fiction. It never happened, and it couldn't have happened. Any story except for a perfectly accurate retelling of true events (which is all but impossible) is going to be a fiction. Even the most grounded of dramas is going to rely on the unbelievably fantastic base assumption that there is another world out there that is exactly like our world but including people and events that never existed.

Fiction is not a binary; people are fully able to except a world where some impossible things happen but the world otherwise functions like reality. Literally every genre in every medium includes some things that do not function like our reality and some things that do.

There is nothing wrong with having a world where humans function like real humans, horses function like real horses, dogs function like real dogs, giants function like fictional giants, zombies function like fictional zombies, and dragons function like fictional dragons. It is all imagination either way.

On the other hand there is nothing wrong with a setting where the opposite is true, but IMO the general default assumption is that things work like they do in real life unless otherwise noted; I believe one of the Sage Advice articles about 3.X specifically calls out this general design principal as a standard for DMs who need to make rulings.


You can have a setting where every martial character draws upon Chi or other ambient magical energies to boost their life forces, but IMO that is not the default assumption for any class except for the monk. Otherwise the fighter is just really that good with a sword and the barbarian is really just that angry.


Now, you might point out some unrealistic things about mundane characters, HP allowing a high level character to reliably survive ridiculously deadly things, rogues evading things they can't possibly escape, barbarians having limited numbers of rages, and my personal pet peeve martial classes with fire and forget maneuvers. And sure, you CAN describe these things as supernatural or "extra normal" abilities; but IMO they are best thought of as abstractions made for the sake of gameplay / narrative, in the same way that the game rules don't require people to eat different amounts of rations every day based on their specific size and activity level and never force someone to need a bathroom break in the middle of the dungeon.

[Quertus]

Not quite.

I am saying that printed D&D already doesn't include anything that a mundane character wouldn't be able to beat outside of people who abuse a handful of broken "I-win button" spells and that every other edition of D&D manages to allow both martial and magical characters to shine.

3.X nerfed the martials and has a few spells that are essentially win buttons.

Buff martials back to AD&D levels and they can handle any 3.X encounter that does not rely heavily on enemies abusing said win button spells.

If you also nerfed those win-button spells you now have an environment where any archetype can play the game and contribute without trivializing CR appropriate encounters.

AFAICT Cosi likes the 3.5 level of balance because he wants to play high powered characters who get to look down on all the muggles and don't have to worry about limitations.

I prefer an AD&D level of balance because it allows everyone to contribute while still being able to play the archetype they want to play.

I'm not sure the Wizard of olde really was able to contribute anywhere near equally, though, outside of PO if not TO, at least not until unrealistically high levels, after literal years of game play.

And I'm not sure that 3e is really a nerf to martial characters. There's nothing at its power level (and few things above!) that the übercharger can't one-shot, good rogue builds deal consistent SA damage (as opposed to the Thief, who maybe got in one good shot), buffs are plentiful, huge swaths of weapon proficiencies are free, and cool tricks like whirlwind attack and spring attack exist.

But at least, in 3e, casters got nice things, too.

That they got too many, plus some broken things, is an issue, but I'm not sure that actually makes them disproportionately better than their peers than old-school fighters were.

All that having been said, beyond pure broken infinite combos, what do you consider their handful of win buttons that need to be nerfed?


Let's do some napkin math. An adult dragon weighs on order multiple tons (say 2000 kg to make the math easy). An adult human weighs on order 100 kg. If the dragon shapeshifts into a human, you have (order of) 1900 kg of mass to get rid of somehow. Conservation requires that that mass go somewhere. If it's converted to (magical) energy with 100% efficiency, you're looking at approximately 1.7 x 10^20 J of energy. That's an extinction-level event (gigatons of TNT, on the similar order to a medium asteroid strike). And yes, we detect things of that order using gravity all the time--it's one way we look for oil, by noticing the deviations in the path of satellites due to the reduced density of the oil-bearing rock.

And I love the idea that extinction level power is insignificant compared to the power raging through the co-existent parallel plane of magic, where all this energy comes from and goes to. 100 dragons can simultaneously polymorph, teleport to a new location, and polymorph back with no fear that there isn't enough power there to support the change. This is low-level magic, and is nothing next to high-end magic. Or epic magic. Or divine magic (ie, of the gods, not their followers). Or the power of the overpowers. This pathetic little "end the world" power is just a drop in the bucket. You can spam such shape changes all day long, and not even notice any effect on the tapestry of magic.

I see no reason to believe that the rules of our reality are incompatible with forces which, by default, do not interact with them, or which we have not detected yet. Like Dark Matter.

Otoh, cast a few Evil spells, and the D&D world notices: the area might become chilly, or shadows deepen. Evil bleeds into the world in ways magic on its own doesn't. This gives me far more trouble than any amount of "but physics" ever has.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And I love the idea that extinction level power is insignificant compared to the power raging through the co-existent parallel plane of magic, where all this energy comes from and goes to. 100 dragons can simultaneously polymorph, teleport to a new location, and polymorph back with no fear that there isn't enough power there to support the change. This is low-level magic, and is nothing next to high-end magic. Or epic magic. Or divine magic (ie, of the gods, not their followers). Or the power of the overpowers. This pathetic little "end the world" power is just a drop in the bucket. You can spam such shape changes all day long, and not even notice any effect on the tapestry of magic.

I see no reason to believe that the rules of our reality are incompatible with forces which, by default, do not interact with them, or which we have not detected yet. Like Dark Matter.

Otoh, cast a few Evil spells, and the D&D world notices: the area might become chilly, or shadows deepen. Evil bleeds into the world in ways magic on its own doesn't. This gives me far more trouble than any amount of "but physics" ever has.

One note--if there's even the possibility of interaction, they're part of the universe and their energy density (mass-equivalent) applies. That makes for black hole territory if we're following regular laws. Which we don't have to at all. But you can't have it both ways. Either the similarity is surface and the "real" laws are quite different or the "real" laws are the same and there's no magic. Bolt-on magic is unfair to both magic and science. It's lazy world-building at best. It's also impossible to balance, since one side has carte blanche to break the rules that everyone else has to follow.

Let's be fair--if a wizard can break "real life physics" into a million sparkling shards at first level (which any spell can do), so a fighter should be able to. Just in different ways (and probably not as flashily). Survive where others can't, shrug off effects or hits that would obliterate a lesser person, make that 1 in a million shot, hit hard enough that a normal person would be thrown backward (Newton's 3rd law is somewhat inflexible there), things like that.

And no, this isn't "but dragons" (which isn't a real fallacy, anyway...nor is this formal logic where fallacies matter) because I'm not trying to excuse any arbitrary feat--just following up on the natural consequences of changes. Those who claim that only wizards* should be able to freely break natural law by claiming "magic can do that!" are treading closer to that logic flaw--either magic is part of nature (in which the natural laws we know need substantial alterations which can include non-spellcasters doing "impossible" things) or it's not (in which case wizards don't exist either). Spells and spell-casting aren't the sum total of magic. They're one particular sub-category that has somehow convinced people that magic <==> spells. Which is not universally true, not now, not never. There may be settings that have that as a principle, but D&D has never claimed that, nor would it make sense in the established settings.

*wizard is a short reference for the entire set of spell-casting archetypes here.

Edit: and Quertus, combat power (direct HP damage) has never been the problem. Fighters (if built along one particular restrictive line) can do lots of that. But they can't do anything else. Wizards (or clerics, druids, etc) can do that and everything else as well. Even if a fighter could do +INFINITY damage with a single strike, that means little if the setup is obnoxious or especially if most enemies only have ~200 HP at most. Especially since an ubercharger can't do anything else--no skills, no backups, no out-of-combat utility--nothing. He's a guided weapon, not a character. At the same time, wizards* can do enough (especially with SoD spells) damage to handle anything and still have tons of skills and oodles of flexible utility elsewhere. Plus, the muggle is dependent on the wizard* to make all those magic items without which he's absolutely useless.

[GreatWyrmGold]

{{scrubbed}}



Depends. If the new rules (of "physics") are sufficiently simple, it may indeed be easier to use them than the old rules. Most RPG sets fit this criteria. A problem then arises that the new rules are not sufficiently complex to create all the situations and all the phenomena required for the game to be interesting, usefull and immersive. The handiest way to get around this is to have a real, human person capable of using real knowledge serving as an oracle for the game, overwriting the rules and filling in the missing phenomena and situations where the new, simpler rules are inefficient for creatig them.

You may have heard of such a person. They're usually called a "game master". There might even be a game you know of which includes one.
...Did you actually read my f*ing post? Whenever the most logical response to a counter-argument is to repost what the argument was allegedly countering, there's a problem. You basically rephrased the very thing I was responding to.



For a fantasy setting, you couldn't have a (unspecified, even) set of "laws" that produce a reality that functions and appears very similar to ours in most instances, but also allows for extraordinary effects that aren't possible in our reality?
...
Well, at least it's not only the people responding to me repeating essentially the same arguments that I've already argued against. At length.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thinking about it, I'm sorry for derailing the thread off onto a tangent. Mea culpa. I'll stop now.

[Zale]

{{scrubbed}}


Dude, that's incredibly rude and really hostile. I think you can disagree with people without insulting them.

This is why I don't usually like to participate in these discussions.

Under other circumstances, I'd explain why some of the things you are suggesting are "answers" to a magic-realism thing, but that's off topic and your sheer hostility means it's not worthwhile.

[Max_Killjoy]

...
Well, at least it's not only the people responding to me repeating essentially the same arguments that I've already argued against. At length.


If you argued against what I posted there, I missed it, and some of what you've said -- even above in the same post you made this comment in -- seems to me to have been pointing in the same direction as my comment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Dude, that's incredibly rude and really hostile. I think you can disagree with people without insulting them.

This is why I don't usually like to participate in these discussions.

Under other circumstances, I'd explain why some of the things you are suggesting are "answers" to a magic-realism thing, but that's off topic and your sheer hostility means it's not worthwhile.

Glad to know it's not just me that feels significant hostility and unwillingness to accept other ideas.

[Cluedrew]

No, this thread has defiantly been getting... emotional, where the emotions are mostly negative.

Personally, the caster/martial thing is something that keeps coming up and to this day, there are many parts of people's opinions that I do not understand. I would love to get back to talking about those.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No, this thread has defiantly been getting... emotional, where the emotions are mostly negative.

Personally, the caster/martial thing is something that keeps coming up and to this day, there are many parts of people's opinions that I do not understand. I would love to get back to talking about those.

I agree, and apologize for my comments that were decidedly not helping. I think I'll stay out for a while and see if it can get back on track.

[Quertus]

One note--if there's even the possibility of interaction, they're part of the universe and their energy density (mass-equivalent) applies. That makes for black hole territory if we're following regular laws. Which we don't have to at all. But you can't have it both ways. Either the similarity is surface and the "real" laws are quite different or the "real" laws are the same and there's no magic. Bolt-on magic is unfair to both magic and science. It's lazy world-building at best. It's also impossible to balance, since one side has carte blanche to break the rules that everyone else has to follow.

Let's be fair--if a wizard can break "real life physics" into a million sparkling shards at first level (which any spell can do), so a fighter should be able to. Just in different ways (and probably not as flashily). Survive where others can't, shrug off effects or hits that would obliterate a lesser person, make that 1 in a million shot, hit hard enough that a normal person would be thrown backward (Newton's 3rd law is somewhat inflexible there), things like that.

And no, this isn't "but dragons" (which isn't a real fallacy, anyway...nor is this formal logic where fallacies matter) because I'm not trying to excuse any arbitrary feat--just following up on the natural consequences of changes. Those who claim that only wizards* should be able to freely break natural law by claiming "magic can do that!" are treading closer to that logic flaw--either magic is part of nature (in which the natural laws we know need substantial alterations which can include non-spellcasters doing "impossible" things) or it's not (in which case wizards don't exist either). Spells and spell-casting aren't the sum total of magic. They're one particular sub-category that has somehow convinced people that magic <==> spells. Which is not universally true, not now, not never. There may be settings that have that as a principle, but D&D has never claimed that, nor would it make sense in the established settings.

*wizard is a short reference for the entire set of spell-casting archetypes here.

Edit: and Quertus, combat power (direct HP damage) has never been the problem. Fighters (if built along one particular restrictive line) can do lots of that. But they can't do anything else. Wizards (or clerics, druids, etc) can do that and everything else as well. Even if a fighter could do +INFINITY damage with a single strike, that means little if the setup is obnoxious or especially if most enemies only have ~200 HP at most. Especially since an ubercharger can't do anything else--no skills, no backups, no out-of-combat utility--nothing. He's a guided weapon, not a character. At the same time, wizards* can do enough (especially with SoD spells) damage to handle anything and still have tons of skills and oodles of flexible utility elsewhere. Plus, the muggle is dependent on the wizard* to make all those magic items without which he's absolutely useless.

If we're following regular laws? Does dark matter follow regular laws? Do black holes follow regular laws? Does light follow regular laws? There seem to be an awful lot of things that follow their own laws - why is it unthinkable for there to be yet another that science hasn't discovered yet?

What if gravity is limited to three dimensions, and magical energy by default does not interact because it is in a different dimension / different universe / different plane of existence? Not unlike where Dark Matter supposedly comes from? (my science is not only old but pop culture here)

I'm all about magic being natural (**** you, Druids!). And it following its own, distinct natural laws. But largely ignoring all the others, which simply don't apply to it.

-----

In older editions, the Fighter did everything, and did it better. Oh, the Wizard has an attack spell once per day? The Fighter can just attack at will, and be better. Oh, the Wizard can see invisibility once per day? The Fighter has been carrying a bag of flour for a couple levels now. Oh, the Wizard can throw AoE damage? The Fighter has had multi-target ranged attacks forever, and has or will soon get multiple melee attacks. Oh, the Wizard can fly? The Fighter has had range, and the Thief has had at will climb, since more or less the beginning of the game. Oh, the Wizard has SoD spells? Well, the Fighter has been able to waste his turn (say, picking his nose) since 1st level, so that's no big deal either.

[Satinavian]

Let's do some napkin math. An adult dragon weighs on order multiple tons (say 2000 kg to make the math easy). An adult human weighs on order 100 kg. If the dragon shapeshifts into a human, you have (order of) 1900 kg of mass to get rid of somehow. Conservation requires that that mass go somewhere. If it's converted to (magical) energy with 100% efficiency, you're looking at approximately 1.7 x 10^20 J of energy. That's an extinction-level event (gigatons of TNT, on the similar order to a medium asteroid strike). And yes, we detect things of that order using gravity all the time--it's one way we look for oil, by noticing the deviations in the path of satellites due to the reduced density of the oil-bearing rock. Yes, it is a lot of energy. But it is not energy you release in form of heat. It is energy you deposit into the magic field via the transformation spell. And no, measuring the gravitational forces of just 1900kg o something on the earh surface (around a lot of other massive objects ) is nothing that we can do that easily.
I mean only in this decase we finally charted Earths gravity distribution at all and niot even remotely with that kind of precision.

But bolting on energy transformations of that magnitude (or even that of a fireball) would have detectable entropy effects (changes in temperature, etc.) Those would be obviously noticeable by even crude instruments.Why ? Condidering that those spells usually have limited duration and the being ends up as a dragon again suggests it is a reversible or nearly reversible effect. Considering that spell durations are even a thing, transformation magic should be modelled as some kind of transition to a excited state of the combined system of spell target and magic field that is not particularly stable and produces entropy to be sustained while there should be limited entropy produced by the spell event itself. And in any case, most of the entropy would probably end up in this huge energy reservoir called magic field anyway.

If all you do is bolt on magic, the direct consequences would be directly visible even to crude instruments. Now whether that matters--depends on the group as you say.For most people that's fine, as long you don't think too hard. Well, obviously yes. If magic exists it can be measured. It becomes part of science. The physics we know becomes the bordercase for no interaction with the magic field which is usefull for every case where the interaction is negligible.

That's what I'm desiring--either accept that you can't think too hard about things or they'll fall apart or accept that everything is really different and only conveniently happens to act (on the surface) as our world does and that your "clever" tricks (Polymorph Any Object a rock into uranium! Instant nukes!) may not work as written and no amount of "but in the real world..." will save you from having rulebooks thrown at you.We are talking about a worldbuilding excersice where the magic system is supposed to make sense, be selfconsistent and follow basically physical laws. The last thing one would ever do to achieve that is taking D&D kitchen sink magic lacking all of that.

And yes, you probably don't want your magic allowing for instant nukes. But that doesn't mean that your regular nukes won't work just that you have to make sure your magic does not allow for it.



Sure, you could give up all of regular physics and still make the world look mostly the same. I once ran in a game where medieval alchemical theories were true (which conveniently also explain most of our worls as they were made to do so). But i find it easier if physical laws apply. Otherweise you get endless stupid questions about what works and what doesn't.

I once was in a game where explicitely atoms did not exist and chemical reactions might produce different results (only because game writers didn't want gunpowder or other bright player inventions) and we discussed for hours about how crystals could work, if this world had any differences at all between gemstones and glass and how this would or would not effect other kinds of things like certain optical properties.

[Frozen_Feet]

.
When you're dealing with the consequences of changes to physical laws, it's all magic whether we call it speculative or novum, or magic. That's entirely semantic. Hard sci-fi and FTL travel don't go together. "Speculative FTL" is an oxymoron.

Of course this is semantics, the everyday semantics of magic do not reduce to "what's impossible in reality", so you have to justify why redifining semantics of the old word is preferable to using another word, especially given there are other words that already have meaning you desire to invoke.

Your notions of hard sci-fi are flat-out wrong. Hard sci-fi is based on speculation based on contemporary theories - when and where theories contemporary to the work suggested FTL was possible in some form, the work is not excluded, even if the theory is later shown to be wrong and FTL impossible. Hence, "speculative FTL" is not oxymoronic, either under the normal definition or the one under discussion, as you could handily learn by looking up "speculative" in a god damn dictionary.


But in this context, I was specifically discussing fantasy worlds--hence the focus on things like wizards and dragons. In this context, calling anything impossible in real life "magic" makes complete sense and fixes a lot of problems. In a different context, I'd use a different definition. I'm fine with polysemy.

It also gives the false impression that all things "magic" are somehow equivalent, which leads to the impression that any magic user can do any impossible thing.

I've said in the past that magic is a buzzword that can mean whatever the Hell an author wants it to mean. Redefinitions like yours are primary contributors to that. They make the already loaded word "magic" uselessly broad.

Also, using the words "fantasy" and "fantastic" to refer to impossible things is a) already widespread and b) clearer than using "magic" and "magical" for the purpose you want.


And I'd claim that my definition is useful because it obliterates the cause of the problem at hand--the restriction of "mundane" (muggle) characters to only those things possible in real life while allowing "magic" characters to do virtually anything because magic breaks the rules. Once we accept that they're all magic, just in different ways and using different tools, the conceptual barrier to letting fighters* have nice things goes away as does much of the barrier to focusing the caster-types down. It allows us to build useful models of how magic works in a particular setting that make predictions about the kind of powers certain characters would reasonably have in that setting.

*fighter here is metonymy for all muggle-type non-spell-casting archetypes.

The much worse problem again is the false impression that any magic user can do any impossible thing, which through equivocation and semantic confusion leads to the concept that a Wizard (https://www.google.fi/search?q=wizard&safe=off&client=ms-android-samsung&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipv6rp69bXAhVHOpoKHTrmAakQ_AUICCgB&biw=320&bih=452), classic image of a magic-user, ought to be a able of any thing impossible.

And to obliterate that problem, to make clear what magic can't do, it is much better to be more specific in which concepts you're using by using more specific terms and distinctions, such as what I've already shown: mundane versus extraordinary, human versus superhuman, magic versus non-magic, natural versus supernatural, and now, speculative versus realistic.

The same goes for fighter, like I already said. A fighter has an accepted common meaning, it is someone who fights. Magic has accepted common meaning, it is using chants, spells and rituals to invoke the supernatural or influence nature. Whether someone is a fighter ought to have no bearing on whether they use magic, and vice versa, based on common meanong of the words. The entire "problem" you claimed to obliterate was caused by RPG folks doing what you're doing now, the conflation of "fighter" and "mundane".

[Cluedrew]

And everyone replies to PhoenixPhyre's posts before he decided he needed to calm down anyways.


Of course this is semantics, the everyday semantics of magic do not reduce to "what's impossible in reality", so you have to justify why redifining semantics of the old word is preferable to using another word, especially given there are other words that already have meaning you desire to invoke.To be fair, everyone I know who is not involved in the RPG community, minus a couple of academics, uses the word. I don't know how widespread that is, but around where I am it seems pretty standard (along with a couple other uses of the word that do not apply here) and perhaps that is how it is used around PhoenixPhyre. Regardless, I do agree with the need to split things up in a more precisely for this context. Fantasy/fantastic is one way to do it. I use the word impossible mostly (magic things are impossible*, but not all impossible things are magic) because, well that seemed to be the divide we are talking about.

Either way, a level 20 fighter (or equivalent) should be able to be impossible or fantastic without being magical. The thing that really has me stumped is why people refuse that possibility. Anyone know?

*usually.

[Frozen_Feet]

Either way, a level 20 fighter (or equivalent) should be able to be impossible or fantastic without being magical. The thing that really has me stumped is why people refuse that possibility. Anyone know?

There are multiple reasons, depending on which subset of these people you're talking of.

Let's take care of the simplest subset first: 1) people who want to play realistic humans and aren't interested in a game where their characters leave that category. They may still want to play fantasy, meaning they may want the game to include fantastic elements that aren't playable characters, such as dragons, vile sorcerers, flying castles etc.

To cater to these people, you need a system calibrated so that the full range of playable levels for their desired character archetype stays within realistic limits, and possibly that the full range of playable scenarios remains solvable by realistic humans. (All editions of D&D fail these criteria.)

An alternative is to craft the system so that part of the range of playable levels for their desired character archetype stays within realistic limits, and part of the range of playable scenarios is solvable by realistic humans. (Some editions of D&D pass, but just barely.) Then you make this explicit and clear to these kinds of players, and give them instructions on how to build the game they want to play within the system. (D&D is bad at this, but some expansions, variants and retroclones of it aren't.)

You may not want to play the same game as these people, but at least their problem is solvable because they themselves don't possess conflicting desires.

Which brings us to the next subset: 2) people with ill-realized or conflicting desires. They want a character that is realistically human. They also want a character that can keep up with impossible badasses. These people cannot be pleased untill you get them to drop one of their desires or find a working synthesis of them.

Then there are 3) people whose verisimilitude is broken when dude who is not wearing a funny hat, waving a wand and growing a beard (etc.) does something fantastic. These people may also want there to be muggle characters around who they can lord their awesome powers over. Again, easy group to please, as they themselves have no conflicting desires. Just give them a game where doing magic, that is, using rituals, chants, charms (etc.) is necessary for phenomenal cosmic power. (Some versions of D&D are good at this, but most are actually quite bad, as they assume all player characters, Fighters included, are expected to gain some fantastic possesions and have some amount of supernatural favor.)

Then there are 4) people who want to play a game based on specific work of fiction, where fantastic fighters aren't a thing, but some other type of fantastic characters are. These people get sad if fighters break the rules of their favored fictionland. To please them, you must either calibrate the full range of playable levels and encounters to stay within limits of the fictional world, or ensure a subset of playable levels and scenarios are within those levels, and then again make this explicit to the players and give them instructions hoe to do it. (D&D is decent at this and has many expansions, variants and retroclones dedicated to doing exactly this.)

These threads feel to me like they're primarily fueled by playgroups which have a mix of these sorts of players, and the GMs are hanging themselves on the rope of "Every player must have fun! Every player must have fun! Every player must have fun! Every player must have fun!"

Conflating arguments by different types of players also creates a false impression that more players fall in category 2) than really do.

[Quertus]

No, this thread has defiantly been getting... emotional, where the emotions are mostly negative.

Personally, the caster/martial thing is something that keeps coming up and to this day, there are many parts of people's opinions that I do not understand. I would love to get back to talking about those.


I agree, and apologize for my comments that were decidedly not helping. I think I'll stay out for a while and see if it can get back on track.

I'm not certain that issues with the magical underpinnings of the world don't actually contribute to the problem, and that, thus, this wouldn't be a valid line if inquiry for the thread topic. Getting people to change - or at least examine and express - the fundamental underpinnings of their beliefs is often essential to successful communication and negotiation.

However, we can certainly try a different approach. In fact:


There are multiple reasons, depending on which subset of these people you're talking of.

This might have some promise. I'll poke at it throughout the day.

[Max_Killjoy]

Either way, a level 20 fighter (or equivalent) should be able to be impossible or fantastic without being magical. The thing that really has me stumped is why people refuse that possibility. Anyone know?


At least for me, I'm not refusing the possibility.

What I'm refusing is the idea that you can have a setting in which all three of the following are true:

Fighters can do things that are fantastic or impossible from the POV of our reality.
Those things are also fantastic from the POV of the fictional reality; that is, they're something special and reserved for a handful of "special" persons.
Fighters are not "magical" in that setting. (Note that "magic" DOES NOT MEAN "spellcasting".)


So if the "fighters" in your setting can leap 50' straight up and crush stone walls with their bare hands, either those capabilities are not magical in the setting and their capabilities simply represent the peak of abilities that are normal in that reality and impossible in ours (maybe your average peasant can leap 25' straight up and crack large stones with their best punch, whatever), or those capabilities are somehow magical. There's no other choice.

And I'm sure someone will say "but he trained really hard". OK, fine. But no one in our reality can train hard enough to leap 50' straight up and crush stone walls with their bare hands. So again, either that other reality is different and these are abilities within the realm of the perfectly possible there, or their training took them into the ream of the "magical" for that setting. Again, no other choice.


Now, this does tie into the topic of the thread, but I think I'd be repeating an earlier post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22593545&postcount=298) in detail if I laid it all out again.




Which brings us to the next subset: 2) people with ill-realized or conflicting desires. They want a character that is realistically human. They also want a character that can keep up with impossible badasses. These people cannot be pleased untill you get them to drop one of their desires or find a working synthesis of them.


Indeed. That's the impossible thing, the "have their cake and eat it too" problem.

[Darth Ultron]

Either way, a level 20 fighter (or equivalent) should be able to be impossible or fantastic without being magical. The thing that really has me stumped is why people refuse that possibility. Anyone know?


I for one don't understand why magic has to be so ''special'' and ''different''.

If a Fighter ''must not use magic'', then what ''must'' a Wizard ''not'' use?

Should a Wizard never use anything not created by magic? Like should they have no items made by mundane ways? Maybe even no magic items...as you do have to make the item by mundane ways first. Even a spell book is made by mundane ways.

A Spellcaster can use mundane strength and fighting skill and add in magic to make devastating natural attacks. An Arcane Archer is shooting an arrow from a bow...with an added magical effect.

So why does the Spellcaster get to use Everything, but Fighters must use no magic?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Is Batman "realistically human?" Is Aragorn? Is Chris Redfield? Is Caramon Majerie? Is Guts? Is Ajax? Is Ciaphus Cain? Is Samurai Jack? Is Solid Snake? Do we even have an idea of what that term means?

[Lord Raziere]

Indeed. That's the impossible thing, the "have their cake and eat it too" problem.

Yeah, for something like making your own character awesome? realism is overrated. sure a dash of it is good here and there, but it should not be the main ingredient. save realism for the NPC's and how the troubles of the world affect people who aren't awesome. the PC's are often people of power, maybe not the normal kinds of power (political/economical) but they are powerful enough all the same, enough to defeat monsters the common people fear- and if they can do that to the monsters, imagine how much of a chance that common person has against them.

[Twizzly513]

I'm reading a book series called Guardians of the Flame, which I think could be the kind of thing you are looking for. In the book, wizards and spellcasters are dangerous, mysterious, and powerful, but magic in the book is a) very rare b) hard to control at best, explosively counterproductive at worst c) hard to master.

A) is solely dependent on what a DM wants, so that's not necessarily going to show in a system. That's more world-building.

B) is something that could be easily implemented into a system. Fizzling and concentration are good examples of this. You could also roll just to cast any spell, and depending on the roll, something happens. You could look at the mutation system from Paranoia XP for this, or you could just do: No, and | No | No, but | Yes, but | Yes | Yes, and system of how far away they are from the roll-to-beat. This is something that I feel should be emphasized much more across the board in RPGs. Paranoia had it damn close to perfect.

C) Just do what used to happen: Wizards and other primary casters level slower than martial classes. At lower levels, it won't be as big of a deal, as it shouldn't be since the gap hasn't gotten big yet. At higher levels, this will close the gap of power. Wizards can still attain more power, it just takes longer, as magic should.

Hope my two cp helped.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, for something like making your own character awesome? realism is overrated. sure a dash of it is good here and there, but it should not be the main ingredient. save realism for the NPC's and how the troubles of the world affect people who aren't awesome. the PC's are often people of power, maybe not the normal kinds of power (political/economical) but they are powerful enough all the same, enough to defeat monsters the common people fear- and if they can do that to the monsters, imagine how much of a chance that common person has against them.

First, who said anything about realism?

Second, capabilities can be uncommon, special, or awesome (old sense or new)... without being impossible, magical, or "unrealistic".

[Quertus]

Is Batman "realistically human?"

Batman is my least favorite character precisely because he's supposed to be "human", but misses the mark. Badly.


There are multiple reasons, depending on which subset of these people you're talking of.

Let's take care of the simplest subset first: 1) people who want to play realistic humans and aren't interested in a game where their characters leave that category. They may still want to play fantasy, meaning they may want the game to include fantastic elements that aren't playable characters, such as dragons, vile sorcerers, flying castles etc.

To cater to these people, you need a system calibrated so that the full range of playable levels for their desired character archetype stays within realistic limits, and possibly that the full range of playable scenarios remains solvable by realistic humans. (All editions of D&D fail these criteria.)

An alternative is to craft the system so that part of the range of playable levels for their desired character archetype stays within realistic limits, and part of the range of playable scenarios is solvable by realistic humans. (Some editions of D&D pass, but just barely.) Then you make this explicit and clear to these kinds of players, and give them instructions on how to build the game they want to play within the system. (D&D is bad at this, but some expansions, variants and retroclones of it aren't.)

You may not want to play the same game as these people, but at least their problem is solvable because they themselves don't possess conflicting desires.

Which brings us to the next subset: 2) people with ill-realized or conflicting desires. They want a character that is realistically human. They also want a character that can keep up with impossible badasses. These people cannot be pleased untill you get them to drop one of their desires or find a working synthesis of them.

Then there are 3) people whose verisimilitude is broken when dude who is not wearing a funny hat, waving a wand and growing a beard (etc.) does something fantastic. These people may also want there to be muggle characters around who they can lord their awesome powers over. Again, easy group to please, as they themselves have no conflicting desires. Just give them a game where doing magic, that is, using rituals, chants, charms (etc.) is necessary for phenomenal cosmic power. (Some versions of D&D are good at this, but most are actually quite bad, as they assume all player characters, Fighters included, are expected to gain some fantastic possesions and have some amount of supernatural favor.)

Then there are 4) people who want to play a game based on specific work of fiction, where fantastic fighters aren't a thing, but some other type of fantastic characters are. These people get sad if fighters break the rules of their favored fictionland. To please them, you must either calibrate the full range of playable levels and encounters to stay within limits of the fictional world, or ensure a subset of playable levels and scenarios are within those levels, and then again make this explicit to the players and give them instructions hoe to do it. (D&D is decent at this and has many expansions, variants and retroclones dedicated to doing exactly this.)

These threads feel to me like they're primarily fueled by playgroups which have a mix of these sorts of players, and the GMs are hanging themselves on the rope of "Every player must have fun! Every player must have fun! Every player must have fun! Every player must have fun!"

Conflating arguments by different types of players also creates a false impression that more players fall in category 2) than really do.

#1 is only true if they care about balance / meddle with what other people are playing. If they're fine playing a human while someone else is playing Spider-Man, then there's not an issue.

#2 can work if the player in question possesses significantly greater player skills / metagame resources, or the other PCs hold the idiot ball. But that's certainly not something you can just expect to be true.

-----

So, to use the thread title, mundane can't beat caster because 1) mundane won't let it; 2) mundane expects to do so anyway; 3) caster won't let it; 4) the world won't let it. Is that a fair summary?

If so, it's no wonder the attitude "play a Wizard or expect to play second fiddle" exists - that's a rather intimidating list of reasons!

[oxybe]

I'm reading a book series called Guardians of the Flame, which I think could be the kind of thing you are looking for. In the book, wizards and spellcasters are dangerous, mysterious, and powerful, but magic in the book is a) very rare b) hard to control at best, explosively counterproductive at worst c) hard to master.

A) is solely dependent on what a DM wants, so that's not necessarily going to show in a system. That's more world-building.

B) is something that could be easily implemented into a system. Fizzling and concentration are good examples of this. You could also roll just to cast any spell, and depending on the roll, something happens. You could look at the mutation system from Paranoia XP for this, or you could just do: No, and | No | No, but | Yes, but | Yes | Yes, and system of how far away they are from the roll-to-beat. This is something that I feel should be emphasized much more across the board in RPGs. Paranoia had it damn close to perfect.

C) Just do what used to happen: Wizards and other primary casters level slower than martial classes. At lower levels, it won't be as big of a deal, as it shouldn't be since the gap hasn't gotten big yet. At higher levels, this will close the gap of power. Wizards can still attain more power, it just takes longer, as magic should.

Hope my two cp helped.

What works in books & movies doesn't necessarily translate well to gameplay. In a book or movie, you largely have one author or a group of authors deciding how a story and the characters are going to play out. In a TTRPG, you have 5-7 authors each controlling different characters and while they may have their own idea on how they would like a given situation to play out, until it's actually resolved no one can say for certain what will happen in advance (barring stuff like railroading).

A) I'm fine with this. PCs are rare things in themselves. The world has tens and hundreds of thousands of NPCs, but on 4-6 PCs.

B) Making the main focus of a class, spellcasting in this case, unreliable or a hassle to use dissuades you from playing casters. For me at least, no matter how much fun a character's personality is, if they're a bother to actually play or I feel dissuaded to actually use the features of their class... It doesn't make the experience fun and I'm not engaging with the game... I'm largely trying my best not to be engaged so I don't suffer the drawbacks.

If a game's magic system is only the unreliable type, I largely dislike it barring no one being a caster first and foremost. A "caster" is someone who just happens to have spells as part of their skillset rather then it's focus. As such i'm not feeling dissuaded from using my abilities since it's not just all a gamble and I don't feel like my actions are wasted when I'm not casting magic.

The closest I've seen done in a way I didn't have a problem with would probably be in White Wolf's Mage, in that Mages need to keep up the facade of magic being fake. Magic is a break in reality that mages are the few who can manipulate this force but if a Mundane/Muggle/Pick your word of choice sees it and can't make a logical leap as to what happened, reality backlashes and it can backlash hard as it tries to warp the bend you created into something the muggle can understand.

This can largely force your group of newbie mages to try to use magic to a sort of cause-and-effect that muggles can wrap their brains around until you can find mages to let loose on.

See a muggle reaching for his gun? Entropy magic to cause a bullet's charge to degrade and misfire is probably fine. That happens. Psychokinesis to put the gun into safe mode so it doesn't fire? unlikely if they were expecting problems, but possible. Earth magic to bend the pistol in a V shape or fire magic to cause all the bullets to explode violently? not so much.

C) has always been BS in my eyes. This is a problem not because of speed of leveling, but the developer's inability to figure out what would be a proper scope of power (and by power i don't necessarily mean damage, but ability to inflict meaningful change upon the setting) for a given level is and implement it.

3.5 Fighters getting +1 to hit and a few extra HP and wizards getting access to flight & invisibility is not a problem with the leveling system in itself, but rather the devs not putting abilities where they fit the scope of play best: either the fighter doesn't have enough or the wizard was given them too fast.

slowing down the wizards leveling is largely messing around with the XP system and causes more problems then it solves to me.

It's ok if you're starting the game fresh, but what I want to run a mid game campaign?

do I say "everyone make a 7th level character", thus ruining the whole point of the slower leveling? Am I forced to go "everyone make a character worth 45000xp"? what if I don't want to use XP as my leveling metric and simply level everyone up after an adventure has come to a reasonable conclusion?

What if my character dies and roll up a new one? do they start at the old character's level, XP total or just fresh at 1st level?

Fix your game's issue with it's scope of power and keep the uniform leveling.

[lesser_minion]

There are a few conventions in TTRPGs that favour casters over non-casters, but don't specifically deal with magic at all. For example:

Thinking is a free action: not only can casters keep their wits about them in battle, despite this arguably being a fighter or rogue archetype feature, but they can perform difficult mental tasks effortlessly, and are able to devise complex plans in literally no time at all.
Nobody is ever too fast and agile to use targeted spells against in combat, even if they're inhumanly fast and agile.
Nobody ever plonks a ground-targeted AoE down in the wrong place.
Armour never defends against magic, even when the magic takes the form of an impact or a ball of flame.


(1) might be an acceptable break from reality for the sake of fun, but I find (2-4) to be completely unnecessary.

[Quertus]

It's ok if you're starting the game fresh, but what I want to run a mid game campaign?

do I say "everyone make a 7th level character", thus ruining the whole point of the slower leveling? Am I forced to go "everyone make a character worth 45000xp"? what if I don't want to use XP as my leveling metric and simply level everyone up after an adventure has come to a reasonable conclusion?

What if my character dies and roll up a new one? do they start at the old character's level, XP total or just fresh at 1st level?

Fix your game's issue with it's scope of power and keep the uniform leveling.

I agree with most of your post, but I can't quite wrap my head around this bit.

What if I don't want to have to say, "build your character off 150 points", what if I just want to say, "pick some character from literature you enjoy, and build them in this system to the best of your ability"? If you're throwing out the balancing mechanism, you don't get to complain about the balancing mechanism, except insofar as why using numbers the balancing mechanism is such a burden.

Also, using different XP tables, and having characters level at different times can be a good thing! It helps share the spotlight - when "look at the cool new things I can do" isn't competing with the cool new things everyone else gets at the same time, it helps make leveling feel special.

Of course, in my classic parties of double-digit Fighters, one Thief, and me running a Wizard, well, the Fighters didn't get to feel special that way.

Lastly, rolling up a new 1st level character if you died used to be the "correct" answer. Back then, I could enjoy running a 1st level character in a party of 7th level PCs. These days, I'm told that's crazy talk (actually, is that just a 3e thing? Would it be fun in 4e or 5e?). But, IMO, rolling up a new character at the party XP level is the "best" answer most of the time, unless your death is indicative of needing a handicap, in which case, if your character dies, you should add a bonus to the party XP as appropriate to your handicap.

EDIT:

Nobody ever plonks a ground-targeted AoE down in the wrong place.

Clearly, you never played older editions with my groups - placing them correctly was a rarity.

[Max_Killjoy]

There are a few conventions in TTRPGs that favour casters over non-casters, but don't specifically deal with magic at all. For example:


Thinking is a free action: not only can casters keep their wits about them in battle, despite this arguably being a fighter or rogue archetype feature, but they can perform difficult mental tasks effortlessly, and are able to devise complex plans in literally no time at all.
Nobody is ever too fast and agile to use targeted spells against in combat, even if they're inhumanly fast and agile.
Nobody ever plonks a ground-targeted AoE down in the wrong place.
Armour never defends against magic, even when the magic takes the form of an impact or a ball of flame.


(1) might be an acceptable break from reality for the sake of fun, but I find (2-4) to be completely unnecessary.

2 and 4 in particular are things I would not have in any setup I might do, whether a new system or an adaptation/homebrew of an existing one. Spells would still need to hit and get through whatever defense was applicable.

[Tinkerer]

2 and 4 in particular are things I would not have in any setup I might do, whether a new system or an adaptation/homebrew of an existing one. Spells would still need to hit and get through whatever defense was applicable.

What a bizarre pair of terms to have an objection with. Might I inquire why spells should be guaranteed to hit? And why a ball of force wouldn't be influenced by armour? Quite curious, didn't think that you would have a problem with those.

[Max_Killjoy]

What a bizarre pair of terms to have an objection with. Might I inquire why spells should be guaranteed to hit? And why a ball of force wouldn't be influenced by armour? Quite curious, didn't think that you would have a problem with those.

To be clear, I was agreeing with lesser_minion's objection to those two moldy tropes.

The list of was the bad ideas, and my statement was that I wouldn't include those bad ideas in my games.

[Frozen_Feet]

Is Batman "realistically human?" Is Aragorn? Is Chris Redfield? Is Caramon Majerie? Is Guts? Is Ajax? Is Ciaphus Cain? Is Samurai Jack? Is Solid Snake? Do we even have an idea of what that term means?

I'm not intimately familiar with all these characters, but of those I do know:

1) Batman is intended to be a realistic human, but most portrayals of the character aren't. One example of this is how most skills of Batman (master of martial arts, master of psychology, master chemist, master detective, master gymnast...) would individually be realist, but it's massively implausible for one person to be skilled in all of those, plus orphan son of a millionaire. Second example of this is how Batman occasionally survives battles with superhumanly strong opponents without injury (see Batman and Hulk crossover) , yet at other times is severely injured by normal humans (see Batman: Black & White).
2) Aragorn is not a realistic human, due to being explicitly descended of an Elf, a fantastic creature. Dude was something like 80 years old when LotR happened.
3) Chris Redfield may have been intended as a realistic human, but constraints of his medium (video games) enforces an unrealistic portrayal. Later on he becomes augmented via speculative biological means and fully ceases to qualify
4) Caramon Majere starts out as a realistic human, and later crosses the line into fantastic as his circumstances get more and more fantastic. It's been long enough since I read Dragonlance that I can't give you the exact book or page where Caramon first does something unquestionably superhuman, but he does become a time traveller, among other things, during the series.
5) Solid Snake may have been intended as a realistic human, but again constraints of his medium (videogames) enforces unrealistic portrayal. Metal Gear games in general go off the deep end and get filled to the brim with speculative elements as the series progresses. (Isn't Snake revealed as identical clone of someone, or did I get the codenames mixed up? There's at least three different Snakes to keep track of...)

So yes, we know what "realist human" means. It means portraying humans truthfully, without artificiality and avoiding artistic conventions, implausible, exotic and supernatural elements. Or at least I knew that, because I was awake at school during art lessons. It is obvious from this thread that not all people do know, or they are not using "realist" and "realism" in a common way.

---



#1 is only true if they care about balance / meddle with what other people are playing. If they're fine playing a human while someone else is playing Spider-Man, then there's not an issue.

You are not wrong.


#2 can work if the player in question possesses significantly greater player skills / metagame resources, or the other PCs hold the idiot ball. But that's certainly not something you can just expect to be true.

This is iffy. If this is happening on accident, then it might be what's preventing the conflict of desires to be recognized and dealt with. If it's on purpose, it's veering closer to the solutions I proposed for the 1st group, just with game difficulty artificially lowered so the realistic character can deal with the fantastic.


So, to use the thread title, mundane can't beat caster because 1) mundane won't let it; 2) mundane expects to do so anyway; 3) caster won't let it; 4) the world won't let it. Is that a fair summary?

If so, it's no wonder the attitude "play a Wizard or expect to play second fiddle" exists - that's a rather intimidating list of reasons!

That's one way to put it. Again, though, not all these reason always apply for a specific player or a specific game. It's also worth noting that an inverse exist for all four, which would demand that the Wizard play a second fiddle in a given game.

2D8HP has shared many amusing anecdotes of their old games where everyone thought Fighters were BAMF, and Wizards were wimps.

[Lord Raziere]

On Snake and Chris Redfield:
thing is, the most unrealistic thing about these characters being constrained by the videogame medium, its that even if you throw out all their unrealistic in game feats, there is still the fact that you save and reload. its very likely that no player ever gets it right on the first time, so when they die they reload and try again until they do, when realistically, life just happens and you never get do-overs like that. so all realistic portrayal of human effort stops when a character dies then basically restarts from an earlier point to do it again but better. meaning these characters aren't realistic at all, they are constantly dying and rewinding gods whose only limit is how much they are willing to try and do before they decide to stop for a while.

so even if you discard all other feats as being unrealistic, there is still the fact that are beings who can keep trying again and again until they win and therefore in no actual danger of being defeated permanently.

[Tanarii]

Lastly, rolling up a new 1st level character if you died used to be the "correct" answer. Back then, I could enjoy running a 1st level character in a party of 7th level PCs. These days, I'm told that's crazy talk (actually, is that just a 3e thing? Would it be fun in 4e or 5e?).
In 4e, it's far worse than in 3e. Character need to be very close to the same level vs the difficulty of the challenge being presented. (Edit again: it's actually not that bad, a range of maybe 4-6 levels is okay. But given 4e Tiers are 10 levels each that's relatively smaller.)

In 5e, it's not a problem at all if you stick to the same Tier, which is a level band of 4-6 levels. Level 1 characters can easily adventure with level 3-4s if they're careful. Level 5s with 8-10s is not a problem at all.

Edit: I don't really consider that latter different from AD&D or BECMI. In those you don't take level 1 & 2 PCs out with your name level characters. They join a lower level party until they have some experience. Remember, those games weren't really developed for single party play.

[digiman619]

I for one don't understand why magic has to be so ''special'' and ''different''.

If a Fighter ''must not use magic'', then what ''must'' a Wizard ''not'' use?
If I wanted to be smarmy, I'd say "armor", but otherwise this really hits the nail on the head.

[Cluedrew]

Either way, a level 20 fighter (or equivalent) should be able to be impossible or fantastic without being magical. The thing that really has me stumped is why people refuse that possibility. Anyone know?

There are multiple reasons, depending on which subset of these people you're talking of.
[...] 1) people who want to play realistic humans and aren't interested in a game where their characters leave that category.
[...] 2) people with ill-realized or conflicting desires. They want a character that is realistically human. They also want a character that can keep up with impossible badasses. These people cannot be pleased untill you get them to drop one of their desires or find a working synthesis of them.
[...] 3) people whose verisimilitude is broken when dude who is not wearing a funny hat, waving a wand and growing a beard (etc.) does something fantastic.
[...] 4) people who want to play a game based on specific work of fiction, where fantastic fighters aren't a thing, but some other type of fantastic characters are. These people get sad if fighters break the rules of their favored fictionland.For the most part, my thought in in general is "but then why are you playing D&D?"

First off I should clarify what I think D&D is supposed to be about. Its the everything fantasy RPG, it tracks the "zero-to-hero" (actually, I have some questions about the zero part) journey of about a dozen different archetypes from their humble beginnings to the best X in the world. What is X? Whatever you want it to be. At high levels it is supposed to be the setting where the epic fighter teams up with the epic rogue and takes on the epic wizard and the epic monk. Now maybe that isn't what they were trying to do, and that would explain why they are so far off sometimes, but that is the feel I get.

With that in mind my general feeling about each of the four groups:
They want E6, that is the feeling D&D provides at low levels. Ideally just recognize the cut off and stop there.
Special case of 1, that realizes what trying to play that low level game in D&D will entail and doesn't like it. Or maybe doesn't realize and is surprized when it happens. I'm not entirely sure.
Ars Magica. Go play it. Seriously it sounds exactly what they are asking for.
Umm... This one I can't conveniently point at the system that you should be playing instead. If you lucky there is a system for it, otherwise try GURPS, FATE or some other generic system that can be adapted to your particular setting. D&D don't have a particular setting, but it isn't generic either.

There is also some people who argue against the idea of fantastic fighters, but they might just be over applying their particular disinterest.


What I'm refusing is the idea that you can have a setting in which all three of the following are true:

Fighters can do things that are fantastic or impossible from the POV of our reality.
Those things are also fantastic from the POV of the fictional reality; that is, they're something special and reserved for a handful of "special" persons.
Fighters are not "magical" in that setting. (Note that "magic" DOES NOT MEAN "spellcasting".)
I defiantly want one (not all the time, but for here) but the other two I have questions about. Essentially what does special and magical mean? Is Tony Stark magical because he is the only one who can get the Iron Man suit working? He may not be a fighter, but he is defiantly not a wizard.


If a Fighter ''must not use magic'', then what ''must'' a Wizard ''not'' use?Well I tend to blend the two myself, but if we examine the two archetypes I would say anything that requires physical strength, coordination or endurance. You ever wonder why it takes Spell level + 1d6 pages, or whatever it was when they tracked that, to write out a spell? Because their hand writing is just that bad and inconsistent, you would think they have Parkinson's. OK, only the first and last sentence of this paragraph were meant seriously, but I hope I have gotten my point across.

[Frozen_Feet]

For the most part, my thought in in general is "but then why are you playing D&D?"

That's an entire different topic. It is answerable though. The most common answer is "they have insufficient knowledge of and aptitude for using other game systems".

Still, all sorts of players can show up for all kinds of games, and versions of D&D aren't the only kinds of games where magic is overpowering. Indeed, when forgetting all about beating the dead horse of D&D 3.x, the problem usually exists on a metagame level, at the phase where you choosing which game to play. It is solved by choosing or designing the right sort.

[Talakeal]

Which brings us to the next subset: 2) people with ill-realized or conflicting desires. They want a character that is realistically human. They also want a character that can keep up with impossible badasses. These people cannot be pleased untill you get them to drop one of their desires or find a working synthesis of them.

This is the sentiment that causes me to keep posting in this thread every time is gets posted. Virtually every game I play and piece of media I consume has characters that are nominally human and still defeat or contribute to the efforts of monsters, wizards, and super humans, and yet this forum insists that it is somehow impossible.


But I suppose it really depends on what you mean by "realistically human."


Is Batman "realistically human?" Is Aragorn? Is Chris Redfield? Is Caramon Majerie? Is Guts? Is Ajax? Is Ciaphus Cain? Is Samurai Jack? Is Solid Snake? Do we even have an idea of what that term means?

That's a very good question. AFAIK all of these characters are presented as humans and never do anything out and out impossible, but they are all significantly more competent than any "real" human in at least one area.




All that having been said, beyond pure broken infinite combos, what do you consider their handful of win buttons that need to be nerfed?.

There are a few "no save just lose" spells that I don't like such as Shivering Touch and Force cage, but the real problem spells are those that allow you to get in more than you got out and effectively have infinite power.

Shape-Change, Polymorph any Object, Planar Binding, Gate, Wish (as an SLA), Genesis, Fabricate + Walls, and a few others allow you to ignore all of the limits put into the game and effectively cast any spell in the game as often as you like.

[Darth Ultron]

Well I tend to blend the two myself, but if we examine the two archetypes I would say anything that requires physical strength, coordination or endurance. You ever wonder why it takes Spell level + 1d6 pages, or whatever it was when they tracked that, to write out a spell? Because their hand writing is just that bad and inconsistent, you would think they have Parkinson's. OK, only the first and last sentence of this paragraph were meant seriously, but I hope I have gotten my point across.

So:

Fighter no magic at all in any way shape or form.

Wizard, just the very narrow no physical strength, coordination or endurance.

So would you say all wizards must have a strength so low it must have a penalty? Would you officially say there can be no fighter/mage types? Or melee burser wizards?

I guess ''coordination'' would be no dexterity and maybe even no base attack?

Endurance would vaguely be constitution, but guess it could also be low hit points and Fort saves.

So would you say a Wizard would have all three physical ability scores under 8 and a BaB of +0 that would never increase? And forbid wizards from taking related feats too, like they could not take Power Attack or Improved Initiative. And not allow then to put any ranks in any skill based off the three physical abilities.

Amazingly, this might even work: Say a 10th level wizard like Str-6, Dex-8, Con-6 and with a Bab of +0. Now they can use magic to increase all of that...but mostly to just ''normal fighter levels''. Like the wizard can spam enchantment type spells and such to get a +8 to Dex....but that only make it 16.

Though it still might be too narrow. To say a fighter must use no magic, would be to say a wizard must use no mundane, right?

[Frozen_Feet]

Virtually every game I play and piece of media I consume has characters that are nominally human and still defeat or contribute to the efforts of monsters, wizards, and super humans, and yet this forum insists that it is somehow impossible.

Did you check you're even talking of the same thing as me? I was talking about player conflict of interests, not of what's possible to have in a game.

Or, to use an example, it's not a problem whatsoever to have a game where Batman can have a boxing match with Hulk and then die to a mundane bullet shot by a random mook, the problem is selling this to your player as fair interpretation of the characters involved.

[Cazero]

At least for me, I'm not refusing the possibility.

What I'm refusing is the idea that you can have a setting in which all three of the following are true:

Fighters can do things that are fantastic or impossible from the POV of our reality.
Those things are also fantastic from the POV of the fictional reality; that is, they're something special and reserved for a handful of "special" persons.
Fighters are not "magical" in that setting. (Note that "magic" DOES NOT MEAN "spellcasting".)

If you were actually open to the idea of level 20 'mundanes' doing awesome things, you would drop point 2.
Being level 20 is an extreme level of 'he just trained really hard'. Only one in millions (if not billions) reach that level. Of course it leads to doing fantastical things that people thought to be strictly impossible; after all, it is very possible that nobody else ever achieved it before, and just as possible that nobody else ever will.

[Pleh]

Trying to catch up, only had time to comment on a few things I saw.


If we're following regular laws? Does dark matter follow regular laws? Do black holes follow regular laws? Does light follow regular laws? There seem to be an awful lot of things that follow their own laws - why is it unthinkable for there to be yet another that science hasn't discovered yet?

Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Presumably, Dark matter and black holes do follow regular laws. It's just that our laws don't accurately describe those laws yet.

Of course there will always be more science yet to discover, but magic doesn't have to be scientific.


If magic exists it can be measured. It becomes part of science.

Not necessarily. Even in science, there are a few things that cannot actually be measured. How much moreso Magic, which by most definitions is intrinsically not well defined (that is to say the lack of definition is absolutely part of the definition).

I think in general *Spellcasting* is a scientific process and a known quantity. Understanding the arts behind invoking magic is definitely something mortals apply scientific principles to doing.

That doesn't mean magic, the subject of spellcasting, is now a scientific field. That will still depend on your campaign setting.


... theories contemporary to the work suggested FTL was possible in some form, the work is not excluded, even if the theory is later shown to be wrong and FTL impossible.

Actually, the science and formulas around FTL travel suggest that it's totally possible to *travel* faster than light. What's not possible is *accelerating* to reach the speed of light, as actually reaching the speed of light through traditional methods of acceleration would require infinite energy to get to those speeds.

Star Wars uses a Hyperdrive to magically jump into Hyperspace, which is a real scientific theory that the same physics formulas predict where there is a set of speeds faster than light that actually require less and less energy to accelerate the faster you go past the speed of light. In that theory, the real problem is jumping back and forth between hyperspace reliably and not over-shooting your target (also relativistic time effects and other stuff).

Star Trek uses the Warp Engine to bend space (much as a gravity well like a black hole or planet does) around the vessel so traditional acceleration isn't necessary. You don't put energy into moving yourself forward in space, you put energy into moving space around you to create the effect that you move faster than the speed of light.

Fun tidbit, recent science news was saying the Warp Engine might actually be a real world viability.

[lesser_minion]

In the context of D&D, I actually believe that if a fighter doesn't use magic, they're not a real fighter. All D&D settings in which bards exist feature the principle that a sufficiently advanced artistic performance can produce magical effects. If a bard's arts are allowed to become "sufficiently advanced", why aren't a fighter's?

There are ways to make it make sense, but ultimately, once you have one mechanism for ordinary or mundane-seeming actions to produce miraculous results, there is nothing to gain -- and much to lose -- from inventing sixteen more.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you were actually open to the idea of level 20 'mundanes' doing awesome things, you would drop point 2.
Being level 20 is an extreme level of 'he just trained really hard'. Only one in millions (if not billions) reach that level. Of course it leads to doing fantastical things that people thought to be strictly impossible; after all, it is very possible that nobody else ever achieved it before, and just as possible that nobody else ever will.

Which is quite frankly pure fiction -- there is no such thing in a fictional reality based even roughly on the human beings and the basic physics of our reality. In a world of 7+ billion people and remarkable training methods and massive investment, the limits of human performance are creeping upward by the tiniest increments as the most gifted, talented, and trained people in the world try to break them. The idea of someone "just training really hard" to run a sub-1.0 second 40 yard dash, or bench press tons, or perform a 300' standing vertical jump, is total fantasy.

So, if you drop #2, then you have a different question: do you want to follow through with all that implies for the fictional setting you're building... which ends up looking noticeably different from the quasimedievel mashup of most D&D settings; or do you just want to ignore it and pretend that there's nothing ridiculous going on...


Or... you can drop the idea that "fighters" who can pull off feats of physical and martial prowess such that they can keep up with D&D's high-level casters are "not at all magical", and instead go with the idea that their training and experience push them to the point where they're tapping into "magic" or whatever you want to call it, just not in the way that spellcasters are.

[Max_Killjoy]

I defiantly want one (not all the time, but for here) but the other two I have questions about. Essentially what does special and magical mean? Is Tony Stark magical because he is the only one who can get the Iron Man suit working? He may not be a fighter, but he is defiantly not a wizard.


Comic books (at least "mainstream superhero comics") are a bad example for anything, because they run on almost 100% "rule of kewl". They throw any notion of coherence and consistency out the window, and just go with whatever the creative team of the moment thinks is the very most awesome.

That said, Stark isn't the only one who can get his tech working -- his history is now rife with examples of someone stealing his tech and making their own power armor suits.

[Frozen_Feet]

I think the confusion is caused by your formulation of this part:
Those things are also fantastic from the POV of the fictional reality; that is, they're something special and reserved for a handful of "special" persons.

The underlined part doesn't really follow - a piece of technology or some achievement can be limited to a small subset of people, even one person, even if no-one in the setting thinks anything fantastic is going on. The word special refers to rarity, not necessarily impossibility.

So Tony Stark totally is doing things impossible in our reality, he's totally non-magical from the perpective of his reality, and his technology is totally reserved to him and few other genius inventors with deep wallets. But that last part is a manifestation of Clarke's Third Law: if someone in Stark's setting thinks his technology is fantastic, it's because Stark's tech is so far ahead the curve as to seem so from the perspective of the observer. Not because it's supernatural.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think the confusion is caused by your formulation of this part:

The underlined part doesn't really follow - a piece of technology or some achievement can be limited to a small subset of people, even one person, even if no-one in the setting thinks anything fantastic is going on. The word special refers to rarity, not necessarily impossibility.

So Tony Stark totally is doing things impossible in our reality, he's totally non-magical from the perpective of his reality, and his technology is totally reserved to him and few other genius inventors with deep wallets. But that last part is a manifestation of Clarke's Third Law: if someone in Stark's setting thinks his technology is fantastic, it's because Stark's tech is so far ahead the curve as to seem so from the perspective of the observer. Not because it's supernatural.


No matter how I word it someone gets confused as to what I mean, unless I write a damn treatise every time I post. And yet people want to give me grief when I wish language was more precise, and less mushy and overlapping and vague.


My point was that it's "magic" in the sense of "outside the realm of the normally possible in that reality". Of course, if I word it like that, then someone will chime in that because magic is part of that reality, it's perfectly normal in that reality, and we end up with a 15-page tangent of philosophical naval-gazing that ends up with some nimwit trying to prove that the world only exists in our imagination and that the chair holds you up because you believe in it or some nonsense.


I could just say that the fighter in that setting is tapping into the same forces as the spellcasters, just via different means, in order to do things that people normally can't do, but I've seen that blow up into a tangent too.

[Darth Ultron]

My point was that it's "magic" in the sense of "outside the realm of the normally possible in that reality"

Why must magic be outside reality? If magic does exist in reality...then it would be part of reality, correct?

[Cazero]

Which is quite frankly pure fiction -- there is no such thing in a fictional reality based even roughly on the human beings and the basic physics of our reality. In a world of 7+ billion people and remarkable training methods and massive investment, the limits of human performance are creeping upward by the tiniest increments as the most gifted, talented, and trained people in the world try to break them. The idea of someone "just training really hard" to run a sub-1.0 second 40 yard dash, or bench press tons, or perform a 300' standing vertical jump, is total fantasy.
Good thing my RPGs happen to be in a world of fantasy then. One where the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of the best athletes in the world are more than like 3.72% above the top 1% of the top 1%.
No matter how you look at it, some guy punching a hole in the kind of wall of stone you build to stop armies will be considered doing something impossible and fantastical by the standard of the game world. It doesn't mean it must require magic to do it. Case in point : [pick your non-magical monster with a huge STR score] does it just fine.


So, if you drop #2, then you have a different question: do you want to follow through with all that implies for the fictional setting you're building... which ends up looking noticeably different from the quasimedievel mashup of most D&D settings; or do you just want to ignore it and pretend that there's nothing ridiculous going on...
It implies exaclty one thing : individual entities too powerful to be handled by masses exists.
Ho, wait, that was already covered. Dragons, mad wizards, etc. I've just added "people so strong they don't need any magic to jump across cities or punch over mountains yet are still technicaly human" to the very long list, and it was probably already there a dozen times if you cross the "technicaly human" bit. I'm pretty sure that from a verisimilitude point of view, half that list would be more bothersome than "the Hulk but without the gamma rays part".

You're using a Guy at the Gym paradigm to measure power and claim that being too tall to ride would break the verisimilitude of the world.
But 1) I'm not seeing it, and
2) power (including ability to break world records) is covered by level, not by concept.
So if you want martial with 0% magic to be stuck to Guy at the Gym level, give them a low level cap in your games. Don't break their identity by forcing magic in it. Once that arbitrary level cap for "realistic worlds" is established, we can go back to fighters who are actualy epic and what they ought to be able to do by level 20 to not be turned into jokes by wizards of lower level.

[Max_Killjoy]

Good thing my RPGs happen to be in a world of fantasy then. One where the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of the best athletes in the world are more than like 3.72% above the top 1% of the top 1%.


Which implies that the limits of bone and muscle and sinew and metabolism are different in that world. Follow through in worldbuilding, or shrug and accept that the world is internally incoherent and inconsistent.




No matter how you look at it, some guy punching a hole in the kind of wall of stone you build to stop armies will be considered doing something impossible and fantastical by the standard of the game world.


Unless it's not -- a fictional world where that's within the range of normal human capacity is conceivable. The question is, if that is possible, how else does that change the fictional world?




It doesn't mean it must require magic to do it. Case in point : [pick your non-magical monster with a huge STR score] does it just fine.


Choices:
1) "Non-magical" beast is magical (in the broad sense) and tapping into the same forces that spellcasters tap into.
2) "Non-magical" beast is non-magical.

a) The "laws' of that fictional reality are different such that they allow for this -- follow through in worldbuilding.
b) "They just can do it", there's nothing deeper that actually explains it, and the fictional setting is incoherent.





It implies exaclty one thing : individual entities too powerful to be handled by masses exists.
Ho, wait, that was already covered. Dragons, mad wizards, etc. I've just added "people so strong they don't need any magic to jump across cities or punch over mountains yet are still technicaly human" to the very long list, and it was probably already there a dozen times if you cross the "technicaly human" bit. I'm pretty sure that grom a verisimilitude point of view, half that list would be more bothersome than "the Hulk but without the gamma rays part".


Dragons are magic.

Mad wizards are magic.

People who can leap over cities or punch mountains down are magic -- or if they're not, you've said something about your fictional world that you need to follow through with, unless you just want "rule of kewl" nonsense.




You're using a Guy at the Gym paradigm to measure power and claim that being too tall to ride would break the verisimilitude of the world.


Nope -- I'm saying you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not the limits that break verisimilitude, it's the contradictions and incoherences. If human limits with no magic are x in our world, and 10x in the fictional world, then you've said something about your fictional world, or you've accepted that your world just makes no sense and you're fine with that.

Note that I've never said "human limits must be real-world realistic in YOUR setting to maintain verisimilitude". I've said "If you change the limits, and don't want to sacrifice verisimilitude, here are your possible solutions".




But 1) I'm not seeing it, and
2) power (including ability to break world records) is covered by level, not by concept.
So if you want martial with 0% magic to be stuck to Guy at the Gym level, give them a low level cap in your games. Don't break their identity by forcing magic in it. Once that arbitrary level cap for "realistic worlds" is established, we can go back to fighters who are actualy epic and what they ought to be able to do by level 20 to not be turned into jokes by wizards of lower level.


First, you're assuming a level-based game. This isn't just about D&D-like games.

Second, this isn't about what I want, it's about laying out the inherent contradiction and the mutually exclusive nature of all these things people seem to want.

[Cazero]

Which implies that the limits of bone and muscle and sinew and metabolism are different in that world. Follow through in worldbuilding, or shrug and accept that the world is internally incoherent and inconsistent.




Unless it's not -- a fictional world where that's within the range of normal human capacity is conceivable. The question is, if that is possible, how else does that change the fictional world?




Choices:
1) "Non-magical" beast is magical (in the broad sense) and tapping into the same forces that spellcasters tap into.
2) "Non-magical" beast is non-magical.

a) The "laws' of that fictional reality are different such that they allow for this -- follow through in worldbuilding.
b) "They just can do it", there's nothing deeper that actually explains it, and the fictional setting is incoherent.





Dragons are magic.

Mad wizards are magic.

People who can leap over cities or punch mountains down are magic -- or if they're not, you've said something about your fictional world that you need to follow through with, unless you just want "rule of kewl" nonsense.




Nope -- I'm saying you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not the limits that break verisimilitude, it's the contradictions and incoherences. If human limits with no magic are x in our world, and 10x in the fictional world, then you've said something about your fictional world, or you've accepted that your world just makes no sense and you're fine with that.

Note that I've never said "human limits must be real-world realistic in YOUR setting to maintain verisimilitude". I've said "If you change the limits, and don't want to sacrifice verisimilitude, here are your possible solutions".




First, you're assuming a level-based game. This isn't just about D&D-like games.

Second, this isn't about what I want, it's about laying out the inherent contradiction and the mutually exclusive nature of all these things people seem to want.
Let's go with "metabolisms work differently" because we already need it for flying megafauna such as dragons, and no, dragons aren't magical as far as their physical capabilities are concerned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html).

You are asserting that this change (removing limits as we know them in the real world) will create contradictions and incoherences. To wich I answer that fantasy society at large won't be changed by that one superstrong human just existing, pretty much like I can't decide to get fit and break a world record or five.
Even ignoring natural talent (wich applies to physical traits as much as magical ones and can definitely disqualify most people from topping the charts from the get go), going beyond the norm takes time and effort. Going far beyond the norm require more time and more effort. There are many reasons why the vast majority of people aren't able to pull it off. Those who do pull it off are called "adventurers" and wether their exceptional power come from magic or training is pretty much irrelevant to the world at large. Considering the difference between trained and untrained is already huge in the real world, I conclude that the world-shattering consequences you expect simply won't happen.


There are effectively no difference between "Fighter pulling magic power from chi" and "Fighter who's just that strong" except for the core concept. In both cases, only a very few individual have the combination of natural talent, dedication and training to be truly beyond the norm. My beef is that core concept is a dealbreaker and you appear to be breaking the "just that strong" deal for no reason.



And that entire argument is beside the point anyway. When trying to reverse a "Magic vs Non-magic" paradigm, removing the non-magic side from existence doesn't really answer the question asked.

[Nargrakhan]

Here's a line item I saw on TV Tropes about Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards:

The problem with Pathfinder and 3.5 is that the lion's share of material is always biased towards caster classes. Here's an experiment anyone can do: even with just the core rulebook. Count how many pages are dedicated to abilities, feats, spells, and rules that a caster without a martial class has exclusive access to. Now count how many pages are dedicated to abilities, feats, and rules that a martial without a caster class has exclusive access to. With VERY few rare exception (i.e. a splat book devoted entirely to martial classes), the caster will have many times more pages of dedicated material than the martial. Now continue counting the pages across the entire Pathfinder and/or 3.5 library: casters have many hundreds more pages of "caster only" material, over the amount of "martial only" material.

5e spellcasters have an entire Chapter, page 201 through 289, devoted entirely to them in the Player's Handbook. That's 27% of the entire book. That's a HUGE chunk of exclusive content.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e spellcasters have an entire Chapter, page 201 through 289, devoted entirely to them in the Player's Handbook. That's 27% of the entire book. That's a HUGE chunk of exclusive content.

But in fairness, 5e suffers a lot less from caster vs martial due to other changes; also, anyone with a feat can get some spells; also only 6 subclasses (out of ~40) in the PHB don't get access to spells automatically--

* Berserker Barbarian
* Champion Fighter
* Battlemaster Fighter
* Open hand Monk
* Thief Rogue
* Assassin Rogue

Several don't use spell slots, sure:
* Totem Barbarians get one spell as a ritual
* Shadow Monks cast some spells as class features using Ki
* Four Element Monks cast some spells as class features using Ki

Every other subclass has access to spells (and spell slots) by level 3. Of the subclasses, the spell-casters break down as:

* Barbarian: 1 of 2, single spell access (so basically not a spellcaster)
* Bard: All are full-progression casters
* Cleric: All are full-progression casters
* Druid: All are full-progression casters
* Fighter: 2 non-casters, 1 1/3-caster (can cast up to level 4 spells, first spell at level 3)
* Monk: 1 non-caster, 2 special casters--basically fixed list spell points casters with very restricted lists. Explicitly magical throughout.
* Paladin: All 1/2 casters (cast up to 5th level spells, first spell at level 2)
* Ranger: All 1/2 casters (cast up to 5th level spells, first spell at level 2)
* Rogue: 2 non-casters, 1 1/3-caster (can cast up to level 4 spells, first spell at level 3)
* Sorcerer: All full-progression casters
* Warlock: All full-progression* casters (very strange casting that doesn't stack, but they cast 9th level spells and start at 1st level, so...)
* Wizard: All full-progression casters

That makes fully 1/2 of all base classes as full-progression casters, with another 2 half-casters and 2 1/3 casters. That makes only 2 classes (barbarian, monk) that can't get at least 1/3-progression, spell-slot casting that stacks with full casting for multi-classing spell-slot progression.

[Nargrakhan]

But in fairness, 5e suffers a lot less from caster vs martial due to other changes; also, anyone with a feat can get some spells; also only 6 subclasses (out of ~40) in the PHB don't get access to spells automatically--

{snip}

That makes fully 1/2 of all base classes as full-progression casters, with another 2 half-casters and 2 1/3 casters. That makes only 2 classes (barbarian, monk) that can't get at least 1/3-progression, spell-slot casting that stacks with full casting for multi-classing spell-slot progression.

True. And that's definitely a good design choice. However it also means that the answer to this topic -- changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm -- means making the mundane into casters.

Is that really the answer sought? The Player's Handbook has 362 spells. That's 362 options spell users have that non-spell users do not. Over a quarter of the book automatically "locked out" from the mundane. The most potent of these 362 options are locked to "full casters" and unavailable to the 1/2 and 1/3 casters -- either because they can't learn the spell or cast them at 6/7/8/9 spell slots.

If I take the Magic Initiate, I have a choice of 3 options from ONE class of either: 32 of the Bard, 22 of the Cleric, 24 of the Druid, 36 of the Sorcerer, 20 of the Warlock, or 46 of the Wizard spells. Granted there's a ton of overlap in the spell choices (particularly in the Sorcerer/Wizard list) and I can only pick one class list... but it's a lot of options gained if it's the variant human 1st level Feat. If I take the Martial Adept I have a choice of 2 options from 16 maneuvers. However this would assume Feats are allowed by the GM.

If the Battlemaster had 46 maneuvers to choose from, we'd probably be seeing hundreds of forum threads explaining how the Battlemaster is the most OP mundane class ever made. Mundanes lacking their own 88 pages of useful no spellcasters allowed content, is why mundanes automatically have the short end of the stick.

***EDIT***
Clarified you can only use one class' spell list.

[PhoenixPhyre]

True. And that's definitely a good design choice. However it also means that the answer to this topic -- changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm -- means making the mundane into casters.

Is that really the answer sought? The Player's Handbook has 362 spells. That's 362 options spell users have that non-spell users do not. Over a quarter of the book automatically "locked out" from the mundane. The most potent of these 362 options are locked to "full casters" and unavailable to the 1/2 and 1/3 casters -- either because they can't learn the spell or cast them at 6/7/8/9 spell slots.

If I take the Magic Initiate, I have a choice of 3 options from: 32 of the Bard, 22 of the Cleric, 24 of the Druid, 36 of the Sorcerer, 20 of the Warlock, or 46 of the Wizard spells. Granted there's a ton of overlap in the spell choices (particularly in the Sorcerer/Wizard list)... but it's a lot of options gained if it's the variant human 1st level Feat. If I take the Martial Adept I have a choice of 2 options from 16 maneuvers. However this would assume Feats are allowed by the GM.

If the Battlemaster had 46 maneuvers to choose from, we'd probably be seeing hundreds of forum threads explaining how the Battlemaster is the most OP mundane class ever made. Mundanes lacking their own 88 pages of useful no spellcasters allowed content, is why mundanes automatically have the short end of the stick.

Here's the big difference (on this front anyway) between 3e and 5e though--if you were to make a Tier list for 5e, you'd have a single tier. T3. Every class can contribute (in differing amounts) to all parts of the game.

*Skills are tied to proficiency (which increases automatically) as opposed to skill ranks makes it so anyone can contribute, even if not proficient.
*The concentration mechanic (most persistent spells require concentration, of which a given caster can only have one going at a time) drops the "build up buffs" routine to almost nothing.
*Casters (even 9th level ones) have many fewer slots, and spells are much less powerful. There are very very few SoD spells, and basically no guaranteed ways to alter caster level (save DCs, etc).
*Anyone can pick up ritual casting (giving most of the utility spells).
*Very few (if any) monsters require certain spells or abilities to defeat.
*No more christmas tree effect or system-required magical items means you're not shackled to a caster or magic mart.

For all of these reasons, you can have an all-martial party and do just fine. You can have an all wizard party, and do just about the same.

Yes, it means breaking down the barriers quite a lot, but IMX very few actual players have a strong dedication to being "mundane" (not magical). Some don't want the hassle, others may not want to cast spells as their major contribution, and they don't have to. The non-magical archetypes are within epsilon of the magical ones, and ahead in some areas.

The Caster vs mundane problem is pretty much exclusive to 3e D&D, due to the system and settings involved. It doesn't really apply with any significant force even to other editions, let alone other games entirely.

[lesser_minion]

Let's go with "metabolisms work differently" because we already need it for flying megafauna such as dragons, and no, dragons aren't magical as far as their physical capabilities are concerned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html).

There are many phenomena in D&D that are either explicitly or clearly magical despite not being affected by antimagic fields -- in fact, within seconds of that comic going up, it was argued that it violated the rules because forcecage itself is such an effect. Other examples include golems, shadowcasters, deities, and all artifacts.


There are effectively no difference between "Fighter pulling magic power from chi" and "Fighter who's just that strong" except for the core concept.

Your proposal multiplies setting elements, introduces a new strength requirement to the fighter concept that wasn't there before, and doesn't accomplish its own objectives.

A fighter is someone who fights and wins battles: it follows from this that they're intelligent, perceptive, and charismatic, since most battles aren't decided on the field. But it doesn't follow that they're strong, let alone super-strong.
In D&D, giving fighters super-strength doesn't particularly help with balance -- you can use it to hurt people, break things, and fly around/ overcome environmental obstacles, and if you want to hit them with your sword then it helps with that, but if your party already has a wizard and a cleric, then your only contribution is that they don't have to spend as many spell slots on those things.
Your strength is ultimately limited by the strength of things in your environment such as whatever you're standing on or trying to lift, which means that super-strength isn't very useful unless you can will things in your environment to become super-strong themselves, which is definitely not something a strictly non-magical character should be doing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Let's go with "metabolisms work differently" because we already need it for flying megafauna such as dragons, and no, dragons aren't magical as far as their physical capabilities are concerned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html).


They need to be, unless you want to diverge your setting's basic "physical laws" to allow for those capabilities.



You are asserting that this change (removing limits as we know them in the real world) will create contradictions and incoherences. To wich I answer that fantasy society at large won't be changed by that one superstrong human just existing, pretty much like I can't decide to get fit and break a world record or five.


It does change the world, because in order to allow for your ultrafit "fighter" to leap 50' or crush boulders with his punches, while being completely "not-magical" / "mundane" / "pick your term that doesn't start another 20-page tangent", you have to make a lot of basic facts of the fictional world different as well. More on this below.




Even ignoring natural talent (wich applies to physical traits as much as magical ones and can definitely disqualify most people from topping the charts from the get go), going beyond the norm takes time and effort. Going far beyond the norm require more time and more effort. There are many reasons why the vast majority of people aren't able to pull it off. Those who do pull it off are called "adventurers" and wether their exceptional power come from magic or training is pretty much irrelevant to the world at large. Considering the difference between trained and untrained is already huge in the real world, I conclude that the world-shattering consequences you expect simply won't happen.


Actually, in the context of these capabilities you want to chalk up to "just trained really hard", the difference between trained and untrained isn't that big in the real world, and that's part of the problem with the "just trained really hard" fallacy. Consider for example the 40-yard dash, which we get a lot of numbers for every year because it's a metric used a lot in American football player evaluation. The record for an NFL pro prospect is 4.22 seconds, while offensive lineman (typically the biggest players) average around 5.35 seconds. Rich Eisen, a commentator for the NFL network and not a former pro athlete, has run the 40 at the end of the combine for charity for several years, and once ran a sub-6-second time wearing a suit and tie. So here you have the fastest players in the world running a time that's only 30% less than a guy who sits at a desk for a living and was wearing a suit and tie.

So if your peak physical "fighters" are performing all these increadible feats of strength and speed and endurance that are impossible for peak physical performers in our world, then you've moved the overall scale up for everyone who isn't at peak as well, and the gap isn't that huge. If your "fighters" are leaping 50', then we'd expect your average peasant or laborer who does hard work for a living every day to leap say 25'. That certainly has some implications for your setting that might need to be followed through on. Even 15' would have major implications. Same for endurance, carrying capacity, etc.

If the average porter can run for hours carrying 500 pounds, you may have just put a lot of your donkeys and cart-drivers out of business.




There are effectively no difference between "Fighter pulling magic power from chi" and "Fighter who's just that strong" except for the core concept. In both cases, only a very few individual have the combination of natural talent, dedication and training to be truly beyond the norm. My beef is that core concept is a dealbreaker and you appear to be breaking the "just that strong" deal for no reason.


Oh, there's a major difference -- "Fighter pulling magic power from chi" versus "Fighter who's just that strong" tell us two very different things about your fictional setting.

Nothing exists in isolation.




And that entire argument is beside the point anyway. When trying to reverse a "Magic vs Non-magic" paradigm, removing the non-magic side from existence doesn't really answer the question asked.


No, it is in fact one solution -- if you look at the thread title, it's not "magic vs non-magic", it's "caster beats mundane", that is, "caster vs non-caster". One solution to the divide that exists in some systems between casters and non-casters is to remove the notion that only casters are "using magic", and open up non-casting magic to other sorts of characters, allowing for remarkable fantastic capabilities without causing a cascade of worldbuilding implications.

It's part of a much bigger breakdown of options on how to handle the issue. Not sure if you were reading the thread when I posted the entire list of options earlier, but here it is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?541237-Changing-the-quot-Caster-beats-Mundane-quot-paradigm&p=22593545&highlight=mundane#post22593545):


The problem that PhoenixPhyre is trying to point out is what I would call "you can't have your cake and eat it too". We're not saying that wanting to play a Sir Galahad, Robin Hood, Saladin, the guy off Gladiator, etc, is in any way bad. We're not telling those players to "F off". What we're saying is, you can't have everything.

Something has to give.

You can have those "not magical" characters, and spellcasters who are balanced (downward from 3.5e levels) to be viable in the same game, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.

You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but are still magic for that setting and can keep up with those spellcasters, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.

You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, and a setting that has people being able to do those things baked into its "physics", and is not incoherent and not dissonant.

You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, and a setting that doesn't reflect that and IS incoherent and IS dissonant... that is, objectively bad worldbuilding.

You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters and cannot keep up with those spellcasters, and accept the imbalance between character types, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.

What you CANNOT have is spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, no reflection of that in the worldbuilding, AND a setting that makes any damn sense at all.

Something has to be sacrificed.


Again, there's nothing wrong with wanting to play spellcasting demigods, or physical demigods, or "totally mundane" heroic characters who have no magic at all, or gritty-level spellcasters, or whatever.

The problem comes from trying to cram them all into the same campaign, the same game, the same "fictional reality", while asserting that they're all mutually viable together -- you just end up with the Curse of the Kitchen Sink. This is why Kitchen Sink Gaming, of which D&D is the God Emperor, will always lead to problems. Every time we come around to this stuff about balance, or caster-vs-"mundane", or whatever, I'm tempted to just post "The Curse of the Kitchen Sink Strikes Again!"

Play those characters (Sir Galahad, Robin Hood, Saladin, the guy off Gladiator, etc) to your heart's content. Play spellcasting demigods to your heart's content. Play them in the same campaign if you're willing to accept the imbalance. But don't expect any system or GM to actually succeed at what is literally impossible.

[Tanarii]

I think in general *Spellcasting* is a scientific process and a known quantity. Understanding the arts behind invoking magic is definitely something mortals apply scientific principles to doing.

That doesn't mean magic, the subject of spellcasting, is now a scientific field. That will still depend on your campaign setting.
Not sure why you would think spellcasting is a scientific process and a known quantity, nor something that scientific pricing less can be applied to.

Just because the meta-rules for casting in a system are codified for our ease of resolution doesn't mean that how there have to be underlying rules that can be empirally tested for results by characters in-game.

[Milo v3]

Why must magic be outside reality? If magic does exist in reality...then it would be part of reality, correct?

This is an issue I have with a lot of settings. Why are you calling something magic if you can do it! It's not supernatural if it's a normal part of that worlds physics.

[LibraryOgre]

Not sure why you would think spellcasting is a scientific process and a known quantity, nor something that scientific pricing less can be applied to.

Just because the meta-rules for casting in a system are codified for our ease of resolution doesn't mean that how there have to be underlying rules that can be empirally tested for results by characters in-game.

Bu the very nature of wizard magic says that it is true.

If I take a spellbook from Wizard A and give it to Wizard B, Wizard B can usually learn and replicate the effects that Wizard A achieves using that spellbook. If I teach 10 wizards a spell from the same spellbook, giving them each a perfect copy for their own use, they'll be able to memorize/prepare that spell from exactly the same recipe, and probably make similar adjustments at the time of preparation/casting, depending on reigning environmental phenomenon.

That's really the core of a technology... reproducible results using the same techniques. The core of science is the reproducibility of experiments, and so long as one wizard can learn a spell from another wizard, so long as someone with Spellcraft can identify a spell as its being cast from its components, then you've got a technology.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Bu the very nature of wizard magic says that it is true.

If I take a spellbook from Wizard A and give it to Wizard B, Wizard B can usually learn and replicate the effects that Wizard A achieves using that spellbook. If I teach 10 wizards a spell from the same spellbook, giving them each a perfect copy for their own use, they'll be able to memorize/prepare that spell from exactly the same recipe, and probably make similar adjustments at the time of preparation/casting, depending on reigning environmental phenomenon.

That's really the core of a technology... reproducible results using the same techniques. The core of science is the reproducibility of experiments, and so long as one wizard can learn a spell from another wizard, so long as someone with Spellcraft can identify a spell as its being cast from its components, then you've got a technology.

That may be true for wizardry, but in most settings that's only a tiny fraction of all spell-casting, not to mention other magic. It very well could be that they're playing in the shallow end of the pool, where the waves are small enough that the variations can be ignored or worked around.


In my setting, the progression of active magic use went like this:

First there were two types:
* Rune magic (written symbols imbued with power by the caster), used by Titans
* Sorcery (raw elementally-attuned magic manipulated by spoken words and willpower), used by the Wyrm

The world-changing First Wish allowed a synthesis of these two--wizardry. First mastered by the high elves, it was the foundation of their empire. In the process, the First Wish shattered the power of sorcery and rune magic, leaving them the shells we see today. Bardic magic was another result of this wish.

Nature magic (mediated through nature spirits) came next, enabled by the Second Wish enacted by the cast-off high elves that couldn't (for whatever reason) learn wizardry. They became the wood elves. This wish forced the spirits to actually pay some attention to mortals, changing their natures to allow this. The wood elf rebellion destroyed the capital of the high elf empire, leaving only a crater to this day and splitting the continent.

Centuries later, humans (who were engineered by the high elves from hobgoblins) made the Third Wish, which tied the mortal races to the Great Mechanism that maintains reality, allowing devout individuals of all races to call on divine aid (divine magic).

So right now in my setting there are a whole bunch of ways to cast spells. Only one tiny subset (wizardry) is transferable between individuals, and that one is on shaky grounds--changes in the environment (physical or spiritual) often produce changes in the way that spells resonate. Thus, when you find a new spell you have to experiment quite a bit--one wizard's spell doesn't necessarily work for another. The ones that can be scribed by any wizard are the common, work-a-day ones and only represent a small fraction of all wizard spells, let alone all spells entire. The rest of the types can't be learned by one spell-caster from another--each must be discovered or granted anew.

[LibraryOgre]

That may be true for wizardry, but in most settings that's only a tiny fraction of all spell-casting, not to mention other magic. It very well could be that they're playing in the shallow end of the pool, where the waves are small enough that the variations can be ignored or worked around.


And your setting's alterations are not the core assumptions of the various editions of D&D, where 9th level spells, some of which can do most anything, can be freely learned by anyone capable of understanding those formulae. Where wizardry can be taught in academies and classrooms. In some cases, where the earliest wizards were gods, who taught the craft to mortals who have been mucking about with it for a thousand years or more.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And your setting's alterations are not the core assumptions of the various editions of D&D, where 9th level spells, some of which can do most anything, can be freely learned by anyone capable of understanding those formulae. Where wizardry can be taught in academies and classrooms. In some cases, where the earliest wizards were gods, who taught the craft to mortals who have been mucking about with it for a thousand years or more.

But even then, you're only looking at wizard spells, and not even all of them. Only 3e makes the assumption that anyone can learn wizardry if they're smart enough (which most aren't). None of the other editions did. Coincidentally, 3e is the biggest offender in the "casters rule, martials drool" category...

My setting follows the basic assumption of 5e, where being able to have spell slots is rare--a tiny fraction of humans can learn a few spells (ritual caster/magic initiate feat) without being dedicated to that trade; higher level wizards are vanishingly rare and most wizards who train their entire lives are never able to learn the higher level spells.

That is, your assumptions are the odd ones out here, not mine.

[Cluedrew]

I defiantly want one (not all the time, but for here) but the other two I have questions about. Essentially what does special and magical mean? Is Tony Stark magical because he is the only one who can get the Iron Man suit working? He may not be a fighter, but he is defiantly not a wizard.Comic books (at least "mainstream superhero comics") are a bad example for anything, because they run on almost 100% "rule of kewl". They throw any notion of coherence and consistency out the window, and just go with whatever the creative team of the moment thinks is the very most awesome.

That said, Stark isn't the only one who can get his tech working -- his history is now rife with examples of someone stealing his tech and making their own power armor suits.Sorry, but I fail to see how that answers the question about Tony Stark, let alone the question about special and magical. Could you go over it again in more detail? I may have missed something.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sorry, but I fail to see how that answers the question about Tony Stark, let alone the question about special and magical. Could you go over it again in more detail? I may have missed something.


OK, to be blunt about it.

The DC and Marvel universes are perhaps the sinkiest, kincheniest examples of The Curse of the Kitchen Sink ever to sink a kitchen. Almost everything in the Marvel, DC, and most other "superheroic" comic settings is total "rule of kewl" nonsense. It's an example of taking the "We don't give even a single F if any of this makes a bit of sense, we're just slapping down whatever sounds cool on the page" option.

So that is exactly where the character with tech that "other people just can't use because we said so" fits in the breakdown of options I did -- in the one where making a damn bit of sense is thrown completely out the window. He's not an example of anything.

...

As for "special and magical", I have explained what I'm trying to say there so many times and so many ways over the last six months, I don't know how many other ways I can explain it at this point. No matter how carefully and meticulously I try to explain it, somebody takes some little part of it and runs off on some completely pointless tangent.

As I said earlier...

No matter how I word it someone gets confused as to what I mean, unless I write a damn treatise every time I post. And yet people want to give me grief when I wish language was more precise, and less mushy and overlapping and vague.

My point was that it's "magic" in the sense of "outside the realm of the normally possible in that reality". Of course, if I word it like that, then someone will chime in that because magic is part of that reality, it's perfectly normal in that reality, and we end up with a 15-page tangent of philosophical naval-gazing that ends up with some nimwit trying to prove that the world only exists in our imagination and that the chair holds you up because you believe in it or some nonsense.

I could just say that the fighter in that setting is tapping into the same forces as the spellcasters, just via different means, in order to do things that people normally can't do, but I've seen that blow up into a tangent too.

...

Now, if we wanted to make some sense out of a character with tech that was unique to him and no one else, we've got two choices:


1) They've so far been able to keep it out of everyone else's hands, but technically it's something anyone could use if they had the thing and the manual (or time to figure it out).
2) It's literally magic with a tech veneer or "theme", and is enchanted in such a way that only the enchanter can use it.

[Nargrakhan]

The following stuff is not mine. It comes from a Sword World 2.0 setting I read in a Replay several years ago. I've tried finding it on the Internet just awhile ago, but either my Google-Fu is weak or it's something that didn't get uploaded anywhere I can find. I get the same problem with Tenra Bansho material that wasn't translated by Andy Kitkowski, so I'm going to try remembering what I can from the top of my head. Please bear with me for a bit.

*** BEGIN RAMBLING RECOLLECTION ***

In this setting magic is a force that allows someone to change reality and make what's impossible, possible. The origin of this force is unknown, even to the gods, because it existed before them.

The gods were the world's first inhabitants. At first ordinary mortals, they created their own society, discovered magic, and became mind boggling powerful. At some point they transcended to a higher state of existence, becoming the divine. When doing so they removed all evidence of their civilization from the planet and let the world "restart" evolution again. At this point, the gods felt it would be best to not interfere with anything and let the world progress as if they didn't exist.

In the second age, powerful creatures that would become things like dragons and demons came into existence. Like the gods they started as non-magical creatures, but after discovering magic were able to improve themselves and change reality to their whim. At some point the creatures of the second age somehow discovered the beings of the first age (the gods). There was a huge disagreement about something, and the second age creatures got arrogant and tried to overthrow the gods. Around this time magitek robots were invented (its has a lot of anime elements in the setting, so yea). The second age creatures lost -- very badly -- and were we're imprisoned, suffered genocide, or went into hiding.

At this point the gods were divided into two camps: the "good gods" felt the world should be allowed to have a third age, but this time with their guidance to prevent another war in heaven. The "evil gods" felt this was still too dangerous, the world should be scrubbed of all life, and the creatures of the first age just live out their current utopia in existential solitude without lesser races or potential rivals. Since they abhorred the idea of actually fighting among themselves, the evil gods used the world's creatures as proxies. Basically the evil gods intended to destroy the world indirectly through cultists or tricking third world creatures into freeing dangerous second world creatures to slaughter each other (who greatly reduced or severely injured, were no longer threat to the gods anymore).

The third age is when the game takes place. The "elder races" like elves and dwarves achieved civilization first, learning magic afterwards with guidance from the gods. Other species like humans and lizardmen would follow several centuries afterwards, also getting help from the gods when they figured out fire and language on their own.

Okay... so with that quick background given:

In this setting the physics of the world work a lot like real Earth. Ordinary people can only do what we can our planet. Magic comes into play when something NOT possible in our world happens. For example casting a fireball or turning invisible.

However this also applies to physical feats. For example when a swordsman suddenly dashes across the battlefield and slaughters a dozen solders in the blink of an eye... or when the same swordsman swings his sword and creates a "wind blast" so powerful it cuts down trees in a forest. The martial classes are basically casting spells without words: they are using magic to perform their anime-style attacks. Running up the side of castle walls, dashing across water without sinking, creating small craters every time they block a sword attack from another warrior. This is their brand of magic (and why they took points to use or had limited uses). "Chi" was a subset of this magic that the monk class used. The swordsman class called their own kind "Hiken" (translates to Secret Technique).

Wizards, as cliche tradition demands, did magic via chanting. While it took them longer to finish these spells (because a martial just had to swing his sword or throw her fist), they also had more variety or greater power. Sure a monk could throw fireballs, fly or teleport (again, anime influence)... but a wizard could also do this and make others invisible, or summon a monster, or halt time, or control storms, etc, etc, etc. However they needed time to do these things, whereas the monk would just make his happen with a quick yell of hadoken or a single powerup turn.

Now the way magic functioned in this setting, 99.9% of the third age population could not use magic at all. That's what made the player characters special: they were people who could. Therefore while a PC swordsman could leap dozens of feet into the air and slice giant boulders in half with a kitchen knife (a feat possible by physically enhance magic): everyday townspeople could not. At the same time, everyday townspeople couldn't learn chanting magic that wizards did. Reciting the words didn't make what need to happen, actually happen. Thus heroic wizards or warriors finding an apprentice, was a lot like a Jedi finding an apprentice: they need to be in touch with the Force (or in this case, magic). One could only use one or the other: not both (thus the the system's martial and caster divide).

This had something to do with the "evil gods" doing something in their plan to kill everyone off from the third age. Those individuals who could use magic somehow circumvented this blockage, either because good gods granted magic through themselves (divine spells), a person was born with a heritage from the second age (half-demon/half-dragon kind of stuff), or won the power lottery and bypassed the blockage through sheer luck.

The most dangerous monster races were those from the second age, because they could use both magic simultaneously: both the "instant" kind used for physical enhancement and instant energy blasts, as well as the chanting kind for more diverse and powerful effects. For example the extreme might of a dragon was from permanent physical enhancement, the fire breath was his version of an energy blast, and he could chant spells to cause serious destruction.

Player characters were targeted by minions of the evil gods, because there were a threat to their plans (thus lots of evil cultist plots). Those of half-second age heritage, were often manipulated by a second age survivor in a bid to regain power and try attacking the gods again with third age pawns.

**** END RAMBLING RECOLLECTION ***

tl;dr - Mysterious source of magic that permeates the world has more ways of manifesting itself than chanting words to create fireballs. Reality warping energy source is doing reality warping stuff when the Fighter runs across water, moves so fast it looks like he teleport, or cuts an enemy fireball in half with his sword. He's doing dispel a different way (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMNYSs5UL80). Wizard version of a "chanted" dispel is just more versatile (like making an anti-magic field or being able to dispel more than a directed magic attack). Ordinary people in the setting are ordinary people, because they CAN'T do this sort of stuff. Only the rare 1% like player characters can do it.

Before anyone cries that's anime only garbage, He-Man was using superhuman strength to block Magic Missile, break out of Force Cage, and cutting down Chromatic Orb (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aulef0EthE#t=14m) since the 80's. :smalltongue:

[Cazero]

There are many phenomena in D&D that are either explicitly or clearly magical despite not being affected by antimagic fields -- in fact, within seconds of that comic going up, it was argued that it violated the rules because forcecage itself is such an effect. Other examples include golems, shadowcasters, deities, and all artifacts.I fail to see how any of those are relevant.

Your proposal multiplies setting elements,Enables setting elements. Wether or not they're actualy in is left at the liberty of whomever is actualy writing the setting. And that person can still put a level cap or something if those things aren't to their liking, but that call is not for generic rules to make. Especialy when those rules claim that my proposal is possible then refuse to acknowledge it.
introduces a new strength requirement to the fighter concept that wasn't there before,I just want the rules to acknowledge that an epic superstrong person is superstrong. That's not adding a STR requirement; my point is the exact same for DEX at an epic level.


They need to be, unless you want to diverge your setting's basic "physical laws" to allow for those capabilities.I already did that. I said metabolisms worked differently or something. Would it really impact your life if e=mc^3 and c was slower to compensate?


So if your peak physical "fighters" are performing all these increadible feats of strength and speed and endurance that are impossible for peak physical performers in our world, then you've moved the overall scale up for everyone who isn't at peak as well, and the gap isn't that huge.
That demonstration is irrelevant. The gap isn't huge enough, so I assert that it is larger in the setting to enable character concepts that rely on that gap being large.


If your "fighters" are leaping 50', then we'd expect your average peasant or laborer who does hard work for a living every day to leap say 25'. That certainly has some implications for your setting that might need to be followed through on. Even 15' would have major implications. Same for endurance, carrying capacity, etc.
Why? The average peasant isn't among the top 1% of the best people in the world. He's average.
If the Hulk was a thing in the real world, we wouldn't have mandatory injection of gamma ray in school. We would have bigger guns for the SWAT and the hope they work.
Similarly, in a world with some individual with superhuman abilities, competent authorities will resort to some of those superhuman people to handle crisis. Sounds like "adventurers". The basic premise of most games. So what changed, exactly?


Oh, there's a major difference -- "Fighter pulling magic power from chi" versus "Fighter who's just that strong" tell us two very different things about your fictional setting.
Both can coexist just fine if you would just stop spitting on the one you don't like.


No, it is in fact one solution -- if you look at the thread title, it's not "magic vs non-magic", it's "caster beats mundane", that is, "caster vs non-caster". One solution to the divide that exists in some systems between casters and non-casters is to remove the notion that only casters are "using magic", and open up non-casting magic to other sorts of characters, allowing for remarkable fantastic capabilities without causing a cascade of worldbuilding implications.
In a "caster versus mundane" paradisgm, if something qualifies as "mundane" then it doesn't use a "spell list" because those are a "caster" thing. While that doesn't imply being completely powerless, the problem doesn't care what the source of the "mundane" power is. Superhuman abilities or exceptional skill, chi or non-magical (ab)use of different physical laws, all will run in the same balancing issues caused by not having "spells". Removing "non-magic" options from the list of "mundane" things allowed doesn't really help.

[lesser_minion]

I fail to see how any of those are relevant.

Any one of those examples suffices to refute your claim that things must be non-magical in order to work in an antimagic field.


Enables setting elements.

Just one mechanism by which fantastical things may be done is sufficient to 'enable' all fantastical things one may want to make possible. Add another one and you end up with tens of thousands of words of extra rules and world-building in order to patch up all the weird interactions and edge-cases. And actually putting that work in could easily lead you somewhere you didn't intend.


I already did that. I said metabolisms worked differently or something. Would it really impact your life if e=mc^3 and c was slower to compensate?

It is waaaaay too early in the morning to be re-learning all the maths required to answer that question properly. The answer is probably "yes", though.

[Pleh]

But even then, you're only looking at wizard spells, and not even all of them. Only 3e makes the assumption that anyone can learn wizardry if they're smart enough (which most aren't). None of the other editions did. Coincidentally, 3e is the biggest offender in the "casters rule, martials drool" category...

My setting follows the basic assumption of 5e, where being able to have spell slots is rare--a tiny fraction of humans can learn a few spells (ritual caster/magic initiate feat) without being dedicated to that trade; higher level wizards are vanishingly rare and most wizards who train their entire lives are never able to learn the higher level spells.

That is, your assumptions are the odd ones out here, not mine.

Irrelevant to my original assertion that spellcasting was scientific.

Even if you are a divine caster, do no magic of your own, and just pray that cosmic beings do magic on your behalf, your character still learned how to do that either through exploratory discovery or you were handed down teaching that came from a knowledgable authority.

If you use inborn sorcery, you used trial and error to learn to summon its power on command and to not accidentally cast spells or you were taught how to do so. Even magical creatures that use magic intuitively operate by instinct, which can also be examined and explored.

There is some science to even the deepest, most abstract forms of art.

Even if magic is totally wild and chaotic, it can still be described by mortals with statistics mathematics, "do this for the best chancrof getting the spell you want."

Science represents techniques people have developed through practice, study, and experimentation to create reproducible techniques.

I don't care how you flavor them. If your characters can cast the exact spell they want exactly when they want it, there will be some teaching around this handed from caster to caster as at least a "best practices." There is the science.

Look at it another way. Spellcasting is where mortals interface with magic. Anything mortals interact with, they can examine. Anything they can examine to create reproducible techniques is science.

There's no way spellcasting is anything but science. At worst, it is a loose science that describes fuzzy trends.

[Cazero]

Just one mechanism by which fantastical things may be done is sufficient to 'enable' all fantastical things one may want to make possible.One mechanism is enough to enable all effects, but that's beside the point. If you care about enabling character concepts, you don't need to enable more effects but more causes.


Add another one and you end up with tens of thousands of words of extra rules and world-building in order to patch up all the weird interactions and edge-cases. And actually putting that work in could easily lead you somewhere you didn't intend.
Only if the writers are talentless hacks. Mutants & Mastermind does all those interacting things trivialy by acknowledging making rules for litteraly everything is impossible and telling the guy in charge of arbitration to do the arbitration he's in charge of.

[Cluedrew]

No matter how carefully and meticulously I try to explain it, somebody takes some little part of it and runs off on some completely pointless tangent.... {Looks back on tangent about Tony Stark.} That happens. some times you unwittingly bring something up someone just can't leave alone.


My point was that it's "magic" in the sense of "outside the realm of the normally possible in that reality".OK, so "magic as the unusual"? I suppose it works, but the one thing it discounts that I think should be considered, which is a wizard is a wizard no matter how common wizards are. And casters have gotten pretty common in a lot of settings.

[Max_Killjoy]

I already did that. I said metabolisms worked differently or something. Would it really impact your life if e=mc^3 and c was slower to compensate?


OK, so your divergence in physical laws is "metabolisms work differently or something". What other effects does that have on the setting, if you make that change in order to allow for your new human peak, and dragons flying? And how does that metabolism "upgrade" affect the rest of the humans in your setting?

And yes, changing C that much would have some very noticeable affects.




That demonstration is irrelevant. The gap isn't huge enough, so I assert that it is larger in the setting to enable character concepts that rely on that gap being large.

Why? The average peasant isn't among the top 1% of the best people in the world. He's average.
If the Hulk was a thing in the real world, we wouldn't have mandatory injection of gamma ray in school. We would have bigger guns for the SWAT and the hope they work.
Similarly, in a world with some individual with superhuman abilities, competent authorities will resort to some of those superhuman people to handle crisis. Sounds like "adventurers". The basic premise of most games. So what changed, exactly?


Making the gap significantly larger "because training" falls squarely under the "we're just doing whatever sounds awesome, it doesn't have to make sense" option.

There are limits to what real-world human muscle and bone can do. Humans in the real world can't power lift ten tons because the human body cannot be "trained" to that point. The parts of the human body are made of things with actual physical limits that can't be trained away. Bones made of calcium have a breaking point. Muscle fibers aren't infinite in their strength. The body gives out long before getting that ten tons lifted.

So if your fictional world humans can at their peak lift ten tons overheard, then either calcium, carbon, etc, form materials of far greater strength... or humans are made of different things than they are in this world. And in either case, your "peak humans" have dragged your "average humans" along and shifted what they can do.


Now, if you really want the gap to be very big, then the alternative (as repeatedly offered) is that your "top .001%" are tapping into the same forces that the spellcasters are, just in a different way. They're using "magic", even unconsciously, to push their bodies past the normal limits. Done -- you get people leaping over walls and crushing boulders with punches, and your everyday laborers and peasants still need animals for heavy work, and footsoldiers aren't leaping over castle walls.




Both can coexist just fine if you would just stop spitting on the one you don't like.


How exactly am I "spitting on" it?

And it's not a matter of "coexisting", it's simply that the two have very different implications for your fictional world. Understanding those implications is important if you want your fictional world to be internally coherent and consistent.




In a "caster versus mundane" paradisgm, if something qualifies as "mundane" then it doesn't use a "spell list" because those are a "caster" thing. While that doesn't imply being completely powerless, the problem doesn't care what the source of the "mundane" power is. Superhuman abilities or exceptional skill, chi or non-magical (ab)use of different physical laws, all will run in the same balancing issues caused by not having "spells". Removing "non-magic" options from the list of "mundane" things allowed doesn't really help.


The issue isn't having spells, the issue is what those spells can do vs what other ways of doing things can do.

You can reduce the power of the spells, increase the power of other ways of doing things, or accept the caster vs non-caster gap.

[lesser_minion]

One mechanism is enough to enable all effects, but that's beside the point. If you care about enabling character concepts, you don't need to enable more effects but more causes.

You enable new character concepts by coming up with new things for characters to do. Not by coming up with new arbitrarily-different ways to do what they could have done anyway.

How do fighters using magic affect you in any way? What stops you from just taking whatever powers you want and just declaring that they're something other than magic? The implications of these things not being magic don't appear to matter to you, so what is the problem here?


Mutants & Mastermind does all those interacting things trivialy by acknowledging making rules for litteraly everything is impossible and telling the guy in charge of arbitration to do the arbitration he's in charge of.

Superhero games are designed to emulate a genre of fiction where rule of cool is more important than world-building. The conventions that they use are not universally applicable.

[Tanarii]

Would it really impact your life if e=mc^3 and c was slower to compensate?
Oh holy bejebus YES it would. :smallamused:

If you're going to say "I don't know anything about science so I can easily hand wave it away and still suspend my disbelief" just say it. :smallbiggrin:

[Lord Raziere]

Oh holy bejebus YES it would. :smallamused:

If you're going to say "I don't know anything about science so I can easily hand wave it away and still suspend my disbelief" just say it. :smallbiggrin:

Okay! :smallbiggrin:

I mean I know intuitively on some level yes, its all connected, a big machine-thing that you don't tinker with or it all falls apart, but I also intuitively know that I'm not going to have fun unless I'm getting some major coolness out of my games and going into explaining one specific instance of awesome fits completely into the world around it on physics essay levels of sense is just absurd.

[Cazero]

How exactly am I "spitting on" it?
From that exact same post :

OK, so your divergence in physical laws is "metabolisms work differently or something". What other effects does that have on the setting, if you make that change in order to allow for your new human peak, and dragons flying? And how does that metabolism "upgrade" affect the rest of the humans in your setting?
You are demanding a lot of worldbuilding work to justify the header of the Fighter class. You would have ignored it if someone put the word "chi" in it.

Making the gap significantly larger "because training" falls squarely under the "we're just doing whatever sounds awesome, it doesn't have to make sense" option.
You are asserting that the concept doesn't make sense without providing an argument for your point. I'm pretty sure you can find lots of settings were it just can't work (such as the real world), but those are setting specific issues.

There are limits to what real-world human muscle and bone can do. Humans in the real world can't power lift ten tons because the human body cannot be "trained" to that point. The parts of the human body are made of things with actual physical limits that can't be trained away. Bones made of calcium have a breaking point. Muscle fibers aren't infinite in their strength. The body gives out long before getting that ten tons lifted.
You are raising an objection that have already been waived by the base assumption. It is already established that humans can grow stronger than their real world counterpart in the considered setting.

So if your fictional world humans can at their peak lift ten tons overheard, then either calcium, carbon, etc, form materials of far greater strength... or humans are made of different things than they are in this world. And in either case, your "peak humans" have dragged your "average humans" along and shifted what they can do.
You are imagining a nonsensical issue. No, I'm not faster at running since Usain Bolt broke the world record.

Now, if you really want the gap to be very big, then the alternative (as repeatedly offered) is that your "top .001%" are tapping into the same forces that the spellcasters are, just in a different way. They're using "magic", even unconsciously, to push their bodies past the normal limits. Done -- you get people leaping over walls and crushing boulders with punches, and your everyday laborers and peasants still need animals for heavy work, and footsoldiers aren't leaping over castle walls.
And you reasserts that the core concept is invalid and must be replaced by Sorcerer variants.

That's pretty much spitting on it.


The issue isn't having spells, the issue is what those spells can do vs what other ways of doing things can do.

You can reduce the power of the spells, increase the power of other ways of doing things, or accept the caster vs non-caster gap.
How does that adress my point you quoted?


You enable new character concepts by coming up with new things for characters to do. Not by coming up with new arbitrarily-different ways to do what they could have done anyway.
Okay. So let's remove Fireball from the PHB because you can burn stuff with torches, Mage Hand because people already have hands, Forcecage because walls are a thing...

How do fighters using magic affect you in any way? What stops you from just taking whatever powers you want and just declaring that they're something other than magic? The implications of these things not being magic don't appear to matter to you, so what is the problem here?
The problem is simple. When I want to make a badass normal Fighter, I don't want the DM to tell me "he only uses a sword but he's a wizard".
Not that making a Swordizard is wrong. They can even have the core Fighter mechanics for all I care. But don't pretend a setting specific issue with "realistic" humans demands the removal of badass normal archetypes.

Superhero games are designed to emulate a genre of fiction where rule of cool is more important than world-building. The conventions that they use are not universally applicable.
And yet it works better than D&D.
Probably the bloated monster manual. Or the bloated spell list. Or the rest of the fantasy kitchen sink.


Oh holy bejebus YES it would. :smallamused:
If you could make me a point list so I can see how awful my random example is, I could use that laugh.

[Tanarii]

If you could make me a point list so I can see how awful my random example is, I could use that laugh.
It's been 20 years since I studied physics, so I'm no longer able to give fun and interesting details off the top of my head. For starters, we probably wouldn't exist, or at least not in anything resembling our current humanoid form.

But luckily Google is a thing. I found this. It's not a dry boring treatise, but rather a fun and interesting (and blessedly short) look at what would happen just due to changes in special relatively that we immediately be aware of.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/06/q-what-would-the-consequenses-for-our-universe-be-if-the-speed-of-light-was-only-about-one-hundred-miles-per-hour/

Edit: the reason I found it so amusing is I did major in physics, but it was 20 years ago and I never use it for work. So I've forgotten so much of it at this point that I can happily wave my hands and ignore the apparent seeming conflicts between a bolt-on-magic system and mundane. I don't feel the need to have magic be a bottom-up rebuild, nor to make pseudo-scientific suggestions for how mundane things work.

Where I place the line of what's acceptable verisimilitude for 'mundane' varies dramatically, and depends heavily on the mechanical system in question (including which edition for D&D), and well as the genre we're going for in the campaign. Ie a 1e Oriental Adventures Campaign, a pseudo-historical 2e D&D campaign using the historical sourcebooks, a Palladium Heroes Unlimited / Ninjas and Superspies game, a 2e Planescape campaign, a 3e Kitchen Sink FR Campaign, a 4e wuxia campaign, a BECMI campaign will all place significantly different lines on what is mundane vs special/magical. (List is some major & somewhat long running campaigns friends have run that I've played in, in chronological order. Except the hsistorical thing. That's something I dabbled in running, but just mentioned in another thread, so it kept to mind.)

[Max_Killjoy]

You are demanding a lot of worldbuilding work to justify the header of the Fighter class. You would have ignored it if someone put the word "chi" in it.


No, if it were the topic of discussion, I would have asked you what the "rules" of your "chi" system are, what it can and cannot do, how it affects the wider world, etc.




You are asserting that the concept doesn't make sense without providing an argument for your point. I'm pretty sure you can find lots of settings were it just can't work (such as the real world), but those are setting specific issues.


I provided the only argument needed in the very next line of that post -- "There are limits to what real-world human muscle and bone can do. Humans in the real world can't power lift ten tons because the human body cannot be "trained" to that point. The parts of the human body are made of things with actual physical limits that can't be trained away. Bones made of calcium have a breaking point. Muscle fibers aren't infinite in their strength. The body gives out long before getting that ten tons lifted."




You are raising an objection that have already been waived by the base assumption. It is already established that humans can grow stronger than their real world counterpart in the considered setting.


To what degree, and how? Your "base assumption" lacks any explanation, the only "waiving" is the handwave involved. You're arguing by fiat.




You are imagining a nonsensical issue. No, I'm not faster at running since Usain Bolt broke the world record.


That's not what I claimed, nor even close to what I claimed... it's so far off that it's bordering on a strawman.

This isn't about a world record being broken by .01 seconds or 2kg or 1cm... It's about fictional humans who far exceed anything that the real-world human body is capable of on a basic physical level. You can't train away the basic limits of calcium and carbon, or the propagation speed of chemical signals across synapses. You need to change the basic physics, chemistry, or biology of your fictional world to allow for human beings who can run a 2 second 100 meter dash, or "clean and jerk" 5000kg, or leap over a 15 meter high obstacle, or punch boulders to dust -- and that changes all your humans, not just your "I trained really hard" humans.

You're committing a scale error -- "if training can improve someone by x amount, then training to improve by 10x amount is just as believable".

If you wanted to claim that your fictional fighter was capable of running a 10-second 100m dash, and lifting 400kg, and leaping over near-record obstacles, it would be extreme in terms of being able to achieve all those with the same body, but it wouldn't be in the realm of the fantastic or need a novel explanation more rigorous than "I trained harder than anyone ever".

If you're claiming that your fictional fighter can cut that time by more than half, lift ten times that amount, and leap over buildings, then yes, you've entered the realm of the fantastic. And having entered that realm, you have three choices.
1) your humans are different from real humans
2) performance past a certain point starts channeling "extranormal" forces that real humans don't have access to and that most humans in your setting don't have access to
3) your setting is based on "rule of cool" and you just don't care if it's coherent





And you reasserts that the core concept is invalid and must be replaced by Sorcerer variants.


Where?

Are you assuming that "magic" must equate to external visible effects, flinging spells around, making strange gestures, etc?

What word would you prefer, then, as a generic reference to "extranormal forces" such as magic, chi, divine energy, whatever?




That's pretty much spitting on it.


How is pointing out that what you appear to want is impossible "spitting on it"? You have to give up something -- even if it doesn't feel like giving up anything at all to you.

You can have your world in which "training can just make you that awesome" without any changes to the rest of the setting and without any use of anything other than "pure awesome" by your fighter character... but what you give up for that is any semblance of a coherent setting for your game or fiction. You've created a "fantasy-theme comicbook superheroes" setting. If that's what you want, then go for it, just don't pretend it's anything other than that.




How does that adress my point you quoted?


Your point was missing the entire point. The problem -- as stated in the thread title and subsequently discussed -- is the divide in some systems between casters and non-casters. There are multiple ways to address that, which have been laid out multiple times in this and other threads. This subdiscussion with you is touching on a fraction of the overall discussion at hand.

It appears that you dropped into the middle of the discussion, missed all the points made and context established before that point, and started reacting to a subthread of the discussion as if it were the entire discussion.

I'm not suggesting getting rid of non-casters, I'm laying out a set of options to deal with the caster/non-caster divide, and one option is to give up on the idea of non-casters characters as being totally without any magic (or whatever word you want to use for "extranormal power").

Another option is to scale back spellcasters such that "fighters" don't need anything fantastic to keep up -- this is probably the best option for those who want to play characters at the scale of Robin Hood, Knights of the Round Table, etc.

Another option is to build your setting from the bricks up to make those sorts of fantastic feats physically possible, and follow through with that in the rest of your worldbuilding.

Another option is to make either the fighters or the spellcasters NPCs, and focus the campaign more narrowly.

Another option is (as mentioned above) to give up on any thought of a coherent setting, and go full-on-comicbook rule-of-cool.

There are more options, as well.




The problem is simple. When I want to make a Fighter, I don't want the DM to tell me "he only uses a sword but he's a wizard".


Nothing being said here requires a GM to say that to you.

A wizard is a spellcaster of some sort, a fighter need not be in any way a spellcaster. Just because the fighter is tapping into mana/chi/universal-life-force/magic/whatever, to pull of his otherwise impossible stunts, doesn't make him a spellcaster or a wizard or a sorcerer. Crashing through stone walls, hitting multiple enemies with one swing, ripping down mighty oaks with his bare hands, etc, that's what the fighter might do with that extraordinary power, and none of those things are spells.

It's funny, while you seem to consider underlying causes to be nothing more than interchangeable fluff...



There are effectively no difference between "Fighter pulling magic power from chi" and "Fighter who's just that strong"


...you also seem strongly wedded to this notion that fighters must be utterly devoid of any "magic" (or whatever) whatsoever and that only utterly non-"magic" explanations are acceptable -- while at the same time keeping up with the most powerful things that spellcasters can do, and not scaling back spellcasters at all.

[Cluedrew]

If you're going to say "I don't know anything about science so I can easily hand wave it away and still suspend my disbelief" just say it. :smallbiggrin:How about: "I know too much about science so I have to hand wave it away and suspend my disbelief".

Because there is too much fun that cannot be had if you spend too much time worrying about how the atoms work. (Here atom being the "indivisible building blocks the universe is made from" which may not actually be the divisible atomic partials that make up molecules in our universe.)

And I apologize but I'm going to cut it off here because I have spent the better part of an hour trying to put into words my point, but I can't quite get it into worlds I'm happy with. For now I will leave it at: between scientifically correct and fun, I'll choose fun every time.

[Tanarii]

How about: "I know too much about science so I have to hand wave it away and suspend my disbelief".Defintly applies to many people.

What it boils down to is we all have different assumptions about what's normal, and we all have to decide where we're going to draw the line for suspension of disbelief in regards to Mundane, exceptional special (wuxia for example), and clearly magical/superpower/psionic special.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How about: "I know too much about science so I have to hand wave it away and suspend my disbelief".

Because there is too much fun that cannot be had if you spend too much time worrying about how the atoms work. (Here atom being the "indivisible building blocks the universe is made from" which may not actually be the divisible atomic partials that make up molecules in our universe.)

And I apologize but I'm going to cut it off here because I have spent the better part of an hour trying to put into words my point, but I can't quite get it into worlds I'm happy with. For now I will leave it at: between scientifically correct and fun, I'll choose fun every time.

Amen. Really, just amen. Especially that last bit. It's easy to forget that we're building worlds here for players to have fun in--the fun is the primary (and highly subjective) part. World-building tools are there to support that goal. They're means, not ends.

[Cazero]

But luckily Google is a thing. I found this. It's not a dry boring treatise, but rather a fun and interesting (and blessedly short) look at what would happen just due to changes in special relatively that we immediately be aware of.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/06/q-what-would-the-consequenses-for-our-universe-be-if-the-speed-of-light-was-only-about-one-hundred-miles-per-hour/
Heh. They forgot to explicitly state "everything that just happens to be calibrated to light-speed was also changed to match" to their base assertions.
But then without those extra changes it would pretty much do nothing.


If you're claiming that your fictional fighter can cut that time by more than half, lift ten times that amount, and leap over buildings, then yes, you've entered the realm of the fantastic. And having entered that realm, you have three choices.
1) your humans are different from real humans
2) performance past a certain point starts channeling "extranormal" forces that real humans don't have access to and that most humans in your setting don't have access to
3) your setting is based on "rule of cool" and you just don't care if it's coherent
Dude. You already asked me that question. And I already picked 1).
And yes, I'm using fiat when saying it doesn't need to have major consequences to the specie as a whole. But then you use fiat when claiming those consequences must happen, so we're pretty much even.


What word would you prefer, then, as a generic reference to "extranormal forces" such as magic, chi, divine energy, whatever?
I don't need a word for it. I'm talking about enabling the concept of the guy who isn't using any of those.


Nothing being said here requires a GM to say that to you.
...Unless I'm mistaken, the whole point of your argument is to force the GM to pull a similar line.


...you also seem strongly wedded to this notion that fighters must be utterly devoid of any "magic" (or whatever)I'm for the option being available, not mandatory.

[Max_Killjoy]

Heh. They forgot to explicitly state "everything that just happens to be calibrated to light-speed was also changed to match" to their base assertions.
But then without those extra changes it would pretty much do nothing.


Is it a matter of "just happens", or is it more interconnected than that?




Dude. You already asked me that question. And I already picked 1).


And then seemingly refused to actually follow through with the implications of your pick... which makes seem as if you said "1" and then did "3".




And yes, I'm using fiat when saying it doesn't need to have major consequences to the specie as a whole. But then you use fiat when claiming those consequences must happen, so we're pretty much even.


So the structural limits of bodies made out of proteins and calcium-based bones and so on, are just "fiat"? Interesting.

How is it that whatever you're changing doesn't change anything but exactly what you want to change (the limits)? How does changing what humans are made of, or the properties of what they're made of, only change that handful of people, and not everyone?




I don't need a word for it. I'm talking about enabling the concept of the guy who isn't using any of those.


And there's nothing wrong with playing a guy who doesn't use any of those, but it leaves you with several choices:
1) change humans so that the range of capabilities is higher up the scale to raise the limit for "trained hard guy" to balance what the spellcasters can do -- and follow through in your worldbuilding
2) change humans so that the range of capabilities is higher up the scale to raise the limit for "trained hard guy" to balance what the spellcasters can do -- and not follow through, thus accepting that you have an internally incoherent and inconsistent setting
3) reign in the spellcasters and other users of "magic" to balance with the limits of "trained hard guy"
4) accept the imbalance between "trained hard guy" and whatever sort of high-end 3.5e-style spellcasters (and other magic-tappers) that are in your game


Previously, you said you chose "1", but your subsequent comments all went towards "2".




...Unless I'm mistaken, the whole point of your argument is to force the GM to pull a similar line.


Nope. The whole point of my argument, repeated many times now, is that you can't have everything. Even if having a setting that's internally coherent and consistent doesn't mean anything to you, that's still what you've chosen to give up if you establish that in your setting, most humans are just like humans in our world, but a handful of them can via utterly mundane/non-"magic" means far exceed the basic raw physical limits of the stuff that humans are made of, and that this is somehow supposedly explained by "I trained harder" or "I have more willpower" or "I'm just that awesome".

Or to quote one of my favorite songs, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."




I'm for the option being available, not mandatory.


OK. That really doesn't change anything, you're still asking for mutually exclusive things to be simultaneously true.

You're effectively asking for steel to normally be just like steel in our world, but then suddenly in a few special cases be like unobtainium (or admantium or mithril or your mythical metal of choice), but also still be steel and nothing but steel and totally just steel... and have this absolutely not involve "extranormal" or "supernatural" or "magic" stuff in any way at all.

Stop and think about that for a minute.

[lesser_minion]

Okay. So let's remove Fireball from the PHB because you can burn stuff with torches, Mage Hand because people already have hands, Forcecage because walls are a thing...

You might think that that's absurd, but you could delete a lot of the wizard's spell list and still be able to make recognisable wizards, and the same goes for a lot of the other casters.

[Cazero]

Is it a matter of "just happens", or is it more interconnected than that?I didn't make the universe. How would I know?
And what does it matter in the context of a fictional universe where light and only light is slower?


And then seemingly refused to actually follow through with the implications of your pick... which makes seem as if you said "1" and then did "3".

So the structural limits of bodies made out of proteins and calcium-based bones and so on, are just "fiat"? Interesting.Seriously?
I picked 1. That means humans are different. Those "calcium" and "proteins" you speak of would be a funny theory on a flat earth where humors define how you get sick.
Stop refusing to follow through with the implications of the "only" options you gave me and then we can talk.

[2D8HP]

....2D8HP has shared many amusing anecdotes of their old games where everyone thought Fighters were BAMF, and Wizards were wimps..
Thanks for the shout out!

Yeah the "paradigm" is almost all about where the dial is set for how poweful "casters" are.

In the levels that I remember people actually playing in TSR D&D, Magic Users were "squishy" and few wanted to play them (yes at higher levels Mages were more powerful, let me wait a few years for you to have a caster PC survive and level-up so you can tell me what that's like).

In WotC D&D, the "dial" is set so that Mages get more powerful much more quickly.

"Mundanes" start out more powerful in WotC D&D as well but the power "dial" hasn't been changed as much, and usually the dial isn't changed as much for "mundanes" because of verisimilitude issues, but as in @Frozen_Feet's example of Batman, or for other examples, Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Lieutenant Mike Harrigan in Predator 2 (Danny Glover's character fell through a freakin' building, and got up and continued to fight) some stories have nominally human characters take superhuman levels of abuse (as do their clothes, how do Dr. Jones pants stay intact after he's dragged under that truck?), so there's more of a range for "mundane" PC's than many think.

But it is a power dial.

Two games with a similar base of rules, Pendragon and Stormbringer show that by making Knights clearly more effective than Spell casters in Pendragon, while most wanted to roll high POW, and play a Sorcerer in Stormbringer, because of where the "dial" is set.

Still I find the whole "what to do about OP casters" hand-wringing strange, because for most of my years playing FRP games they simply weren't.

[Max_Killjoy]

I didn't make the universe. How would I know?
And what does it matter in the context of a fictional universe where light and only light is slower?


So you know the answer, it turns out that C is buried in a wide variety of fundamental constants. Mess with C, and the entire universe as we know it kinda falls apart.

So yeah, changing E=MC2 to E=MC3 and then lowering C proportionally would have a very noticeable effect for all of us. Or rather, we wouldn't be here to notice it at all.




Seriously?
I picked 1. That means humans are different. Those "calcium" and "proteins" you speak of would be a funny theory on a flat earth where humors define how you get sick.


Picking 1 doesn't tell us how humans are different, just that they are different.

The calcium and proteins and whatnot aren't the core issue, they're just convenient placeholders because that's what people are made of in the real world, and represent the limits you're up against.

Whether you change the properties of those things, or make humans out of something else, whatever it is you're making humans out of has to be strong enough to allow the sort of massive upgrade in human capability you're talking about in order to allow "not magic at all no sir, but still totally fantastical". How does that not affect all the humans? Why does it only affect the humans who you want it to affect?




Stop refusing to follow through with the implications of the "only" options you gave me and then we can talk.


They're not my options, they're the only logical options.

If it appears to you that I'm refusing to follow through, that's not an issue with my comments.

[Lord Raziere]

They're not my options, they're the only logical options.

Only if you WANT to follow our universes rules and consequences. We don't have to. Thats the choice your making.

[Cazero]

Whether you change the properties of those things, or make humans out of something else, whatever it is you're making humans out of has to be strong enough to allow the sort of massive upgrade in human capability you're talking about in order to allow "not magic at all no sir, but still totally fantastical". How does that not affect all the humans? Why does it only affect the humans who you want it to affect?
Maybe training now allows to grow twenty times stronger.
Maybe natural talent now plays a twenty times bigger role and it's just a giant lottery.
Maybe you need a bit of both. In a very, very complicated mashup.
The truth is that I don't need to justify it. You asserted that all possibilities must have species-wide consequences due to how humans "are". But since the basic premise is that "humans are different", your assertion is false.

[Max_Killjoy]

Only if you WANT to follow our universes rules and consequences. We don't have to. Thats the choice your making.

Not at all -- the options are specifically laid out to NOT presume our universe, which is kinda the whole point.

[Lord Raziere]

Not at all -- the options are specifically laid out to NOT presume our universe, which is kinda the whole point.

Only if you want to presume not-our-universe from our universe laws being tampered with.

[Max_Killjoy]

Maybe training now allows to grow twenty times stronger.
Maybe natural talent now plays a twenty times bigger role and it's just a giant lottery.
Maybe you need a bit of both. In a very, very complicated mashup.
The truth is that I don't need to justify it. You asserted that all possibilities must have species-wide consequences due to how humans "are". But since the basic premise is that "humans are different", your assertion is false.


This is a good example of how you're evidently reading for combat, rather than reading for discussion. I did not say that it has to have species-wide consequences because of how real humans are. I said that it will have species-wide consequences because of how you have to change humans to get what you want.

I said that if you're going to have "fighters" in your fictional world doing things that are impossible for real-world humans -- impossible by at least an order of magnitude -- and yet you are determined and unwavering in the idea that these abilities will simply be the peak of human capacity in your setting and be utterly mundane and purely physical and involve nothing beyond "more training", then you need to change something about humans to move that peak upward by at least an order of magnitude. Whether that's changing what humans are made of or changing the properties of what they're made of doesn't matter; what matters is that those changes won't just apply to the very special <1% you're talking about.

And if humans in your setting are different in a way that allows the (physically) very best humans to be, oh, 20 times better than the very vest humans in our reality, and yet somehow this has no effect what so ever on 99% of these other-reality humans? How does that work? What are these humans made of? What gives it such variable properties? If you're refusing to explain how that rather dubious proposition works, then you're firmly in the "I don't care about the setting I'm just following the rule of cool" option.

[Max_Killjoy]

Only if you want to presume not-our-universe from our universe laws being tampered with.


What?

It's not presuming anything, that's why the list in its entirety has to be so open-ended and worded so carefully.

[Talakeal]

The problem is simple. When I want to make a badass normal Fighter, I don't want the DM to tell me "he only uses a sword but he's a wizard".
Not that making a Swordizard is wrong. They can even have the core Fighter mechanics for all I care. But don't pretend a setting specific issue with "realistic" humans demands the removal of badass normal archetypes.

If your fighter is exceeding human limits it is less of a "badass normal" and more of a case of Charles Atlas super powers.

Although I see absolutely no reason why such powers have to be "magical" in nature or come from the same energy source as a wizard.

[Cazero]

This is a good example of how you're evidently reading for combat, rather than reading for discussion.
Is that so?

I did not say that it has to have species-wide consequences because of how real humans are. I said that it will have species-wide consequences because of how you have to change humans to get what you want.Your counterpoint is that you used "change" to avoid using "are different" when in that context both express the exact same idea (a state of being that isn't quite the same as another state of being used as reference point).
How are you not arguing in bad faith?

[Max_Killjoy]

If your fighter is exceeding human limits it is less of a "badass normal" and more of a case of Charles Atlas super powers.

Although I see absolutely no reason why such powers have to be "magical" in nature or come from the same energy source as a wizard.


Unless you want them to be "it's just how things are", then they need to come from somewhere.

It doesn't have to be the same exact source as wizards or sorcerers, but there is a tradeoff in complexity or Kitchen Sink Syndrome if you start adding on multiple core sources of extranormal energy.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is that so?
Your counterpoint is that you used "change" to avoid using "are different" when in that context both express the exact same idea (a state of being that isn't quite the same as another state of being used as reference point).
How are you not arguing in bad faith?

Again, that's not what was said.

Here's your previous post again, with your false assertion regarding what I said prior to that in bold this time:



Maybe training now allows to grow twenty times stronger.
Maybe natural talent now plays a twenty times bigger role and it's just a giant lottery.
Maybe you need a bit of both. In a very, very complicated mashup.
The truth is that I don't need to justify it. You asserted that all possibilities must have species-wide consequences due to how humans "are". But since the basic premise is that "humans are different", your assertion is false.


And here's my response:



I did not say that it has to have species-wide consequences because of how real humans are. I said that it will have species-wide consequences because of how you have to change humans to get what you want.


So to be blunt -- you claimed that I said something that I never said.

And now you're also falsely asserting that my counterpoint is also something that I never actually said. I did not use "change" to avoid using "are different", and nothing in the words on the page allows for that interpretation -- for you to assert that I did requires you to either be mistaken, or lying. I used "change" because you had just falsely asserted that my point was about how humans "are".


And to add to that, if this were actually about how humans are, then what you want would simply be impossible -- rather than possible with caveats -- and that would have been my first comment.

[Cosi]

Although I see absolutely no reason why such powers have to be "magical" in nature or come from the same energy source as a wizard.

Depends what you mean by "magical". Obviously it's not going to be the same thing as the Wizard, because it's a different class. But there's no reason that you can't acknowledge that the Wizard's physics-breaking and the Fighter's physics-breaking are similar just because the Fighter uses a sword.

[Cazero]

@Max_Killjoy :
Whatever the change to humans is, it has been made for the explicit purpose of enabling something that used to be impossible (here, drastic difference in abilities between "the norm" and "the top"), so the very fact of it being impossible after the change is absurd, and asserting it like you do even more so.
I can't make it more explicit.

[Max_Killjoy]

@Max_Killjoy :
Whatever the change to humans is, it has been made for the explicit purpose of enabling something that used to be impossible (here, drastic difference in abilities between "the norm" and "the top"), so the very fact of it being impossible after the change is absurd, and asserting it like you do even more so.
I can't make it more explicit.


Again, you're not responding to the words that are on the screen that I have written.

I did not say that any change to allow that sort of drastic difference would be inherently impossible.

I said that you can't have that change, a purely physical/mundane/unextranormal "explanation" for what's going on to allow that drastic difference, and internally coherent and consistent worldbuilding, all at the time. That's the impossible situation.


And all you'd have to do to prove that assertion wrong -- the actual assertion that I actually made -- is to provide one working solid functional example that really does do all of those things at once.

I'd actually like to see this fictional world that has a purely mundane physical explanation for why a small handful of humans can do things that are at least an order of magnitude beyond what real-world humans can do, and yet most of the humans in this setting aren't capable of any more than the average real-world human is, and follows through with any implications of that explanation for the broader world, and isn't a house of cards that collapses the first time someone breathes on it a bit too hard.

Go ahead. Be my guest.

[Cosi]

I said that you can't have that change, a purely physical/mundane/unextranormal "explanation" for what's going on to allow that drastic difference, and internally coherent and consistent worldbuilding, all at the time. That's the impossible situation.

Again, it depends on what you mean.

On the one hand, yes, you by definition cannot have anything that allows things that are impossible in this world that works solely based on principles from this world.

On the other hand, no, you by definition cannot have a non-physics explanation for anything because physics is just "our model for things" and it must include everything in the world. Or at least it should if you want the model to be any good.

[Cazero]

@Max_Killjoy :
And since all your arguments are based on humans before the change, you provided exactly zero argument to support the idea that the worldbuilding cannot be coherent after it, so I challenge your assertion. You have to prove that it is impossible using logic alone, and anyone can destroy your proof with one counter-example.
Welcome to the world of philosophy, science and hard proof. Good luck. You'll need it.

[Max_Killjoy]

@Max_Killjoy :
And since all your arguments are based on humans before the change, you provided exactly zero argument to support the idea that the worldbuilding cannot be coherent after it, so I challenge your assertion. You have to prove that it is impossible using logic alone, and anyone can destroy your proof with one counter-example.
Welcome to the world of philosophy, science and hard proof. Good luck. You'll need it.

Ah, now you've stopped quoting me. I guess propping up strawmen instead of responding to what people actually say is just too darn hard when their words are right there making your lies too obvious. Crow about "logic" and "science" all you want, you've been arguing in complete bad faith from the moment you started replying to my posts. As for "philosophy", I have no interest in debating whether the chair I'm sitting on is real or not, so don't bother with that tangent.

Again, my arguments are not based on humans before the change, they're based on what's entailed in any change necessary to get this "moar training" superhuman fighter you say you want. I've made that quite clear multiple times.


And so far, you haven't bothered offering up that counter-example. I'd say it's an empty threat. Demonstrate otherwise.

[Cluedrew]

What it boils down to is we all have different assumptions about what's normal, and we all have to decide where we're going to draw the line for suspension of disbelief in regards to Mundane, exceptional special (wuxia for example), and clearly magical/superpower/psionic special.Yeah, and I guess that is why this debate will keeps going on and on. Different solutions for different people. Although for the life of me I'm not sure why some people are so up in arms about other people's solutions. None of them are perfect to be sure, but then none of them are perfect, so the other's are only better if you care about their problems less. Assuming, of course, that my favourite solution isn't perfect and everyone else just hasn't realized it yet.


Amen. Really, just amen. Especially that last bit. It's easy to forget that we're building worlds here for players to have fun in--the fun is the primary (and highly subjective) part. World-building tools are there to support that goal. They're means, not ends.Well, thank-you, even though you might have put it even better than me.

I am reminded of two things. First is the one time I tried to make "a complete" and consistent magic system. During planning I realized that the first section would both take me years and be followed by re-writing all of physics. I abandoned the project and hand waved the magic system. The second is there is this one story I like with great character development, motivations and interactions. The world building is so bad it makes me want to scream some times. However I silence that voice and continue because the rest of the story is worth it.

To Max_Killjoy: Do you have a particularly extreme example of re-writing rules while still keeping things consistent? I'm just curious about how far it can go with the standards you are using which seem... relatively closed to making changes I must say.

[Cazero]

And so far, you haven't bothered offering up that counter-example. I'd say it's an empty threat. Demonstrate otherwise.A world without an upper limit on density. Muscle mass and bones can theoriticaly keep strengthening forever. It is possible to become bulletproof if you can afford eating like twenty people to maintain all that extra mass.
Done.

[Lord Raziere]

Depends what you mean by "magical". Obviously it's not going to be the same thing as the Wizard, because it's a different class. But there's no reason that you can't acknowledge that the Wizard's physics-breaking and the Fighter's physics-breaking are similar just because the Fighter uses a sword.

I'm of the opposite mind: there is no reason that two ways of physics breaking need to or have to be similar at all just because they both break physics. After all, they're breaking the rules, and rules makes things the same, but breaking the rules tend to be different depending on which rules broken.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, and I guess that is why this debate will keeps going on and on. Different solutions for different people. Although for the life of me I'm not sure why some people are so up in arms about other people's solutions. None of them are perfect to be sure, but then none of them are perfect, so the other's are only better if you care about their problems less. Assuming, of course, that my favourite solution isn't perfect and everyone else just hasn't realized it yet.


Part of my point all along here has been that none of the solutions are perfect, that there is no solution that gives everyone what they want all at the same time.




To Max_Killjoy: Do you have a particularly extreme example of re-writing rules while still keeping things consistent? I'm just curious about how far it can go with the standards you are using which seem... relatively closed to making changes I must say.


I'll try to think of one.

It's less about being against changes, and more about being against changes for their own sake or changes that are done in isolation and not as part of the interconnected whole.

[Talakeal]

Depends what you mean by "magical". Obviously it's not going to be the same thing as the Wizard, because it's a different class. But there's no reason that you can't acknowledge that the Wizard's physics-breaking and the Fighter's physics-breaking are similar just because the Fighter uses a sword.

You can, yes, but there is no reason to assume you must.

For example in D&D psionics and magic are pretty similar and the game has two ways to handle their interactions, psionic / magic transparency and psionics are different. Neither one is any more correct than the other.

[Max_Killjoy]

A world without an upper limit on density. Muscle mass and bones can theoriticaly keep strengthening forever. It is possible to become bulletproof if you can afford eating like twenty people to maintain all that extra mass.
Done.

If you're done, then all you've done is offer up a comic-book superpower explanation.

(This is literally some comic-book character's power, I just can't remember their name or which publisher they belong to.)


How does this actually work? Have you looked into the ramifications of muscle and bone being that dense and what it might do to other parts of the body?


What does it imply or cause in the broader setting?

Why aren't most people eating as much as they can, and therefore significantly stronger and tougher in comparison to the humans of our reality?

How does this change food production?

With a nearly limitless demand for food, do the cultures in this world ever get to the point where there's surplus labor for things other than farming?

Does this make food more valuable than gold?

Etc, etc, etc.


Or you can just go with "eating more makes you denser and therefore stronger and tougher" and ignore all that, I guess.

[Lord Raziere]

If you're done, then all you've done is offer up a comic-book superpower explanation.

Which is all that is needed. Nothing wrong with that kind of explanation. I don't see what weird trait its missing that makes it less legitimate just because it doesn't detail things that have absolutely nothing to do with what they're focusing on and would get in the way of what they want to do if they tried to focus on it.

[Talakeal]

Did you check you're even talking of the same thing as me? I was talking about player conflict of interests, not of what's possible to have in a game.

Or, to use an example, it's not a problem whatsoever to have a game where Batman can have a boxing match with Hulk and then die to a mundane bullet shot by a random mook, the problem is selling this to your player as fair interpretation of the characters involved.

I guess I am not following you then, I went back and read your post and the one you are quoting and it still seems like you are saying that people who want a realistically human character to keep up with impossible bad-asses have "ill-realized or conflicting desires".

If this is not the case I apologize, but I am a bit sore on the subject after having heard numerous people claim that myself and my players are either delusional or just plain stupid for playing and creating tons of games where fantastic monsters and wizards with powers comparable to those in D&D editions (other than high op 3E) are still defeated by or depend on the aid of characters who are firmly in the "bad-ass normal" category.

[Arbane]

If you're done, then all you've done is offer up a comic-book superpower explanation.


And this is a problem WHY, exactly?

Most fantasy RPGs don't even bother altering castle architecture significantly to take into account the occasional attack by giant fire-breathing lizards, but it seems like the instant fighters are offered any abilities more interesting than 'I hit it with my sword', suddenly a level of world-building that would make J. R. R. Tolkien's eyes glaze over is considered mandatory.

[lesser_minion]

If your fighter is exceeding human limits it is less of a "badass normal" and more of a case of Charles Atlas super powers.

Although I see absolutely no reason why such powers have to be "magical" in nature or come from the same energy source as a wizard.

The onus is on the person adding a new setting element to justify its inclusion in the setting, even if only to their own satisfaction.

In the specific case of fighters, arbitrary stipulations that they should not be able to do certain things are exactly the reason why they have so much trouble, especially because the stipulations are seldom things that flow from the concept. Even people who ostensibly want fighters to be competitive refuse to let them have anything other than the scraps left behind by all of the other archetypes.

Particular powers are also special cases. Once you go past a certain limit, super-strength becomes magical whether you like it or not -- although if you're happy to explore the implications, you can change that limit for your setting.


Which is all that is needed. Nothing wrong with that kind of explanation. I don't see what weird trait its missing that makes it less legitimate just because it doesn't detail things that have absolutely nothing to do with what they're focusing on and would get in the way of what they want to do if they tried to focus on it.

It would be absolutely fine if it didn't purport to be anything more than that.


Most fantasy RPGs don't even bother altering castle architecture significantly to take into account the occasional attack by giant fire-breathing lizards, but it seems like the instant fighters are offered any abilities more interesting than 'I hit it with my sword', suddenly a level of world-building that would make J. R. R. Tolkien's eyes glaze over is considered mandatory.

Nobody is trying to deny nice things to the fighter.

[Lord Raziere]

It's illegitimate because it purports not to be that kind of explanation.

..........and the problem with that is?

I don't really care and don't see why I should be persuaded to care. whether it purports to be this or that really has no bearing on whether I have fun.

[Talakeal]

Once you go past a certain limit, super-strength becomes magical whether you like it or not...

Care to back up that assertion?

[Max_Killjoy]

And this is a problem WHY, exactly?

Most fantasy RPGs don't even bother altering castle architecture significantly to take into account the occasional attack by giant fire-breathing lizards, but it seems like the instant fighters are offered any abilities more interesting than 'I hit it with my sword', suddenly a level of world-building that would make J. R. R. Tolkien's eyes glaze over is considered mandatory.

Actually, that thing about castles is a pretty standard criticism of D&D worldbuilding.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is the sentiment that causes me to keep posting in this thread every time is gets posted. Virtually every game I play and piece of media I consume has characters that are nominally human and still defeat or contribute to the efforts of monsters, wizards, and super humans, and yet this forum insists that it is somehow impossible.


1) In fiction, those characters often contribute in ways that don't involve directly "tanking" the superhuman threat. Research, support, confronting lesser threats to keep them off their heavy-hitters, coming up with novel tactics, etc.

2) In fiction, those characters are protected by and set up for contribution by the absolute control the author has over the events. Sometimes, the author's hand looms large and it's utterly transparent what's going on.

In an RPG, it's not impossible. It takes a player willing to forsake some raw power, and a group that's all on the same page when it comes to running that sort of campaign, to make it work.

One cause of the issue that ends up with those characters coming up over and over in these discussions seems to be the misconception that a character who is "nominally human" but still contributes in a work of fiction despite running with "the big dogs" must have just as much raw power as those "big dogs" when converted to an RPG.




But I suppose it really depends on what you mean by "realistically human."


Which I'd say depends on the context.

In that case I think it meant "realistically human" by real-world metrics.

[Talakeal]

In that case I think it meant "realistically human" by real-world metrics.

Take someone like Batman for example.

Barring some of his utterly impossible feats (because comics run on rule of kewl) he is often depicted as a normal human.

But, he is in the top .000001% when it comes to strength, fitness, agility, intelligence, education, wealth, determination, and natural talent.

No one in the real world has ever been as all around competent as Batman.

But he is still within the potential limits of a real world human. Does that count as "realistic" though?

[Cluedrew]

I'll try to think of [an example].Great, let me know when you got it. Or actually just post it, I'll probably just see it then.


If you're done, then all you've done is offer up a comic-book superpower explanation.

(This is literally some comic-book character's power, I just can't remember their name or which publisher they belong to.)... Yes, who could ever hold even the slightest disagreement to this masterpiece of debate. Regardless of the so-so delivery, I see your point and a few years ago I actually created a draft of an role-playing game system where one of the main archetypes actually used something almost just like the "eat to increase density" thing as their power source.

There were a couple of things that purposefully kept it from getting it out of hand, mostly that a normal human's body couldn't do that. It wasn't a special spark or anything, but you needed conditioning to make it work. This a combination of physical exercise and some dietary things (usually going high/low in your intake).

I actually tried the idea else where, where it was part of the explanation why you didn't see "high level adventures" in the civilized area. It was really hard for them to get enough food (at even a semi-reasonable price). The first role-playing game however more changes, in that hunting was still a large industry in the more modern world. Although existence of monsters you can shoot repeatedly and merely annoy is part of that.


suddenly a level of world-building that would make J. R. R. Tolkien's eyes glaze over is considered mandatory."You haven't really world-built until you have gotten into protein folding."

A friend of mine, who like Tolkien creates new languages for his stories*, thought I had gone a bit too far when I started describing how the genetic material in this setting was not DNA but- and then he cut me off.

* Well, in some versions Tolkien created stories for his new languages.

[Pex]

I feel like Mrs. White

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg4ksYcFbxg

[Mutazoia]

Take someone like Batman for example.

Barring some of his utterly impossible feats (because comics run on rule of kewl) he is often depicted as a normal human.

But, he is in the top .000001% when it comes to strength, fitness, agility, intelligence, education, wealth, determination, and natural talent.

No one in the real world has ever been as all around competent as Batman.

But he is still within the potential limits of a real world human. Does that count as "realistic" though?

In his early years, Batman was just a normal police detective, who happened to wear a cape. He wasn't any stronger, or faster, or better at martial arts than anybody else. He was just a really great detective...which is why Batman is still sometimes referred to as "The Detective". It wasn't until some years later, when he was re-branded as "Billionaire Bruce Wane, orphan out for revenge", that he became the near super human that we know today....

But all that is besides the point of the thread, lol

[Cazero]

If you're done, then all you've done is offer up a comic-book superpower explanation.

(This is literally some comic-book character's power, I just can't remember their name or which publisher they belong to.)Well, it's changing some fundamental laws of the universe for the explicit purpose of allowing the kind of things that happen in comic books. What did you expect?
But I put more thought in it that you may think. None of your objections hold water.


How does this actually work?You eat more, you have more mass. Extra density means extra internal pressure, wich means extra stronger living tissue to make up for it and naturally conclude with extra resilience. If you have the right diet and train properly, you also have stronger muscles and bones rather than just more fat. Thus, you can keep becoming stronger.


Have you looked into the ramifications of muscle and bone being that dense and what it might do to other parts of the body?Obviously the rest of the body gain mass as well for the extra density and resilence required to survive muscle/bone pressure.


What does it imply or cause in the broader setting?Well obvisouly superstrong living creatures are now possible, some exist, and there are a couple new industries designed to fill the new niche market they created. But other than that? Almost nothing.


Why aren't most people eating as much as they can, and therefore significantly stronger and tougher in comparison to the humans of our reality?For the same reasons wild animals didn't outcompete humans by doing it and still aren't going anywhere near that : because it's a gigantic waste of ressources that can kill you when not done properly.
If you're not dedicated enough to proper physical exercises, you just gain more and more fat and the extra efforts required for every little move you do eventualy kill you of exhaustion. With the wrong diet, the body doesn't strenghten properly and you die.
Then who would do that? People who want to rise to the top and people who really want to punch through brick walls.


How does this change food production?Barely. Food is in a state of massive surproduction. Just like in the real world.


With a nearly limitless demand for food, do the cultures in this world ever get to the point where there's surplus labor for things other than farming?The demand for food barely changed. Neither did the production. The problem you envision simply doesn't happen.


Does this make food more valuable than gold?Of course not. It doesn't mean there isn't money in the new big markets, but if you think food is in those you're sorely mistaken.
Hyperdensity materials and artificial nutritional supplements. Those are the new things needed to support the few world record holders who sink in dirt and can't survive on normal meat.

[lesser_minion]

Care to back up that assertion?

Think about trying to push someone while ice-skating. Once the loads you're working with are large enough -- which depends on how strong the walls, ceilings, floors, etc. are in your setting -- you need the ability to make other objects, such as the floor, or whatever you're holding up, super-strong by touch, while also selectively not doing that for anything you want to break. In other words, the power to strengthen (or lighten) other objects by willing them to be stronger (or lighter). That's either magic, or it's a direct equivalent.


I don't really care and don't see why I should be persuaded to care.

Yet you're contributing to a debate about what should be done for people who like a bit more attention paid to world-building. That's the entire point. This isn't about what 'must' be done for every single game, everywhere.

[Milo v3]

In other words, the power to strengthen (or lighten) other objects by willing them to be stronger (or lighter). That's either magic, or it's a direct equivalent.
Alternatively, the story is in a medium where that sort of thing is less important and is handwaved away by suspension of disbelief.

[lesser_minion]

Alternatively, the story is in a medium where that sort of thing is less important and is handwaved away

You are not describing a feature of the medium: only a feature of a particular style of game. Even then, the implications don't disappear just because you choose not to worry about them.

[Frozen_Feet]

I guess I am not following you then, I went back and read your post and the one you are quoting and it still seems like you are saying that people who want a realistically human character to keep up with impossible bad-asses have "ill-realized or conflicting desires".

You missed a few bits of context. First, Cluedrew's question was preceded by the statement that Fighters ought to be able to be fantasic or superhuman without being magic. I implicitly agree on this point. The question was why would someone resist this conclusion.

The post you quoted made no reference to people who can accept nominal humans achieving fantastic feats, becausr obviously such people have no reason to resist the conclusion.

The ill-realized or conflicting desires appear when something like the following happens: the player is poaying Batman. They conceptualize Batman as being capable of nothing a real human couldn't do. Batman gets in a boxing match with enraged Hulk. They conceptualize Hulk as being signficantly superhuman in speed, strength and durability.

So when Batman gets hit by Hulk and isn't cripplingly injured, a little demon on their shoulder starts howling. There are two ways to reconcile the scenario: either Batman has superhuman endurance (which cannot be based on his concept) or Hulk is signficantly holding back (which enraged Hulk has no reason to do). But the player does not want to accept either, because both Batman having superhuman endurance and the artistic convention of Hulk holding back would go against their realist conception of Batman. The situation could be resolved by toning Hulk down to levels manageable to a real human, but the player doesn't want to accept that either, because it would violate their conception of Hulk. The last option would be biting the bullet and having Batman be injured, but even that would feel unsatisfying to the player, because they still wanted a fair fight on some level.

You and your players would presumably allow at least one of the above concessions, thus avoiding conflict of interests. Either you'd be fine with Batman having superhuman endurance, or you'd be fine with Hulk holding back, or you'd be fine with toning Hulk down, or you'd be fine with Batman getting smashed. Again, it's not a problem with realist and speculative elements existing in the same game (magical realism, sci-fi and horror all are founded on this), it's the player's response to them which is the actual problem.

Also, like I said in the post you quoted: the amount of people with conflicting desires is smaller than people make it seem. It's more common for the conflict to exist between different individuals. A person who wants realist Batman and toned-down Hulk and a person who wants a fantastic Batman and really incredible Hulk are fine on their own, but they mix badly.

[Milo v3]

You are not describing a feature of the medium: only a feature of a particular style of game. Even then, the implications don't disappear just because you choose not to worry about them.

Superman isn't magic just because he can lift a bus with one hand. It'd be impossible if physics and biology worked the way it did in real life, in the comics all we Need is "He has super strength". Some settings might choose to provide more than that, but it isn't necessary to go into detail.

[Lord Raziere]

You are not describing a feature of the medium: only a feature of a particular style of game. Even then, the implications don't disappear just because you choose not to worry about them.

Ok, You want my honest advice for this sort of thing?

go into your head, find your nagging inner physicist and beat them brutally with a golf club until they beg for mercy and leave you have fun without needing to jump through meaningless worldbuilding hoops. your the one in control and make all the decisions. not whatever is telling you that you need to follow physics. people convinced themselves just because you put all this work into understanding physics and can apply this work to the game, that you "have" to apply it. that you "have" to hold yourself to it, because you invested so much into it, and can't recognize when to compartmentalize this, when to control yourself and recognize that just because its your interest, doesn't mean its always appropriate for the situation.

because currently the standard in this thread for "put a little more thought into wordbuilding" is "full physics dissertation about every single aspect of reality and how its different." thats ridiculous and no one should be held to that standard. thats strictly "going way above and beyond what is expected of a world-builder" levels of thought. a world-builder is only obligated to build as much as they need to, to make the world work they way they WANT for the focus they desire. Nothing more.

[Talakeal]

Think about trying to push someone while ice-skating. Once the loads you're working with are large enough -- which depends on how strong the walls, ceilings, floors, etc. are in your setting -- you need the ability to make other objects, such as the floor, or whatever you're holding up, super-strong by touch, while also selectively not doing that for anything you want to break. In other words, the power to strengthen (or lighten) other objects by willing them to be stronger (or lighter). That's either magic, or it's a direct equivalent.

I have to say, that is a very different place than I thought you were going with that.

So are you saying that it isn't the super-strength itself that necessitates magic but rather hand-waving away the realistic consequences of such?

[Mutazoia]

You are not describing a feature of the medium: only a feature of a particular style of game. Even then, the implications don't disappear just because you choose not to worry about them.

Sure, sure....we could get into a doctoral level thesis on xenobiology to explain why every cell in Superman's body is X times more dense than a human, and how that allows him to have super strength/speed, and follow it up with a doctoral level thesis on radiology to explain how the radiation from our sun affects his biochemistry in such a way as to allow him to focus his vision to the point where an apparent heat beam is generated....

But who would want to read all of that as a background to the story? Nobody. Not even Xenobiologists, Radiologist, and Biochemists. Because they are there to read, and be entertained by, a comic book about Superman, not do research on stuff that is pure bull**** in real life.

[Frozen_Feet]

The field of speculative fiction would be a lot smaller if there weren't a lot of people out there to whom science of the non-existent is entertainment. Just because it isn't for everybody doesn't mean it isn't for somebody! Come on!

[Mutazoia]

The field of speculative fiction would be a lot smaller if there weren't a lot of people out there to whom science of the non-existent is entertainment. Just because it isn't for everybody doesn't mean it isn't for somebody! Come on!

No...not really. Star Trek was a huge success long before anybody sat down and tried to work out the purpose of every little blinking light on the cardboard sets, long before anybody decided to try to work out the physics of warp drive....

Star Wars had millions of fans long before anybody tried to work out how to build a real lightsaber...

It was an entire generation before anybody figured out that an explosion strong enough to blast the moon out of Earths orbit, would actually destroy it, thus making Space 1999 completely impossible (let alone worked out the speeds the moon would need to be traveling through interstellar space to make each episode possible)

Sure, there are lots of fans who enjoy trying to figure out why what one character said on Star Trek, doesn't match the engineering display graphic that was shown for a whole 3 seconds in the background of one episode. More power to 'em, if they want to spend all that time rationalizing a work of fiction...if they get as much joy out of that as they do watching the episode, great. But they still watch the episode just to watch the episode, and break it down after the fact, mostly because they need to stay immersed in the show after it's aired.

But there are a lot more people who just watch Star Trek, just to watch Star Trek, and don't really care if Kirk pushes the same button for 87,200,63 separate independent functions, depending on what episode it is.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, it's changing some fundamental laws of the universe for the explicit purpose of allowing the kind of things that happen in comic books. What did you expect?


Ah, so you decided to change the context silently, from the fantasy-esque settings that had been under discussion to the "anything goes" modern-esque setting of comicbook superheroes, in order to lower the bar to the "Worldbuilding? What's worldbuilding?" level of said genre.

Right.




But I put more thought in it that you may think. None of your objections hold water.


I'm sure you think so.




You eat more, you have more mass. Extra density means extra internal pressure, wich means extra stronger living tissue to make up for it and naturally conclude with extra resilience. If you have the right diet and train properly, you also have stronger muscles and bones rather than just more fat. Thus, you can keep becoming stronger.


That's just restating the "what", it doesn't answer the "how".




Obviously the rest of the body gain mass as well for the extra density and resilence required to survive muscle/bone pressure.


What effects does that have? Other than just the convenient one of "allowing" your premise?




Well obvisouly superstrong living creatures are now possible, some exist, and there are a couple new industries designed to fill the new niche market they created. But other than that? Almost nothing.

For the same reasons wild animals didn't outcompete humans by doing it and still aren't going anywhere near that : because it's a gigantic waste of ressources that can kill you when not done properly.
If you're not dedicated enough to proper physical exercises, you just gain more and more fat and the extra efforts required for every little move you do eventualy kill you of exhaustion. With the wrong diet, the body doesn't strenghten properly and you die.
Then who would do that? People who want to rise to the top and people who really want to punch through brick walls.


So in entire span of vertebrate evolution, no other species evolved around exploiting this "one weird trick"? Convenient.

And if it's so tricky to take advantage of it... how did it ever actually evolve in the first place?




Barely. Food is in a state of massive surproduction. Just like in the real world.


So you've skipped the 99% of human history where food wasn't in superproduction.




The demand for food barely changed. Neither did the production. The problem you envision simply doesn't happen.


Why not? If there's a known way to become physically superior, and these individuals are clearly going to dominate, why aren't more people trying to do it? Why no added demand? And if they're all demanding as much food as it takes to maintain that superhuman physique, where's the food coming from?




Of course not. It doesn't mean there isn't money in the new big markets, but if you think food is in those you're sorely mistaken.
Hyperdensity materials and artificial nutritional supplements. Those are the new things needed to support the few world record holders who sink in dirt and can't survive on normal meat.


Well, the "more valuable than gold" question was based on my mistake of not realizing you'd quietly change the context to one with a lower bar.

[Cazero]

Ah, so you decided to change the context silently, from the fantasy-esque settings that had been under discussion to the "anything goes" modern-esque setting of comicbook superheroes, in order to lower the bar to the "Worldbuilding? What's worldbuilding?" level of said genre.I did what now? I really don't understand your complaint here. What's that thing about lowering a standard?
I imagined a coherent world where a perfectly mundane thing that isn't possible in ours is the source of extraordinary individuals rising above the masses. Did I have to write twenty books and five scientific thesis?


That's just restating the "what", it doesn't answer the "how".So you're asking me to know more about an imaginary universe than top scientist do about ours. We may have a pretty good idea about the equations but we still barely understand gravity.


What effects does that have? Other than just the convenient one of "allowing" your premise?None that I can think of.
If you think there must be other effects making my premise incoherent, then by all means, put them to light.


So in entire span of vertebrate evolution, no other species evolved around exploiting this "one weird trick"? Convenient.In any case, none remained. It's not really stranger than no other species we know of currently having sapience on earth.


And if it's so tricky to take advantage of it... how did it ever actually evolve in the first place?It's the other way around. Having it is the default. You need to evolve out of it, and you would have followed the extinction of your overeaten food source way before it happens.


So you've skipped the 99% of human history where food wasn't in superproduction.Considering the base idea require massive food surplus to have a big impact on any given individual... Pretty much, yeah.


Why not? If there's a known way to become physically superior, and these individuals are clearly going to dominate, why aren't more people trying to do it? Why no added demand? And if they're all demanding as much food as it takes to maintain that superhuman physique, where's the food coming from?Same reasons we kept the concept of ruling nobility around for millenia instead of just going all French Revolution on their asses in ancient Egypt.
But also because the physically "superior" individual need an absurdly wealthy situation to support them and losing that wealthy situation implies death by starvation, so it really isn't desirable to most people.
Hence barely any added demand and your problem still inexistant.


Well, the "more valuable than gold" question was based on my mistake of not realizing you'd quietly change the context to one with a lower bar.Air is one of the most useful things that exist. We need to breathe it to survive. It ought to have more value than gold and yet it is free.
What was your point about food value rising again?

[Frozen_Feet]

@Mutazoia: you apparently think I'm talking of big mainstream works and their nitpicky fans.

I'm not. I'm talking of actual spe-fi authors who fill magazines with their short stories. Back when I had time to read those, every issue had a story of the kind you now dismiss.

Your argument is starting to look lole what I saw another poster write in the past, about how if you really wanted realism, you'd actually need to handcraft your equipment using medieval authentic methods... and concluding it was insane and no-one does that. Completely ignoring that there's an active group of historical re-enactors who do just that as their hobby.

[Calthropstu]

Low levels:
I am beginning to learn the arcane mysteries that shape the universe and can cast the most vasic of spells. You swing a pointed metal stick. My basic spells are no match.

Lower mid levels:
I can cast lightly powered spells and can maybe avoid your pointed stick.. but if your pointed stick finds me, I am still no match. You still swing a pointed metal stick.

Mid levels:
My magic can start doing some pretty neat stuff. You now need magic items to reach me, but magic items are readilly available. Your pointed stick is a threat, but less of one.

High levels:
I wield the forces of the universe with great precision. You swing a pointed metal stick. I laugh at your pointed metal stick.

I see no reason to change this paradigm.

[Max_Killjoy]

Air is one of the most useful things that exist. We need to breathe it to survive. It ought to have more value than gold and yet it is free.
What was your point about food value rising again?


You're making this too easy.

No one makes air as a product. There's no labor, time, or resource investment in air. No one needs to store, transport, or stock air. No one owns air. There was never a time in history when 90-some% of the population was involved in backbreaking labor to extract air from the environment. Air is, from the perspective of most of human history, an infinite inexhaustible free resource. In a simple supply-demand comparison, any amount of perceived demand was met by a perceived endless supply. Air was the first (perceived) post-scarcity resource.

Compare with food. There are still millions (maybe billions) of people in the present-day real-world who have as one of their critical concerns in life whether they'll be able to afford or find food in the near future. For most of human history, food was a critical and limited resource, involving massive amounts of labor, and facing a yearly cycle of potential disaster. Growing food was THE major economic activity, taxes were often paid in grain or livestock, etc. In any sort of structured society, it was highly likely that the political and economic "elite" had the best access to food. For people who haven't eaten in a week, food can literally more precious than gold, than dignity, than freedom. The Roman Empire lived and died on making sure the masses had food. In a simple supply-demand comparison, for most of human history, demand was always higher than supply.

Now, take your premise of a world in which food is literally superpower fuel, and tell us again how that doesn't change anything -- especially history.


Really, this isn't doctoral dissertation stuff, this is just being familiar with the basics.

[CharonsHelper]

Really, this isn't doctoral dissertation stuff, this is just being familiar with the basics.

Supply & demand is hard! (I'm serious. Look at real world examples - such as how no one realized that flooding Haiti with rice would put the rice farmers there out of business. :smalleek:)

[Cosi]

I see no reason to change this paradigm.

Yeah, because screw people who want to play Fighters at high levels. Why should they have any fun?

What you have described is a character that is gaining levels (the Wizard) and one who is not (the Fighter). You know how you implement that? By not having one character gain levels.

[Cazero]

Now, take your premise of a world in which food is literally superpower fuel, and tell us again how that doesn't change anything.Food is a literal superpower enabler, not superpower fuel. You also need to train hard, consistently and for the rest of your life, something the vast majority of people on this planet would rather not do since it's a lot of extra work. You're also unlikely to get it by accident.
And if you mess up your diet, you die. Not everyone is an hypernutritionist, especialy not before modern time.
I can even establish that the possibility of growing superstrong wasn't common knowledge for most of human history due to how restrictive the diet and training are. Like for electricity; harnessing the power of Lighting? Witchcraft ! Yet here we are.
Having to rebuy hyperdensity models of all your everyday things for twenty times the price because you constantly break regular ones by accident is also a deterrent for everyone who isn't a multimillionaire.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned another major drawback early on. Something about sinking in dirt. Having to rebuild your home and rethink your lifestyle is only a minor setback when compared to being confined to hyperdensity streets built for the likes of you.


Now why don't you tell me what the major changes I overlooked are and how they make that world incoherent. I'm pretty sure I can do more worldbuilding to erase more problems.