New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 322
  1. - Top - End - #181
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    There's a certain tendency to assume that only low-magic characters can be meaningfully challenged, and to conflate "meaningful challenges" with "low magic" as a result. It's entirely inaccurate, but it infects a lot of thinking, because accepting that you need high-magic challenges for high-magic characters would mean accepting that low-magic characters (like the Fighter) can't contribute to every challenge.
    I mean, I would argue that a challenge where half the party doesn't participate would automatically disqualify said challenge as meaningful, since half the party isn't being engaged. You have half a meaningful challenge, because even if it's awesome fun for the half that get to engage, the other half will associate no meaning with the challenge, because to them it may as well have not existed in the first place.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  2. - Top - End - #182

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    I mean, I would argue that a challenge where half the party doesn't participate would automatically disqualify said challenge as meaningful, since half the party isn't being engaged. You have half a meaningful challenge, because even if it's awesome fun for the half that get to engage, the other half will associate no meaning with the challenge, because to them it may as well have not existed in the first place.
    Yes, that is the problem with the Fighter. His existence means that certain kinds of compelling, engaging encounters can't happen, because he doesn't not have the abilities necessary to contribute to them.

  3. - Top - End - #183
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    Yes, that is the problem with the Fighter. His existence means that certain kinds of compelling, engaging encounters can't happen, because he doesn't not have the abilities necessary to contribute to them.
    Fighter's not the only one though. If your challenge requires magic to solve, there's a whole slew of classes that can't contribute, and if your challenge doesn't require magic to solve, then it's not a high magic challenge, so sounds to me like the limiting factor is more with high magic challenges than with the whole array of non-magical classes.

    Also note I never specified fighter, that's your own inclusion.
    Last edited by Crake; 2021-01-06 at 06:23 PM.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    I don't think the problem is necessarily that some challenges require magic to solve as it is that there are few challenges that magic can't solve. At least personally, I'd be fine with the non-casters occasionally standing back and letting the casters do their thing if the roles were reversed about as frequently.
    Last edited by Batcathat; 2021-01-06 at 06:35 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    I don't think the problem is necessarily that some challenges require magic to solve as it is that there are few challenges that magic can't solve. At least personally, I'd be fine with the non-casters occasionally standing back and letting the casters do their thing if the roles were reversed about as frequently.
    I mean, that CAN happen, but every time it does, people tend to start crying about antimagic zones negating their class.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  6. - Top - End - #186
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    I mean, that CAN happen, but every time it does, people tend to start crying about antimagic zones negating their class.
    There is also fighters crying about anti fighter monsters that they can not hope to outmatch with their current characters.(ex: learnean headless hydra and stuff like that)

  7. - Top - End - #187

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Fighter's not the only one though.
    Sure. There are lots of other classes that implicitly tell other people at the table "you're not going to get to do the things you want". The Fighter is, as you well know, the poster boy for the issue, so let's not do the "OMG so bias y u h8 Fighters" routine this time.

    If your challenge requires magic to solve, there's a whole slew of classes that can't contribute, and if your challenge doesn't require magic to solve, then it's not a high magic challenge, so sounds to me like the limiting factor is more with high magic challenges than with the whole array of non-magical classes.
    Who cares if there's a whole slew of classes that can't contribute? It's not like there's some fundamental moral obligation to allow people to write "Monk" or "Rogue" on their character sheet. For a story to include anything, it has to exclude some things. That doesn't mean that those things are bad, or that other stories can't include those things, or that people who like those things are evil. But genres impose constraints. And a high-magic setting requires that you have abilities that are appropriate to that idiom, just as a Noir, or Western, or a Superhero story requires that you have abilities that are appropriate to those idioms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    I don't think the problem is necessarily that some challenges require magic to solve as it is that there are few challenges that magic can't solve.
    The problem is that there are some characters that aren't magic. In a fantasy setting, magic is just a part of the world. It doesn't make any more sense to talk about a "non-magic" character in a high magic setting than it does to talk about a character who doesn't use gravity or the weak nuclear force in the real world. Which, of course, explains why some people want low-magic settings. Some people would like to play Conan or Aragorn, and for that to be a reasonable character, you have to cap the amount of magic people are allowed to have.

    The easy fix is to just do what the rest of the genre does and give everyone in high-magic settings some kind of magic. There's no reason that there have to be some characters who get powers that let them solve high-magic challenges and other characters who don't. Look at any high-magic series, be it Malazan, or A Practical Guide to Evil, or The Stormlight Archive. You see the same pattern: everybody gets magic. It doesn't matter if you're a dedicated mage (like the Warlock or Quick Ben), or a warrior (like Kaladin or Anomander Rake), or even a nominal non-combatant (like Shallan or the Dread Empress). If you're supposed to be a major player, you get powers that let you solve the problems you're faced with.

    Now, this doesn't mean that everyone does the same stuff. The ways that Elsecallers, Windrunners, and Stonewards solve problems are all different. To say nothing of Awakeners or Mistborn, which exist within the same (meta-)setting but have entirely separate magic systems. You don't even have to call it all "magic" if you don't want to. A Practical Guide to Evil says that when Cat uses her powers to travel to another dimension, she is using "Winter" or "Night", but that Masego does it by "Magic", and Indrani just uses "Name power". But they're all doing something that is, within the paradigm D&D currently uses, definitely magic.

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by H_H_F_F View Post
    7,000.

    And whil David Eddings may be cliche and somewhat generic, I've read far, far worse. The series (and its sequels) are IMO excellent reading for children and young teens.
    Absolutely. There are lots of series that are actively bad (Deepgate Codex series for instance,) the Eddings books are just overwhelmingly bland.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Orc in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2014

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Deffently, using your magic in smart ways is something good to have even in high magic games.... so playing a low magic game is good practice.

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    Who cares if there's a whole slew of classes that can't contribute? It's not like there's some fundamental moral obligation to allow people to write "Monk" or "Rogue" on their character sheet. For a story to include anything, it has to exclude some things. That doesn't mean that those things are bad, or that other stories can't include those things, or that people who like those things are evil. But genres impose constraints. And a high-magic setting requires that you have abilities that are appropriate to that idiom, just as a Noir, or Western, or a Superhero story requires that you have abilities that are appropriate to those idioms.
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to argue. You're basically agreeing with me, in that high magic challenges exclude people, wheras low magic challenges are available to all. Kinda proving my point for me in that a challenge is only meaningful for those who participate, and low magic challenges allow for a wider array of participation, thus are more often more meaningful.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  11. - Top - End - #191

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to argue. You're basically agreeing with me, in that high magic challenges exclude people, wheras low magic challenges are available to all.
    High magic challenges don't exclude people. People are just as capable of enjoying things that are at a high power level as a low or medium one. What they do is exclude character concepts. But that's not some special property of high magic challenges, that's fundamental to how games (or indeed any form of fiction) works. For something to include things, it has to exclude other things. Low magic challenges aren't less exclusive than high magic ones, they just exclude different things. Specifically, they exclude the ability to overcome high magic challenges. If the thing you want to do is play a character who is "like Kaladin" and faces challenges that are "like The Stormlight Archive", a low magic games excluding your character concept.

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Hmm.

    Well, one thing that people seem to overlook a bit is that while the ceiling for full casters is indeed that high, it kinda gets really inefficient after a certain point. But that's not really a high-magic/low-magic argument...

    Maybe they should have made martials be able to do lots of cool things as well, I guess. Tome of Battle isn't perfect, but it did better on that at least.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  13. - Top - End - #193
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    High magic challenges don't exclude people. People are just as capable of enjoying things that are at a high power level as a low or medium one. What they do is exclude character concepts. But that's not some special property of high magic challenges, that's fundamental to how games (or indeed any form of fiction) works. For something to include things, it has to exclude other things. Low magic challenges aren't less exclusive than high magic ones, they just exclude different things. Specifically, they exclude the ability to overcome high magic challenges. If the thing you want to do is play a character who is "like Kaladin" and faces challenges that are "like The Stormlight Archive", a low magic games excluding your character concept.
    I kinda feel like you're deliberately missing the point. Character concepts aren't people. When you have four players around the table, and you throw a challenge at the players, and one of the players says "wow, this isn't the challenge I wanted to do", that's the player excluding themselves, not the challenge excluding them. However, when you throw a challenge at the players and two of the players say "wow, there's literally no way I can contribute to this challenge" that's the challenge excluding the players. You're dancing around and mincing words, talking about excluding concepts, but at the end of the day, while low magic challenges may exclude the ability to face a high magic challenge, high magic challenges exclude players from participating, something that a lower magic challenge does not do.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Don't a lot of high-magic settings either give everyone magic or make the ones who don't extremely badass? Among the main cast, I mean.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  15. - Top - End - #195
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    The problem is that there are some characters that aren't magic. In a fantasy setting, magic is just a part of the world. It doesn't make any more sense to talk about a "non-magic" character in a high magic setting than it does to talk about a character who doesn't use gravity or the weak nuclear force in the real world. Which, of course, explains why some people want low-magic settings. Some people would like to play Conan or Aragorn, and for that to be a reasonable character, you have to cap the amount of magic people are allowed to have.
    I'm not sure the comparison holds up. Magic may indeed be part of the fundamental forces of a fantasy setting but that doesn't mean everyone could or should utilize it. Most people in the real world can't manipulate nuclear reactions without some fairly extensive training, after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    The easy fix is to just do what the rest of the genre does and give everyone in high-magic settings some kind of magic. There's no reason that there have to be some characters who get powers that let them solve high-magic challenges and other characters who don't. Look at any high-magic series, be it Malazan, or A Practical Guide to Evil, or The Stormlight Archive. You see the same pattern: everybody gets magic. It doesn't matter if you're a dedicated mage (like the Warlock or Quick Ben), or a warrior (like Kaladin or Anomander Rake), or even a nominal non-combatant (like Shallan or the Dread Empress). If you're supposed to be a major player, you get powers that let you solve the problems you're faced with.
    Yes, that is one potential solution to the issue, but one that only enforces the paradigm of "magic can do anything" that not all people enjoy (no, not even in a high magic setting).

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    I'm not sure the comparison holds up. Magic may indeed be part of the fundamental forces of a fantasy setting but that doesn't mean everyone could or should utilize it. Most people in the real world can't manipulate nuclear reactions without some fairly extensive training, after all.
    Vast disparities in character power are generally not viable in TTRPG game structure. All viable PC concepts must maintain a roughly equivalent position on the power curve. That means once one character concept moves significantly past the fundamental limits on the human body and mind's capabilities, others must do so as well. It need not be magic that's responsible, massive technological disparity has the same problem. Conan can't adventure alongside Iron Man either.

    The big difference is that the availability of technology to characters in any given setting is usually managed by economic or educational factors. If you 'bamf' Conan into Eclipse Phase he'll need some remedial coursework and a giant pile of dollars to catch up to the average joe, but he absolutely can catch up. Magic, by contrast, usually has gated entry, and the most common form of gatekeeping is exactly the same as most other superpowers: winning the genetic lottery.

    However, any setting based around gated powers inherently divides everyone living into the settings into the has-powers/doesn't-have-powers classes (some settings, like exalted and arguably 3.x D&D, have tiers of progressively better types of powers), and unless the powers are very modest - meaning a low magic setting - only the has-powers people are important enough to matter. Which means the setting becomes a supers setting, with all the complications implied by a superhero setting.

    And look, fantasy superheroes is perfectly fine. It's very popular, many people love it, it has a thriving literary history that goes back to the literal first recorded piece of fiction we have (Gilgamesh is the literal Ur-super, pun most definitely intended), and it works absolutely great for certain kinds of stories.

    However, if you don't want to do supers you have to eliminate the divide. Low magic does this through the simple expedient of making sure the limits on the extant powers mean have-powers group never gets to override the doesn't-have-powers masses (increased technology level helps here by boosting the power level of the doesn't-have-powers group). Trying to do this in high magic means giving everyone powers, but when you do that the result is worlds that bear no resemblance to our own and become massive worldbuilding challenges to put together and tell stories effectively within because you've fundamentally altered the definition of 'person.'
    Last edited by Mechalich; 2021-01-07 at 02:49 AM.
    Now publishing a webnovel travelogue.

    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    In dnd you can just wizard with WBL the way you can use tech with wealth: buy a lot of magical(technological) items that replicates casting(iron man).

  18. - Top - End - #198
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bear mountains! (Alps)
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    I kinda feel like you're deliberately missing the point. Character concepts aren't people. When you have four players around the table, and you throw a challenge at the players, and one of the players says "wow, this isn't the challenge I wanted to do", that's the player excluding themselves, not the challenge excluding them. However, when you throw a challenge at the players and two of the players say "wow, there's literally no way I can contribute to this challenge" that's the challenge excluding the players. You're dancing around and mincing words, talking about excluding concepts, but at the end of the day, while low magic challenges may exclude the ability to face a high magic challenge, high magic challenges exclude players from participating, something that a lower magic challenge does not do.
    I have to kinda diagree with you here, because challenges in general are party solvable ( or should be ), but not every character can solve every challenge

    even if it was a no magic world, there are some challenges that have "this is obviously directed at player X" regardless of the existence/solvability of it.

    The simplest example is trapsmithing, "only" rogues can do it.

    party needs to overcome a physically demanding challenge, example "defeat 1vs1 barehanded against the tribe champion to be allowed passage in their lands" -> the strongest/most martial character of the party is the one that will attempt it.

    these "not for the wizard" challenges are just as excluding as a challenge that would require a magic solution (the magical batteries of the portal needs to be powered)

    I find it very unrealistic that every challenge a DM prepares for the party needs to be politically correct and be somehow solvable by every player of the table. Different players will have the spotlight in different encounters.

    it should be a matter of table etiquette that the magic dude don't upstage the martial dude on a martial-themed challenge by summoning a beatstick

  19. - Top - End - #199
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by ciopo View Post
    I find it very unrealistic that every challenge a DM prepares for the party needs to be politically correct and be somehow solvable by every player of the table. Different players will have the spotlight in different encounters.
    I agree with the sentiment that not everyone has to be able to contribute equally in every situation, but the problem is that in D&D some classes can contribute in a whole lot more situations than others. A GM can create situations where the wizard can't contribute for some specific reason (such as the "must defeat the champion barehanded" example you give) but using that alone to make sure everyone contributes a roughly equal amount would probably feel quite contrived and railroady.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciopo View Post
    it should be a matter of table etiquette that the magic dude don't upstage the martial dude on a martial-themed challenge by summoning a beatstick
    A system where some characters have to intentionally limit themselves in order to not always outshine other characters is not a very good system, I think.

  20. - Top - End - #200
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    I agree with the sentiment that not everyone has to be able to contribute equally in every situation, but the problem is that in D&D some classes can contribute in a whole lot more situations than others. A GM can create situations where the wizard can't contribute for some specific reason (such as the "must defeat the champion barehanded" example you give) but using that alone to make sure everyone contributes a roughly equal amount would probably feel quite contrived and railroady.



    A system where some characters have to intentionally limit themselves in order to not always outshine other characters is not a very good system, I think.
    You could have them save a land of people who fears magic (so the wizard would not do any overt show of magic or it would have an harder time interacting with people)

  21. - Top - End - #201
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    You could have them save a land of people who fears magic (so the wizard would not do any overt show of magic or it would have an harder time interacting with people)
    Sure, but again this is a temporary solution (and probably not a very effective one, considering most adventures doesn't really spend a lot of time in the public eye).

  22. - Top - End - #202
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    You could have them save a land of people who fears magic (so the wizard would not do any overt show of magic or it would have an harder time interacting with people)
    The other problem is that that probably means a land where no one can challenge a high level caster.

    City: we don’t allow casters here
    Druid: oh? Well what happens if I fly off and park a hurricane on you until you change your mind?

    Also, this last page has a lot of false claims presented as facts. Stuff like “Vast disparities in character power are generally not viable in TTRPG game structure”. Flat out wrong. There are plenty of games that allow for wider spreads of character power than D&D. Games like Elric (AKA, I’m a melnibonean fighter sorcerer with bonuses on all my stats and you are a beggar with -1d4 Cha and a roll on a crippling deformity table). Or Rifts (AKA You are a wilderness scout with 20 hp and a gun that does 100-400 hp damage and I am a spellcasting shapeshifting dragon with better stats and 10,000 hp). Or WoD (AKA you are a human kinfolk who doesn’t go crazy when they see magic and I am a wizard who rewrites reality with my brain, and also has better stats than you). If you are in a game where a power level mix isn’t beneficial, you can set the power level where you want it. The problems with 3.PF, generally solved over time, are that characters don’t make it clear what power level they are at (a newb doesn’t know he is in kinfolk/beggar/wilderness scout mode when he plays a monk) and there don’t happen to be many high power first party non-casters or low power first party casters. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t write a Gilgamesh/Heracles or a hedge mage class easier than creating a low magic setting. A simple gestalt Warblade(using only ex maneuvers)//Rogue is no effort on the DMs part and will more than hold his own as a Conan type at most tables with full casters.
    Last edited by Gnaeus; 2021-01-07 at 08:12 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #203
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vacation in Nyalotha

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    That provides some incentive to get weapons that actually have the bonus instead of cheesing it with GMW like everyone has since 3.0e, but it still sounds more like a nice bonus than anything required since I'd imagine you can just, y'know, use weapons that typically bypass that DR.

    Actually, how easy are those to get in PF2? I hear they did a better job of balancing than the original 3.x editions while still having more variety of character options than 5e.
    PF2 is best compared to 4e that looks like D&D while having the breadth and depth of choices approaching 5e. Rigidly balanced, fights are almost exclusively HP attrition, you encounter plenty of non choices like ‘do I take a ribbon or an actual class feature this level?’

    It still does not give martials plot abilities, as those have remained in the hands of casters. Spells are nerfed five different ways, sure, but that only manages to split casters from Martials in a way reminiscent of Shadowrun deckers and street sams. At least the casters resolve stuff quickly.

    The one thing pf2 does best is low level adventure paths, as it seems to be designed such that players are incapable of influencing the world beyond poking things with sticks or clicking over to the next scene.
    If all rules are suggestions what happens when I pass the save?

  24. - Top - End - #204

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    You're dancing around and mincing words, talking about excluding concepts, but at the end of the day, while low magic challenges may exclude the ability to face a high magic challenge, high magic challenges exclude players from participating, something that a lower magic challenge does not do.
    Playing D&D excludes Shadowrun character concepts like Hacker, Rigger, and Street Samurai. Should we all play Shadowrun instead of D&D? Of course not. Shadowrun's a fine game, but it's doing a different thing from D&D ("cyberpunk fantasy" v "epic fantasy"). While it's trivially true that choosing a particular genre excludes things that aren't in that genre, that's not a problem, because if you want to tell a story that's in that genre, you definitionally don't want your story to include things from outside that genre. Maybe you like the "low magic" genre better than the "high magic" one. That's fine. You can play low magic games, and no one is going to stop you. But this notion that people are "excluded" by the fact that genres contain specific things is nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    I'm not sure the comparison holds up. Magic may indeed be part of the fundamental forces of a fantasy setting but that doesn't mean everyone could or should utilize it. Most people in the real world can't manipulate nuclear reactions without some fairly extensive training, after all.
    Sure they can. The things your body does are a result of the fundamental forces. That doesn't mean you can do anything those forces allow automatically, but the fact that everyone in a fantasy setting can do magic doesn't mean they can all individually do every single thing magic does.

    Yes, that is one potential solution to the issue, but one that only enforces the paradigm of "magic can do anything" that not all people enjoy (no, not even in a high magic setting).
    "Magic can do anything" isn't fundamental to the problem. Magic can have pretty sharp limits while still being necessary to contribute. In fact, I would say that is the case in most high-magic settings. Surgebinding doesn't just do "whatever", but it is nonetheless true that there's a sharp divide between the combat effectiveness of Knights Radiant and people who aren't Knights Radiant. What's fundamental to the problem is insisting that you have a high-magic setting, but allow non-magical characters to be totally co-equal protagonists. That just isn't supported by the source material.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    However, any setting based around gated powers inherently divides everyone living into the settings into the has-powers/doesn't-have-powers classes (some settings, like exalted and arguably 3.x D&D, have tiers of progressively better types of powers), and unless the powers are very modest - meaning a low magic setting - only the has-powers people are important enough to matter. Which means the setting becomes a supers setting, with all the complications implied by a superhero setting.
    You dramatically overestimate both the degree to which this is true and the degree to which people care enough about world-building to notice when it doesn't work. Eberron is one of the most popular D&D settings, and it was released with the premise "people do magic at the economy" in an edition where that causes the world to explode.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciopo View Post
    The simplest example is trapsmithing, "only" rogues can do it.
    "It's a trap, everyone shut up while the Rogue rolls a bunch of dice" is a pretty classic example of problematic game design. "Don't split the party" is good advice for a reason, and while a challenge that is specifically for one player may leave everybody in the same physical place, it has the same deleterious effect of leaving most of the party unable to do anything for large stretches of time.

    I find it very unrealistic that every challenge a DM prepares for the party needs to be politically correct and be somehow solvable by every player of the table. Different players will have the spotlight in different encounters.
    Different players having the spotlight in different encounters doesn't mean the rest of the part does nothing in the other encounters. Consider combat encounters. Different fights will highlight different character's abilities. If you fight a bunch of weak enemies, the Warmage has a chance to shine thanks to their AoE direct damage. If you fight undead, the Cleric can use their turning to dominate the encounter. If you strike from ambush, the Rogue's Sneak Attack can allow them to eliminate a key opponent. But while the "MVP" title may move around, everyone is doing something in all those encounters.

    it should be a matter of table etiquette that the magic dude don't upstage the martial dude on a martial-themed challenge by summoning a beatstick
    What if the Wizard wants to play a summoner? It seems like the better solution is to give the Fighter enough abilities that he can't be upstaged just by the Wizard choosing to use spells that are on his spell list.

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    using that alone to make sure everyone contributes a roughly equal amount would probably feel quite contrived and railroady.
    Which seems to me like an indication that the problem is non-casters not having a wide enough range of abilities. If one group gets shut out accidentally, but the other only gets shut out by rail-roading, it seems like the former is probably the problem we want to start with.

  25. - Top - End - #205
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    Which seems to me like an indication that the problem is non-casters not having a wide enough range of abilities. If one group gets shut out accidentally, but the other only gets shut out by rail-roading, it seems like the former is probably the problem we want to start with.
    Again, that is one possible solution but not the only one or necessarily the best one. To use the typical examples, I would prefer if fighters could contribute more but also if wizards could contribute less. I prefer characters who are specialized and have weak spots, rather than characters who are like Silver Age Superman and has super-everything.

    The mundane classes have more natural limits, I think. It's reasonable that the sneaky rouge is less useful on an open battle field or that the heavily armored fighter isn't the best in a stealth mission, but aside from very specific situations (like an anti-magic field or something) there's not really the same thing with casters.

  26. - Top - End - #206

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    The mundane classes have more natural limits, I think. It's reasonable that the sneaky rouge is less useful on an open battle field or that the heavily armored fighter isn't the best in a stealth mission, but aside from very specific situations (like an anti-magic field or something) there's not really the same thing with casters.
    Casters have limits too. A Druid, a Cleric, a Wizard, and a Dread Necromancer are all at a pretty similar power level, but play in different ways. It's just that the power level is higher than the mundanes, and people tend to anchor their assessments to what mundane characters can do. If you compare apples to apples, casters can't "do everything" even now.

    Now, that's not to say there's anything wrong with more specialized casters. There are good reasons for doing that, but they're not power level reasons. The Dread Necromancer is a better class than the Wizard not because "Necromancy" is some how inherently more balanced than "Magic" as a character concept, but because people like consistent themes. People want to be able to say "I'm a Necromancer, I do Death Magic" or "I'm a Shaman, I do Elemental Magic" because that's better for establishing a character. Insofar as it does improve game balance, you'd get basically the same effect by just having there be eight or ten Wizard classes that were all nominally as versatile as the Wizard is now.
    Last edited by NigelWalmsley; 2021-01-07 at 08:40 AM.

  27. - Top - End - #207
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    Casters have limits too. A Druid, a Cleric, a Wizard, and a Dread Necromancer are all at a pretty similar power level, but play in different ways. It's just that the power level is higher than the mundanes, and people tend to anchor their assessments to what mundane characters can do. If you compare apples to apples, casters can't "do everything" even now.
    Sure, they have limits but the sheer versatility of magic mean that most casters can handle almost any type of situation. A fighter isn't capable of doing every kind of violence imaginable, a skill-monkey can't master every skill, why should a caster be capable of (almost) every kind of magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    Now, that's not to say there's anything wrong with more specialized casters. There are good reasons for doing that, but they're not power level reasons. The Dread Necromancer is a better class than the Wizard not because "Necromancy" is some how inherently more balanced than "Magic" as a character concept, but because people like consistent themes. People want to be able to say "I'm a Necromancer, I do Death Magic" or "I'm a Shaman, I do Elemental Magic" because that's better for establishing a character. Insofar as it does improve game balance, you'd get basically the same effect by just having there be eight or ten Wizard classes that were all nominally as versatile as the Wizard is now.
    Yes, thematic classes are nice. I personally find wizards fairly boring in part because "I do magic" is a pretty flavorless concept. But it can also help with class imbalance, if every caster isn't capable of so many different kinds of magic. I'd prefer if they had to specialize, for both flavor and balance.
    Last edited by Batcathat; 2021-01-07 at 09:22 AM.

  28. - Top - End - #208
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vacation in Nyalotha

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    Sure, they have limits but the sheer versatility of magic mean that most casters can handle almost any type of situation. A fighter isn't capable of doing every kind of violence imaginable, a skill-monkey can't master every skill, why should a caster be capable of (almost) every kind of magic?



    Yes, thematic classes are nice. I personally find wizards fairly boring in part because "I do magic" is a pretty flavorless concept. But it can also help with class imbalance, if every caster isn't capable of so many different kinds of magic. I'd prefer if they had to specialize, for both flavor and balance.
    I agree that theming is better for shoving classes into more manageable boxes. The bigger point of contrast that should be drawn on the concepts each class is built around is their scalability. “Sneaky skill dude” and “hits things with pointy stick” are definitions of what the character can do, while “trained in war magic” or “blessed by the gods” are merely explanations that can yield a wide range of degrees of capability.

    I can have my zealot who defies killing killing blows by the power of his faith and can produce light from his ears, eyes, nose, mouth and... And he’d be fine in a setting with pointy stick users and sneaky standby conmen. Let the power of faith lift a carriage with one hand or run through the sky, mundane concepts get left behind past a point because they’re about What not How. The What of the game can shift in scope, and if your How doesn’t fit you don’t get a seat.

    Low magic is about limiting the Hows in order to produced desired Whats. My innate, mundane skills are How I do What I do because there’s no Christmas tree on me, nor are we all as special as a gaggle of magical girls.
    Last edited by Xervous; 2021-01-07 at 09:53 AM.

  29. - Top - End - #209
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    Sure. There are lots of other classes that implicitly tell other people at the table "you're not going to get to do the things you want". The Fighter is, as you well know, the poster boy for the issue, so let's not do the "OMG so bias y u h8 Fighters" routine this time.



    Who cares if there's a whole slew of classes that can't contribute? It's not like there's some fundamental moral obligation to allow people to write "Monk" or "Rogue" on their character sheet. For a story to include anything, it has to exclude some things. That doesn't mean that those things are bad, or that other stories can't include those things, or that people who like those things are evil. But genres impose constraints. And a high-magic setting requires that you have abilities that are appropriate to that idiom, just as a Noir, or Western, or a Superhero story requires that you have abilities that are appropriate to those idioms.



    The problem is that there are some characters that aren't magic. In a fantasy setting, magic is just a part of the world. It doesn't make any more sense to talk about a "non-magic" character in a high magic setting than it does to talk about a character who doesn't use gravity or the weak nuclear force in the real world. Which, of course, explains why some people want low-magic settings. Some people would like to play Conan or Aragorn, and for that to be a reasonable character, you have to cap the amount of magic people are allowed to have.

    The easy fix is to just do what the rest of the genre does and give everyone in high-magic settings some kind of magic. There's no reason that there have to be some characters who get powers that let them solve high-magic challenges and other characters who don't. Look at any high-magic series, be it Malazan, or A Practical Guide to Evil, or The Stormlight Archive. You see the same pattern: everybody gets magic. It doesn't matter if you're a dedicated mage (like the Warlock or Quick Ben), or a warrior (like Kaladin or Anomander Rake), or even a nominal non-combatant (like Shallan or the Dread Empress). If you're supposed to be a major player, you get powers that let you solve the problems you're faced with.

    Now, this doesn't mean that everyone does the same stuff. The ways that Elsecallers, Windrunners, and Stonewards solve problems are all different. To say nothing of Awakeners or Mistborn, which exist within the same (meta-)setting but have entirely separate magic systems. You don't even have to call it all "magic" if you don't want to. A Practical Guide to Evil says that when Cat uses her powers to travel to another dimension, she is using "Winter" or "Night", but that Masego does it by "Magic", and Indrani just uses "Name power". But they're all doing something that is, within the paradigm D&D currently uses, definitely magic.
    It's somewhat funny to mention Malazan Book of the Fallen here since a lot of the series focuses on the ways non-magical fighters (the Malazan marines, especially the Bridgeburners) have developed ways to deal with magical opponents.

    But if I understand your argument correctly then you're saying in a high-magic setting, everyone should play someone with magic. Which begs the question, since 3.x's concept is high magic, why are there non-magical classes in the first place? That question will lead right back to the "guy at the gym" problem that has been discussed a million times without any conclusion.


    Personally, I don't care so much whether a setting is high or low magic. What bothers me about D&D 3.x in particular, however, is how it makes magic items feel like they get mass-produced. You shop for items, and can have any number of items with any abillity you choose. It's like going into walmart and picking out a new shirt. Plot-relevant magic items should be unique; they should have a name and history (even if those are emergent properties of the story, like the Hobbit's Sting); they should be more than a tool you just discard or sell once you find a better version. I think that is the kind of mystery and special-ness that many people craving low magic settings are actually looking for.
    What did the monk say to his dinner?
    Spoiler
    Show
    Out of the frying pan and into the friar!


    How would you describe a knife?
    Spoiler
    Show
    Cutting-edge technology

  30. - Top - End - #210

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    Sure, they have limits but the sheer versatility of magic mean that most casters can handle almost any type of situation. A fighter isn't capable of doing every kind of violence imaginable, a skill-monkey can't master every skill, why should a caster be capable of (almost) every kind of magic?
    Why not? You're asking the wrong question. It doesn't matter if you can do every type of magic, or only one, or somewhere in between. It matters what range of problems you can solve with magic, and that's more a function of how long your spell list is and how you select spells than the range of things that are on it.

    Yes, thematic classes are nice. I personally find wizards fairly boring in part because "I do magic" is a pretty flavorless concept. But it can also help with class imbalance, if every caster isn't capable of so many different kinds of magic. I'd prefer if they had to specialize, for both flavor and balance.
    Consider the Necromancer. The Necromancer is, I think we can all agree, a flavorful class. You do Death Magic and you do not do other kinds of magic. But is the Necromancer any more mechanically limited than the Wizard? Not really. You can imagine just about any Wizard spell as a Necromancy spell, or at least a spell a Necromancer could cast. Bone blasts to deal direct damage, undead minions to take the place of summons (or even straight-up demonology), Magic Jar-ish soul puppetry to do everything Enchantment does, skeletal armor for Abjuration, undead craftsmen to break the economy, the list goes on. You can imagine a Necromancy-themed solution to pretty much every problem, and if you wrote as many spells for the Necromancer as WotC did for the Wizard, you'd get most of them. Conceptual limitations don't directly do anything to power. Insofar as they have an effect at all, it's a second-order result of more classes meaning less words for each class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xervous View Post
    I agree that theming is better for shoving classes into more manageable boxes. The bigger point of contrast that should be drawn on the concepts each class is built around is their scalability.
    That's the other thing. The Barbarian's concept is "like Conan". Even if you lock the Necromancer down not just to "Necromancy", but to a specific set of tactical niches (perhaps "minions, debuffs, and light blasting"), her ability to call on the souls of the damned simply scales farther than the Barbarian's ability to be strong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgaln View Post
    It's somewhat funny to mention Malazan Book of the Fallen here since a lot of the series focuses on the ways non-magical fighters (the Malazan marines, especially the Bridgeburners) have developed ways to deal with magical opponents.
    The Malazan Marines aren't really "low magic". They certainly have tactics for dealing with mages, but those tactics involve things like "their own mages" and "modern explosives". They're basically doing modern combined-arms tactics with magic. Also, the way the setting works is that if you are personally bad-ass enough (which is what's relevant in a D&D-ish TTRPG), you eventually become a superhuman Ascendant. A Practical Guide to Evil has pretty much the same deal with Names.

    But if I understand your argument correctly then you're saying in a high-magic setting, everyone should play someone with magic. Which begs the question, since 3.x's concept is high magic, why are there non-magical classes in the first place? That question will lead right back to the "guy at the gym" problem that has been discussed a million times without any conclusion.
    Because 3e's concept isn't just "high magic". 3e's (really, D&D's) concept is "zero to hero". And in that context, it's totally okay if some people are, or at least start out as, non-magical. Kaladin begins his story with the power of "good at spear". He does eventually get to fly and regenerate and have what is basically a lightsaber, but at 1st level it would be reasonable to stat him as a Fighter. The issue is that the game (except, oddly enough, 4e) doesn't have a good way of forcing the transition from "Spear Guy" to "Windrunner".

    What bothers me about D&D 3.x in particular, however, is how it makes magic items feel like they get mass-produced.
    I feel completely comfortable in saying that 3e's magic system is just worse than AD&D's. The game should go back to random magic items, and should eliminate the whole notion of chasing progressively larger bonuses.
    Last edited by NigelWalmsley; 2021-01-07 at 10:54 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •