-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cosi
So in combat, the Fighter is competent, but the Wizard has way more abilities than the Fighter. So is the Wizard defined as broken, or are his abilities irrelevant?
20th level characters are not ordinary. If the most powerful martial you can conceive of is an "ordinary person", you do not want martial classes to go to 20th level.
I'm complaining that you are demanding that the game not be balanced. That's stupid. It makes the game worse for everyone because of your personal tastes.
I consider balance a non essential... even a detriment to gaming. And the world wide rejection of 4e d&d is a clear indicator that I am not the only one.
The pinnacle of martial combat should be a huge threat... to other martial creatures. But to magic wielders, their pinnacle is a threat to the world at large... most importantly to themselves. That is why high casters are RARE.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
I consider balance a non essential... even a detriment to gaming. And the world wide rejection of 4e d&d is a clear indicator that I am not the only one.
You and Psyren need to stop pretending this proves your point. 4e isn't what happens when you balance the game (you can tell because it isn't actually balanced). 4e is what happens when you decide that "Fighters shouldn't have real abilities" is an acceptable choice, and design the whole game from there. 4e is your baby. From top to bottom.
Quote:
But to magic wielders, their pinnacle is a threat to the world at large... most importantly to themselves. That is why high casters are RARE.
This is also a terrible design decision. "Sometimes, your powers kill you because reasons*." is stupid and bad for the game. Just make things balanced. This is not a hard problem.
*: Specifically, because the designers are too incompetent to actually balance the game, so they decided that screwing everyone would somehow be the same.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
I consider balance a non essential... even a detriment to gaming. And the world wide rejection of 4e d&d is a clear indicator that I am not the only one.
The pinnacle of martial combat should be a huge threat... to other martial creatures. But to magic wielders, their pinnacle is a threat to the world at large... most importantly to themselves. That is why high casters are RARE.
If you're willing to set the game up that way and all the players are on board with the divergence between "guy at the gym" fighters and "worldbreaker" casters, then there's nothing wrong with that setup.
There's also room for games where all the characters are worldbreakers. There's also room for games where all the characters are balanced around the ultra-peak-normal-human level for fighters and casters.
In each case, just be honest and up-front about what the game is and is not, and about which element you've given up.
(Also, 4e isn't an example of balance, it's an example of balance done badly resulting in a kinda samey and bland game.)
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max_Killjoy
You still haven't explained how your core premise works, you just keep repeating that it does.
It's a premise. I selected it for the consequences I could derive from it, mentioned how some fundamental laws of the universe would probably need to be different to enable it, then asserted it as true without need for further justification in the confined environment of worldbuilding I was doing. Isn't that how premises work?
And I don't understand what you're asking for anyway. Equations that I would need to rewrite the entire laws of physics to get?
Cross edit :
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max_Killjoy
Sanderson does a pretty good job of integrating Allomancy and the other supernatural elements into his Mistborn setting and its history and cultures, and actually following through with it, but he never pretends it's anything other than magic.
So you pretty much gave him a pass because he put the word "magic" in it. But rewriting the laws of physics in such a way that specific consequences naturaly occur once society is reaching post-scarcity like I'm trying to do apparently can't be valid.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cosi
You and Psyren need to stop pretending this proves your point. 4e isn't what happens when you balance the game (you can tell because it isn't actually balanced). 4e is what happens when you decide that "Fighters shouldn't have real abilities" is an acceptable choice, and design the whole game from there. 4e is your baby. From top to bottom.
This is also a terrible design decision. "Sometimes, your powers kill you because reasons*." is stupid and bad for the game. Just make things balanced. This is not a hard problem.
*: Specifically, because the designers are too incompetent to actually balance the game, so they decided that screwing everyone would somehow be the same.
Game design isn't just about character abilities. It's not just combat either.
It's about believability and a world that makes sense. D&D did this very well. Mages have ALWAYS dominated at high levels, and my argument is IT MAKES SENSE. Your calls for balance sounds like a petulant child crying because his brother got all A's and he can't.
Balance is a nonissue compared to believability and essential sensibility.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
ok haven't read through everything yet this is a damn large forum. here is what i got from OP and will reply again at later point. note that the majority of my play experience is with the dnd d20 system, rifts (and a couple other palladium games), and a session or two of misc systems.
1) if you can only do as good as the best mundanes then why are you a caster? if you can only do as good as the best mundanes but are not as specialized, meaning you are more versatile than one. then you are inherently better than the standard mundane. the only reason to be a caster in that case would be for highly specialized concepts like a warrior priest, a traveling scribe, ect. or highly versatile ones that do everything a mundane does. note that doing this eliminates ALL forms of extraordinary magic. the magical weapons from dnd would be gone for example. so throwing out magic missile with an attack roll attached would be about the best damage you could do. to emulate a craftsman magecraft (+5 to a check). hmm now that i think about it the only point that magic in dnd 3.5 matches mundane (maybe even slightly behind) is lvl 1, possibly lvl 2. the idea of basic alchemy in this would be king i suppose.
2) you see this one alot in some great high fantasy books. a limited quantity of magic that you must spend time regaining. a good example of this would be the lightbringer series by brent weeks (amazing series!). basic chomaturgy is the ability to absorb reflected light and use each color in its own way. (sub-red flames, red= tar, blue = tempered glass, ect) however in order for them to get their magic they have to spend time drawing (read staring) at surface that is that color. for example a red drafter (name of the caster class) has to either stare at something red (brick wall, blood, ect) or something light colored with red lenses, in order to power their magic. even then they only have a limited quantity of the color to work with untill they refresh. they have other problems associated with this magic (makes you insane if used to much) but ill talk about that if anyone wants to chat about it later.
another variation of this is Dresden files books by Jim Butcher. Dresden is a modern wizard who has a extremely limited repertoire of spells and relies on his gear overall HOWEVER the part i am thinking of with this is the fact that he often wears himself thin and is running on fumes as the book goes on. that said he still can throw a mean punch, uses a gun, and without his focuses can still torch you. the problem with using this as a comparison is the fact that he is closer to a mana based sorcerer who never really gets time to get his mana back rather than the magic being limited. his limiting factor is his focus wears thin as the books go on.
3) this one is a personal peeve of mine, turning magic into a straight possibility of failure. the ONLY way i could ever see playing something like this is that this would be the ONLY limiting factor. due to the fact that if magic has a decent chance to fail outright it needs to be balanced by unlimited tries (just takes time basically) otherwise you are giving up major resources for nothing.
4) i personally love this option for all its glory one of my favorite dnd books is tome of battle (even though i love casters). unfortunately people seem to have a bad reaction to this calling it "anime" or "wuxai" and don't want to touch it with a 10' pole.
5) see i kinda like this one myself. dnd beguiler, duskblade, pathfinder magus, spheres of power, ect. those are quite fun to me. the idea of a mage who is good a subset of magic above all things is great. honestly i think this is part of the problem with dnd. a dnd wizard can do ANYthing, but should he? there should be basic blaster spells in the generalist category in my opinion but all the major damage spells should be either in evocation or conjuration, enchantment is straight at what it does, as are illusion and divination. abjuration and transmutation are a little tied together. but think about it having only access to at most 2 schools + general (includes a few blasty spells) and divination wouldn't be bad.
beguiler is basically divination, illusion, enchantment. duskblade is basically evocation, abjuration, transmutation. after finding a way to get SOME kind of blasty ability i love the beguiler as probably my favorite class played (haven't had a chance to play SptP Erudite yet though)
6) this one is basically where it is now to be honest. you have your standard dnd party, wizard, cleric, rouge, fighter. but at the same time i would play a game with a wizard, favored soul, beguiler, and duskblade and probably have more fun (that kinda like option 5). the only difference is the fact that the players now HAVE to play more than 1 character, and to be honest i dislike this option. one character is enough for me, i would rather try and find a compelling story for my single character than juggle 3, 4, or 5.
havent read past vox yet as i was replying to this but i kinda like the idea he had. whelp off to programming class l8r.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cazero
It's a premise. I selected it for the consequences I could derive from it, mentioned how some fundamental laws of the universe would probably need to be different to enable it, then asserted it as true without need for further justification in the confined environment of worldbuilding I was doing. Isn't that how premises work?
And I don't understand what you're asking for anyway. Equations that I would need to rewrite the entire laws of physics to get?
Explain how it's even remotely possible, show you've actually looked at the chemistry and physics and biology involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cazero
Cross edit :So you pretty much gave him a pass because he put the word "magic" in it. But rewriting the laws of physics to enlarge mundane possibilities like I'm trying to do apparently can't be valid.
Actually, I don't think he ever uses the word "magic" in the fiction, at least through the first two books. He lays out details of how the magic works, however. But if you listen to his podcast or read his commentary, it's clear he's not pretending it's anything but "magic" in the broad sense.
In contrast, you're just saying "I changed the laws of physics" and openly rejecting the notion that there's any magic (in the broad sense) involved -- but not explaining which laws you've changed or how.
And as far as I'm concerned, you've just gone further down the rabbit hole of convenient coincidences in order to handwave away all the complications for evolution, human history, economics, etc. A basic capability of life forms in your setting, that somehow humans just happened to not discover until after it was too late for it to have any effect on history? Pretty convenient.
"In 1922, it was discovered that lions can bite you." :smallconfused:
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rs2excelsior
~snip
I've got an old RPG system called Heroes of Olympus, where followers of Hermes and Hecate can get magic, but learn new spells based on this system. I haven't decided quite how I feel about it yet. It fits the setting very well--magic comes from the gods directly, and they do not simply hand it out freely to everyone who asks--but it takes away a large degree of player agency. You want to play a blasting caster? Too bad, you rolled nothing but illusion spells. Still, though, with player buy in it'd work. Would still require balancing magic in other ways, I'd imagine. Even if your wizard had to roll for their spells, if the table is full of 8th and 9th level spells (in D&D terms), they're still going to be able to outclass the fighter, even if they don't get to pick.
~snip
honestly to give back player agency why not just alter the list to contain things they would eventually like to have and give it to them randomly? for example a 1st level dnd wizard wants to know: sleep, color spray, magic missile, shield, mage armor, and lets say magecraft. if they only get 3 at lvl 1 roll randomly and that;s what they get. or instead of only getting magic missile, roll for evocation spell school when wanting something blasty.
sorry had to read 1 more post :p
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
It's about believability and a world that makes sense. D&D did this very well. Mages have ALWAYS dominated at high levels, and my argument is IT MAKES SENSE. Your calls for balance sounds like a petulant child crying because his brother got all A's and he can't.
I mean, if someone got all As, and you were specifically told you weren't supposed to be able to get As because of your major, would you not be pissed?
That said, none of what you are calling for requires class imbalance. If you want Wizards to dominate, just say they are higher level.
Quote:
Balance is a nonissue compared to believability and essential sensibility.
Yes, and you can have believable settings with balanced martials. What you are asking for is the game only supporting exactly the setting you want, which is a non-starter in kitchen sink fantasy.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max_Killjoy
Explain how it's even remotely possible, show you've actually looked at the chemistry and physics and biology involved.
I don't know. And until you demonstrated that you know how gravity is even remotely possible, I don't see why I should need to do that much effort.
Quote:
In contrast, you're just saying "I changed the laws of physics" and openly rejecting the notion that there's any magic (in the broad sense) involved -- but not explaining which laws you've changed or how.
Well obviously, if you start from the assertion that changing the laws of physics in any way creates magic in the broad sense, I necessarily created magic in the broad sense. But it's circular reasoning.
Quote:
And as far as I'm concerned, you've just gone further down the rabbit hole of convenient coincidences in order to handwave away all the complications for evolution, human history, economics, etc. A basic capability of life forms in your setting, that somehow humans just happened to not discover until after it was too late for it to have any effect on history? Pretty convenient.
Fun fact : there were steam-powered machines in ancient Egypt. It took a looooong time before a convenient coincidence allowed steam power to find an industrial scale use.
Quote:
"In 1922, it was discovered that lions can bite you." :smallconfused:
Domesticating lightning is an accurate metaphor. You wrote a strawman.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cosi
I mean, if someone got all As, and you were specifically told you weren't supposed to be able to get As because of your major, would you not be pissed?
That said, none of what you are calling for requires class imbalance. If you want Wizards to dominate, just say they are higher level.
Yes, and you can have believable settings with balanced martials. What you are asking for is the game only supporting exactly the setting you want, which is a non-starter in kitchen sink fantasy.
Actually, you can't believably balance them. Under absolutely no circumstance do I believe people would BOTHER studying magic when its greatest potential is equivalent to what a guy swinging a sword can reach. It doesn't make sense.
Edit: Also, maybe I need a better analogy. A professional in the modern age vs an uneducated laborer. The professional commands greater respect, makes more money and has more cool stuff. That gap only widens as higher and higher skill levels are achieved though both go up.
Same paradigm here, the higher in level the caster gets, the wider that power gap becomes... because it makes sense. Wizards, clerics druids etc... At high lvls they are irreplaceable. The high level martial? Easily replaced.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
Actually, you can't believably balance them. Under absolutely no circumstance do I believe people would BOTHER studying magic when its greatest potential is equivalent to what a guy swinging a sword can reach. It doesn't make sense.
That's a bit like saying no one would ever become a professional athlete if other people could become physicists...
Talents and passions differ.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
Actually, you can't believably balance them. Under absolutely no circumstance do I believe people would BOTHER studying magic when its greatest potential is equivalent to what a guy swinging a sword can reach. It doesn't make sense.
Why? The game says that learning to be 20th level by swinging a sword is just as hard as learning to be 20th level by doing magic. You aren't doing extra work for the same effect.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cosi
Why? The game says that learning to be 20th level by swinging a sword is just as hard as learning to be 20th level by doing magic. You aren't doing extra work for the same effect.
You are, however, taking far far greater risks.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
The problem with talking about early power Fighters and later power Wizards, which is clearly a reference to early D&D, is it isn't actually accurate. Late power wizards have incredible offense power, but that's not the only measure of "power". Unless they've either got the jump on their enemies, or they have "Line Grunts" between them and the enemy, they're in trouble. They're still vulnerable "Heavy Artillery" units, and hard to play well to boot, even at high levels.
Of course, people often house-ruled out all the stuff that makes Wizards vulnerable and hard to play, but leave them with that massive offensive power at higher levels. And this trend eventually became the standard for official design as well, which became a problem in 3e.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
You are, however, taking far far greater risks.
Only if you make the fluff stupid. "Magic is risky" is a bad concept.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cosi
Only if you make the fluff stupid. "Magic is risky" is a bad concept.
Errr... how? Nuclear physics is extremely dangerous. The benefits are vast though, so it is still explored.
Same with Chemistry and many other scientific fields. A bad chemical or genetically altered virus could be disasterous if accidentally unleashed. Why should magic be any different?
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
Errr... how? Nuclear physics is extremely dangerous. The benefits are vast though, so it is still explored.
Same with Chemistry and many other scientific fields. A bad chemical or genetically altered virus could be disasterous if accidentally unleashed. Why should magic be any different?
Fair. It can be the same.
On the other hand, why should or must it be the same?
Seems like either same or not-same are both valid options.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max_Killjoy
And as far as I'm concerned, you've just gone further down the rabbit hole of convenient coincidences in order to handwave away all the complications for evolution, human history, economics, etc. A basic capability of life forms in your setting, that somehow humans just happened to not discover until after it was too late for it to have any effect on history? Pretty convenient.
Some did. That's where various demihumans and humanoids came from, from elves to giants.
Although in practice, I find the line between "the laws of physics are different in such specific ways that humans can become superheroes" and "the laws of physics are the same as earth's, except there's also a mana field that, among other things, allows humans who learn to properly harness it to become superheroes" to be impossibly thin. So I guess I'm with you in that saying "because magic" really is the answer most conducive to actually getting everyone's butts in their seats and actually telling the story/playing the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
Actually, you can't believably balance them. Under absolutely no circumstance do I believe people would BOTHER studying magic when its greatest potential is equivalent to what a guy swinging a sword can reach. It doesn't make sense.
Define "guy swinging a sword". If you're talking about someone you might actually meet in real-life earth, you should be comparing real-life fencers to real-life stage magicians. If you're comparing fantasy to fantasy, anime level swordsmanship and anime level casting can coexist quite happily.
And in this case, I think an exalted sorcerer vs. an exalted swordsman is indeed a fair comparison. The former can indeed cause more dramatic effects than the latter, up to and including minor alterations that affect the whole world. For various reasons, there are plenty of reasons to prefer the sword guy. (Off the top of my head: individual spells cost as much to learn as individual sword powers, sword powers are much more immediately applicable, and that plot-device level powers require plot-device level work.) D&D omni-casters are not and should not be the gold standard.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
Errr... how? Nuclear physics is extremely dangerous. The benefits are vast though, so it is still explored.
Same with Chemistry and many other scientific fields. A bad chemical or genetically altered virus could be disasterous if accidentally unleashed. Why should magic be any different?
They aren't dangerous for the people studying them. Or at least no more so than boxing or football are for the people playing them.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cosi
They aren't dangerous for the people studying them. Or at least no more so than boxing or football are for the people playing them.
Oh really? So working with radioactive material is no more dangerous than playing football? Is that your assertion?
I doubt many will feel the same.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
Oh really? So working with radioactive material is no more dangerous than playing football? Is that your assertion?
I doubt many will feel the same.
Compare the injury rates among professional football players and nuclear physicists, then come back with a new strawman.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cosi
Only if you make the fluff stupid. "Magic is risky" is a bad concept.
I don't see how that's true on either count.
If it's a D&D-esque game where players make wizards for the express purpose of being able to cast spells, it's a bad idea to have Cthulhu show up and bite someone's face off for casting a spell, sure.
If it's understood from the start that magic is incredibly dangerous and unpredictable, that's a whole different ball game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
Actually, you can't believably balance them. Under absolutely no circumstance do I believe people would BOTHER studying magic when its greatest potential is equivalent to what a guy swinging a sword can reach. It doesn't make sense.
Different people have different talents. Not everyone has the talent to study martial arts.
And I think most people want to upgrade fighters to far beyond "guy swinging a sword" territory -- think more along the lines of the fight scenes from something like Hero, Curse of the Golden Flower, or House of Flying Daggers.
Although someone will probably be along shortly to tell me that those examples are tame compared with what fighters "should be".
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cosi
Compare the injury rates among professional football players and nuclear physicists, then come back with a new strawman.
So yeah... how many cities has a football accident wiped out? That's what I mean by bigger risks. Nukes could quite literally wipe out the entire planet. A football player can't even come close to matching that power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Anymage
Define "guy swinging a sword". If you're talking about someone you might actually meet in real-life earth, you should be comparing real-life fencers to real-life stage magicians. If you're comparing fantasy to fantasy, anime level swordsmanship and anime level casting can coexist quite happily.
And in this case, I think an exalted sorcerer vs. an exalted swordsman is indeed a fair comparison. The former can indeed cause more dramatic effects than the latter, up to and including minor alterations that affect the whole world. For various reasons, there are plenty of reasons to prefer the sword guy. (Off the top of my head: individual spells cost as much to learn as individual sword powers, sword powers are much more immediately applicable, and that plot-device level powers require plot-device level work.) D&D omni-casters are not and should not be the gold standard.
See above. I compare it more to scientists vs football players than street magicians. Street magicians use fake magic... sleight of hand etc. Wizards are fluffed as exploring the secrets of the universe while clerics are given power by beings who already know those secrets... similar to how scientists function. A more accurate comparison would be comparing Michael Jordan to Albert Einstein or Moses.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
So yeah... how many cities has a football accident wiped out? That's what I mean by bigger risks. Nukes could quite literally wipe out the entire planet. A football player can't even come close to matching that power.
So because in the real world, physicists developed more dangerous weapons than football players do, magic should be more dangerous that swordplay in fantasy?
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cosi
So because in the real world, physicists developed more dangerous weapons than football players do, magic should be more dangerous that swordplay in fantasy?
In a word: Yes.
If you are capable of bending reality itself to your whim and can only keep up with a guy swinging a sword... your imagination is lacking or you're not doing it right.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
In a word: Yes.
If you are capable of bending reality itself to your whim and can only keep up with a guy swinging a sword... your imagination is lacking or you're not doing it right.
And yet in the game that established the precedent of weak at first to ultimately powerful wizards, a high level guy swinging a sword is deadly to a high level wizard if they get in close.
Clearly they weren't doing it right.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
In a word: Yes.
If you are capable of bending reality itself to your whim and can only keep up with a guy swinging a sword... your imagination is lacking or you're not doing it right.
Or that's all the more that reality will allow itself to be bent in that setting.
If someone's only metric for measuring the impact of "bending reality" is whether the person can do more damage than a guy with a sword, then maybe the imagination issue isn't where you're saying it is.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calthropstu
In a word: Yes.
If you are capable of bending reality itself to your whim and can only keep up with a guy swinging a sword... your imagination is lacking or you're not doing it right.
If you think "has a weapon" stops you from being a high level character, you are confused. See: Thor.
-
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
death390
3) this one is a personal peeve of mine, turning magic into a straight possibility of failure. the ONLY way i could ever see playing something like this is that this would be the ONLY limiting factor. due to the fact that if magic has a decent chance to fail outright it needs to be balanced by unlimited tries (just takes time basically) otherwise you are giving up major resources for nothing.
I hear this one a lot and it always kind of mystifies me.
If you are allowed to attempt something as often as you like then there really isn't any possibility of failure, is there?
The only time this would be an issue is if you are in a very time sensitive situation, which is, outside of combat, a very rare occurrence.
Ironically the one place where time actually matters, in combat, is where spells already have a chance to fail; you can take damage and lose the spell, you could fail a spell resistance or ray attack roll, you could flub the damage roll, or your enemy could make their saving throw. Heck, you could even misread the situation and cast a spell to which your enemy is immune or even cast a buff spell which never comes up.