T2+ Mundane Class: What would it take?

[Jormengand]

Thing is, 99% (if not 100%) of magic in DnD does not, in fact, break the rules of physics - it just manipulates them. Almost every spell can be easily explained as manipulating matter in a sub-atomic level.

Summon Monster: rearange subatomic particles of the air to create the spell effect
Enlarge person: rearrange subatomic particles of the air to create the spell effect
Teleportation: deconstruct sub-atomic particles and rearrange others at a different location to create the spell effect
Invisibility: curve photon particles around the target
Illusion spells: manipulate photons to create a desired image and/or manipulate neuron activity on the targets's brain


What I'm trying to say is that the definition of magic as breaking the laws of reality is a flawed one.


PS. If you can think of some spell effect that cannot be explained scientifically, feel free to point it out. I cannot think of one myself.

Where. Are. You. Getting. The. Energy. To. Do. That?

[Seppo87]

PS. If you can think of some spell effect that cannot be explained scientifically, feel free to point it out. I cannot think of one myself.

Creation effects (assuming they actually create instead of transmuting, which we should, as transmuting is a different thing) break the conservation of energy law

even if the definition of magic as breaking the laws of physics wasn't accurately depicted by the system, or even if alternate ways of achieving the same results were theoretically possible, that's still the canonic definition.
Assuming it works in ways that don't break the laws of physiscs is an arbitrary choice that is not supported by the in-game conventions.

In short, Magic in dnd does not rearrange particles. It works by ignoring physics. The books say so.

[Pan151]

Where. Are. You. Getting. The. Energy. To. Do. That?

The Weave. The elemental plane of whatever-the balls. A god.

Pick your choice.

Creation effects (assuming they actually create instead of transmuting, which we should, as transmuting is a different thing) break the conservation of energy law

And... is there something that specifically supports that they create something out of nothing, rather than reconstructing other matter or compacting energy into matter or something along those lines?

[Jormengand]

The Weave. The elemental plane of whatever-the balls. A god.

Pick your choice.

So...

Magic?

[eggynack]

Creation effects (assuming they actually create instead of transmuting, which we should, as transmuting is a different thing) break the conservation of energy law

You probably just have some input energy in order to create the object. At the same time though, if you can break a law of physics, then it just isn't a law of physics in that setting. Energy can't be created or destroyed? Well, you're wrong, cause I just did. Magic doesn't break physics. It just means that there are different physics, and those physics include magic.

Edit:

So...

Magic?

No, physics. The laws of physics for the universe in question state that taking certain actions pulls energy from wherever to do whatever. That's just how the universe works.

[Seppo87]

And... is there something that specifically supports that they create something out of nothing, rather than reconstructing other matter or compacting energy into matter or something along those lines?

The fact that they're called Creation and not Transmutation? Mind the difference.

[Pan151]

So...

Magic?

All those things can be scientifically explained as well...

[Pan151]

The fact that they're called Creation and not Transmutation? Mind the difference.

It could also be called Bunnytail McKittens. Your point?

[Jormengand]

At the same time though, if you can break a law of physics, then it just isn't a law of physics in that setting. Energy can't be created or destroyed? Well, you're wrong, cause I just did. Magic doesn't break physics. It just means that there are different physics, and those physics include magic.

Gravity is specified to exist in the rules, as are Feather Fall, Levitate, Fly, and Reverse Gravity.

I'm just going to stick to my definition of "If it breaks our rules of physics, it's magical, otherwise it gets to be (Ex)" And yes, I know that (Ex) abilities explicitly can break the laws of physics, but I don't like the idea that I'm just so good at X, Y and Z that physics itself stops trying to resist me.

All those things can be scientifically explained as well...

And how are you manipulating all that energy with no appreciable relevant technology, assuming I believe you?

Again, there is nothing inherently physics-breaking about something going boom. If someone mutters some gibberish and sacrifices some bat poop, and then an explosion happens for no good reason, yeah that's breaking the laws of physics.

Also, can we stop trying to cheat obviously-magical abilities out of the magic box? Kthanx.

[Seppo87]

At the same time though, if you can break a law of physics, then it just isn't a law of physics in that setting

It is, if it's stated as such.
You're only proving that magic exists in the setting, not that it's compatible with physical laws. Magic explicitly ignores them.
Redefining physical laws to include magic contradicts the definition.

It could also be called Bunnytail McKittens. Your point?

Creation creates, transmutation converts.
No idea about Bunnytail McKittens.

I'm just going to stick to my definition of "If it breaks our rules of physics, it's magical, otherwise it gets to be (Ex)"

So Fighters surviving falls at terminal velocity are magical for you?
Your choice.

[Pan151]

Creation creates, transmutation converts.
No idea about Bunnytail McKittens.

Creation creates. There is no mention of how or out of what it creates.
Transmutation converts. There is no mention of whether or not it can convert nothing into something.

Bunnytail McKittens is just really cute

[Seppo87]

Creation creates. There is no mention of how or out of what it creates.
Transmutation converts. There is no mention of whether or not it can convert nothing into something

Creation means creation. If it happened via transmutation, it would be part of transmutation.

I don't like the idea that I'm just so good at X, Y and Z that physics itself stops trying to resist me

Wait, nobody ever said physics should stop trying to resist.
The point would be to overcome apparent limitations through extreme levels of skill.

[Jormengand]

Transmutation converts. There is no mention of whether or not it can convert nothing into something.

The entirety of the description for the transmutation school of magic is:

Transmutation spells change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition.

Emphasis mine. No, you can't convert nothing into something.

[Pan151]

Creation means creation. If it happened via transmutation, it would be part of transmutation.

Creation:

noun
1.the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2.the fact of being created.
3.something that is or has been created.
4.the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5.the world; universe.
6.creatures collectively.
7.an original product of the mind, especially an imaginative artistic work:
the creations of a poetic genius.

I see no requirement that creation has to happen out of nothing...

[Seppo87]

Creation:

noun
1.the act of producing or causing to exist

If you caused it to exist, it didn't exist before.

the act of creating; engendering.
2.the fact of being created.
3.something that is or has been created

all of these refer to the word itself, or are used in a different context

4.the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5.the world; universe.
6.creatures collectively.
7.an original product of the mind, especially an imaginative artistic work:
the creations of a poetic genius.

these are just nouns, not acts.

I see no requirement that creation has to happen out of nothing...

It does, that's the point. If it doesn't, it's transformation. It's important in physics, you certainly heard the phrase "nothing is created nothing is destroyed everything is transformed", this is how physics work.

Magic can be used to turn A into B, that's transmutation. Magic can also create things. It's a separate effect, under a different name, a name that incidentally corresponds to something labeled by physics as impossible.

[Pan151]

It does, that's the point. If it doesn't, it's transformation. It's important in physics, you certainly heard the phrase "nothing is created nothing is destroyed everything is transformed", this is how physics work.

Magic can be used to turn A into B, that's transmutation. Magic can also create things. It's a separate effect, under a different name, a name that incidentally corresponds to something labeled by physics as impossible.

Can you prove that creation magic creates things out of nothing?

[Seppo87]

Can you prove that creation magic creates things out of nothing?

Yes: It can't be transmutation.

[Pan151]

Yes: It can't be transmutation.

That's not proof of anything

[Seppo87]

That's not proof of anything

If it's not transmutation, it works in a different way. Since transmutation consists in changing A into B, and Creatin is not Transmutation, it follows that Creation does not simply rearrange particles, as it would be transmutation, which it isn't.

[Pan151]

If it's not transmutation, it works in a different way. Since transmutation consists in changing A into B, and Creatin is not Transmutation, it follows that Creation does not simply rearrange particles, as it would be transmutation, which it isn't.

Unfortunatelly, this still does not prove anything at all. If that logic was correct, and spell schools were internally consistent, then Wall of Force would not be evocation and Heal and Gate would not be conjuration.

[Segev]

Unsurprising for a thread that's gone on for 10 pages, but I think we've gotten off-topic in a way that diminishes the interest-value of the thread (certainly does to me). I'd like to suggest we attempt once again to focus on what the thread is asking: what is it that you have to be able to do to be T2 or T1, and is there a way to do it without resorting to "spellcaster," "psion," or similar "magic-user" classes?

Part of what makes non-casting classes so firmly restricted to T3 is the lack of versatility. You want to be a great warrior and are willing to use spells to do it, Mr. CoDzilla? You can change out what it is you're great at daily, and devote only a few of your large supply of resources to your main schtick. You want to do it via non-casting means, Mr. Warblade? You're doing okay, still, but you have to admit your maneuvers smell an awful lot like non-Vancian spellcasting to some people. You want it in the flavor of the do-it-all-day fighter? You have a very limited number of "slots" to fill with your tricks, and often those tricks are less than impressive per slot occupied.

Opening this up by increasing the utility of those slots, by giving better things to put in them, would help.

Approaching the versatility of the prepared caster is, sadly, not really ever an option. The Chameleon's floating feat is odd by itself; the notions that revolve around allowing Fighters to swap out their feat allotments on a regular (daily?) basis tend to feel unsatisfying, for some reason. Though even if that were accepted, we're still back to feats needing to do things at least as impressive as spells, if not directly mimic them.


The other source of primary power in the game is skills. We probably need a lot more extensive lists of what skills can accomplish, or ways to tweak them with or without feats (and certainly without spells) to make them a power source to rival the T1 or even T2 mastery provided by spellcasting.

[Seppo87]

well I'm just applying Occam Razor. There is no reason to assume that Creation did something different from Creating.

[Pan151]

Unsurprising for a thread that's gone on for 10 pages, but I think we've gotten off-topic in a way that diminishes the interest-value of the thread (certainly does to me). I'd like to suggest we attempt once again to focus on what the thread is asking: what is it that you have to be able to do to be T2 or T1, and is there a way to do it without resorting to "spellcaster," "psion," or similar "magic-user" classes?

Part of what makes non-casting classes so firmly restricted to T3 is the lack of versatility. You want to be a great warrior and are willing to use spells to do it, Mr. CoDzilla? You can change out what it is you're great at daily, and devote only a few of your large supply of resources to your main schtick. You want to do it via non-casting means, Mr. Warblade? You're doing okay, still, but you have to admit your maneuvers smell an awful lot like non-Vancian spellcasting to some people. You want it in the flavor of the do-it-all-day fighter? You have a very limited number of "slots" to fill with your tricks, and often those tricks are less than impressive per slot occupied.

Opening this up by increasing the utility of those slots, by giving better things to put in them, would help.

Approaching the versatility of the prepared caster is, sadly, not really ever an option. The Chameleon's floating feat is odd by itself; the notions that revolve around allowing Fighters to swap out their feat allotments on a regular (daily?) basis tend to feel unsatisfying, for some reason. Though even if that were accepted, we're still back to feats needing to do things at least as impressive as spells, if not directly mimic them.


The other source of primary power in the game is skills. We probably need a lot more extensive lists of what skills can accomplish, or ways to tweak them with or without feats (and certainly without spells) to make them a power source to rival the T1 or even T2 mastery provided by spellcasting.

The reason that this thread has drifted to nowhere is that nobody can answer the original question until we come to a consensus on what exactly is and what isn't magic or "magic".

[Pan151]

well I'm just applying Occam Razor. There is no reason to assume that Creation did something different from Creating.

Well, in that case I'm applying Devil's Proff: prove to me that there exists nothing that creation magic converts.

[PsyBomb]

Unsurprising for a thread that's gone on for 10 pages, but I think we've gotten off-topic in a way that diminishes the interest-value of the thread (certainly does to me). I'd like to suggest we attempt once again to focus on what the thread is asking: what is it that you have to be able to do to be T2 or T1, and is there a way to do it without resorting to "spellcaster," "psion," or similar "magic-user" classes?

Part of what makes non-casting classes so firmly restricted to T3 is the lack of versatility. You want to be a great warrior and are willing to use spells to do it, Mr. CoDzilla? You can change out what it is you're great at daily, and devote only a few of your large supply of resources to your main schtick. You want to do it via non-casting means, Mr. Warblade? You're doing okay, still, but you have to admit your maneuvers smell an awful lot like non-Vancian spellcasting to some people. You want it in the flavor of the do-it-all-day fighter? You have a very limited number of "slots" to fill with your tricks, and often those tricks are less than impressive per slot occupied.

Opening this up by increasing the utility of those slots, by giving better things to put in them, would help.

Approaching the versatility of the prepared caster is, sadly, not really ever an option. The Chameleon's floating feat is odd by itself; the notions that revolve around allowing Fighters to swap out their feat allotments on a regular (daily?) basis tend to feel unsatisfying, for some reason. Though even if that were accepted, we're still back to feats needing to do things at least as impressive as spells, if not directly mimic them.


The other source of primary power in the game is skills. We probably need a lot more extensive lists of what skills can accomplish, or ways to tweak them with or without feats (and certainly without spells) to make them a power source to rival the T1 or even T2 mastery provided by spellcasting.

+1

Looks like nobody is even trying to stick to the original topic of discussion anymore, as evidenced by the fact that my last post was completely ignored in favor of arguing about physics and magic (which has relatively little to do with the OP discussion or anything I've attempted to introduce since)

The point is to see what it would take for someone who ISN'T a primary spellcaster to be a T2 or better. That's it, end of story. We've heard "EX-versions of gamebreakers" and seen some homebrew links that qualify. Other than that, it's been arguments about where the goal line is, thus my last post.

I've gotten the info I can out of it, time to try to use it.

[eggynack]

Gravity is specified to exist in the rules, as are Feather Fall, Levitate, Fly, and Reverse Gravity.

There is indeed gravity. You're just using this force to act against it, or as an exception to it. There are exceptions to things in our world too, after all, and it's not like we say that they're breaking physics every time. The theory doesn't encapsulate all of the things it needs to encapsulate, so you change the theory. In D&D world, the theory of gravity states that all things are pulled by this force, unless you use one of these spells.

I'm just going to stick to my definition of "If it breaks our rules of physics, it's magical, otherwise it gets to be (Ex)" And yes, I know that (Ex) abilities explicitly can break the laws of physics, but I don't like the idea that I'm just so good at X, Y and Z that physics itself stops trying to resist me.

It's a fine definition of magic, but that doesn't mean that you're breaking the rules of this other universe's physics.

It is, if it's stated as such.
You're only proving that magic exists in the setting, not that it's compatible with physical laws. Magic explicitly ignores them.
Redefining physical laws to include magic contradicts the definition.

Physical laws are the laws of our physical world. If magic is breaking those laws, then those weren't the physical laws to begin with. Not redefining physical laws to include magic contradicts the definition of physical laws.

[Seppo87]

+1

Looks like nobody is even trying to stick to the original topic of discussion anymore, as evidenced by the fact that my last post was completely ignored in favor of arguing about physics and magic (which has relatively little to do with the OP discussion or anything I've attempted to introduce since)

I really appreciated your last post actually.

I said I didn't want to develop a digression about what's magic and what's not, but in the end I ended up replying anyway. It's partially my fault so I apologize for contributing to derail the thread.

Physical laws are the laws of our physical world. If magic is breaking those laws, then those weren't the physical laws to begin with. Not redefining physical laws to include magic contradicts the definition of physical laws.

This is not the place to talk about it. Wanna go on with PMs?

[Jormengand]

Unsurprising for a thread that's gone on for 10 pages, but I think we've gotten off-topic in a way that diminishes the interest-value of the thread (certainly does to me). I'd like to suggest we attempt once again to focus on what the thread is asking: what is it that you have to be able to do to be T2 or T1, and is there a way to do it without resorting to "spellcaster," "psion," or similar "magic-user" classes?

Well, let's have a look.

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

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Right, so we need a few different "I win" buttons, near enough.

JaronK presents these challenges to showcase the power and versatility of each tier:

Situation 1: A Black Dragon has been plaguing an area, and he lives in a trap filled cave. Deal with him.

Situation 2: You have been tasked by a nearby country with making contact with the leader of the underground slave resistance of an evil tyranical city state, and get him to trust you.

Situation 3: A huge army of Orcs is approaching the city, and should be here in a week or so. Help the city prepare for war.

Tier 2: The Sorcerer. Situation 1: It really depends on the Sorcerer's spell load out. If he's got Greater Floating Disk, Spectral Hand, and Shivering Touch, this one's going to be easy as pie, since he can just float down (and carry his party in the process) to avoid many traps, then nail the dragon in one shot from a distance. If he doesn't he'd need scrolls with the same issues that the UMD Rogue and Beguiler would need. If he's got Explosive Runes he could create a bomb that would take out the Dragon in one shot. If he's got Polymorph he could turn the party melee into a Hydra for extra damage. If he's got Alter Self he could turn himself into a Skulk to get down there sneakily. Certainly, it's possible that the Sorcerer could own this scenario... if he has the right spells known. That's always the hard part for a Sorcerer. Situation 2: Again, depends on the spell. Does he have divinations that will help him know who's part of the resistance and who's actually an evil spy for the Tyranical Govenerment? Does he have charm? Alter Self would help a ton here too for disguise purposes if he has it. Once again, the options exist that could totally make this easy, but he might not have those options. Runestaffs would help a bit, but not that much. Scrolls would help too, but that requires access to them and good long term preparation. Situation 3: Again, does he have Wall of Iron or Wall of Stone to make fortifications? Does he have Wall of Fire to disrupt the battlefield? How about Mind Rape and Love's Pain to kill off the enemy commanders without any ability to stop him? Does he have Blinding Glory on his spell list, or Shapechange, or Gate? Well, maybe. He's got the power, but if his spells known don't apply here he can't do much. So, maybe he dominates this one, maybe not.

Well, that's a lot of different I Win buttons that the sorcerer miiight have. Well, what if we take out my personal answer to this challenge?

Situation 1: The traps should be no problem, given that I give myself a bonus to tons of skills, and from tenth level I can start taking 10. Or, you know, I could just fly over them on a giant eagle. Or keep on sending bears into the cave to set off all the traps. Or just heal myself/the bear/the eagle every time a trap goes off. Whatever works.

Actually fighting the dragon should be easy enough, seeing as I can rage, ignore half his spells, and get stoopidhuge bonuses to everything.

Situation 2: Take knowledge checks to know who's part of the resistance, and Enchanting Voice, or just diplomacy, to make everyone love me.

Situation 3: I can't help much with preparing, in all fairness, although I can set a metric boopton of traps and turn everyone fanatical, or go around assassinating people. When I get into combat, though, I can stop anyone attacking people in my reach, so just have all the casters in a block around me. Also, all allies in 60 feet are suddenly really OP - say I'm sixth level, that still means an entire block of archers gets +3 to attack rolls, +4 to AC and +12 to damage rolls. From eighth level, I can daze all my enemies every round. Oh, yeah, and I'm shutting down all the nearby enemy casters, too. Of course, if I'm high enough level, I can just herohammer it up and charge into combat alone, because no spell can affect me without my say-so, and I can deflect any attack if my attack roll is better (and with a +10 bonus, it almost certainly is).

Well, that's a lot of stuff that could easily be encounter-deciding. Not because of ultimate arcane power, but because of legitimate skill, hardiness, inspiration and a little help from my friends.

The reason that this thread has drifted to nowhere is that nobody can answer the original question until we come to a consensus on what exactly is and what isn't magic or "magic".

No, it's because you're taking things which are obviously magic (like spells, for god's sake) and using pseudo-science to justify them not being spells.

I'm going from the design principles I set down here, and assuming that anything that involves subatomic manipulation on a level that modern technology can't even hope to rival, using energy from out of no-where, is magic, to stop people trying to cheat spells out of the definition of magic, and that by the laws of reality I'm talking about the laws of our reality, because there's nothing to suggest that our universe and the Prime Material have significantly different physics, given that the latter is pretty much based on the former.

Given that I'm the only one who has actually even tried to come up with an answer even vaguely in the spirit of "Mundane," and all, I feel kinda justified. If you can find a way that spells can kinda-sorta cheat their way out if you ignore most of science, then don't bother.

Physical laws are the laws of our physical world. If magic is breaking those laws, then those weren't the physical laws to begin with. Not redefining physical laws to include magic contradicts the definition of physical laws.

Yes, but you know exactly what I actually mean. If you like, all the laws of physics have a caveat on them saying "Except when magic."

[eggynack]

If you like, all the laws of physics have a caveat on them saying "Except when magic."

Sounds about right, though probably more rigorous than that if we're actually being D&D physicists. It just doesn't make much sense to me that, if someone were to toss out a fireball in our world, and it were totally confirmed, then physicists would say, "Oh no, physics was ignored." Instead, they would likely say, "Cool, a new branch of physics."

[Pan151]

No, it's because you're taking things which are obviously magic (like spells, for god's sake) and using pseudo-science to justify them not being spells.

Which is different from taking ToB maneuvers and Naruto and trying to argue that they're mundane... how exactly?

Besides, I'm not trying to argue that magic is not magic, just that the definition of magic as breaking physics is FUNDAMENTALY flawed.