Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

[Max_Killjoy]

What a bizarre pair of terms to have an objection with. Might I inquire why spells should be guaranteed to hit? And why a ball of force wouldn't be influenced by armour? Quite curious, didn't think that you would have a problem with those.

To be clear, I was agreeing with lesser_minion's objection to those two moldy tropes.

The list of was the bad ideas, and my statement was that I wouldn't include those bad ideas in my games.

[Frozen_Feet]

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

I'm not intimately familiar with all these characters, but of those I do know:

1) Batman is intended to be a realistic human, but most portrayals of the character aren't. One example of this is how most skills of Batman (master of martial arts, master of psychology, master chemist, master detective, master gymnast...) would individually be realist, but it's massively implausible for one person to be skilled in all of those, plus orphan son of a millionaire. Second example of this is how Batman occasionally survives battles with superhumanly strong opponents without injury (see Batman and Hulk crossover) , yet at other times is severely injured by normal humans (see Batman: Black & White).
2) Aragorn is not a realistic human, due to being explicitly descended of an Elf, a fantastic creature. Dude was something like 80 years old when LotR happened.
3) Chris Redfield may have been intended as a realistic human, but constraints of his medium (video games) enforces an unrealistic portrayal. Later on he becomes augmented via speculative biological means and fully ceases to qualify
4) Caramon Majere starts out as a realistic human, and later crosses the line into fantastic as his circumstances get more and more fantastic. It's been long enough since I read Dragonlance that I can't give you the exact book or page where Caramon first does something unquestionably superhuman, but he does become a time traveller, among other things, during the series.
5) Solid Snake may have been intended as a realistic human, but again constraints of his medium (videogames) enforces unrealistic portrayal. Metal Gear games in general go off the deep end and get filled to the brim with speculative elements as the series progresses. (Isn't Snake revealed as identical clone of someone, or did I get the codenames mixed up? There's at least three different Snakes to keep track of...)

So yes, we know what "realist human" means. It means portraying humans truthfully, without artificiality and avoiding artistic conventions, implausible, exotic and supernatural elements. Or at least I knew that, because I was awake at school during art lessons. It is obvious from this thread that not all people do know, or they are not using "realist" and "realism" in a common way.

---

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

You are not wrong.

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

This is iffy. If this is happening on accident, then it might be what's preventing the conflict of desires to be recognized and dealt with. If it's on purpose, it's veering closer to the solutions I proposed for the 1st group, just with game difficulty artificially lowered so the realistic character can deal with the fantastic.

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

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

That's one way to put it. Again, though, not all these reason always apply for a specific player or a specific game. It's also worth noting that an inverse exist for all four, which would demand that the Wizard play a second fiddle in a given game.

2D8HP has shared many amusing anecdotes of their old games where everyone thought Fighters were BAMF, and Wizards were wimps.

[Lord Raziere]

On Snake and Chris Redfield:
thing is, the most unrealistic thing about these characters being constrained by the videogame medium, its that even if you throw out all their unrealistic in game feats, there is still the fact that you save and reload. its very likely that no player ever gets it right on the first time, so when they die they reload and try again until they do, when realistically, life just happens and you never get do-overs like that. so all realistic portrayal of human effort stops when a character dies then basically restarts from an earlier point to do it again but better. meaning these characters aren't realistic at all, they are constantly dying and rewinding gods whose only limit is how much they are willing to try and do before they decide to stop for a while.

so even if you discard all other feats as being unrealistic, there is still the fact that are beings who can keep trying again and again until they win and therefore in no actual danger of being defeated permanently.

[Tanarii]

Lastly, rolling up a new 1st level character if you died used to be the "correct" answer. Back then, I could enjoy running a 1st level character in a party of 7th level PCs. These days, I'm told that's crazy talk (actually, is that just a 3e thing? Would it be fun in 4e or 5e?).

In 4e, it's far worse than in 3e. Character need to be very close to the same level vs the difficulty of the challenge being presented. (Edit again: it's actually not that bad, a range of maybe 4-6 levels is okay. But given 4e Tiers are 10 levels each that's relatively smaller.)

In 5e, it's not a problem at all if you stick to the same Tier, which is a level band of 4-6 levels. Level 1 characters can easily adventure with level 3-4s if they're careful. Level 5s with 8-10s is not a problem at all.

Edit: I don't really consider that latter different from AD&D or BECMI. In those you don't take level 1 & 2 PCs out with your name level characters. They join a lower level party until they have some experience. Remember, those games weren't really developed for single party play.

[digiman619]

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

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

If I wanted to be smarmy, I'd say "armor", but otherwise this really hits the nail on the head.

[Cluedrew]

Spoiler: All Replying To:

Show

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

There are multiple reasons, depending on which subset of these people you're talking of.
[...] 1) people who want to play realistic humans and aren't interested in a game where their characters leave that category.
[...] 2) people with ill-realized or conflicting desires. They want a character that is realistically human. They also want a character that can keep up with impossible badasses. These people cannot be pleased untill you get them to drop one of their desires or find a working synthesis of them.
[...] 3) people whose verisimilitude is broken when dude who is not wearing a funny hat, waving a wand and growing a beard (etc.) does something fantastic.
[...] 4) people who want to play a game based on specific work of fiction, where fantastic fighters aren't a thing, but some other type of fantastic characters are. These people get sad if fighters break the rules of their favored fictionland.

For the most part, my thought in in general is "but then why are you playing D&D?"

First off I should clarify what I think D&D is supposed to be about. Its the everything fantasy RPG, it tracks the "zero-to-hero" (actually, I have some questions about the zero part) journey of about a dozen different archetypes from their humble beginnings to the best X in the world. What is X? Whatever you want it to be. At high levels it is supposed to be the setting where the epic fighter teams up with the epic rogue and takes on the epic wizard and the epic monk. Now maybe that isn't what they were trying to do, and that would explain why they are so far off sometimes, but that is the feel I get.

With that in mind my general feeling about each of the four groups:

1. They want E6, that is the feeling D&D provides at low levels. Ideally just recognize the cut off and stop there.
2. Special case of 1, that realizes what trying to play that low level game in D&D will entail and doesn't like it. Or maybe doesn't realize and is surprized when it happens. I'm not entirely sure.
3. Ars Magica. Go play it. Seriously it sounds exactly what they are asking for.
4. Umm... This one I can't conveniently point at the system that you should be playing instead. If you lucky there is a system for it, otherwise try GURPS, FATE or some other generic system that can be adapted to your particular setting. D&D don't have a particular setting, but it isn't generic either.

There is also some people who argue against the idea of fantastic fighters, but they might just be over applying their particular disinterest.

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

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

I defiantly want one (not all the time, but for here) but the other two I have questions about. Essentially what does special and magical mean? Is Tony Stark magical because he is the only one who can get the Iron Man suit working? He may not be a fighter, but he is defiantly not a wizard.

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

Well I tend to blend the two myself, but if we examine the two archetypes I would say anything that requires physical strength, coordination or endurance. You ever wonder why it takes Spell level + 1d6 pages, or whatever it was when they tracked that, to write out a spell? Because their hand writing is just that bad and inconsistent, you would think they have Parkinson's. OK, only the first and last sentence of this paragraph were meant seriously, but I hope I have gotten my point across.

[Frozen_Feet]

For the most part, my thought in in general is "but then why are you playing D&D?"

That's an entire different topic. It is answerable though. The most common answer is "they have insufficient knowledge of and aptitude for using other game systems".

Still, all sorts of players can show up for all kinds of games, and versions of D&D aren't the only kinds of games where magic is overpowering. Indeed, when forgetting all about beating the dead horse of D&D 3.x, the problem usually exists on a metagame level, at the phase where you choosing which game to play. It is solved by choosing or designing the right sort.

[Talakeal]

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

This is the sentiment that causes me to keep posting in this thread every time is gets posted. Virtually every game I play and piece of media I consume has characters that are nominally human and still defeat or contribute to the efforts of monsters, wizards, and super humans, and yet this forum insists that it is somehow impossible.


But I suppose it really depends on what you mean by "realistically human."

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

That's a very good question. AFAIK all of these characters are presented as humans and never do anything out and out impossible, but they are all significantly more competent than any "real" human in at least one area.

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

There are a few "no save just lose" spells that I don't like such as Shivering Touch and Force cage, but the real problem spells are those that allow you to get in more than you got out and effectively have infinite power.

Shape-Change, Polymorph any Object, Planar Binding, Gate, Wish (as an SLA), Genesis, Fabricate + Walls, and a few others allow you to ignore all of the limits put into the game and effectively cast any spell in the game as often as you like.

[Darth Ultron]

Well I tend to blend the two myself, but if we examine the two archetypes I would say anything that requires physical strength, coordination or endurance. You ever wonder why it takes Spell level + 1d6 pages, or whatever it was when they tracked that, to write out a spell? Because their hand writing is just that bad and inconsistent, you would think they have Parkinson's. OK, only the first and last sentence of this paragraph were meant seriously, but I hope I have gotten my point across.

So:

Fighter no magic at all in any way shape or form.

Wizard, just the very narrow no physical strength, coordination or endurance.

So would you say all wizards must have a strength so low it must have a penalty? Would you officially say there can be no fighter/mage types? Or melee burser wizards?

I guess ''coordination'' would be no dexterity and maybe even no base attack?

Endurance would vaguely be constitution, but guess it could also be low hit points and Fort saves.

So would you say a Wizard would have all three physical ability scores under 8 and a BaB of +0 that would never increase? And forbid wizards from taking related feats too, like they could not take Power Attack or Improved Initiative. And not allow then to put any ranks in any skill based off the three physical abilities.

Amazingly, this might even work: Say a 10th level wizard like Str-6, Dex-8, Con-6 and with a Bab of +0. Now they can use magic to increase all of that...but mostly to just ''normal fighter levels''. Like the wizard can spam enchantment type spells and such to get a +8 to Dex....but that only make it 16.

Though it still might be too narrow. To say a fighter must use no magic, would be to say a wizard must use no mundane, right?

[Frozen_Feet]

Virtually every game I play and piece of media I consume has characters that are nominally human and still defeat or contribute to the efforts of monsters, wizards, and super humans, and yet this forum insists that it is somehow impossible.

Did you check you're even talking of the same thing as me? I was talking about player conflict of interests, not of what's possible to have in a game.

Or, to use an example, it's not a problem whatsoever to have a game where Batman can have a boxing match with Hulk and then die to a mundane bullet shot by a random mook, the problem is selling this to your player as fair interpretation of the characters involved.

[Cazero]

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

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

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

If you were actually open to the idea of level 20 'mundanes' doing awesome things, you would drop point 2.
Being level 20 is an extreme level of 'he just trained really hard'. Only one in millions (if not billions) reach that level. Of course it leads to doing fantastical things that people thought to be strictly impossible; after all, it is very possible that nobody else ever achieved it before, and just as possible that nobody else ever will.

[Pleh]

Trying to catch up, only had time to comment on a few things I saw.

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

Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Presumably, Dark matter and black holes do follow regular laws. It's just that our laws don't accurately describe those laws yet.

Of course there will always be more science yet to discover, but magic doesn't have to be scientific.

If magic exists it can be measured. It becomes part of science.

Not necessarily. Even in science, there are a few things that cannot actually be measured. How much moreso Magic, which by most definitions is intrinsically not well defined (that is to say the lack of definition is absolutely part of the definition).

I think in general *Spellcasting* is a scientific process and a known quantity. Understanding the arts behind invoking magic is definitely something mortals apply scientific principles to doing.

That doesn't mean magic, the subject of spellcasting, is now a scientific field. That will still depend on your campaign setting.

... theories contemporary to the work suggested FTL was possible in some form, the work is not excluded, even if the theory is later shown to be wrong and FTL impossible.

Actually, the science and formulas around FTL travel suggest that it's totally possible to *travel* faster than light. What's not possible is *accelerating* to reach the speed of light, as actually reaching the speed of light through traditional methods of acceleration would require infinite energy to get to those speeds.

Star Wars uses a Hyperdrive to magically jump into Hyperspace, which is a real scientific theory that the same physics formulas predict where there is a set of speeds faster than light that actually require less and less energy to accelerate the faster you go past the speed of light. In that theory, the real problem is jumping back and forth between hyperspace reliably and not over-shooting your target (also relativistic time effects and other stuff).

Star Trek uses the Warp Engine to bend space (much as a gravity well like a black hole or planet does) around the vessel so traditional acceleration isn't necessary. You don't put energy into moving yourself forward in space, you put energy into moving space around you to create the effect that you move faster than the speed of light.

Fun tidbit, recent science news was saying the Warp Engine might actually be a real world viability.

[lesser_minion]

In the context of D&D, I actually believe that if a fighter doesn't use magic, they're not a real fighter. All D&D settings in which bards exist feature the principle that a sufficiently advanced artistic performance can produce magical effects. If a bard's arts are allowed to become "sufficiently advanced", why aren't a fighter's?

There are ways to make it make sense, but ultimately, once you have one mechanism for ordinary or mundane-seeming actions to produce miraculous results, there is nothing to gain -- and much to lose -- from inventing sixteen more.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you were actually open to the idea of level 20 'mundanes' doing awesome things, you would drop point 2.
Being level 20 is an extreme level of 'he just trained really hard'. Only one in millions (if not billions) reach that level. Of course it leads to doing fantastical things that people thought to be strictly impossible; after all, it is very possible that nobody else ever achieved it before, and just as possible that nobody else ever will.

Which is quite frankly pure fiction -- there is no such thing in a fictional reality based even roughly on the human beings and the basic physics of our reality. In a world of 7+ billion people and remarkable training methods and massive investment, the limits of human performance are creeping upward by the tiniest increments as the most gifted, talented, and trained people in the world try to break them. The idea of someone "just training really hard" to run a sub-1.0 second 40 yard dash, or bench press tons, or perform a 300' standing vertical jump, is total fantasy.

So, if you drop #2, then you have a different question: do you want to follow through with all that implies for the fictional setting you're building... which ends up looking noticeably different from the quasimedievel mashup of most D&D settings; or do you just want to ignore it and pretend that there's nothing ridiculous going on...


Or... you can drop the idea that "fighters" who can pull off feats of physical and martial prowess such that they can keep up with D&D's high-level casters are "not at all magical", and instead go with the idea that their training and experience push them to the point where they're tapping into "magic" or whatever you want to call it, just not in the way that spellcasters are.

[Max_Killjoy]

I defiantly want one (not all the time, but for here) but the other two I have questions about. Essentially what does special and magical mean? Is Tony Stark magical because he is the only one who can get the Iron Man suit working? He may not be a fighter, but he is defiantly not a wizard.

Comic books (at least "mainstream superhero comics") are a bad example for anything, because they run on almost 100% "rule of kewl". They throw any notion of coherence and consistency out the window, and just go with whatever the creative team of the moment thinks is the very most awesome.

That said, Stark isn't the only one who can get his tech working -- his history is now rife with examples of someone stealing his tech and making their own power armor suits.

[Frozen_Feet]

I think the confusion is caused by your formulation of this part:

Those things are also fantastic from the POV of the fictional reality; that is, they're something special and reserved for a handful of "special" persons.

The underlined part doesn't really follow - a piece of technology or some achievement can be limited to a small subset of people, even one person, even if no-one in the setting thinks anything fantastic is going on. The word special refers to rarity, not necessarily impossibility.

So Tony Stark totally is doing things impossible in our reality, he's totally non-magical from the perpective of his reality, and his technology is totally reserved to him and few other genius inventors with deep wallets. But that last part is a manifestation of Clarke's Third Law: if someone in Stark's setting thinks his technology is fantastic, it's because Stark's tech is so far ahead the curve as to seem so from the perspective of the observer. Not because it's supernatural.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think the confusion is caused by your formulation of this part:

The underlined part doesn't really follow - a piece of technology or some achievement can be limited to a small subset of people, even one person, even if no-one in the setting thinks anything fantastic is going on. The word special refers to rarity, not necessarily impossibility.

So Tony Stark totally is doing things impossible in our reality, he's totally non-magical from the perpective of his reality, and his technology is totally reserved to him and few other genius inventors with deep wallets. But that last part is a manifestation of Clarke's Third Law: if someone in Stark's setting thinks his technology is fantastic, it's because Stark's tech is so far ahead the curve as to seem so from the perspective of the observer. Not because it's supernatural.

No matter how I word it someone gets confused as to what I mean, unless I write a damn treatise every time I post. And yet people want to give me grief when I wish language was more precise, and less mushy and overlapping and vague.


My point was that it's "magic" in the sense of "outside the realm of the normally possible in that reality". Of course, if I word it like that, then someone will chime in that because magic is part of that reality, it's perfectly normal in that reality, and we end up with a 15-page tangent of philosophical naval-gazing that ends up with some nimwit trying to prove that the world only exists in our imagination and that the chair holds you up because you believe in it or some nonsense.


I could just say that the fighter in that setting is tapping into the same forces as the spellcasters, just via different means, in order to do things that people normally can't do, but I've seen that blow up into a tangent too.

[Darth Ultron]

My point was that it's "magic" in the sense of "outside the realm of the normally possible in that reality"

Why must magic be outside reality? If magic does exist in reality...then it would be part of reality, correct?

[Cazero]

Which is quite frankly pure fiction -- there is no such thing in a fictional reality based even roughly on the human beings and the basic physics of our reality. In a world of 7+ billion people and remarkable training methods and massive investment, the limits of human performance are creeping upward by the tiniest increments as the most gifted, talented, and trained people in the world try to break them. The idea of someone "just training really hard" to run a sub-1.0 second 40 yard dash, or bench press tons, or perform a 300' standing vertical jump, is total fantasy.

Good thing my RPGs happen to be in a world of fantasy then. One where the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of the best athletes in the world are more than like 3.72% above the top 1% of the top 1%.
No matter how you look at it, some guy punching a hole in the kind of wall of stone you build to stop armies will be considered doing something impossible and fantastical by the standard of the game world. It doesn't mean it must require magic to do it. Case in point : [pick your non-magical monster with a huge STR score] does it just fine.

So, if you drop #2, then you have a different question: do you want to follow through with all that implies for the fictional setting you're building... which ends up looking noticeably different from the quasimedievel mashup of most D&D settings; or do you just want to ignore it and pretend that there's nothing ridiculous going on...

It implies exaclty one thing : individual entities too powerful to be handled by masses exists.
Ho, wait, that was already covered. Dragons, mad wizards, etc. I've just added "people so strong they don't need any magic to jump across cities or punch over mountains yet are still technicaly human" to the very long list, and it was probably already there a dozen times if you cross the "technicaly human" bit. I'm pretty sure that from a verisimilitude point of view, half that list would be more bothersome than "the Hulk but without the gamma rays part".

You're using a Guy at the Gym paradigm to measure power and claim that being too tall to ride would break the verisimilitude of the world.
But 1) I'm not seeing it, and
2) power (including ability to break world records) is covered by level, not by concept.
So if you want martial with 0% magic to be stuck to Guy at the Gym level, give them a low level cap in your games. Don't break their identity by forcing magic in it. Once that arbitrary level cap for "realistic worlds" is established, we can go back to fighters who are actualy epic and what they ought to be able to do by level 20 to not be turned into jokes by wizards of lower level.

[Max_Killjoy]

Good thing my RPGs happen to be in a world of fantasy then. One where the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of the best athletes in the world are more than like 3.72% above the top 1% of the top 1%.

Which implies that the limits of bone and muscle and sinew and metabolism are different in that world. Follow through in worldbuilding, or shrug and accept that the world is internally incoherent and inconsistent.

No matter how you look at it, some guy punching a hole in the kind of wall of stone you build to stop armies will be considered doing something impossible and fantastical by the standard of the game world.

Unless it's not -- a fictional world where that's within the range of normal human capacity is conceivable. The question is, if that is possible, how else does that change the fictional world?

It doesn't mean it must require magic to do it. Case in point : [pick your non-magical monster with a huge STR score] does it just fine.

Choices:
1) "Non-magical" beast is magical (in the broad sense) and tapping into the same forces that spellcasters tap into.
2) "Non-magical" beast is non-magical.

a) The "laws' of that fictional reality are different such that they allow for this -- follow through in worldbuilding.
b) "They just can do it", there's nothing deeper that actually explains it, and the fictional setting is incoherent.

It implies exaclty one thing : individual entities too powerful to be handled by masses exists.
Ho, wait, that was already covered. Dragons, mad wizards, etc. I've just added "people so strong they don't need any magic to jump across cities or punch over mountains yet are still technicaly human" to the very long list, and it was probably already there a dozen times if you cross the "technicaly human" bit. I'm pretty sure that grom a verisimilitude point of view, half that list would be more bothersome than "the Hulk but without the gamma rays part".

Dragons are magic.

Mad wizards are magic.

People who can leap over cities or punch mountains down are magic -- or if they're not, you've said something about your fictional world that you need to follow through with, unless you just want "rule of kewl" nonsense.

You're using a Guy at the Gym paradigm to measure power and claim that being too tall to ride would break the verisimilitude of the world.

Nope -- I'm saying you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not the limits that break verisimilitude, it's the contradictions and incoherences. If human limits with no magic are x in our world, and 10x in the fictional world, then you've said something about your fictional world, or you've accepted that your world just makes no sense and you're fine with that.

Note that I've never said "human limits must be real-world realistic in YOUR setting to maintain verisimilitude". I've said "If you change the limits, and don't want to sacrifice verisimilitude, here are your possible solutions".

But 1) I'm not seeing it, and
2) power (including ability to break world records) is covered by level, not by concept.
So if you want martial with 0% magic to be stuck to Guy at the Gym level, give them a low level cap in your games. Don't break their identity by forcing magic in it. Once that arbitrary level cap for "realistic worlds" is established, we can go back to fighters who are actualy epic and what they ought to be able to do by level 20 to not be turned into jokes by wizards of lower level.

First, you're assuming a level-based game. This isn't just about D&D-like games.

Second, this isn't about what I want, it's about laying out the inherent contradiction and the mutually exclusive nature of all these things people seem to want.

[Cazero]

Which implies that the limits of bone and muscle and sinew and metabolism are different in that world. Follow through in worldbuilding, or shrug and accept that the world is internally incoherent and inconsistent.




Unless it's not -- a fictional world where that's within the range of normal human capacity is conceivable. The question is, if that is possible, how else does that change the fictional world?




Choices:
1) "Non-magical" beast is magical (in the broad sense) and tapping into the same forces that spellcasters tap into.
2) "Non-magical" beast is non-magical.

a) The "laws' of that fictional reality are different such that they allow for this -- follow through in worldbuilding.
b) "They just can do it", there's nothing deeper that actually explains it, and the fictional setting is incoherent.

Dragons are magic.

Mad wizards are magic.

People who can leap over cities or punch mountains down are magic -- or if they're not, you've said something about your fictional world that you need to follow through with, unless you just want "rule of kewl" nonsense.




Nope -- I'm saying you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not the limits that break verisimilitude, it's the contradictions and incoherences. If human limits with no magic are x in our world, and 10x in the fictional world, then you've said something about your fictional world, or you've accepted that your world just makes no sense and you're fine with that.

Note that I've never said "human limits must be real-world realistic in YOUR setting to maintain verisimilitude". I've said "If you change the limits, and don't want to sacrifice verisimilitude, here are your possible solutions".




First, you're assuming a level-based game. This isn't just about D&D-like games.

Second, this isn't about what I want, it's about laying out the inherent contradiction and the mutually exclusive nature of all these things people seem to want.

Let's go with "metabolisms work differently" because we already need it for flying megafauna such as dragons, and no, dragons aren't magical as far as their physical capabilities are concerned.

You are asserting that this change (removing limits as we know them in the real world) will create contradictions and incoherences. To wich I answer that fantasy society at large won't be changed by that one superstrong human just existing, pretty much like I can't decide to get fit and break a world record or five.
Even ignoring natural talent (wich applies to physical traits as much as magical ones and can definitely disqualify most people from topping the charts from the get go), going beyond the norm takes time and effort. Going far beyond the norm require more time and more effort. There are many reasons why the vast majority of people aren't able to pull it off. Those who do pull it off are called "adventurers" and wether their exceptional power come from magic or training is pretty much irrelevant to the world at large. Considering the difference between trained and untrained is already huge in the real world, I conclude that the world-shattering consequences you expect simply won't happen.


There are effectively no difference between "Fighter pulling magic power from chi" and "Fighter who's just that strong" except for the core concept. In both cases, only a very few individual have the combination of natural talent, dedication and training to be truly beyond the norm. My beef is that core concept is a dealbreaker and you appear to be breaking the "just that strong" deal for no reason.



And that entire argument is beside the point anyway. When trying to reverse a "Magic vs Non-magic" paradigm, removing the non-magic side from existence doesn't really answer the question asked.

[Nargrakhan]

Here's a line item I saw on TV Tropes about Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards:

The problem with Pathfinder and 3.5 is that the lion's share of material is always biased towards caster classes. Here's an experiment anyone can do: even with just the core rulebook. Count how many pages are dedicated to abilities, feats, spells, and rules that a caster without a martial class has exclusive access to. Now count how many pages are dedicated to abilities, feats, and rules that a martial without a caster class has exclusive access to. With VERY few rare exception (i.e. a splat book devoted entirely to martial classes), the caster will have many times more pages of dedicated material than the martial. Now continue counting the pages across the entire Pathfinder and/or 3.5 library: casters have many hundreds more pages of "caster only" material, over the amount of "martial only" material.

5e spellcasters have an entire Chapter, page 201 through 289, devoted entirely to them in the Player's Handbook. That's 27% of the entire book. That's a HUGE chunk of exclusive content.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e spellcasters have an entire Chapter, page 201 through 289, devoted entirely to them in the Player's Handbook. That's 27% of the entire book. That's a HUGE chunk of exclusive content.

But in fairness, 5e suffers a lot less from caster vs martial due to other changes; also, anyone with a feat can get some spells; also only 6 subclasses (out of ~40) in the PHB don't get access to spells automatically--

* Berserker Barbarian
* Champion Fighter
* Battlemaster Fighter
* Open hand Monk
* Thief Rogue
* Assassin Rogue

Several don't use spell slots, sure:
* Totem Barbarians get one spell as a ritual
* Shadow Monks cast some spells as class features using Ki
* Four Element Monks cast some spells as class features using Ki

Every other subclass has access to spells (and spell slots) by level 3. Of the subclasses, the spell-casters break down as:

* Barbarian: 1 of 2, single spell access (so basically not a spellcaster)
* Bard: All are full-progression casters
* Cleric: All are full-progression casters
* Druid: All are full-progression casters
* Fighter: 2 non-casters, 1 1/3-caster (can cast up to level 4 spells, first spell at level 3)
* Monk: 1 non-caster, 2 special casters--basically fixed list spell points casters with very restricted lists. Explicitly magical throughout.
* Paladin: All 1/2 casters (cast up to 5th level spells, first spell at level 2)
* Ranger: All 1/2 casters (cast up to 5th level spells, first spell at level 2)
* Rogue: 2 non-casters, 1 1/3-caster (can cast up to level 4 spells, first spell at level 3)
* Sorcerer: All full-progression casters
* Warlock: All full-progression* casters (very strange casting that doesn't stack, but they cast 9th level spells and start at 1st level, so...)
* Wizard: All full-progression casters

That makes fully 1/2 of all base classes as full-progression casters, with another 2 half-casters and 2 1/3 casters. That makes only 2 classes (barbarian, monk) that can't get at least 1/3-progression, spell-slot casting that stacks with full casting for multi-classing spell-slot progression.

[Nargrakhan]

But in fairness, 5e suffers a lot less from caster vs martial due to other changes; also, anyone with a feat can get some spells; also only 6 subclasses (out of ~40) in the PHB don't get access to spells automatically--

{snip}

That makes fully 1/2 of all base classes as full-progression casters, with another 2 half-casters and 2 1/3 casters. That makes only 2 classes (barbarian, monk) that can't get at least 1/3-progression, spell-slot casting that stacks with full casting for multi-classing spell-slot progression.

True. And that's definitely a good design choice. However it also means that the answer to this topic -- changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm -- means making the mundane into casters.

Is that really the answer sought? The Player's Handbook has 362 spells. That's 362 options spell users have that non-spell users do not. Over a quarter of the book automatically "locked out" from the mundane. The most potent of these 362 options are locked to "full casters" and unavailable to the 1/2 and 1/3 casters -- either because they can't learn the spell or cast them at 6/7/8/9 spell slots.

If I take the Magic Initiate, I have a choice of 3 options from ONE class of either: 32 of the Bard, 22 of the Cleric, 24 of the Druid, 36 of the Sorcerer, 20 of the Warlock, or 46 of the Wizard spells. Granted there's a ton of overlap in the spell choices (particularly in the Sorcerer/Wizard list) and I can only pick one class list... but it's a lot of options gained if it's the variant human 1st level Feat. If I take the Martial Adept I have a choice of 2 options from 16 maneuvers. However this would assume Feats are allowed by the GM.

If the Battlemaster had 46 maneuvers to choose from, we'd probably be seeing hundreds of forum threads explaining how the Battlemaster is the most OP mundane class ever made. Mundanes lacking their own 88 pages of useful no spellcasters allowed content, is why mundanes automatically have the short end of the stick.

***EDIT***
Clarified you can only use one class' spell list.

[PhoenixPhyre]

True. And that's definitely a good design choice. However it also means that the answer to this topic -- changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm -- means making the mundane into casters.

Is that really the answer sought? The Player's Handbook has 362 spells. That's 362 options spell users have that non-spell users do not. Over a quarter of the book automatically "locked out" from the mundane. The most potent of these 362 options are locked to "full casters" and unavailable to the 1/2 and 1/3 casters -- either because they can't learn the spell or cast them at 6/7/8/9 spell slots.

If I take the Magic Initiate, I have a choice of 3 options from: 32 of the Bard, 22 of the Cleric, 24 of the Druid, 36 of the Sorcerer, 20 of the Warlock, or 46 of the Wizard spells. Granted there's a ton of overlap in the spell choices (particularly in the Sorcerer/Wizard list)... but it's a lot of options gained if it's the variant human 1st level Feat. If I take the Martial Adept I have a choice of 2 options from 16 maneuvers. However this would assume Feats are allowed by the GM.

If the Battlemaster had 46 maneuvers to choose from, we'd probably be seeing hundreds of forum threads explaining how the Battlemaster is the most OP mundane class ever made. Mundanes lacking their own 88 pages of useful no spellcasters allowed content, is why mundanes automatically have the short end of the stick.

Here's the big difference (on this front anyway) between 3e and 5e though--if you were to make a Tier list for 5e, you'd have a single tier. T3. Every class can contribute (in differing amounts) to all parts of the game.

*Skills are tied to proficiency (which increases automatically) as opposed to skill ranks makes it so anyone can contribute, even if not proficient.
*The concentration mechanic (most persistent spells require concentration, of which a given caster can only have one going at a time) drops the "build up buffs" routine to almost nothing.
*Casters (even 9th level ones) have many fewer slots, and spells are much less powerful. There are very very few SoD spells, and basically no guaranteed ways to alter caster level (save DCs, etc).
*Anyone can pick up ritual casting (giving most of the utility spells).
*Very few (if any) monsters require certain spells or abilities to defeat.
*No more christmas tree effect or system-required magical items means you're not shackled to a caster or magic mart.

For all of these reasons, you can have an all-martial party and do just fine. You can have an all wizard party, and do just about the same.

Yes, it means breaking down the barriers quite a lot, but IMX very few actual players have a strong dedication to being "mundane" (not magical). Some don't want the hassle, others may not want to cast spells as their major contribution, and they don't have to. The non-magical archetypes are within epsilon of the magical ones, and ahead in some areas.

The Caster vs mundane problem is pretty much exclusive to 3e D&D, due to the system and settings involved. It doesn't really apply with any significant force even to other editions, let alone other games entirely.

[lesser_minion]

Let's go with "metabolisms work differently" because we already need it for flying megafauna such as dragons, and no, dragons aren't magical as far as their physical capabilities are concerned.

There are many phenomena in D&D that are either explicitly or clearly magical despite not being affected by antimagic fields -- in fact, within seconds of that comic going up, it was argued that it violated the rules because forcecage itself is such an effect. Other examples include golems, shadowcasters, deities, and all artifacts.

There are effectively no difference between "Fighter pulling magic power from chi" and "Fighter who's just that strong" except for the core concept.

Your proposal multiplies setting elements, introduces a new strength requirement to the fighter concept that wasn't there before, and doesn't accomplish its own objectives.

1. A fighter is someone who fights and wins battles: it follows from this that they're intelligent, perceptive, and charismatic, since most battles aren't decided on the field. But it doesn't follow that they're strong, let alone super-strong.
2. In D&D, giving fighters super-strength doesn't particularly help with balance -- you can use it to hurt people, break things, and fly around/ overcome environmental obstacles, and if you want to hit them with your sword then it helps with that, but if your party already has a wizard and a cleric, then your only contribution is that they don't have to spend as many spell slots on those things.
3. Your strength is ultimately limited by the strength of things in your environment such as whatever you're standing on or trying to lift, which means that super-strength isn't very useful unless you can will things in your environment to become super-strong themselves, which is definitely not something a strictly non-magical character should be doing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Let's go with "metabolisms work differently" because we already need it for flying megafauna such as dragons, and no, dragons aren't magical as far as their physical capabilities are concerned.

They need to be, unless you want to diverge your setting's basic "physical laws" to allow for those capabilities.

You are asserting that this change (removing limits as we know them in the real world) will create contradictions and incoherences. To wich I answer that fantasy society at large won't be changed by that one superstrong human just existing, pretty much like I can't decide to get fit and break a world record or five.

It does change the world, because in order to allow for your ultrafit "fighter" to leap 50' or crush boulders with his punches, while being completely "not-magical" / "mundane" / "pick your term that doesn't start another 20-page tangent", you have to make a lot of basic facts of the fictional world different as well. More on this below.

Even ignoring natural talent (wich applies to physical traits as much as magical ones and can definitely disqualify most people from topping the charts from the get go), going beyond the norm takes time and effort. Going far beyond the norm require more time and more effort. There are many reasons why the vast majority of people aren't able to pull it off. Those who do pull it off are called "adventurers" and wether their exceptional power come from magic or training is pretty much irrelevant to the world at large. Considering the difference between trained and untrained is already huge in the real world, I conclude that the world-shattering consequences you expect simply won't happen.

Actually, in the context of these capabilities you want to chalk up to "just trained really hard", the difference between trained and untrained isn't that big in the real world, and that's part of the problem with the "just trained really hard" fallacy. Consider for example the 40-yard dash, which we get a lot of numbers for every year because it's a metric used a lot in American football player evaluation. The record for an NFL pro prospect is 4.22 seconds, while offensive lineman (typically the biggest players) average around 5.35 seconds. Rich Eisen, a commentator for the NFL network and not a former pro athlete, has run the 40 at the end of the combine for charity for several years, and once ran a sub-6-second time wearing a suit and tie. So here you have the fastest players in the world running a time that's only 30% less than a guy who sits at a desk for a living and was wearing a suit and tie.

So if your peak physical "fighters" are performing all these increadible feats of strength and speed and endurance that are impossible for peak physical performers in our world, then you've moved the overall scale up for everyone who isn't at peak as well, and the gap isn't that huge. If your "fighters" are leaping 50', then we'd expect your average peasant or laborer who does hard work for a living every day to leap say 25'. That certainly has some implications for your setting that might need to be followed through on. Even 15' would have major implications. Same for endurance, carrying capacity, etc.

If the average porter can run for hours carrying 500 pounds, you may have just put a lot of your donkeys and cart-drivers out of business.

There are effectively no difference between "Fighter pulling magic power from chi" and "Fighter who's just that strong" except for the core concept. In both cases, only a very few individual have the combination of natural talent, dedication and training to be truly beyond the norm. My beef is that core concept is a dealbreaker and you appear to be breaking the "just that strong" deal for no reason.

Oh, there's a major difference -- "Fighter pulling magic power from chi" versus "Fighter who's just that strong" tell us two very different things about your fictional setting.

Nothing exists in isolation.

And that entire argument is beside the point anyway. When trying to reverse a "Magic vs Non-magic" paradigm, removing the non-magic side from existence doesn't really answer the question asked.

No, it is in fact one solution -- if you look at the thread title, it's not "magic vs non-magic", it's "caster beats mundane", that is, "caster vs non-caster". One solution to the divide that exists in some systems between casters and non-casters is to remove the notion that only casters are "using magic", and open up non-casting magic to other sorts of characters, allowing for remarkable fantastic capabilities without causing a cascade of worldbuilding implications.

It's part of a much bigger breakdown of options on how to handle the issue. Not sure if you were reading the thread when I posted the entire list of options earlier, but here it is:

Spoiler

Show

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

Something has to give.

You can have those "not magical" characters, and spellcasters who are balanced (downward from 3.5e levels) to be viable in the same game, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.

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

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

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

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

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

Something has to be sacrificed.


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

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

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

[Tanarii]

I think in general *Spellcasting* is a scientific process and a known quantity. Understanding the arts behind invoking magic is definitely something mortals apply scientific principles to doing.

That doesn't mean magic, the subject of spellcasting, is now a scientific field. That will still depend on your campaign setting.

Not sure why you would think spellcasting is a scientific process and a known quantity, nor something that scientific pricing less can be applied to.

Just because the meta-rules for casting in a system are codified for our ease of resolution doesn't mean that how there have to be underlying rules that can be empirally tested for results by characters in-game.

[Milo v3]

Why must magic be outside reality? If magic does exist in reality...then it would be part of reality, correct?

This is an issue I have with a lot of settings. Why are you calling something magic if you can do it! It's not supernatural if it's a normal part of that worlds physics.

[LibraryOgre]

Not sure why you would think spellcasting is a scientific process and a known quantity, nor something that scientific pricing less can be applied to.

Just because the meta-rules for casting in a system are codified for our ease of resolution doesn't mean that how there have to be underlying rules that can be empirally tested for results by characters in-game.

Bu the very nature of wizard magic says that it is true.

If I take a spellbook from Wizard A and give it to Wizard B, Wizard B can usually learn and replicate the effects that Wizard A achieves using that spellbook. If I teach 10 wizards a spell from the same spellbook, giving them each a perfect copy for their own use, they'll be able to memorize/prepare that spell from exactly the same recipe, and probably make similar adjustments at the time of preparation/casting, depending on reigning environmental phenomenon.

That's really the core of a technology... reproducible results using the same techniques. The core of science is the reproducibility of experiments, and so long as one wizard can learn a spell from another wizard, so long as someone with Spellcraft can identify a spell as its being cast from its components, then you've got a technology.