Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

[Anymage]

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.

Think of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, or pretty much any other famous scientist who's still with us. Now think of some hobo with a gun. The scientist is absolutely still getting mugged.

If you want to get close to real-life scientists, fine. Casters have very little personal mojo, but can cause dramatically interesting effects through labwork. (Including, but not limited to, making magic items.) The guy who can pull off some astounding feats through plenty of downtime and spent cash is hard to balance against the guy who can do something cool right this instant, because you can never tell precisely how much money or downtime a specific campaign will offer. There's still plenty of reason to be the sword guy who doesn't need as much buildup.

[Calthropstu]

Think of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, or pretty much any other famous scientist who's still with us. Now think of some hobo with a gun. The scientist is absolutely still getting mugged.

If you want to get close to real-life scientists, fine. Casters have very little personal mojo, but can cause dramatically interesting effects through labwork. (Including, but not limited to, making magic items.) The guy who can pull off some astounding feats through plenty of downtime and spent cash is hard to balance against the guy who can do something cool right this instant, because you can never tell precisely how much money or downtime a specific campaign will offer. There's still plenty of reason to be the sword guy who doesn't need as much buildup.

See, now this I have no problem at all with. If magic had little in the way of battle application, but huge gains in other ways that would be different. But if magic becomes practical for in person battle, if it's not better than swinging a sword and carrying a shield, wth is the point? Pay a soldier to protect you would be far more cost effective so you could direct your studies elsewhere for more practical purposes a la developing nukes.

Why on earth would a militia pay any more to a battle wizard than a sword swinger if they are relatively equal in power? And if there isn't more to be had, why specialize in something that is as useful as swinging a sword.

Either magic is more capable in battle, or it isn't used in battle. I see little in between.

[Tanarii]

Either magic is more capable in battle, or it isn't used in battle. I see little in between.

Capable doesn't have to mean always superior. That holds true for non-magical solutions too. Sometimes a Heavy Crossbow is a better solution than a Longsword and Shield, and sometimes it's the other way around.

Magic doesn't have to be a Modern Machine Gun to the enemies wooden spears. It can be Artillery (magic) and Tanks (mundane).

[Cosi]

Why on earth would a militia pay any more to a battle wizard than a sword swinger if they are relatively equal in power? And if there isn't more to be had, why specialize in something that is as useful as swinging a sword.

Specializing in swinging a sword is specializing in something that is as useful as swinging as sword. At least, I should hope it is.

You're asking "if A isn't better than B, why would I pay more for A" without first establishing that A should cost more (or for that matter, that it even does).

[lesser_minion]

Why on earth would a militia pay any more to a battle wizard than a sword swinger if they are relatively equal in power? And if there isn't more to be had, why specialize in something that is as useful as swinging a sword.

Either magic is more capable in battle, or it isn't used in battle. I see little in between.

An army with access to working magic will typically be more effective than one without. Imagine all the delicious stuff you can do with an illusionist on your side, for example. And don't forget the "force in being" principle, either. If the enemy is constantly on guard for what your wizards might try to do to him, he's already far less effective even before your wizards have done anything to him.

[Anymage]

There are ways to resolve the caster/noncaster disparity in combat. Two off the top of my head are the wargaming style where the artillery needs front lines to be used effectively, and the 4e style where crowd control, DPS, and tank are all distinct jobs.

The real problem in D&D and most other systems inspired by it is the fundamental difference between caster powers and noncaster powers outside of combat, though. Noncaster powers are usually vague, scale poorly, rarely see sufficient expansion, and often rely on GM adjudication which often does assume a baseline of "some guy with a pointy stick". (3.x's skills being one example; slow innate scaling, few new skills added over the life of the expansion, intrinsically limited number of skill points, and good luck hitting impressive DCs without a magic assist. AD&D's proficiencies worked on basically a straight roll against your base stat, gave few clarifications about the breadth of their use, and while more were added over the life of the product, proficiency slots were never increased to encourage more niche picks.) Casters, meanwhile, picked up explicit and impressive powers throughout their career. They also overwhelmingly continued to gain new abilities as the game progressed. (Sorcerers could commiserate with noncasters about having a limited number of slots for an increasing number of potential powers. Wizards, meanwhile, just had to spend a bit more gold on top picks. Clerics and druids just happily got more whenever someone bought a new book.)

I don't just want Conan to be able to eventually beat up Thulsa Doom. I want the knight-captain of the realm or Sherlock Holmes to have a role, instead of some caster being able to find some way to do the same or better by just casting a couple of spells. That's where "warps reality with a thought vs. guy with a pointy stick" really rears its head, and needs to be stomped down hard.

[Talakeal]

See, now this I have no problem at all with. If magic had little in the way of battle application, but huge gains in other ways that would be different. But if magic becomes practical for in person battle, if it's not better than swinging a sword and carrying a shield, wth is the point? Pay a soldier to protect you would be far more cost effective so you could direct your studies elsewhere for more practical purposes a la developing nukes.

Why on earth would a militia pay any more to a battle wizard than a sword swinger if they are relatively equal in power? And if there isn't more to be had, why specialize in something that is as useful as swinging a sword.

Either magic is more capable in battle, or it isn't used in battle. I see little in between.

Things can be different without being better. If a balanced army with a mix of mages and martials is best then they both have their uses, and if one is rarer than the other they will receive more pay even if they are individual no more useful than the other.

For example, a real army needs all sorts of support rolls, mechanics, medics, radio operators, even cooks and janitors. None of these people kick as much but as soldiers, but they are still needed to win the war, and if it is an obscure field or requires a fancy degree they will still be paid more than the grunts.

[Calthropstu]

Things can be different without being better. If a balanced army with a mix of mages and martials is best then they both have their uses, and if one is rarer than the other they will receive more pay even if they are individual no more useful than the other.

For example, a real army needs all sorts of support rolls, mechanics, medics, radio operators, even cooks and janitors. None of these people kick as much but as soldiers, but they are still needed to win the war, and if it is an obscure field or requires a fancy degree they will still be paid more than the grunts.

In a modern military, all of those people you just mentioned? They are also "Guy with gun." All of those people are also soldiers, from the nuclear technician to the janitors. Even while deployed, the electronics technician is still the electronics technician... he also happens to be inside a dugout pointing his rifle ready to shoot anything that moves. So poor analogy I suppose.

[Pex]

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.

Depends on what the vulnerabilities are. Any vulnerability of percentage chance to die is not balance. A vulnerability of percentage chance to go insane is not balance. A vulnerability of screwing over the character for doing what it's supposed to do is not balance.

[Talakeal]

In a modern military, all of those people you just mentioned? They are also "Guy with gun." All of those people are also soldiers, from the nuclear technician to the janitors. Even while deployed, the electronics technician is still the electronics technician... he also happens to be inside a dugout pointing his rifle ready to shoot anything that moves. So poor analogy I suppose.

So you are honestly saying that every person in the armed forces is equally good at combat?

The techie who sits in a bunker in Nebraska keeping the missile silo in order would be just as effective on a highly lethal midnight raid on a heavilly guarded enemy compound as a member of Seal Time Six?

[Max_Killjoy]

In a modern military, all of those people you just mentioned? They are also "Guy with gun." All of those people are also soldiers, from the nuclear technician to the janitors. Even while deployed, the electronics technician is still the electronics technician... he also happens to be inside a dugout pointing his rifle ready to shoot anything that moves. So poor analogy I suppose.

Depends on the service in question -- the US Marines are far more dedicated to the "every Marine a rifleman" creed than the other US services. If you're a computer technician in the USAF, you're VERY unlikely to ever see combat even in a way zone, and if you're one in the US Army, odds are still pretty slim even in a war zone.

[Cluedrew]

To Cosi: You know, thinking back to earlier rounds of this topic, I sometimes have felt you have slipped from "I like casters better" to "I think casters should just be better no questions asked" and that may have tinted my opinion of you. I feel a sudden urge to apologize for that.

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.

Great, the big example. Follow up questions:

• How does it work?
• What is the fallout of Allomancy and the other supernatural parts of the story?
• Are there any times you felt he slipped up?

[Tanarii]

Depends on what the vulnerabilities are. Any vulnerability of percentage chance to die is not balance. A vulnerability of percentage chance to go insane is not balance. A vulnerability of screwing over the character for doing what it's supposed to do is not balance.

I very intentionally didn't use the word balance, because too many people think as you do. You're wrong, but only because what you actually mean is: X is not a fun way to balance. Restated that way it's a personal opinion, and one am fine with.

The specific vulnerabilities in question were, however, balancing factors, using the term traditionally and not in common gamer jargon. And those factors counter-balanced the raw offensive power. There's a reason the term glass cannon is commonly used.

[Cluedrew]

One thing that can lead to that not being a balancing factor is a "restart loop" where a character burns twice as bright for half as long and the player then restarts with a new character. In the end being twice as bright as the players who (for some reason) act like their character's don't want to die.

But for the most part yes, it is not so much a matter of it doesn't fix the problem as it introduces other problems.

[Tanarii]

One thing that can lead to that not being a balancing factor is a "restart loop" where a character burns twice as bright for half as long and the player then restarts with a new character.

More a balancing factor for the balancing factor. So to speak.

And it depends how it works. If we're letting someone bring in a new character at power (or character) level N, which is the same one they left at, then it's not a balancing factor at all in long term. Only in the specific battle/adventure in which they are removed.

OTOH if you're having to start over again a level 1 each time while the other player continues to gain levels that adds a whole new thing. Of course with exponential XP curve where it's possible to go from 1 to N in the time the other guy goes from N to N+1, and when the 1-->N guy is getting help from the N-->N+1 guy the entire time, it's a complicated thing.

[Duff]

1) Magic is extremely limited. Generally, magic can only duplicate mundane feats. So you can hit me with a bolt of force, but it won't be any more damaging than an arrow. You can use magic to help you jump, but no more than the best Olympic jumper (perhaps there are diminishing returns as you get to higher "jump checks", for lack of a better term again). Could still run into the problems above when your caster can shoot as well as the best archer, jump as well as the best jumper, etc. when mundanes must specialize to achieve the same thing. Either that, or magic is so limited that it's basically a false choice; it doesn't matter if you can jump well because magic or because you trained yourself to do it physically, it takes the same amount of effort and training time and gives the same result. Neither case is particularly appealing to me.

This is kind of like 4th ed D&D (aside from rituals) - Aesthetically displeasing because whats the point of having magic in the game? May as well just have abilities and it's up to the player to explain (or not bother) whether it's magic or skill

2) Magic is limited not in effect, but in use. Either in how often it is used, or with some kind of associated, permanent cost. Maybe you can cast your big spell, but it will drain some of your life force which you cannot recover (or can only recover very, very slowly). It would be as if every single spell had an XP cost. Might be an interesting paradigm to try; casters would necessarily limit their casting or fall well behind in level. Perhaps this could be made to work with a system similar to 3.5 where they naturally get more xp if they're behind the party, not putting them permanently behind the level track of everyone else assuming they keep their casting reasonable. Alternatively, although in many ways I hate Vancian casting, what if you had a certain number of spell levels to cast from, generally equal or only slightly more than your highest spell level, but must wait some amount of time before using them again? So your wizard is capable of doing things that the mundane simply cannot, such as suddenly being able to fly, but then is out of magic completely for hours or days and is simply a particularly squishy and unskilled stick-wielder. I think it could be an interesting concept, but there are several reasons why permanent costs for magic don't lend themselves that well to roleplaying games and in either case would probably just exacerbate the "fifteen minute adventuring day" syndrome. Which is largely another discussion, and not wholly related to how magic works.

The trick with this one is to have your spell slinger still relevant when they're out of magic/on cooldown/the situation doesn't rate use of limited resources.
Weather you do that by giving them enough from option 1 or something else is a flavour choice. Maybe instead of waking the monster with her stick, the mage shoots magic bolts which aren't as good as the archer.
Or the mage's bolts are as good as the archer and the GM makes sure that everyone gets time in the limelight - the mage gets their moment when they have a reason to use the precious resource, the priest gets a divine intervention, the rogue picks the lock, the bard talks the townsfolk into helping, the warrior ... is often harder to give the limelight too.

3) Magic is unreliable. Either in effect or in usability. Perhaps every spell has a failure chance; or perhaps every spell has a chance to operate at reduced effect or even backfire. But this seems overly RNG-dependent in many ways, and again, works better for writing a story than playing a game. "Roll a die to see if your character can be effective this round" doesn't strike me as particularly good game design. One could argue that martials work that way with attack rolls, but the fighter with a greatsword (even moreso the fighter with a glaive and combat reflexes) will still restrict enemy movement and act as a damage sink, something that casters are generally bad at (short of spells). Seems tough to fine-tune so that it's not just a formality that's easily bypassed or something that makes casters basically unusable. But then again... "roll to see if you can do X" is basically the core mechanic of D&D, and most (if not all) dice based RPGs. So maybe there is something to this.

Roll to see if you succeed is part of most RPGs. The biggest problem with a high chance of failing is it make the plot less predictable for the GM. GMs will need to make sure that each problem can be solved interestingly or quickly both with and without magic. If the fly the party up the cliff spell succeeds, any effort to make the climb interesting is wasted. If the "Banish BBEG" spell works, the climax of the adventure is anticlimactic.
Less of a problem if the party have some sort of fate points to make the unlikely come off if really needed.

4) Boost mundanes instead of nerfing casters. "You can raise up a wall of stone from the ground? That's cool. I can punch the ground and make the same thing happen." Mundanes can do similar things as casters, if not the same things, but via non-magical means. I'm particularly thinking some of the extraordinary abilities that Monks can get in Pathfinder (though the fluff of several of those is still fairly magical in nature) or some of the Mythic abilities. You're breaking out of what is humanly possible, to what is superhumanly possible. I kind of like this, and I believe high-level D&D makes a lot more sense if you think of ~level 5 as the max for "normal" human beings, but it kind of runs afoul of the same issues as 1. Namely, it restricts the type of story you can tell with your game (arguably true of any system) and it possibly makes the choice moot by rendering mundane and martial equivalent.

This is actually a better description of what 4th ed does, and does well. Also Feng Shui. Makes for a more cinematic style game, but effectively everyone's magic - Do you want magic to be special? If the answer for the game you're running is "Yes", this is not the answer you're looking for. Move along.

5) Hyper-specialized casters. Perhaps, using magic, you can learn nifty tricks that no one without magic can replicate. Sure, you can learn to teleport, which no one without magic can replicate--but in that time the fighter has learned a whole repertoire of tricks. I kind of like this as well, as it encourages mixing the two approaches. If the mundanes are the generalists, capable of responding to a wide variety of situations, it encourages the caster to have their one or two tricks, but also train mundane skills to cover other options. Likewise, perhaps mundanes can dabble a bit to get small skills in magic, or simply continue to improve a wider variety of abilities. It'd require some pretty tight balancing, but I think it could work.

I share your interest. Haven't seen it done better than the ancient "Dragonquest" game. Each individual spell required work. Tended to encourage most if not all characters to have some magic to cover a range of situations. Some were more magic oriented than others. In that system, each type of magic was quite limited (about 20 spells total) as well as each spell needing work

6) Magic is just better, change the "one character" paradigm. I've never played Ars Magicka (sp?), but I've read the book and if I recall correctly this is how they do it. Everyone controls one magic user, plus a handful of mundanes. Sure, the magic users are simply better... but the mundanes still fill their roles, and no one's left out in terms of power level because everyone switches between controlling their casters and their non-casters, depending on the situation. Again, I haven't played it to see how it works in practice, but I like the idea in theory.

Works well in practice with the right group. Lots of room for everyone to have their "Thing". Also benefits from either some solo sessions/online play or a GM who can make solo scenes fun to watch

[Pex]

I very intentionally didn't use the word balance, because too many people think as you do. You're wrong, but only because what you actually mean is: X is not a fun way to balance. Restated that way it's a personal opinion, and one am fine with.

The specific vulnerabilities in question were, however, balancing factors, using the term traditionally and not in common gamer jargon. And those factors counter-balanced the raw offensive power. There's a reason the term glass cannon is commonly used.

By that logic everything is acceptable because it's fun for someone. There has to be some standard. Things that were done in the past are not automatically wrong nor automatically right. If they were wrong they should not come back because what replaced them didn't work either. They remain wrong.

[Cluedrew]

the mage gets their moment when they have a reason to use the precious resource, the priest gets a divine intervention, the rogue picks the lock, the bard talks the townsfolk into helping, the warrior ... is often harder to give the limelight too.

It is trivially easy, if there is "the warrior" in the party and not "everyone is a warrior, but this one guy, this one guy is only a warrior".

My single most glorious moment in any campaign was: the party is being chased by monsters, and we are trying to make our way to the plane. My character, realizing that although we might make it to the plane in time there is no way we would be able to take off in time, stops, turns around and draws her weapons. As the only warrior in the group, she was able to fend off the monsters from reaching the rest of the party who would not be able to survive fighting them directly.

Of course, I don't think they are every going to be making the fighter flat out better at combat than the other classes in D&D. But in less combat focused games, I fully recommend it.

To Pex: I don't follow. Could you break the point, and its relation to Tanarii's comment, down in more detail?

[Duff]

Other options would be:
a - Have some problem types which mages can deal with better while in other areas they are worse than mundanes. Magic techniques counter magical problems.
For example, a mage can learn a lock picking spell. It would be a good idea if the mage lacks the manual dexterity to learn lock picking, but someone with any sort of natural ability (appropriate stats) could easily be more effective at undoing locks than the mage with spell. OTOH, the rogue will struggle (or be unable to) open the magically locked door while the mage can. The mage can hide from magical scrying but the scout can hide from a sentry looking around. The mage's spells are good against spirits but less so against mundane threats. Or for an amusing twist, the best counter to a magical problem is mundane technique while the best counter to mundane situation is magical methods.

b - Magic ability adds to mundane, not replaces.
So the mage with a sneaking spell is harder to find if they also have stealth. Magic might conjure a magic spear, but the mage still needs to throw it. Makes a focused Gish the most specialised character. Differs from option 1 in the OP in that magic is clearly different to mundane because it stacks with mundane skill.

c- make spells very specific but powerful. Magic missile spell which will only hit an opponent who is 25 meters away. Spell of hiding scent from dogs. Unlock locks made of brass. Tweak the specificity up or down along with the access to spells to suit flavour and balance. This is another one where you should consider what the mage will do when they don't have the right spell for the job:
Do they have some magical talents which are more versatile such as a fall back "Mages arrow" which would be less effective than a capable archer but not a waste of time.
Do you make available some spells which will specifically affect other party members? For this one, when the mage can't cast "Set goblins on fire" because you are fighting kobolds, he can cast "Make human warrior fly" to move the fighter around the battlefield or "Guide the rogues dagger"

d- Make magic more effective as a boost than an effect. Turn the mage into a buffer. Rogue backed by mage is sneakier than rogue or mage alone. Weather the mage can self buff or not being a flavour choice.

[Pex]

To Pex: I don't follow. Could you break the point, and its relation to Tanarii's comment, down in more detail?

Tanarii's point is limitations that were placed on spellcasters in earlier editions of D&D were taken away giving us the situation we're in. My point is taking away those limitations is not a bad thing because those limitations were bad to have in the first place.

That is not the same thing as saying there should be no limitations at all to give spellcasters absolute power. The limitations I object to are those that make the spellcaster The Suck for doing what it's supposed to do, namely cast a spell.

Edit: I equally apply the same standard for warriors. I do hate it that 3E/Pathfinder/5E berserker barbarians becomes fatigue after a rage. I also hate when 3E/Pathfinder barbarians end their rage and their CO returns to normal they lose the hit points from their current total and could actually die. I was happy Pathfinder offered an alternative to give them a temporary hit point bonus when raging.

[Calthropstu]

Depends on the service in question -- the US Marines are far more dedicated to the "every Marine a rifleman" creed than the other US services. If you're a computer technician in the USAF, you're VERY unlikely to ever see combat even in a way zone, and if you're one in the US Army, odds are still pretty slim even in a war zone.

Maybe, maybe not. But every person is combat trained regardless, and has to maintain a set standard. As an ET in the navy, I still had to stand watch, guarding the bridge just like anyone else. Yeah, there are higher standard soldiers such as the master at arms or the elite seal teams, but everyone in the military, from the lowest deck swabbing seaman to the seal teams and delta force is trained to kill people. We all had to stand watch, we all had to maintain a high level of preparedness, and whether an attack was likely or not, we were still prepared for one if it came.
Also, to be fair... we did see "combat" on a fairly regular basis. Drunken sailors tend to get into fights. Go figure.

[Arbane]

You are complaining that magic users are doing so many things that fighters can't...
THAT IS MAGIC'S VERY DEFINITION. Wielding magic should be more powerful, because it is literally things no one else can do.

The problem being when magic ALSO does everything the snivelling peasants non-magicians _can_ do.

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.

Circular reasoning. Wizzards must be the best because Wizzards have always been the best.

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.

Dood, people study magic in THIS world, and it doesn't even seem to give level 2 spells here.

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.

Are you seriously arguing, with a straight face, that there isn't/shouldn't be a qualitative difference between a level 3 Fighter and a level 20 one?
Welp, there's your problem. Part of it, anyway.

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.

Works for me. But some people seem to have a lot of personal baggage checked on the Fighters MUST BE NONMAGICAL train.

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.

Also, casting a spell in combat is a good way to get killed - IIRC, Sorcerers can't use defense Charms while casting spells.

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".

I'm OK with the Wuxia stuff, but... that's STILL not ludicrously overpowered enough to keep up with high-level D&D spells.

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.

D&D Wizards DO NOT 'Bend reality to their whim', that's Mage: the Ascension. D&D spellcasters laboriously memorize pre-existing formulae to produce a relatively small number of pre-set effects.

[Lord Raziere]

D&D Wizards DO NOT 'Bend reality to their whim', that's Mage: the Ascension. D&D spellcasters laboriously memorize pre-existing formulae to produce a relatively small number of pre-set effects.

Technically Mage: The Ascension is BETTER about this issue because there is a tradition to be a fighter who bends reality by punching it. Akashic Brotherhood laughs at peoples presumptions.

now sure, one can argue that everyone is a mage in Mage the Ascension. but the entire point of mage the ascension is that its all subjective. there is after all five factions who completely deny that magic even exists, call themselves enlightened and their powers nothing but really powerful science. these factions are the people who rule the world and therefore are the ones who get to say whether their power is magic or not. so, who is really correct about whether their powers are magic or not? according to the consensus of the setting, its not magic, even though its the same underlying force at work.

If a gritty horror game set in the modern day can have reality-bending martials, really DnD has no excuse.

[Tanarii]

By that logic everything is acceptable because it's fun for someone. There has to be some standard. Things that were done in the past are not automatically wrong nor automatically right. If they were wrong they should not come back because what replaced them didn't work either. They remain wrong.

Thats right, it is acceptable because it's fun for quite a lot of people. It's not wrong. The way old editions of D&D did things were fun for a lot of people. Still are for that matter, lots of people still play them. And lots of other systems still do them similarly, and people still have fun playing those.

However, I don't think it's common enough fun for enough people, that current main stream RPGs, like the current editions of D&D, should go back to it.

[Calthropstu]

Thats right, it is acceptable because it's fun for quite a lot of people. It's not wrong. The way old editions of D&D did things were fun for a lot of people. Still are for that matter, lots of people still play them. And lots of other systems still do them similarly, and people still have fun playing those.

However, I don't think it's common enough fun for enough people, that current main stream RPGs, like the current editions of D&D, should go back to it.

Pathfinder DID go back to it, and supplanted D&D as the most popular rpg in the process. So clearly there is definitely something quite popular about it.
If you think there's something better, by all means play it. If you think you can build something better, by all means build it.
But the tens of thousands of us who enjoy it will continue to do so.

[Mutazoia]

An army with access to working magic will typically be more effective than one without. Imagine all the delicious stuff you can do with an illusionist on your side, for example. And don't forget the "force in being" principle, either. If the enemy is constantly on guard for what your wizards might try to do to him, he's already far less effective even before your wizards have done anything to him.

And this sums up the entire issue in a nutshell. When one caster can effectively counter a large group of "mundane" soldiers, with little to no effort and/or personal risk, there is an issue.

[Frozen_Feet]

Either magic is more capable in battle, or it isn't used in battle. I see little in between.

How did you miss the obvious in-between of "magic is as good as, and is paid the same, and is used alongside of, other weapons"?

Sheesh.

In a modern military, all of those people you just mentioned? They are also "Guy with gun." All of those people are also soldiers, from the nuclear technician to the janitors. Even while deployed, the electronics technician is still the electronics technician... he also happens to be inside a dugout pointing his rifle ready to shoot anything that moves. So poor analogy I suppose.

No, it's a great analogy.

If magic is usefull for some supplementary role in war, you can expect all magicians employed in war to have basic warrior training. Hence, Fighter-Magic-users.

By contrast, if magic is usefull as weapon, you will see warriors train with basic of weaponizable magic, even if it will not be their primary weapon. Just like a tank driver will train in using a rifle alongside their vehicle, and a infantry will learn to use grenades, pistols, knives, bayonettes and machineguns alongside an assault rifle.

[lesser_minion]

And this sums up the entire issue in a nutshell. When one caster can effectively counter a large group of "mundane" soldiers, with little to no effort and/or personal risk, there is an issue.

It does.

One would expect a fighter of the same level to have a similar effect on an enemy army -- it's just that the nature of the threat they pose is different. But that hinges on them having relevant out-of-combat utility.

I've said it before: the problem with fighters is that people make stipulations about what they should or shouldn't be able to do, that don't flow from the concept. That happens because there are lots of incredibly specialised non-casters, and people complain when there's any significant overlap. Ultimately, the entire 'mundane' concept in D&D needs to be re-examined, and it's not just about balance.

[Mutazoia]

One would assume that a fighter of the same level would have a similar effect, it's just that the nature of the threat they pose is different.

A fighter of the same level? A low level illusionist can stall, or even kill, a fairly large number of mundane soldiers. A low level fighter would get mobbed and cut to ribbons long before he was pretty effective. At higher levels, a high level illusionist could wipe out an entire army in a round or two, the fighter still has to wade in swinging his stick. Even with a feat like "Great Cleave", he's still going to have to be on the front line, while mr illusionist can sit in a tent, safely behind the lines and cast at leisure.

[lesser_minion]

A fighter of the same level? A low level illusionist can stall, or even kill, a fairly large number of mundane soldiers. A low level fighter would get mobbed and cut to ribbons long before he was pretty effective. At higher levels, a high level illusionist could wipe out an entire army in a round or two, the fighter still has to wade in swinging his stick. Even with a feat like "Great Cleave", he's still going to have to be on the front line, while mr illusionist can sit in a tent, safely behind the lines and cast at leisure.

I said more about it in my edit to the post you quoted, but I was generally assuming that this was low-mid level stuff.