What exactly is the "guy at the gym fallacy"?

[PhoenixPhyre]

One of the constraints of a real falling system, is that enduring a challenging-but-routinely-survived fall is that a lot of it is going to depend on a lot of very specific environmental factors (such as what kind of surface they're falling upon) which probably requires a lot more world-modelling than that DM had planned for encounter X ("okay, so I fall off the Pegasus at 30' up, exactly what am I over?" "I don't know, the ground?" "well, you said we're in 'grassy hills' terrain, does that mean I'm over thick grass, bare earth, rock?" "um... tell you what, let me roll randomly for that." "how is that better than rolling random fall damage, which was what we were going to do anyways?").

Also, while D&D falling damage is pretty bizarre, so are some of the falls (60' pit traps in expensive-to-excavate subterranean lairs?). So, if you were to change the falling damage, you'd then have to go back to the dungeon design and decide 'okay, was this really a 60' fall, or was it a 6d6 fall (which happened to be 60' because of the baseline rules)?'

Agreed. Even figuring out how fast a real object is going when it hits (not in physics utopia where everything is spherical and moving in a vacuum) is decidedly non-trivial, especially when different orientations make large differences in terminal speed. And then getting from energetics/momentum (the output of the previous step) to damage is decidedly non-trivial and fraught with assumptions and approximations.

No, damage doesn't scale quadratically. Velocity doesn't scale quadratically either. It's horrifically complicated, too complicated to be done at the table. So having a simple, cut-and-dried rule is useful even if it's inaccurate.

[Kyutaru]

Agreed. Even figuring out how fast a real object is going when it hits (not in physics utopia where everything is spherical and moving in a vacuum) is decidedly non-trivial, especially when different orientations make large differences in terminal speed. And then getting from energetics/momentum (the output of the previous step) to damage is decidedly non-trivial and fraught with assumptions and approximations.

No, damage doesn't scale quadratically. Velocity doesn't scale quadratically either. It's horrifically complicated, too complicated to be done at the table. So having a simple, cut-and-dried rule is useful even if it's inaccurate.

The best part is that there are only two possible results of falling damage. Instant death or you get back up and walk it off. No broken femurs, no shattered spine, no extensive plastic surgery, no regeneration spells. Usually a fall isn't what kills you. It's the internal bleeding or crushed ribcage. Neck breaks are rare.

[Max_Killjoy]

It certainly is extraordinary. But it’s either not magic, or the term lacks meaning beyond “we’ll beyond median expectations.” In 3e terms, it wouldn’t be magic because it doesn’t shut down in an AMF. There also is no “magical point” at which they obviously change from “mundane” to “magical.”

It really does come to the question of just how fast a “super speedster” has to be able to run for it to qualify as a superpower. Usaine Bolt is an Olympian. If he keeps breaking his own record every other week, finishing the same race a tenth of a second faster each time, when does he become “magic” rather than merely “constantly improving?”

There is no answer, because if he can do it, it’s not magic or supernatural, because such things aren’t real in real life.

In fantasy, if some things are magic but others are not, you can still have extraordinary not-magic that is nevertheless well beyond real world norms.

Look at the historical world records for the 100m, and note how they've changed and how the rate of change has changed. And then consider that for some game or fiction settings, we're talking about characters who can sprint not just a fraction of a percent faster, but multiple times faster, than those world record holders.

I don't think those incremental improvements in IRL world records are really a functional parallel with the massive gaps between those records and some of the fictional capabilities being discussed.


The reason I've used "magic" in that very broad sense, and kept using it, is to try to combat two notions -- that spellcasting == magic, and that non-spellcasters / "martials" cannot have fantastic abilities, or that those fantastic abilities cannot be in a very real sense "magic" on par with spellcasting. See also, "magic is as magic does".


The reason I posited that your presented scenario is effectively "magic bone and muscle" is because -- and maybe I misunderstood -- the bones and muscles of the character undergo a fundamental change at some point as the character really exceeds the "normal range". That fundamental change would be where the "becomes magic" in the framework I've been putting forth.

[Psyren]

Huh? That's an... odd... sentiment. The more stuff we move over to the (ex) realm, the different stuff in the (su) and (sp) will have to be from what we are used to. When cutting through time and space is already (ex), then there's no real pay off in duplicating the same power in the (sp) realm, unless you model it in such a way that "magic is cheating", as in, a mage creates effects without going to hard route and training up to the point that he can do it, but then we´re again at power at a cost to balance that out.

Do you mean that you would be okay with Ex Gate or Teleportation Circle from a sword thrust? Because I can emphatically say I wouldn't. If that's "odd" - so be it.

- Arcane: External, the power is learned, bargained for or outright stolen.

Sorcerers say hi

That's more of a game design consideration than a fluff one, isn't it?

I'd argue that when we're talking about credibility, and what martials should and shouldn't be able to do, you need both. The design and fluff should at least align at any rate.

Hm... I'm getting the feeling that Psyren is ok with "martials" interacting with magic in a meaningful way, but not with initiating things that are normally considered to be "magic".

I'm okay with a decent amount of initiating too actually. For example, there's very little in PF's Path of War that I find objectionable, I think they for the most part found ways to give martials nicer things without upsetting the apple cart or putting them on the same rung as spellcasters. (Well, without giving them the same ceiling, anyway.)

[Ignimortis]

Do you mean that you would be okay with Ex Gate or Teleportation Circle from a sword thrust? Because I can emphatically say I wouldn't. If that's "odd" - so be it.

It's not odd, if you're referring to how common that sentiment is. Actually, I rarely meet people who would consider normal. For instance, half my gaming group actually thinks "yes, magic is brokenly powerful and it should be this way, because it's magic and why have magic if it's not unbalanced".

I'd argue that when we're talking about credibility, and what martials should and shouldn't be able to do, you need both. The design and fluff should at least align at any rate.

Well, I might disagree here. I think no single effect should really be off the table for anyone. But the thing is, I do want things to be diverse enough that nobody in the world, no single character, is able to do everything. This is why I object vehemently to combat buffs for mages that can actually go onto mages and make them better at things they're not supposed to be good at. It's fine if a Paladin buffs themselves into oblivion - Paladin is a combat class mostly, and their buffs are combat-focused. It's not fine when a Cleric does that - unless they're a cleric of a war god and basically have access to the paladin list only instead of the usual smorgasbord. It's even less fine when a Wizard does that, because Wizards should do Wizard stuff. The best combat Wizard that can exist should be a fireball thrower who is basically the an artillery piece, or maybe the CC bot who actually doesn't have save-or-dies, but mostly numerical debuffs, difficult terrain creation and other various manipulation methods that don't just...take people out.

I'm okay with a decent amount of initiating too actually. For example, there's very little in PF's Path of War that I find objectionable, I think they for the most part found ways to give martials nicer things without upsetting the apple cart or putting them on the same rung as spellcasters. (Well, without giving them the same ceiling, anyway.)

Initiating starts off strong and does cool things until level 11 or so. Then it's more of the same, while casters just get outright better and more powerful/versatile spells. I like initiators a lot, but in a game after level 13 they're still slightly lackluster if you actually want to do things besides HP damage.

[Heliomance]

Do you mean that you would be okay with Ex Gate or Teleportation Circle from a sword thrust? Because I can emphatically say I wouldn't. If that's "odd" - so be it.

Teleportation Circle not so much, but Gate, maybe - with the caveat that opening a Gate that way gives you no control over where in the target plane it opens. I can see being (at very high level) sufficiently skilled that you can slice a hole in the barrier between realities, but it would be similar to Pullman's Subtle Knife - the place you connect to is the place that happens to be on the other side of the barrier, that's (probably) always going to be the same in a given place.

Also, something akin to Dimension Door is very in keeping with Rogue types. Picture this: The party has been thrown in jail, manacled to the walls. They're discussing how they're going to deal with this setback, when there's a jingle, a click, and the door swings open. The Rogue is there, swinging a set of keys. The fighter looks over to see empty manacles hanging where the Rogue was not two minutes previously. How did she get out? She's Just That Good.

I'd say it should never explain the mechanism. A high enough level Rogue can get into or out of just about anywhere. No-one ever sees them do it, no-one sees them disappear, you turn around to speak to them and they just aren't there anymore. They're Just That Good. You know it isn't magic, you know there must be a trick to it, but you're never going to figure it out, and the Rogue isn't telling.

[Max_Killjoy]

Hm. The "classic" divide is that we have internal and external power sources and some explanations attached to them.
- Divine: External, the power is granted by the connection to something greater.
- Arcane: External, the power is learned, bargained for or outright stolen.
- Martial: Well, your training, duh.

Personally, my most favorite power source was introduced very late to PF:
- Occult. Internal, you understand how thing really are and how they are connected. Knowledge is power.

Anecdotally, the Medium and Occultist classes are maybe the only ones that can fill any role in the game and can be used to replicate any other class.

And maybe that's part of the disconnect.

I don't consider "martial" and "internal" to be parallel or matched, and I don't consider "magic" and "external" to be parallel or matched. (Along with rejecting the assertion that magic === spellcasting.)

Magic that's internal / internal source of magic, I see that as absolutely a possibility for a fictional/gaming setting. I'm using it in one of my settings.

Hell, in 5e, I'd consider "ki" a form of internal magic, and whether sorcerers are internal or external is an open question (depending on how you read and reconcile the various semi-conflicting blurbs across multiple books).

[Rhedyn]

How is it GatG fallacy?

It does not limit characters or creatures to any particular range or insist on a real-world limit.

It only says that if you move the range, that has effects on the setting, and if a character leaves the range as set for that setting, you need a reason.

I think people keep ignoring the IF, THEN part of my posts so they can respond to them as if I'm making absolute statements that all setting must be just like the real world.

Ah but your if/then is objectively wrong. Average human strength has went down as the world's strongest men became stronger, and that still has nothing to do with how things would work in a different reality or when describing the extraordinary.

For example, One Punch man is a universe where the most powerful being in existence did 100 push ups, 100 sit ups, 100 squats, and a 10k run every day. The overarching moral is that special reasons for strength pale in comparison to hard work and effort. In that reality, if a person surpasses their limits, then they have no limit. The strongest character was weaker than average and blew past his limits with basic strength training. Our reality doesn't work like this and his strength in that reality isn't even extraordinary, it is available to anyone who trains hard enough.

[Kyutaru]

It's even less fine when a Wizard does that, because Wizards should do Wizard stuff. The best combat Wizard that can exist should be a fireball thrower who is basically the an artillery piece, or maybe the CC bot who actually doesn't have save-or-dies, but mostly numerical debuffs, difficult terrain creation and other various manipulation methods that don't just...take people out.

I actually agree but what can you do? People love it. Lord of the Rings had fireballs, Harry Potter had death curses. New era I suppose because all the younglings want to imitate their heroes. Older RPGs had death spells too but they only had a 20% chance of actually working, or they required the enemy's level to be divisible by a certain number (letting devs control who it affects). Ideally Wizards would be relegated to debuff bots and the system would be balanced but fiction gives them way more power than that so the PHB does as well. Still, any sane DM should be limiting them to what he finds appropriate for the campaign design and not blanket approving every splatbook or spell selection under the trademark.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ah but your if/then is objectively wrong. Average human strength has went down as the world's strongest men became stronger,

The world lifting records aren't moving by an order of magnitude. The new record will from time to time go up by a pound here or there, not multiply by 10 or 100.

and that still has nothing to do with how things would work in a different reality or when describing the extraordinary.

What matters is what's ordinary vs extraordinary in the context of a setting, and if that gap is explained.

That's not a demand that the distribution be exactly the same as real life, only that there is a distribution and that its implications for the setting are followed up on thoroughly.

For example, One Punch man is a universe where the most powerful being in existence did 100 push ups, 100 sit ups, 100 squats, and a 10k run every day. The overarching moral is that special reasons for strength pale in comparison to hard work and effort. In that reality, if a person surpasses their limits, then they have no limit. The strongest character was weaker than average and blew past his limits with basic strength training. Our reality doesn't work like this and his strength in that reality isn't even extraordinary, it is available to anyone who trains hard enough.

One Punch Man appears to be a blatantly gonzo setting, with enabling premises for the "important characters" that aren't really followed up on across the broader setting. (I fully admit that I could be wrong here, as I've not followed it in detail, it's absolutely not my cuppa -- so again, I only say "appears".)

[Kyutaru]

One Punch Man appears to be a blatantly gonzo setting, with enabling premises for the "important characters" that aren't really followed up on across the broader setting. (I fully admit that I could be wrong here, as I've not followed it in detail, it's absolutely not my cuppa -- so again, I only say "appears".)

It's more like the Goku effect. Simply being around some stupidly strong character in anime tends to raise the power level of all his followers for no explicable reason besides "training". Happens in DBZ, happens in Hitman Reborn, happens in Naruto, happens in One Pieces, happens in Bleach, happens a lot actually.

When someone exists who breaks the limit you thought previously existed I suppose there's some motivation to think you can do it too. A famous Henry Ford quote, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't – you're right,” emphasizes how much attitude determines success or failure.

[Morty]

Is it just me, or are people having the exact same conversation in two concurrent threads?

[Kyutaru]

Is it just me, or are people having the exact same conversation in two concurrent threads?

Oh heavens no, they're inverted.

The other thread is about "Why isn't my Martial character Fantastic?".

This thread is about "Why isn't my Fantastic character Martial?".

[Max_Killjoy]

It's more like the Goku effect. Simply being around some stupidly strong character in anime tends to raise the power level of all his followers for no explicable reason besides "training". Happens in DBZ, happens in Hitman Reborn, happens in Naruto, happens in One Pieces, happens in Bleach, happens a lot actually.

DBZ is even more of a gonzo setting. Anime is rife with gonzo settings.

When someone exists who breaks the limit you thought previously existed I suppose there's some motivation to think you can do it too. A famous Henry Ford quote, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't – you're right,” emphasizes how much attitude determines success or failure.

While I get the can-do rah-rah attitude behind that platitude... it's always been a bit funny to me because it's so obviously false. No matter how much someone believes they can leap over a skyscraper unaided, or run 100mph on just the power of their legs and lungs, or punch though a 1" thick armor-grade steel wall with their bare fist... they can't. Not in this world. Whether they think they can or think they can't is utterly irrelevant.

[Psyren]

It's not odd, if you're referring to how common that sentiment is. Actually, I rarely meet people who would consider normal. For instance, half my gaming group actually thinks "yes, magic is brokenly powerful and it should be this way, because it's magic and why have magic if it's not unbalanced".

I'm okay just with "more powerful" rather than "brokenly powerful." Some things magic can do, like Planar Binding, should be rituals in my opinion, complete with drawbacks and other limitations.

With that said, even on the level of "brokenly powerful", people still enjoy the game, so I'm more interested in creating stuff for the martials (through PoW, Stamina, Advanced Weapon Training, Styles, trimming down feat chains etc.) than I am in nerfing the casters. That's more from a PF standpoint of course.

This is why I object vehemently to combat buffs for mages that can actually go onto mages and make them better at things they're not supposed to be good at. It's fine if a Paladin buffs themselves into oblivion - Paladin is a combat class mostly, and their buffs are combat-focused. It's not fine when a Cleric does that - unless they're a cleric of a war god and basically have access to the paladin list only instead of the usual smorgasbord.

I hear what you're saying but this eliminates a lot of truly iconic concepts. The entire Druid class for example, or summoners, or "army-of-the-dead"-style Necromancers. All three of those exemplify strong casting and martial focus (albeit on separate bodies for the latter two, but with one consciousness in control.) Telling people that your game doesn't allow them to do that has the likely result of them saying "well this game does, so we're gonna go play that."

Initiating starts off strong and does cool things until level 11 or so. Then it's more of the same, while casters just get outright better and more powerful/versatile spells. I like initiators a lot, but in a game after level 13 they're still slightly lackluster if you actually want to do things besides HP damage.

Firstly, I think this is wrong. Looking at Path of War, I can see maneuvers that heal, that buff self and allies, that debuff enemies, that grant allies extra actions, that allow the initiator to teleport or fly or swap places or reposition freely across the battlefield, that delay or cure conditions and more. All of that goes beyond HP damage.

But second and more importantly, you're using the wrong yardstick; instead of comparing initiators to the party's casters, compare them to the Bestiary/Monster Manual. What level- and wealth-appropriate foe can they not overcome? They're T3 classes for a reason.

[Rhedyn]

One Punch Man appears to be a blatantly gonzo setting, with enabling premises for the "important characters" that aren't really followed up on across the broader setting. (I fully admit that I could be wrong here, as I've not followed it in detail, it's absolutely not my cuppa -- so again, I only say "appears".)

No you just have a "reality I live in" bias.

A fairly internally consistent reality seems gonzo and crazy to you merely because it is different than your own. You would assume being able to jump to the Moon and back would be an extraordinary feat, while it most certainly is in the sense that few people can do it, it is something anyone in that universe could do through strength training beyond their limits.

Anywho the idea that I should be able to lift a 1000 pounds if the strongest human could lift 100,000 pounds is still nonsense. For all we know, growing up in low gravity triggers a hidden giantism Gene sequence that we didn't know did that (like much of biology) and by gradually training that giant they could eventually lift 100,000 pound if still not being able to live on Earth for any length of time. That wouldn't be Extraordinary, it would be mundane and we really couldn't say that it couldn't happen in our reality. Oh sure people may argue until they're blue in the face against that, but once you actually know a little about these topics, you know just how much we don't understand.

[Kyutaru]

While I get the can-do rah-rah attitude behind that platitude... it's always been a bit funny to me because it's so obviously false.

I've noticed throughout the thread you tend to take things rather literally and at face value. Wisdom rarely reflects the exact meaning of the words used but is meant to inspire improvement. The rah-rah attitude is the intention rather than idea that anyone can be Superman if they're crazy enough to believe it. Whether they think they can or not determines whether they even bother to try. The key is trying because you miss one hundred percent of the shots you never take. What inevitably limits a person in gym training, which this topic is primarily centered around, isn't whether their body has reached its physical peak. It's the moment they give up on progress. Humans are fantastic creatures that can do far more than they believe they can and the struggle to push oneself to its limit is more real than the limit itself.

[Segev]

Look at the historical world records for the 100m, and note how they've changed and how the rate of change has changed. And then consider that for some game or fiction settings, we're talking about characters who can sprint not just a fraction of a percent faster, but multiple times faster, than those world record holders.

I don't think those incremental improvements in IRL world records are really a functional parallel with the massive gaps between those records and some of the fictional capabilities being discussed.

You're still operating on the wrong assumptions, here. The specific proposed change is that the limits that are represented by how much smaller real-world ROC is in record speeds are not present. Using evidence derived from one to disprove the other is like saying, "If we assume that Bob likes chocolate, we know he'll still hate this chocolate sundae, because he hates chocolate."

The whole point is that these upper limits are gone. The rate of change may still decrease, or it may not - we would have to examine mechanics and physics models and these will vary - but it is no longer asymptotically approaching zero, but rather increases without bound.

The reason I brought up Usaine Bolt is because it relates an old thought experiment I had regarding the definition of "superpowers:" generally, it's considered "cheating" if a superhuman enters any sort of traditional atheletic contest where his powers would be useful. The Flash entering the Olympics would be seen as "cheating," because his speed is a superpower. Moreover, a lot of fiction with superpowers has a magic button that can be pushed to turn them off. "I've stripped you of your powers!" gloats the supervillain, and lo, Uberbob is now just Bob, normal-strength man. It implies that superhuman abilities are a template layered on over a "normal" person.

But, barring the power-stealing magic button, how do you judge that the Flash is cheating by using a superpower to run faster than Usaine Bolt? If our hypothetical version of Olympic Flash is not nearly as fast as the DC comics character, just how slow would he have to be going to not be called out as using a superpower? Assume no exotic "superpower detecting devices" or senses or the like.

If the Olympic Flash beat Usaine Bolt's record by a mere .01s, would that be obvious signs of superpowers? How about .05? .1? 1? reduced the entire time to half a second? Somewhere in there, we'd say, "that's superhuman!" But where?

Take away the real-world physical barrier to continual improvement, and let that curve on the rate of change bend such that it doesn't asymptotically approach zero, and there is no real answer. There are various subjective thresholds of "that's amazing!" but there's no point at which "training to be better" stops being just plain how it works for non-magical but extraordinary achievement.

The reason I've used "magic" in that very broad sense, and kept using it, is to try to combat two notions -- that spellcasting == magic, and that non-spellcasters / "martials" cannot have fantastic abilities, or that those fantastic abilities cannot be in a very real sense "magic" on par with spellcasting. See also, "magic is as magic does".


The reason I posited that your presented scenario is effectively "magic bone and muscle" is because -- and maybe I misunderstood -- the bones and muscles of the character undergo a fundamental change at some point as the character really exceeds the "normal range". That fundamental change would be where the "becomes magic" in the framework I've been putting forth.

That's one possible explanation, and that would be the threshold where "anti-magic" would start to impede him. The main reason I keep insisting on NOT calling it "magic" but rather differentiating it as "extraordinary" is because of this "superpowers are an overlaid template" thing. You can "turn off" superpowers, and magic, and the like, and audiences buy it because they buy - consciously or not - into the notion that there is the standard real-world barrier and then there are super-whatevers that can bypass it, whether with magical energy, "superpowers," or something else that can be stripped away to reveal the "normal" person underneath.

I would posit that the changes to bone and muscle are "more of the same" that happen in real-world exercise: increased density and bulk, improved blood flow, etc., but with material properties of this fantasy world that either permit increased density by adding new minerals or by simply not having the same fundamental atomic chemistry between worlds. No, I am not about to try to specify it in any great detail, especially while trying to divine an alternate system that looks like the real world except where I don't want it to. I can posit the concept and hopefully people grasp the idea, and we can just agree that there exists some model that follows these rules. Which we're mostly abstracting to a much simpler model that is the game system.


It sounds, though, like we roughly agree that the line between "superhuman martials" and "mundane martials" should blur and go away, and merely are disagreeing over whether to call it "magic" when they exceed real world potential.

[Max_Killjoy]

No you just have a "reality I live in" bias.

A fairly internally consistent reality seems gonzo and crazy to you merely because it is different than your own.

It gets old, having to fend off attacks that aren't even directed at the things I'm posting.

Anywho the idea that I should be able to lift a 1000 pounds if the strongest human could lift 100,000 pounds is still nonsense. For all we know, growing up in low gravity triggers a hidden giantism Gene sequence that we didn't know did that (like much of biology) and by gradually training that giant they could eventually lift 100,000 pound if still not being able to live on Earth for any length of time. That wouldn't be Extraordinary, it would be mundane and we really couldn't say that it couldn't happen in our reality. Oh sure people may argue until they're blue in the face against that, but once you actually know a little about these topics, you know just how much we don't understand.

If you think there could even hypothetically be some unknown gene that would allow real-world human beings to lift 50 tons... and that it would be "triggered" by low gravity... just... wow. I don't even know where to start with that.

[Bohandas]

While I get the can-do rah-rah attitude behind that platitude... it's always been a bit funny to me because it's so obviously false. No matter how much someone believes they can leap over a skyscraper unaided, or run 100mph on just the power of their legs and lungs, or punch though a 1" thick armor-grade steel wall with their bare fist... they can't. Not in this world. Whether they think they can or think they can't is utterly irrelevant.

I like the way Nietzsche put it, "A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum will show that belief does not prove anything"

[Max_Killjoy]

I've noticed throughout the thread you tend to take things rather literally and at face value. Wisdom rarely reflects the exact meaning of the words used but is meant to inspire improvement. The rah-rah attitude is the intention rather than idea that anyone can be Superman if they're crazy enough to believe it. Whether they think they can or not determines whether they even bother to try. The key is trying because you miss one hundred percent of the shots you never take. What inevitably limits a person in gym training, which this topic is primarily centered around, isn't whether their body has reached its physical peak. It's the moment they give up on progress. Humans are fantastic creatures that can do far more than they believe they can and the struggle to push oneself to its limit is more real than the limit itself.

No amount of training would ever have allowed me to come anywhere near the world lifting records, ever, even if I'd started in childhood. It's simply beyond what this body could manage, and no platitude, no amount of belief, no amount of can-do spirit, would ever have changed that.

Likewise, assuming people that are like real-world people, which many settings actually do, no amount of training could enable any human being to ever exceed the current world record by orders of magnitude. Bones can only get so strong, muscles can only produce so much force and can only withstand so much force before they begin tearing, the circulatory system can only without so much pressure, etc.

Even in a fantasy setting, what the bones are made out of has to change before those limits increase by orders of magnitude. Or, if you keep the same composition of human bones, and change what the component materials are capable of withstanding, you have a long list of other effects that follow from those changes to the chemistry and physics involved. This is of course setting aside "magic" (broad sense) as an explanation for the moment -- which removes this conflict by removing the purely physical considerations.

[Max_Killjoy]

It sounds, though, like we roughly agree that the line between "superhuman martials" and "mundane martials" should blur and go away, and merely are disagreeing over whether to call it "magic" when they exceed real world potential.

I agree in so much as that's one of the possible resolutions to the conundrum at hand, yes.


As an aside, I'm not that much interested in the AMF as a test, as it can easily be set up in a system/setting combo to only interfere with external uses of magic, such that magic that both comes from within and is being used within a character, and is thus fully internal, is not affected. Thus, dragons don't fall over dead in an AMF, but spellcasting dragons can't cast their spells. Thus, magic items don't fall apart in an AMF, but wands can't be used to toss fireballs. Thus, a monk can do purely internal things, but wizard or cleric drawing on external power is boned... and the sorcerer's day depends on how you read the various kinda conflicting blurbs and other text. Etc.

[patchyman]

Taking the rules to their logical conclusion is a useful exercise in this analysis, but should never be mistaken for anything but that. If you extrapolate from the rules and keep getting a broken setting, or a setting totally unlike what you wanted, that's a strong sign you have a bad system or not the right system.

Eh, you extrapolate from Newtonian mechanics in real life, you end up with a bunch of stuff that doesn’t work in reality in the micro- and macro- sphere. Fact is, RPG rules don’t require the level of detail of Newtonian mechanics, and the real fallacy is assuming rules meant to cover the 80% of usual cases are broken if they don’t cover the 20% of extraordinary cases.

Most systems empower the DM to provide rulings in the cases where the rules break down.

Tdlr: Peasant railguns are dumb.

[Ignimortis]

I hear what you're saying but this eliminates a lot of truly iconic concepts. The entire Druid class for example, or summoners, or "army-of-the-dead"-style Necromancers. All three of those exemplify strong casting and martial focus (albeit on separate bodies for the latter two, but with one consciousness in control.) Telling people that your game doesn't allow them to do that has the likely result of them saying "well this game does, so we're gonna go play that."

It doesn't. Druids can work as "choose either good casting or good wildshaping", my own game has a player who only plays druids or necromancers, and he seems to be happy enough to have minor wildshaping and good nature magic. Summoners too - they summon hordes of mooks or one big strong mook. The problems begin when those summons are just outright better than what a martial brings to the table. If you just focus on summoning meatshields and brutes and so on, I don't think there's anything much broken with that. Just don't have those things overshadow the fighters. Same with necromancers - they usually end up with hordes of skeletons and zombies which aren't good in a real D&D fight anyway. The point isn't that you can't have those things - you can, but not all at once, and if all at once, then remember that your options ARE going to be weaker than someone who builds with single purposes in mind.

Firstly, I think this is wrong. Looking at Path of War, I can see maneuvers that heal, that buff self and allies, that debuff enemies, that grant allies extra actions, that allow the initiator to teleport or fly or swap places or reposition freely across the battlefield, that delay or cure conditions and more. All of that goes beyond HP damage.

But second and more importantly, you're using the wrong yardstick; instead of comparing initiators to the party's casters, compare them to the Bestiary/Monster Manual. What level- and wealth-appropriate foe can they not overcome? They're T3 classes for a reason.

Eh, I might've used the wrong word. There isn't much out of combat utility after level 11 or so. You're really good in combat, that much is true. But you don't get the gamechanger things (teleport is the primary offender here, but I'm sure there are some other spells that don't really need to be in PCs hands, like wish, etc).

To be fair, I'd prefer those things to be deleted entirely rather than hand them out to everyone. Just make full casters 2/3 casters, give them some class features to compensate. Former 2/3 casters go to 4-level casters, and I don't think a 4-level caster like Ranger and Paladin is a real niche that needs downscaling. Nothing bad in Magus being the Paladin's equal in magic. Ban Teleport or limit it to things like Helm of Teleportation. Ban Planar Binding because it's a high ritual, not something a person does solo. Drop some major spells into rituals that everyone can do, like augury and scrying and so on. Magic doesn't need to be in mages' hands only.

[Kyutaru]

Likewise, assuming people that are like real-world people, which many settings actually do, no amount of training could enable any human being to ever exceed the current world record by orders of magnitude. Bones can only get so strong, muscles can only produce so much force and can only withstand so much force before they begin tearing, the circulatory system can only without so much pressure, etc.

Though as mentioned, people will invariably give up in reality long before they reach any sort of limit. The fact that you believe you could never do it is automatically what will stop you from ever knowing otherwise. I have the same genetics as my brother who can deadlift 350 lbs yet I'll never reach his level because I've already convinced myself I can't. The gains I see on a daily basis are so minuscule, so imperceptible, that it discourages me from trying beyond what I consider my "best effort".

I also find it strange that your own signature encourages versimilitude in the form of a setting's internal consistency yet consistently look to external consistency for why it never could be real or coherent with its own laws. After all, the falling damage example remains an excellent demonstration of the durability of an adventurer's bones in that whatever doesn't kill them leaves them no worse for wear.

[Talakeal]

Is it just me, or are people having the exact same conversation in two concurrent threads?

Sort of.

I was going to post a long rebuttal to the guy at the gym fallacy in the other thread, but then I realized I don't actually know what the guy at the gym fallacy is as there seem to be atleast three active uses for the term and the post that coined it was a long rambling essay rather than a succinct logical statement. So I created this thread to clarify the fallacy in my mind before writing up said rebuttal.

Of course; as the topic of Martial vs. Caster Disparity is like the Borg on this forum this thread was quickly infected and assimilated by the never ending argument.

[Max_Killjoy]

Though as mentioned, people will invariably give up in reality long before they reach any sort of limit. The fact that you believe you could never do it is automatically what will stop you from ever knowing otherwise. I have the same genetics as my brother who can deadlift 350 lbs yet I'll never reach his level because I've already convinced myself I can't. The gains I see on a daily basis are so minuscule, so imperceptible, that it discourages me from trying beyond what I consider my "best effort".

I also find it strange that your own signature encourages versimilitude in the form of a setting's internal consistency yet consistently look to external consistency for why it never could be real or coherent with its own laws. After all, the falling damage example remains an excellent demonstration of the durability of an adventurer's bones in that whatever doesn't kill them leaves them no worse for wear.

I'd consider the falling rules more likely to be a fault in that system, rather than as proof of anything within the setting itself.

On the internal vs external consistency question... at least from my POV, this is an internal consistency issue:

* A setting which asserts an enabling fact for a particular character or small subset of characters, and doesn't follow through across the setting in general, risks losing internal consistency.
* A setting which asserts that a character is "a totally not-fantastic person" while showing them do utterly fantastic things, and not showing other characters doing the same things, either has an inconsistency within that character, or an inconsistency in what "totally not-fantastic" means.
* I simply do not buy the assertion that you can blow the upper limit off the distribution without changing the rest of the distribution, unless your setting creates an explicit two-or-more-tier distinction of some kind that maintains a "soft limit" for most people.

[Rhedyn]

If you think there could even hypothetically be some unknown gene that would allow real-world human beings to lift 50 tons... and that it would be "triggered" by low gravity... just... wow. I don't even know where to start with that.

You obviously do not know enough about genetics to know how much we don't know. (If I am being pedantic, you didn't even understand what I said)

You do know that all the educated do not posit something like that would happen. That is not the same thing as it being impossible.

Which is the classic problem of structuring the upper limits of mundane ability around your understanding of reality when no one actually has a firm understanding of what is "really possible".

[Willie the Duck]

You obviously do not know enough about genetics to know how much we don't know. (If I am being pedantic, you didn't even understand what I said)

You do know that all the educated do not posit something like that would happen. That is not the same thing as it being impossible.

Which is the classic problem of structuring the upper limits of mundane ability around your understanding of reality when no one actually has a firm understanding of what is "really possible".

Okay, seriously? I understand getting feisty with Max. However, inferring that you have any idea what his real world genetics knowledge is because he called out your example as farfetched is inference beyond any supporting evidence. Microgravity inducing a positive mutation that increases some physical performance by whole number amplification, much less orders of magnitude, does sound closer to the X-Men understanding of mutation*, or maybe the reddit article everyone's loopy relative loves to forward them, than to a real world understanding of science. Sure, there is plenty we don't know about genetics. That's the scientific process in a nutshell. Using that to justify massive order-of-magnitude shifts in the rules is what goes into speculative fiction, and away from the real-world-(as we know it)-like version of fiction Max is drawing a line around.
*Or perhaps Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter/Barssom novels, since that's how they work, minus a discrete call out to genetics.

People can reasonably disagree about what level of realism one wants in our friggin' elfgames without implying that the other is ignorant of basic science or the scientific method.

[Max_Killjoy]

You obviously do not know enough about genetics to know how much we don't know. (If I am being pedantic, you didn't even understand what I said)

You do know that all the educated do not posit something like that would happen. That is not the same thing as it being impossible.

Which is the classic problem of structuring the upper limits of mundane ability around your understanding of reality when no one actually has a firm understanding of what is "really possible".

OK, just to give this one final go, to make the point clear -- and then on this subtopic I'm just walking away, because I don't know how else to address this sort of claim constructively.

The materials that make up the body have been tested, alone and together, to determine the hypothetical limits of those materials in isolation and as a system.

The material that makes up bones cannot be made strong enough, while fitting inside a human body, to support 50 tons, it breaks long before that, even if hypothetically optimized. Muscle fibers, no matter how optimized, shred themselves long before exerting enough force to lift 50 tons.

Your hypothetical gene would literally need to change what the body is made of to enable the 50 ton lift you posit.


This is what it actually takes to lift 50 tons -- I don't think this will fit inside the human body, even if this single gene manages to give the person steel bones and hydraulic muscles:

Spoiler: Yes, these were specifically chosen as being rated to 50 tons.

Show