The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 173
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2017

    Question How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Casters who can cast from all their spells known using mana with 1 mana for 1st tier spells and 9 mana for 9th tier spells, each spell slot would give max mana based on it's tier. So a lvl 20 wizard would get to cast all their spells as long as they have enough mana of their for example 185+bonus mana based on modifier. That would make spell casters overwhelmingly powerful and thus the question, how strong melee/ranged physical classes would need to be to not fall short.
    Last edited by Sordahon; 2019-07-27 at 02:32 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GrayDeath's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In the Heart of Europe
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Spell Point Systems already exist.

    It doesnt make them much more powerful, just much more flexible.


    As for the original Question: As the martials already are easily and completely negated by (at the very most a third of) the spells a Vancian Wizard has, making them even more pointless would not be a big change. ;)
    A neutron walks into a bar and says, “How much for a beer?” The bartender says, “For you? No charge.”


    Later: An atom walks into a bar an asks the bartender “Have you seen an electron? I left it in here last night.” The bartender says, “Are you sure?” The atom says, “I’m positive.”

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Orc in the Playground
     
    False God's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Wyoming
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Add a "Stamina" system that gives martial-types access to a point-based resource which lets them perform maneuvers. (and don't lock it down to near-uselessness like Ki)

    Yes I'm talking about Elder Scrolls.

    Power Attack, Cleave, etc...all immediately become "abilities" that martial-types can use assuming they have the Stamina points to do so. No feat-taking required. OA's burn Stamina points, take as many as you have points for. Bull Rush? Sunder? All point-based. No I don't have a system worked out for this already.

    Fundamentally there will still be things martial-types can't do. Flying. Teleporting. Summoning stuff. Polymorphing. It's all be about beating the snot out of other people faster and more efficiently. But they'll still be missing out on the truly powerful magical stuff.

    Power comes from versatility. The spell-point system makes casters more versatile. Therefore it makes them more powerful.

    Short answer: Much. They'd need to be much stronger and much more versatile. See: Tome of Battle.
    Last edited by False God; 2019-07-27 at 03:12 PM.
    Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
    There is a future in which I see only mist and a single shadow.
    "You know it's all fake right?"
    "...yeah, but it makes me feel better."

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Anonymouswizard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In my library

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Honestly it's easier to pick a level for mundane characters and then scale magic-users to that than trying to scale mundanes to the magic-users.

    Although, as a rough baseline, we can use The Fantasy Trip to work out how weak a wizard would have to be to achieve balance with a (relatively) realistic warrior. The answer is: incredibly weak and rather MAD. MAD to deal with the fact that a realistic warrior is also fairly MAD, and incredibly weak because while wizards can't touch Warrior damage without spending points of Strength they can also do things like summon creatures, put up walls, and bypass some noncombat challenges.

    At which point we have run into the actual problem: magic gives options, and generally a much wider variety than mundane characters can really hope to achieve. Even games where wizards can't deal direct damage have to deal with the fact that once they've got half the spell list they can probably pull out five ways to solve any problem. A 3.5 Fighter could have +100 to attack and 4d12+67 damage and they still wouldn't be able to Plane Shift, or Wish, or Fly, or employ Fabricate, or...
    Snazzy avatar (now back! ) by Honest Tiefling.

    RIP Laser-Snail, may you live on in our hearts forever.

    Spoiler: playground quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelphas View Post
    So here I am, trapped in my laboratory, trying to create a Mechabeast that's powerful enough to take down the howling horde outside my door, but also won't join them once it realizes what I've done...twentieth time's the charm, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    How about a Jovian Uplift stuck in a Case morph? it makes so little sense.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    All versions of magic are some "extra" power--they allow people do things they couldn't do in real life, without taking away any of the things you could already do (if there are any that don't, I haven't heard of them, but I'm no scholar on the topic). Consequently, in many cases, it doesn't make sense for a completely non-magical character to be more powerful than a character whose abilities are augmented by magic. D&D 3.5, of course, heavily favours magic--"completely incompetent" augmented by magic often beats "totally competent" without magic--but even in low-magic settings, magic is still an advantage, and it's better to have it than not (see, for example, the Mistborn books, specifically the various mistings).

    In other words, to achieve balance (which I think you're asking about), balance the amount of magic (i.e. extra stuff you can do) between classes. Since 3.5 base classes start with almost no extra stuff (it's pretty much all "have bigger numbers to use against other mundanes' bigger numbers"), you've got a ways to go .
    Last edited by ExLibrisMortis; 2019-07-27 at 05:32 PM.
    Spoiler: Collectible nice things
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Faily View Post
    Read ExLibrisMortis' post...

    WHY IS THERE NO LIKE BUTTON?!
    Quote Originally Posted by Keledrath View Post
    Libris: look at your allowed sources. I don't think any of your options were from those.
    My incarnate/crusader. A self-healing crowd-control melee build (ECL 8).
    My Ruby Knight Vindicator barsader. A party-buffing melee build (ECL 14).

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Here is a good thought exercise:

    Imagine a non casting character that is able to do 7 things per turn and each of those is as powerful as a 7th level spell and is as flexible as the entire list of 7th level spells. All without the character expending any resources.

    If you can imagine that, then you can solve the non-caster imagination problem. If you require resources to be expended, then it will look like casting to some.

    Now do it again BUT
    1) You are allowed to require the character to expend resources
    2) You cannot use any magical abilities

    If you can imagine that, then you can solve the non-magic imagination problem. Be careful about Extraordinary abilities. While they are essential to solving this, it will require good communication to prevent them being seen as MAGIC.

    Now do it again but solve for problems at the same time.

    Basically, if you can imagine an Epic level character under your thematic restrictions, then you can design the mechanics for a High level character that also satisfies those thematic restrictions.

    --------------------------

    So the limit of my imagination is:
    I can imagine the high level character acting many times on their turn and a few turns per round. I can imagine "attacks" becoming flexible enough that it boils down to "Name what you want to do with your limbs / weapon". For example the strong barbarian might hit a boulder as a means of fast travel. Or use it like artillery. Or use it to choke a dragon. Or use it to block a spell / attack. Or... Or... [...] In addition to "attacks", I see them as having many other passive & at will abilities other than "attacks".
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2019-07-27 at 06:20 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Komatik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    There's also the issue that many non-magical classes are just oddly weak. Like, if you look at Fighters' flavour text and then their skill list, they actually straight up fail at living up to the fantasy the class is meant to sell even within the basic systems of the game, let alone special mechanics. Hello, I'm a guard. Spot, Search, Sense Motive? You wish. It's like Druids didn't have Survival or Knowledge(nature). Many non-magical book protagonists are defined in part by their resourcefulness, and Fighter is a class built to deny you the ability to be resourceful. It's like they were super afraid of stepping on the Rogue's toes.

    A huge part of the reason the Tome of Battle classes for example are loved so much is not because of raw power - early on and especially at lower-op tables, they're really strong because their baseline power level is quite high, but they like other classes peter out as the levels stack up - but because they give options. Wider skill lists that sell the classes' themes, ability to move and still do strong things in combat rather than being a full attack bot, ability to apply conditions to enemies and just generally to do interesting things and stuff that sells the fantasy like no-selling some sorcerer's manipulation spell through sheer willpower, something more central to the fantasy than doing so much damage you basically have a burrow speed through adamantite. Conan would be proud.
    Avatar by Kymme
    Nice guy =/= Good
    Jerk =/= Evil

    I made a vampire template for 3.5e. PEACH?

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    I personally think that DnD wizards are a terrible balancing point, but that's just me. If you want balance all the way to 20th level, you're going to need to do some heavy rebuilding to get non-magical classes anywhere close to their level.
    The two most common ways I've seen this are by either making the non-magical classes appear magical (I.E. letting epic-level warriors perform epic-level feats that would make Cú Chulainn blush) or make them expressly anti-magical (I.E. Barbarian smashing apart a forcecage and shoving aside a wall of force, a Fighter deflecting spells and cleaving wards, a Rogue disabling contingencies and bypassing arcane locks).

    If you want no-mag's to participate in high-level DnD, they NEED a way to influence the outcome of the magical chicanery that happens at that level. Whether it's through legendary feats of courage and strength, or by being able to straight up say "no" to enemy spellcasters. Or a third thing that I probably haven't thought of.
    Last edited by comk59; 2019-07-28 at 07:43 AM.
    l have a very specific preference when it comes to TTRPGs. If you have a different preference, that's fine, but I just want you to know you're having fun wrong.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    Imagine a non casting character that is able to do 7 things per turn and each of those is as powerful as a 7th level spell and is as flexible as the entire list of 7th level spells. All without the character expending any resources.
    Quick question: Why 7 actions per round? Or am I misunderstanding something?

    Quote Originally Posted by comk59 View Post
    The two most common ways I've seen this are by either making the non-magical classes appear magical (I.E. letting epic-level warriors perform epic-level feats that would make Cú Chulainn blush) or make them expressly anti-magical (I.E. Barbarian smashing apart a forcecage and shoving aside a wall of force, a Fighter deflecting spells and cleaving wards, a Rogue disabling contingencies and bypassing arcane locks).

    If you want no-mag's to participate in high-level DnD, they NEED a way to influence the outcome of the magical chicanery that happens at that level. Whether it's through legendary feats of courage and strength, or by being able to straight up say "no" to enemy spellcasters. Or a third thing that I probably haven't thought of.
    I always thought there might be room for a non-magical minion class that just has entire nations working for them or something. For example, if a guy had the entire backing of the plane of fire behind him, he'd probably be a force to be reckoned with. (Everything changed when the Fire Plane attacked!)

    Also, while a few people don't like it, there is the option of allowing non-magical classes to retcon in actions that they took in the past to some interesting effects. "Oh, we're fighting a demon? Well I figured a situation like this might happen, so I spent some time a while ago and looked up this demons true name so I could control it if we ran into it."

    Those are the other options I've thought of anyway.
    Last edited by Jakinbandw; 2019-07-28 at 01:07 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by comk59 View Post
    I personally think that DnD wizards are a terrible balancing point, but that's just me. If you want balance all the way to 20th level, you're going to need to do some heavy rebuilding to get non-magical classes anywhere close to their level.
    The two most common ways I've seen this are by either making the non-magical classes appear magical (I.E. letting epic-level warriors perform epic-level feats that would make Cú Chulainn blush) or make them expressly anti-magical (I.E. Barbarian smashing apart a forcecage and shoving aside a wall of force, a Fighter deflecting spells and cleaving wards, a Rogue disabling contingencies and bypassing arcane locks).

    If you want no-mag's to participate in high-level DnD, they NEED a way to influence the outcome of the magical chicanery that happens at that level. Whether it's through legendary feats of courage and strength, or by being able to straight up say "no" to enemy spellcasters. Or a third thing that I probably haven't thought of.
    Yeah, the spellcasters in D&D quickly hit a level of fantastic that's impossible to balance with not!fantastic, and you either have to accept the imbalance, let non-spellcasters be blatantly fantastic, or change where the line is for your setting (between not!fantastic and fantastic).

    In one of my settings, I reduced what magic can do. In the other, I established that some characters are just blantantly fantastic.
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2019-07-28 at 02:30 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    if we are talking about comparison with stories (I'm thinking for example the wheel of time saga) then a sort of balance is not achieved in making warriors more powerful but in making casters more vulnerable, so that they still need protection against assassination. this would mean removing a lot of the more versatile defensive spells, first and foremost contingency and almost all divinations (I'm counting "being able to predict being attacked in advance" as a defensive spell).

    and casters can still do a huge lot of stuff. It's not really balance, but martials are useful to some extent.
    In memory of Evisceratus: he dreamed of a better world, but he lacked the class levels to make the dream come true.

    Ridiculous monsters you won't take seriously even as they disembowel you

    my take on the highly skilled professional: the specialized expert

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Yes, the Town Guard not having at least Perception (both spot and listen for 3x) and Insight as skills didn't make much sense to me.

    Using Points for Powers seems too much like 3x Psionics.
    Giving ‘casters’ more options, and Lots more for everyone to keep track of.
    The most unbalancing thing there was sacrificing lower level points for extra higher level powers.

    ****
    IMO 5e is a little more "balanced" than 3.5.

    Casters have Less Slots to use, but able to choose from any available spell of that level.
    Upcasting costs a higher level choice. (and does not add any extra higher level spells, see Psionics above.)

    Concentration required for more spells. Which Stopped "Super Untouchable" combinations.

    *********
    For spells: First, ditch Wish.
    That's only available from Powerful beings:
    Noble Genies, Arch-Devils/Dukes, Balor/Demon Lords, Archfey, and maybe Solars.
    (Sure, most Deities can do it, but their 'Price' is usually higher.)
    And no sympathy for those Players unhappy with the creative ways a DM 'screws the Wish up' !!!

    If you want to allow Wizards to cast Cleric/Druid spells of 7th level or less with a 9th level spell slot, put in the 9th level Any Spell that the 3x D&D Magic Domain had.

    Personally, I’d also switch Plane Shift and Astral Projection.

    Have Miracle work like Wish normally does (without the 33% never cast again) in that the caster must be specific about what is asked for, and is still limited to the Portfolio and Domains of their Deity.
    *****
    Adding Tome of Battle for non-caster types?
    Without taking actual levels in the respective Classes?
    Maybe.
    I’d really have to have a Playtesting Group to figure this out for 5e.
    I did like the look of these, but sadly never had any players for them.
    *****
    Perhaps some 3e/5e combination might work?
    You're going to have to find some Playtesters to really work the kinks out.
    *****
    For me running a 3x variant game:
    I’d keep the 5e skill style, instead of tracking each Skill point spent per level.
    Racial, Background (2 skills), and then what is given for the base 5e Class
    (maybe just extra Languages for Int.)

    Oh, and just keeping in mind that Dis/Advantage is a five point modifier.
    *****
    While I liked 3x for more Class Options (and easier to balance Monsters for ECL/CR calculations), 5e just flows better for actual play for me.
    (The 20th level Fighter getting up to Eight attacks at +11 to hit each - without magic, plus Subclass options - really helps “balance” this class more.)

    Flexible DMs can help with the non-combat stuff for martials.
    *****
    With fewer 3x D&D (non-Pathfinder) dedicated players and lots more 5e players, I have been converting some of the 3x Classes (some better balanced than others - Factotum = ARG!!) into 5e, most as Subclasses.
    Last edited by Great Dragon; 2019-07-28 at 03:37 PM.
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed
    No offense is intended by anything I post.
    *Limited Playtest Group - I'm mostly Stuck in the White Room.
    *I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Anonymouswizard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In my library

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    QI always thought there might be room for a non-magical minion class that just has entire nations working for them or something. For example, if a guy had the entire backing of the plane of fire behind him, he'd probably be a force to be reckoned with. (Everything changed when the Fire Plane attacked!)
    This is what annoyed me about the Marshal/Warlord. It would have been a great opportunity to introduce 'has a bunch of followers' in the game without being unbalanced, give the player a limited amount of control over a large group of people, and a relatively small 'personal guard' to keep the 'I rush my 3872 conscripts at the dragon' problem to a minimum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Yeah, the spellcasters in D&D quickly hit a level of fantastic that's impossible to balance with not!fantastic, and you either have to accept the imbalance, let non-spellcasters be blatantly fantastic, or change where the line is for your setting (between not!fantastic and fantastic).
    One thing almost no edition of D&D has done is point out that past roughly level 12 your characters are just beyond the scale of Mythic Mortals, especially the spellcasters. At that point I struggle to think pre-D&D stories which have martials at that power level, and literally can't think of any for magic users.

    In one of my settings, I reduced what magic can do. In the other, I established that some characters are just blantantly fantastic.
    I've been a big proponent of establishing hard caps on magic and magic use for the past few years, ever since I played an Authentic Thaumaturge in Unknown Armies and had a lot more fun than with any of my D&D wizards, especially at higher levels.

    I've seen some people claiming that wizards don't feel magical unless they're always casting spells, and I've come to think 'what's the problem with that?' If I wanted a character who used magic all the time I'd play a demon or a Djinni. If I'm a wizard I probably want my wise person's knowledge to count as much as their spellcasting.
    Snazzy avatar (now back! ) by Honest Tiefling.

    RIP Laser-Snail, may you live on in our hearts forever.

    Spoiler: playground quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelphas View Post
    So here I am, trapped in my laboratory, trying to create a Mechabeast that's powerful enough to take down the howling horde outside my door, but also won't join them once it realizes what I've done...twentieth time's the charm, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    How about a Jovian Uplift stuck in a Case morph? it makes so little sense.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    I see no reason why non-vancian magic would require 'mundane' classes to be stronger.

    Say magic users cast from HP, for instance: 1hp x spell level, for instance. Or, hey, call it 2hp x spell level. Not only would it be cool, and give magic users (generally the dull, grey, boring class of the game) some much needed flavor and flair - it would also serve as a wonderful limiting tool, without the need for Vance.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Anonymouswizard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In my library

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    I see no reason why non-vancian magic would require 'mundane' classes to be stronger.

    Say magic users cast from HP, for instance: 1hp x spell level, for instance. Or, hey, call it 2hp x spell level. Not only would it be cool, and give magic users (generally the dull, grey, boring class of the game) some much needed flavor and flair - it would also serve as a wonderful limiting tool, without the need for Vance.
    Take a look at The Fantasy Trip. Both damage and spellcasting reduces a character's Strength (kind of, it's not clear if it affects rolls against it, and it definitely doesn't impact weapon use). Because stats are roughly in the 8-12 range for starting characters and strong spells can take four points of Strength to cast it means that wizards will either lag behind a warrior-build in damage terms or only be able to cast a couple of spells before needing to rest (15 minutes per point of Strength regained). In addition damage recovers relatively slowly and healing (in the corebook at least) is rather limited, giving wizards another reason to avoid melee.

    Anyway, the problem isn't Vancian Magic, it's the power levels of wizards. Very few games allow you to reach the power levels of a 20th level D&D wizard, most of the ones that I know of are superhero games.

    Lots of games also have relatively balanced magic and mundane characters, generally through magic having severe limits, problematic drawbacks, or both. Limitations generally come from time requirements, strictly limited mana pools, slow mana recharge rates, enforced specialisation, ways to shut down a character's magic, or any combination of the above. Drawbacks are things unrelated to the use of magic itself, but things that still come alongside it, such as reduced physical abilities, problems functioning in society, a duty to whatever power grants you magic, and so on.

    Of course, I have seen games with D&D power levels, but even if their warriors are suplexing dragons supernatural characters still tend to have drawbacks due to being able to do things warriors cannot do.
    Snazzy avatar (now back! ) by Honest Tiefling.

    RIP Laser-Snail, may you live on in our hearts forever.

    Spoiler: playground quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelphas View Post
    So here I am, trapped in my laboratory, trying to create a Mechabeast that's powerful enough to take down the howling horde outside my door, but also won't join them once it realizes what I've done...twentieth time's the charm, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    How about a Jovian Uplift stuck in a Case morph? it makes so little sense.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    At which point we have run into the actual problem: magic gives options, and generally a much wider variety than mundane characters can really hope to achieve.
    You might want to take a look at the modern-day fantasy game Unknown Armies, where being a non-magician grants amazing powers like 'being a functional human being' and 'holding down a day job'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    Anyway, the problem isn't Vancian Magic, it's the power levels of wizards. Very few games allow you to reach the power levels of a 20th level D&D wizard, most of the ones that I know of are superhero games.
    Yup. Good luck coming up with anything a 20th level D&D Fighter can do that's as potentially story-wrecking as a 6th-level spell slot, let alone a 9th.

    Exalted springs to mind, but all the people who matter are using magic. While sorcery is 'plot device'-level powerful in that game, it's also slow, obvious, and massively tiring - and in older editions, getting hit in mid-spell could make you explode.
    Last edited by Arbane; 2019-07-28 at 08:54 PM.
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    One thing almost no edition of D&D has done is point out that past roughly level 12 your characters are just beyond the scale of Mythic Mortals, especially the spellcasters. At that point I struggle to think pre-D&D stories which have martials at that power level, and literally can't think of any for magic users.


    I've been a big proponent of establishing hard caps on magic and magic use for the past few years, ever since I played an Authentic Thaumaturge in Unknown Armies and had a lot more fun than with any of my D&D wizards, especially at higher levels.

    I've seen some people claiming that wizards don't feel magical unless they're always casting spells, and I've come to think 'what's the problem with that?' If I wanted a character who used magic all the time I'd play a demon or a Djinni. If I'm a wizard I probably want my wise person's knowledge to count as much as their spellcasting.
    Sadly, we've seen character knowledge and sagacity poo-pooed as evidently meaningless in some recent threads, so I don't think that the higher likelihood of the wizard, or even the druid or warlock, also being the most educated character in the group, crosses some people's minds (never mind that in 5e, this is for some reason likely to be the entertainer or the burgler)... plus knowledge and sagacity aren't always directly weaponizeable in the form of "I can optimize this" rules, so again for some players they just don't count.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    Of course, I have seen games with D&D power levels, but even if their warriors are suplexing dragons supernatural characters still tend to have drawbacks due to being able to do things warriors cannot do.
    I think there's also an aspect of 'warrior-type' powers like super strength gradually becoming kind of inherently ridiculous at really high levels of power. The ability to punch a planet and cause it to break in half is absurd enough that it pretty much has to be played at least partly for laughs - and settings where this is possible like Dragonball or One Punch Man are very much in the 'for laughs' camp. Meanwhile a necromancer casting a spell to drain the life of everyone on a planet so they can fuel their eternal existence is somehow much less comical, and when Darth Vitiate does this in SWTOR it plays out as a moment of tragic cosmic horror. Exactly why this is so if unclear, I suspect scale and the difficult of the human mind to grapple with 'unseen' forces play a significant role, but regardless, it always serves to work out this way. Ultimately there are just some things that work just fine when the justification is 'mystic mumbo-jumbo' but that break suspension of disbelief when the justification is 'Hulk smash!' even though both are utilizing equal amounts of BS.
    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Anonymouswizard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In my library

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    You might want to take a look at the modern-day fantasy game Unknown Armies, where being a non-magician grants amazing powers like 'being a functional human being' and 'holding down a day job'.
    Got it, running it. Although my groups tend to let Adepts hold down a day job if it's related to their school directly (going by the canonical examples of Camerturges being wedding photogaphers and the like), the fact that Adepthood grants minuses to social interaction, having long term goals outside of a narrow field, and being willing to do stupid things for a major charge is one of the reasons I like it.

    In fact Unknown Armies is exactly what I was thinking of when I mentioned drawbacks. Adepts are crazy and obsessed, and this can cause major problems for the character (my last UA game had several illegal acts performed for quick charges), while Avatars have to actually remain functional human beings in order to keep their powers. Although magick is also rather weak until you hit the top levels, and Avatars have to deal with having an extremely limited (if usually useful) set of powers.

    And now I want to play an Unsung Champion, or a Cinemancer. Why can't the people I know ever run UA, why is it alway D&D?

    Exalted springs to mind, but all the people who matter are using magic. While sorcery is 'plot device'-level powerful in that game, it's also slow, obvious, and massively tiring - and in older editions, getting hit in mid-spell could make you explode.
    Yeah, Exalted and Anima: Beyond Fantasy were the ones I was thinking of, both with mages having to deal with casting times and, in the case of Anima, cripplingly low mana pools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Sadly, we've seen character knowledge and sagacity poo-pooed as evidently meaningless in some recent threads, so I don't think that the higher likelihood of the wizard, or even the druid or warlock, also being the most educated character in the group, crosses some people's minds (never mind that in 5e, this is for some reason likely to be the entertainer or the burgler)... plus knowledge and sagacity aren't always directly weaponizeable in the form of "I can optimize this" rules, so again for some players they just don't count.
    It annoys me, because I've been in a lot of games where IQ-based skills were useful (okay, they were mainly GURPS-based games, but still). To the point where being a spellcaster was questionably useful because you couldn't put skill points towards those powerful knowledge and social skills.

    Although admittedly skill levels were also used as a limit to stop us just engineering our way out of trouble (four engineers and a scientist in settings with modern technology if 'talk at it' didn't work our second plan generally involved some form of machine). High character knowledge meant a lot with an explicit player/character seperation rule.

    But anyway, having a high INT should impact gameplay for people other than the wizard. But apparently the barbarian having an 8 INT doesn't stop him from spewing nuclear physics, even if his player can't lift 150lbs without losing mobility.
    Snazzy avatar (now back! ) by Honest Tiefling.

    RIP Laser-Snail, may you live on in our hearts forever.

    Spoiler: playground quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelphas View Post
    So here I am, trapped in my laboratory, trying to create a Mechabeast that's powerful enough to take down the howling horde outside my door, but also won't join them once it realizes what I've done...twentieth time's the charm, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    How about a Jovian Uplift stuck in a Case morph? it makes so little sense.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    Take a look at The Fantasy Trip. Both damage and spellcasting reduces a character's Strength (kind of, it's not clear if it affects rolls against it, and it definitely doesn't impact weapon use). Because stats are roughly in the 8-12 range for starting characters and strong spells can take four points of Strength to cast it means that wizards will either lag behind a warrior-build in damage terms or only be able to cast a couple of spells before needing to rest (15 minutes per point of Strength regained). In addition damage recovers relatively slowly and healing (in the corebook at least) is rather limited, giving wizards another reason to avoid melee.

    Anyway, the problem isn't Vancian Magic, it's the power levels of wizards. Very few games allow you to reach the power levels of a 20th level D&D wizard, most of the ones that I know of are superhero games.

    Lots of games also have relatively balanced magic and mundane characters, generally through magic having severe limits, problematic drawbacks, or both. Limitations generally come from time requirements, strictly limited mana pools, slow mana recharge rates, enforced specialisation, ways to shut down a character's magic, or any combination of the above. Drawbacks are things unrelated to the use of magic itself, but things that still come alongside it, such as reduced physical abilities, problems functioning in society, a duty to whatever power grants you magic, and so on.

    Of course, I have seen games with D&D power levels, but even if their warriors are suplexing dragons supernatural characters still tend to have drawbacks due to being able to do things warriors cannot do.
    I've always felt the real problem is this: A 'warrior' is basically able to cut a 'wizard' in twain without breaking a sweat. Only he never get's to do that, because the caster class will have disabled the 'warrior' class long before that happens. I've seen pvp threads where massive damage melee types had a chance if they could win initiative, and somehow deliver lethal damage, react to a contingency, and deliver lethal damage again. Or something along those lines.

    The real solution is to have an actual stone/scissor/paper solution. Personally, I'd make 'warriors' much, much better at resisting magic - better saves, and ways to break disables like Hold Person.

    My original post was to point out that Vancian magic isn't what makes 'wizards' strong. I'd say ... the game (DnD, that is) has been designed to avoid long chains of rolls and counter rolls, and the most basic result of that is that if you fail a save vs a caster, you're out of the fight. And since casters can buff themselves to the eyeballs before a fight, generally speaking you always lose initiative - or fail your save - and you lose.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by comk59 View Post
    If you want no-mag's to participate in high-level DnD, they NEED a way to influence the outcome of the magical chicanery that happens at that level. Whether it's through legendary feats of courage and strength, or by being able to straight up say "no" to enemy spellcasters. Or a third thing that I probably haven't thought of.
    Well, one third thing is the treasure table. Somewhere along the way gamers (or at least forum-goers) decided that 'but fighters can use magic swords, which often have as much power as wizards' was not an acceptable answer to the fighter-mu split, but there's no specific reason it can't be. Of course, that depends on whether you are trying to balance magic with non-magic (which I think is genuinely futile, as 'gets to break the rules' is going to almost inherently be more powerful than 'has to work within the rules'), or just casters with non-casters (which is doable, and plenty of systems have).

    Quote Originally Posted by Komatik View Post
    There's also the issue that many non-magical classes are just oddly weak. Like, if you look at Fighters' flavour text and then their skill list, they actually straight up fail at living up to the fantasy the class is meant to sell even within the basic systems of the game, let alone special mechanics.
    Agreed. There are plenty of games (most of the point-buy) and literature (Conan, as an example) where spellcasting is sufficiently burdensome, and mortal, non-magical excellence sufficiently useful that casters and non-casters can exist together on a fairly equal-opportunity level.

    Quote Originally Posted by King of Nowhere View Post
    if we are talking about comparison with stories (I'm thinking for example the wheel of time saga) then a sort of balance is not achieved in making warriors more powerful but in making casters more vulnerable
    Early D&D used this as a primary balance. Magic users were supremely vulnerable. Sure you could have two rows of 3 henchmen block up the convenient 10' wide corridors of the dungeon, but once you got outside to do some hexcrawling (or playstyle shifted away from being squad leader), it was phenomenally hard to keep your magic user from being chomped. So the answer to 'is a high level caster more powerful than a high level fighter?' was, 'undoubtedly, but by the time you got a caster to that level (you do start over at level 1 every time you die, right? Riiiight?), the guy who likes playing fighters has gotten three of them up to retirement level, and had a heck of a lot of fun doing so.' And that was a serious problem -- playing a magic user with all the constraints (that existed to make them balanced with everyone else) turned on was often seen as systematically unfun. That's the why for it moving away from that model in subsequent editions, but they never really constrained the power at the same rate as they eliminated constraints.
    *one of many, another being not being able to choose what spells you got, and a tasty spell was as likely to come along for you as the fancy sword was for the fighter


    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    With fewer 3x D&D (non-Pathfinder) dedicated players and lots more 5e players, I have been converting some of the 3x Classes (some better balanced than others - Factotum = ARG!!) into 5e, most as Subclasses.
    Can you expand upon this? What's the problem with Factotums? They are one of my favorite late-3e classes (for playing in the tier 3-4 power balance that they clearly were trying to normalize at that point). What problems are you having?

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie
    <snip> And that was a serious problem -- playing a magic user with all the constraints (that existed to make them balanced with everyone else) turned on was often seen as systematically unfun. That's the why for it moving away from that model in subsequent editions, but they never really constrained the power at the same rate as they eliminated constraints.
    IDK, 5e seems a lot more "Balanced" than all the other versions of D&D.

    As I mentioned somewhere: Fewer Spell Slots per Spell Level, plus breaking up Known Spells between all Spell Levels (or a set value for maximum): plus Concentration on a lot of really useful/powerful spells.

    Still want to add a little more OSR?
    All spell components are consumed, and the DM determines what spells can be cast with a Focus.
    Mostly an Accounting Tax, but not having the correct component for the spell you want when you need it is a great drawback, for 'balencing'.

    ****
    I rarely have very many problems with Casters in my games, regardless of System/Edition.

    First, foes aren't stupid.
    Even basic Animals show amazing adaptability IRL.
    Good Wis means that they learn fast, after a mistake is made. Int 6+ means maybe before the mistake is even made.

    Next, sentient Races (usually Humanoid, but exceptions do exist) can just as easily be Classed as the PCs. (Figuring out 5e CR for some of these sometimes frustrates me)
    (both Volo's and Mord's have some of these, now)

    Finally, put more Spellcasters and magic-using foes in Encountered Groups.
    (For PC groups without any spellcasters, maybe cut them a break, and either remove these foes, or at least lower the Caster level of them. A challenge is quite fine, but overwhelming firepower is just - to me - a killjoy.)

    Also, I tend to use more items with non-renewing Charges.
    Especially Wands and Staves.
    For those items that do recharge daily, increase the Rarity by one level.
    Remember that Legendary Items are not casual treasure, and are not for sale.

    Note: I also predetermine Treasure (especially magical) and have smart foes use these against the PCs.
    Earn that +2 flaming sword!
    Or Wand of Fireballs (8d6 damage, DC 15) with 20 charges!!
    Especially when used against you! Much shenanigans!

    *one of many, another being not being able to choose what spells you got, and a tasty spell was as likely to come along for you as the fancy sword was for the fighter
    Yep, those scrolls (spellbooks were always in the Rare+ category) were indeed randomly determined.

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    Well, one third thing is the treasure table. Somewhere along the way gamers (or at least forum-goers) decided that 'but fighters can use magic swords, which often have as much power as wizards' was not an acceptable answer to the fighter-mu split, but there's no specific reason it can't be. Of course, that depends on whether you are trying to balance magic with non-magic (which I think is genuinely futile, as 'gets to break the rules' is going to almost inherently be more powerful than 'has to work within the rules'), or just casters with non-casters (which is doable, and plenty of systems have).
    Lots of those anti-mage players didn't like magical weapons (or other items) because they were made by some Caster, which made them think that this caused said casters to have more power over their characters, or get additional bonuses. See Crafters, below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie
    <snip> (you do start over at level 1 every time you die, right? Riiiight?)
    So, anyone got your back with a (pre)Paid-For Rez type spell (scroll)?

    If not: While I won't make you start over at 1st level, I might say that the replacement PC is one level less than the Party. (Heh)

    Spoiler: Magic Crafters
    Show
    Frankly, I find Magic Item Creation Casters incredibly boring.
    (Non-magic, too. I came to play a tRPG, not a version of Minecraft!!)

    Sure, the quick one-time-use useful item (Common, or Uncommon) - or a +1 weapon that lasts maybe a month - for maybe a week of downtime and some gold spent, and a roll on the random “Mishaps” chart in XgE. Done.

    But, seriously, anything magical that either lasts longer - or is more potent - really takes too long; and an Adventuring Caster is not going to like sitting on their tush for really Long Periods of Time making magical stuff while everyone else is out having fun (and gaining Levels and lots more Loot) without them.

    Really, the only time that you would want to play a Crafter, is in a Low Magic World.
    In which case - Accept the loss of EXP and GP, and play another PC so your not sitting there bored during the game.


    Quote Originally Posted by Willie
    Can you expand upon this? What's the problem with Factotums? They are one of my favorite late-3e classes (for playing in the tier 3-4 power balance that they clearly were trying to normalize at that point). What problems are you having?
    Sadly, when I tried doing this Class, like at least two other members decided to make their own versions, and mine simply got ignored.

    Spoiler: Factotum
    Show
    Now, no one ever tried to play this Class in any of my 3x gaming days.

    And in fact, I was unaware of its existence until asked by one of my 5e players.

    Looking it up, and reading it over; this class seemed to out-do all the Jack of All Trades Skill Monkeys. Literally able to use Rogue Skills and Divine Powers plus Arcane spell-like abilities, and in a way that the Bard (even in 5e) couldn't really match.

    My attempt was Here

    It was basically it's own Class - with two Subclasses, gaining and casting spells like a Warlock.

    The player that was testing that, said that this just didn't feel like the "Versatile" character to him.

    Said he should be able to change spells daily, like a Wizard, to demonstrate that versatility.
    (On top of all the other 'versatile' stuff I had for Factotum)

    So I basically had to rewrite it, as a Wizard-type Half Caster, with half level + Int in Spells Known up to 5th level, and that still gets Spell Secrets like a Warlock for spells over 5th; Taking away Bard Spell choices (too many healing options) and also not allowing 9th level spells. Secrets unlocks some Bard spells, but no Cleric-specific spells.
    Mostly Healing, Restoration, Resurrection, and similar.

    One thing he might not have realized (yet) is that the Factotum starts out with only 2 + Int Spells known, and while they do gain Slots for higher Level spells, they are required to find these on their own.
    This means that his spellbook has very few spells to choose from.


    We haven't returned to the game where this Class was being tested (they wanted to make Characters to take on Xanathar, so we're doing that for a bit - and now doing my Star Wars game towards the end of each Month, with one other GM running another tRPG on the first week of each Month) so not sure how soon playtesting will resume.

    If anyone is interested in trying to help me figure out how to finish this idea, please let me know - and I'll (legally) Necro the thread. I'd have to find where I made the notes on the changes, again.

    Thanks for responding to me, Willie the Duck !

    OMG! Took over a dozen Edits to get correct
    Last edited by Great Dragon; 2019-07-30 at 09:33 PM.
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed
    No offense is intended by anything I post.
    *Limited Playtest Group - I'm mostly Stuck in the White Room.
    *I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    IDK, 5e seems a lot more "Balanced" than all the other versions of D&D.

    As I mentioned somewhere: Fewer Spell Slots per Spell Level, plus breaking up Known Spells between all Spell Levels (or a set value for maximum): plus Concentration on a lot of really useful/powerful spells.

    Still want to add a little more OSR?
    All spell components are consumed, and the DM determines what spells can be cast with a Focus.
    Mostly an Accounting Tax, but not having the correct component for the spell you want when you need it is a great drawback, for 'balencing'.
    I find that 5e balanced the casters in the worst of two possible ways, causing them to be less fun, but not exactly balanced still.

    Wizard as a class is cancerous to the game. No game with magic should have a type of mage who gets access to 80% of magic in the game while progressing at the same rate as other major spellcasters.

    It would be much more fun to have spellcasters actually cast a lot of spells, maybe twice as much, but be limited to very specific areas of expertise. You want to be a fireball mage? Great, you get Evocation and Abjuration, you're a battlemage or a warmage or w/e. Necromancers only get Conjuring and Necromancy. Enchanters only get Illusion and Enchantment, ot Enchantment and Transmutation. Diviners get the rest of whatever isn't taken.

    Same with Clerics, Druids - they need significantly lesser spell lists derived from their gods, instead of every cleric having access to all cleric spells (which is still like 50%) and then some other ones depending on gods.

    Those three classes still embody the problems of D&D casters, which is "I can do everything", even if 5e nerfed that "everything" to being "not always better than what nonmages can do, but usually better still" instead of 3.5'e "why would I need a Fighter anyway".
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).
    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Quick question: Why 7 actions per round? Or am I misunderstanding something?
    I chose 7 because that is more than they start with. Higher level spells tend to do more things per action than lower level spells. So it helps to imagine higher level non-casters as getting more actions per turn. Break each artificial barrier until you find a solution.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Hi OldTrees1 !!!

    I like a good Debate.
    Helps me see and understand other views, as well as share mine.

    @Ignimortis
    Um…. Wow.

    I want to check to make sure I'm getting the picture your setting up.

    Spoiler: Spellbook
    Show
    Wizard spells in book for 5e:
    Knows maximum of 5 Cantrips;
    4d10 max damage at +11 to hit or DC 19 save.

    (01) 6 first Level spells
    (02) +2 first level spells = 8 first Level spells
    (03) 2 second Level spells
    (04) +2 second Lv spells
    (05) 2 third Level spells
    (06) +2 third Level spells
    (07) 2 fourth Level spells
    (08) +2 fourth Level spells
    (09) 2 fifth Level spells
    (10) +2 fifth Level spells
    (11) 2 sixth Level spells
    (12) +2 sixth Level spells
    (13) 2 seventh Level spells
    (14) +2 seventh Level spells
    (15) 2 eighth Level spells
    (16) +2 eighth Level spells
    (17) 2 ninth Level spells
    (18) +2 ninth Level spells
    (19) +2 any Level spells
    (20) +2 any Level spells

    So, at 20th rank Wizard, this break down to 8 spells of first Tier and Four spells per spell Tier (Level), plus 4 extra spells (any Tier) in their Spellbook. Costing 2,000+ gold.

    Unless the DM is nice and gives Intelligence modifier to Spellbook per tier, in found spells:
    9 spells per tier, with 9 random spells.
    Like at least a 10,000 gold investment.


    5e - All full casters have this Max slots per day:
    Cantrips/ 4 first/ 3 second/ 3 third/ 3 fourth
    3 fifth/ 2 sixth/ 2 seventh/ 1 eighth/ 1 ninth.

    The Wizard/Cleric/Druid then picks what they know for that day. So 20+5 = 25.
    Ok, assuming an even-split, that's 2 spells per spell tier with 7 random tier spells known daily.

    The 20th Rank Wizard can add up to 10 tiers of spells per day, on a short rest. So, one extra 6th and 1 extra 4th - or anything of that value.

    Now, that's Top Tier, and each Tier is less powerful than what's listed here.
    I can work on my tablet Friday to figure out per Game Tier, and edit that in….

    ***
    What you suggested seems:

    Like maybe only three spells known per spell level, but usable up to 5-10 times a day for spell levels 1-5th, spells of 6th & 7th usable 3 times a day, and 8th & 9th still 1x daily?

    But, what I'm thinking in my head is:
    So, effectively, in order to be more "balanced" with Martial classes; there should not be any full caster classes.

    So, basically, ditch the Wizard, and every Mage is a Sorcerer, Specialized in only two schools of magic? And go back to 3x D&D's level-based damage caps, especially for AoE: 1d6/Lv with 10d6 (energy type) damage Maximum at 10th Rank, and use Greater version (6th tier) to get 20d6 maximum, ever. Or, for a little 5e-ism "2d6 per spell level slot used".

    Mages don't get Radiant damage and only "Necromancers" get (limited) Necrotic.

    Warlock would be the closest thing to a Wizard, but (most likely) just as restricted to what spells are accessible by Patron? Smaller "general Warlock spell" pool?

    Hyper-focused Clerics even more dependant on playing "Deity May I?". Also, Smaller "general Cleric spell" pool?

    Druids limited to being able to only cast spells within their Favored Terrain? Or at "half power" outside that Region?
    *********************

    Am I anywhere near what you had in mind?

    *********************
    Spoiler: Ramblings
    Show
    What I'm thinking is that it's not the spell slots that upset people, as always - it's the spells themselves.

    People playing Mundane Martials don't like the fact that Casters can do about the same amount of damage they do to a single foe, but to a Group of foes. Never mind that successful Saves can reduce that even more, plus having damage type Resistant and even Immune Monsters.

    Also, without those AoEs - the party would quickly be overwhelmed and end in a TPK.

    Spoiler: Why
    Show
    do these people hate using Magical Items to grant them access to the things they are complaining about? Fly, Invisibility, etc?

    Heck, there are now lots more Half-caster Subclasses available to Martials.
    Even the Barbarian has a couple Subclasses with some really cool magical Abilities, if used correctly.

    Ok, sure, maybe being able to Climb the 50 foot Wall at 20th Rank, without Spider Climb, should be allowed. But not freely moving about on the ceiling.

    If they really want real-life combat simulations, especially without Magic - they should just play World War 1 & 2 and similar Military Wargames or maybe Cyberpunk - or Spymaster (etc), instead of Fantasy/D&D.


    Another thing that is usually overlooked during those "Martial vs Mage" debates, is that in each situation, the Player must choose if they need to spend a limited resource on 'insta-solving' it.

    Because: Once out of Spell Slots, all Mages are very much screwed. Clerics just don't rely on magical armor to be protected, and can still hit as good as a Martial. Bards have a few things that can be done, once out of Slots, but very limited.
    Last edited by Great Dragon; 2019-08-04 at 09:31 AM.
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed
    No offense is intended by anything I post.
    *Limited Playtest Group - I'm mostly Stuck in the White Room.
    *I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    But, what I'm thinking in my head is:
    So, effectively, in order to be more "balanced" with Martial classes; there should not be any full caster classes.

    So, basically, ditch the Wizard, and every Mage is a Sorcerer, Specialized in only two schools of magic? And go back to 3x D&D's level-based damage caps, especially for AoE: 1d6/Lv with 10d6 (energy type) damage Maximum at 10th Rank, and use Greater version (6th tier) to get 20d6 maximum, ever. Or, for a little 5e-ism "2d6 per spell level slot used".

    Mages don't get Radiant damage and only "Necromancers" get (limited) Necrotic.

    Warlock would be the closest thing to a Wizard, but (most likely) just as restricted to what spells are accessible by Patron? Smaller "general Warlock spell" pool?

    Hyper-focused Clerics even more dependant on playing "Deity May I?". Also, Smaller "general Cleric spell" pool?

    Druids limited to being able to only cast spells within their Favored Terrain? Or at "half power" outside that Region?
    *********************

    Am I anywhere near what you had in mind?
    Somewhat close, yes. If all casters were sorcerers with at best 20 spells known or so, that's be fine enough. Damage spells are generally fine.

    Warlocks already have a pretty pool spell selection and casting ability, so I don't think they'll be able to replace Wizards.

    Clerics aren't really supposed to be playing "Deity may I", IMO. But the "generic" cleric spell list should probably go completely, and each domain should get a list of 5-7 spells per spell level that they can cast.

    Druids would be much better suited to being either shapeshifter primary and 1/2 casting (Moon) or casting primary (1/1) and shapeshifting secondary (Land).

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    Spoiler: Ramblings
    Show
    What I'm thinking is that it's not the spell slots that upset people, as always - it's the spells themselves.

    People playing Mundane Martials don't like the fact that Casters can do about the same amount of damage they do to a single foe, but to a Group of foes. Never mind that successful Saves can reduce that even more, plus having damage type Resistant and even Immune Monsters.

    Also, without those AoEs - the party would quickly be overwhelmed and end in a TPK.

    Spoiler: Why
    Show
    do these people hate using Magical Items to grant them access to the things they are complaining about? Fly, Invisibility, etc?

    Heck, there are now lots more Half-caster Subclasses available to Martials.
    Even the Barbarian has a couple Subclasses with some really cool magical Abilities, if used correctly.

    Ok, sure, maybe being able to Climb the 50 foot Wall at 20th Rank, without Spider Climb, should be allowed. But not freely moving about on the ceiling.

    If they really want real-life combat simulations, especially without Magic - they should just play World War 1 & 2 and similar Military Wargames or maybe Cyberpunk - or Spymaster (etc), instead of Fantasy/D&D.


    Another thing that is usually overlooked during those "Martial vs Mage" debates, is that in each situation, the Player must choose if they need to spend a limited resource on 'insta-solving' it.

    Because: Once out of Spell Slots, all Mages are very much screwed. Clerics just don't rely on magical armor to be protected, and can still hit as good as a Martial. Bards have a few things that can be done, once out of Slots, but very limited.
    It is pretty much about spells themselves. Spells are, from level 1 onwards, more fantastical than martials get at level 20. Feather Fall is superior to Monk's Slow Fall. Charm Person was superior to diplomacy, before the "and then becomes hostile" clause. I'm still cursing whoever decided to put Steel Wind Strike into 5e and made it a level 5 spell for Wizards/Rangers only, despite it being perfectly fine, in effect, to be a martial ability at level 12 or so, maybe with less damage, but the basic effect could stay the same.

    Magic items are disliked as a source of powers, because they are inherently separable and impersonal. If three of your coolest moves only work when you have this one specific item, it kinda sucks. And why should a level 20 rogue even need a cloak of invisibility? A level 20 rogue should be able to hide in bright daylight in plain sight, steal luck or souls, etc.
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).
    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Spell slots don't work as a limiting mechanic and wouldn't even if spells themselves weren't so strong. They're entirely reliant on the GM being willing and able to enforce a number of "encounters" every day. This gets harder as you leave a traditional dungeon crawl. Furthermore, if casters have their per-day spells and non-casters don't, the whole party still operates on the casters' schedule. Which only contributes to the feeling that casters are the more important party members.

    Furthermore, casters being screwed once they run out of spells or components is not a good thing. It only enforces a binary - either they do have the right spell and solve a problem/encounter handily or they don't and they're neutralized. Same thing happens with anti-magic fields, zones and whatnot.
    Last edited by Morty; 2019-07-31 at 08:44 AM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    do these people hate using Magical Items to grant them access to the things they are complaining about? Fly, Invisibility, etc?
    Yes, I do. Also goes for supertech in scifi games.

    In a Talislanta game I'm in, I dropped a significant amount of skill point in acrobat, jumping and climbing skills with the idea that my ranger would be the party ninja. It lasted one game, before everyone got bracers of levitation.

    Problem with magic items is the same as the problem with magic : It renders your character's abilities irrelevant because it allows the caster/user to do the same thing, but better. :/

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    It annoys me, because I've been in a lot of games where IQ-based skills were useful (okay, they were mainly GURPS-based games, but still). To the point where being a spellcaster was questionably useful because you couldn't put skill points towards those powerful knowledge and social skills.

    Although admittedly skill levels were also used as a limit to stop us just engineering our way out of trouble (four engineers and a scientist in settings with modern technology if 'talk at it' didn't work our second plan generally involved some form of machine). High character knowledge meant a lot with an explicit player/character seperation rule.

    But anyway, having a high INT should impact gameplay for people other than the wizard. But apparently the barbarian having an 8 INT doesn't stop him from spewing nuclear physics, even if his player can't lift 150lbs without losing mobility.
    Yeah, that's pretty much where I stand on the matter, and where most people I've gamed with have stood on it. Running into the contingents of players online who either say "INT is the spellcasting stat for Wizards, and tells you nothing else about your character beyond the mechanical effects" or "don't tell me how to play my character!" was a bit of a shock to me. Of course, on the latter, my response is an unyielding "I'm not telling you how to play your character -- you told yourself how to play your character when you gave him a 6 INT."
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Martials would need demigod like powers.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •