The Man Keeping the Martial Down

[Kyutaru]

Even if the Wizard contributes slightly less in combat than the Fighter, the Wizard still contributes 5x more everywhere else. In order for a Fighter to have as much of a spotlight, he'd need a 12 in combat, effectively hosing every possible combatant put in front of him. The Wizard would have to feel vastly inferior to the Fighter in combat, and that's not usually the case.

The thing is the Fighter does have that 12 in combat when the wizard buffs him. When you have crazy buffs, you use them on your beatstick. Not on yourself. The wizard buffed is barely an 8 in combat. The fighter is the optimal target for such spells and becomes ludicrous under their effect.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my opinion, the best way to let everyone have more utility outside of combat in D&D is to slaughter a few sacred cows and take a page from 4e.

Take a subset of current spell effects, remove them from the spell lists entirely, and transform them into "incantations" that anyone of the appropriate level can learn and use. Make them require one or more of
a) substantial time
b) costly components
c) special circumstances ("an arcane conflux of ley lines", "cast by the blood of the high prince", etc)

The classic "ritual" classes (wizard, cleric) could get bonuses when they perform certain types of incantations or "free" incantations at level up. Then anyone can provide the teleportation, water breathing, plane-shifting, etc.

In a 5e context, the relevant spells would be something like
* all current ritual spells.
* many of the current "non-combat" spells (those with cast times > 1 action) other than the summoning spells
* A lot of the "altered movement" or "information gathering" spells such as fly, Locate X, etc. spells.
* All of the "resting utility" ones like Tiny Hut, Rope Trick, etc.

These would be willing-only, so even things like polymorph could get split into a combat version (still a spell, but able to be used balefully and to create stronger creatures) and a weaker, low-CR-only version (say capped out at CR 1/8) as an group incantation.

[Quertus]

@Florian:

Nice to know that Leverage solved the ShadowRun "problem" of group participation in combat, and created a purely siloed experience.

I really like the "high and low access" concepts. My (completely unofficial) vocabulary would say that the low access can "participate", without preventing the high-access from "shining".

As loathe as I am to break character, I think 4e… well, no, didn't exactly do it right. If combat is the only thing, then making combat magic roughly equal to combat muscles/steel seems only reasonable. And I'm a fan of (powerful) ritual magic. But 4e felt like it took the magic out the game, exponentially more than 3e already had.

But I don't get the point of your last paragraph about world-building.

[Max_Killjoy]

@Florian:

Nice to know that Leverage solved the ShadowRun "problem" of group participation in combat, and created a purely siloed experience.

I really like the "high and low access" concepts. My (completely unofficial) vocabulary would say that the low access can "participate", without preventing the high-access from "shining".

As loathe as I am to break character, I think 4e… well, no, didn't exactly do it right. If combat is the only thing, then making combat magic roughly equal to combat muscles/steel seems only reasonable. And I'm a fan of (powerful) ritual magic. But 4e felt like it took the magic out the game, exponentially more than 3e already had.

But I don't get the point of your last paragraph about world-building.

ShadowRun's problem is that it locked characters out of certain parts of the game entirely, that it siloed certain parts of the action -- how does creating a MORE siloed experience solve that, other than by forcing more than half the table to sit around doing nothing for long stretches?

[PhoenixPhyre]

ShadowRun's problem is that it locked characters out of certain parts of the game entirely, that it siloed certain parts of the action -- how does creating a MORE siloed experience solve that, other than by forcing more than half the table to sit around doing nothing for long stretches?

I agree. Siloing is not fun for me. It also feels railroad-adjacent to hard code some things as "combat" and others as "not combat". I should be able to do lots of things that aren't direct damage to contribute during a hostile encounter. And sometimes breaking things (or heads) can be useful outside of explicit combat.

Game makers should worry about what kinds of scenarios they're trying to support and what approaches fit the fiction they're creating. Then scatter those approaches throughout the character options, with no one having a monopoly on any particular approach or family of approaches. Sure, in each specific scenario different approaches will have different utility, but overall each character should have access to a bunch of useful approaches to any given scenario, even if they're not turn-key solutions.

[Quertus]

ShadowRun's problem is that it locked characters out of certain parts of the game entirely, that it siloed certain parts of the action -- how does creating a MORE siloed experience solve that, other than by forcing more than half the table to sit around doing nothing for long stretches?

They demonstrated that it was possible to create a truly, purely siloed game, presumably that makes sense with fluff and crunch matching each other.

That neither of us would enjoy such a game - and that I actively advocate for pretty much exactly the opposite style - in no way makes that BadWrongFun for those who enjoy that kind of thing.

[Cluedrew]

Take a look at how Splittermond handles this (if you can read german). It uses a so-called "Tick System" instead of standard turn-based, so tracking the time of individual actions and when they are fully executed. One of the better parts of the system is that reactions and interrupts play a very important role, especially when compared to something like AoOs from D&D.

That sounds really good system. My big question is: what does that due to the pace of combat? I imagine it would definitely slow it down but you could make other changes to a game to speed it back up.

In practice, I don't think this really works.

What does "in practice" mean in the context of me painting some broad strokes of a theoretical magic using society? I added and deleted this section several times. It is getting a bit off topic (might make a good world building thread) so I think I will just admit that yeah, its not going to be that simple, the power pyramid only address the fundamental problem of untouchable levels of power.

Finally I would like to propose the mechanical definition of caster and martial which I have sort of been working on during this thread and I would like to see what everyone thinks about it. In trying to pin down the base mechanical effects I have been thinking about the base mechanics of the two archetypes. Really what I got is that "martial" characters draw most of their power from pushing the numbers on the base systems up while "caster" characters use special abilities and exceptions to gain their power.

Under the "created a basic simulation and then add magic" system creation rules D&D and many other systems use. I think it also is easier to let the second get out of hand, you can add stupid exceptions easer than numbers being unexpectedly high. For counters base systems are interacted with more often and so have counters. Special one offs don't get developed enough to have real counters.

[Max_Killjoy]

Take a look at how Splittermond handles this (if you can read german). It uses a so-called "Tick System" instead of standard turn-based, so tracking the time of individual actions and when they are fully executed. One of the better parts of the system is that reactions and interrupts play a very important role, especially when compared to something like AoOs from D&D.

As for your other point, I get the impression that you´re thinking too much in D&D terms. For example, take a look at Shadow of the Demon Lord. Here, a character progresses through three very distinct phases while advancing along the levels:
- Novice Paths: The basic four fantasy classes (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard).
- Expert Paths: A huge slew of more specialized classes, from Druid, to Sorcerer, to Executioner, Knight, Paladin....
- Master Paths: One specialist class for each type of magic.

Note that advancement in SotDL does not directly correlate with power. By entering into a new path, you add more options to the character, which have to be build up in power by progressing along that path, before you switch again for more options. So a Fighter > Paladin > Theurgist might have more options and a vastly deeper understanding of magic, but didn't outpace the lowly Fighter all that much.

You can find similar effects in point-based games like L5R 4th and the aforementioned Splittermond, which use thresholds for character development. As in, you need to have spent a certain amount of XP to "unlock" the next higher set of abilities or raise the cap on skills and attributes.

It's a shame Splittermond isn't available in English, my German isn't up to more than street signs and basic survival, if that at this point.

I'd really like to see how it handles a lot of different things, based on the descriptions you've posted.

[Florian]

That sounds really good system. My big question is: what does that due to the pace of combat? I imagine it would definitely slow it down but you could make other changes to a game to speed it back up.

The big change here is that you generally use a "Tick Map" in addition to a battle map, to keep track of the passing of time and note when what happens. So you generally use more minis and markers, shifting the burden to more visual information tracking. Task and action resolution are fairly quick for a system that can be counted as being rules heavy, tho.

[Ignimortis]

In my opinion, the best way to let everyone have more utility outside of combat in D&D is to slaughter a few sacred cows and take a page from 4e.

Take a subset of current spell effects, remove them from the spell lists entirely, and transform them into "incantations" that anyone of the appropriate level can learn and use. Make them require one or more of
a) substantial time
b) costly components
c) special circumstances ("an arcane conflux of ley lines", "cast by the blood of the high prince", etc)

The classic "ritual" classes (wizard, cleric) could get bonuses when they perform certain types of incantations or "free" incantations at level up. Then anyone can provide the teleportation, water breathing, plane-shifting, etc.

In a 5e context, the relevant spells would be something like
* all current ritual spells.
* many of the current "non-combat" spells (those with cast times > 1 action) other than the summoning spells
* A lot of the "altered movement" or "information gathering" spells such as fly, Locate X, etc. spells.
* All of the "resting utility" ones like Tiny Hut, Rope Trick, etc.

These would be willing-only, so even things like polymorph could get split into a combat version (still a spell, but able to be used balefully and to create stronger creatures) and a weaker, low-CR-only version (say capped out at CR 1/8) as an group incantation.

Yes. That actually makes sense. But too many people like their martials so completely mundane they somehow can't do anything magical in a magical world. And those people are the ones holding the game back for the last...well, since inception, really.

ShadowRun's problem is that it locked characters out of certain parts of the game entirely, that it siloed certain parts of the action -- how does creating a MORE siloed experience solve that, other than by forcing more than half the table to sit around doing nothing for long stretches?

Shadowrun has options for participation in combat for everyone. Deckers can hack enemy equipment and surroundings, mages have a slew of combat spells and another wagon of "non-combat spells that are great in combat", also spirits can invalidate almost any combat PC if you can reliably drag out a Force 8+ spirit, faces can use Leadership and/or PI-Tacs to coordinate, riggers have combat drones.

It's much better (except the spirits part) than the D&D model of "everyone does damage, so as a guy who is primarily geared for combat you have no unique schtick".

The problem is that all of the other areas of the game...don't really let combat characters contribute. Social situation? Mingle and try not to glitch at best. Matrix? Can't do that without a cyberdeck. Astral and/or magic? You can't do anything with magic, and even as an adept you don't really do much besides astral perception, if even that. So everyone gets to do their thing in combat in SR 5E, but combat guys usually can sneak well, notice stuff...and kill things. That's about it. They can't get into other parts of the game, but somehow everyone got access to combat.

[CharonsHelper]

The problem is that all of the other areas of the game...don't really let combat characters contribute. Social situation? Mingle and try not to glitch at best. Matrix? Can't do that without a cyberdeck. Astral and/or magic? You can't do anything with magic, and even as an adept you don't really do much besides astral perception, if even that. So everyone gets to do their thing in combat in SR 5E, but combat guys usually can sneak well, notice stuff...and kill things. That's about it. They can't get into other parts of the game, but somehow everyone got access to combat.

Yeah - I'll +1 that that's a major issue in Shadowrun. But the few times I played it was as a decker, and I always felt guilty when I was just doing stuff while everyone else watched for at least 5-10 minutes. Sure I was mediocre in combat, but I still participated.

I actually don't think that every character type needs to be able to participate in every encounter type. BUT - if a part of the game is designed to be done by just 1-2 PCs, it should be fast! Streamline the heck out of it and get the action back to where everyone gets to play. I know that was one of the big design pillars in my system. Hacking and piloting? Mostly solo and pretty important - but win or lose they're designed to get the action back to the game's bread-and-butter ASAP.

[Florian]

ShadowRun's problem is that it locked characters out of certain parts of the game entirely, that it siloed certain parts of the action -- how does creating a MORE siloed experience solve that, other than by forcing more than half the table to sit around doing nothing for long stretches?

They successfully challenged the status quo by removing the ongoing compromise that physical combat/physical activities are something that every character should be able to engage in.

Unlike SR, where each core activity is more or less completely walled off, Leverage is highly interconnected. Thief has to get the keycard to Bruiser, Bruiser has to switch of the alarm, while Face has to distract the guard from spotting Bruiser on the camera system, so it´s actually more of a group activity instead of less.

Not exactly my kind of game, but an interesting experience nonetheless.

As loathe as I am to break character, I think 4e… well, no, didn't exactly do it right. If combat is the only thing, then making combat magic roughly equal to combat muscles/steel seems only reasonable. And I'm a fan of (powerful) ritual magic. But 4e felt like it took the magic out the game, exponentially more than 3e already had.

But I don't get the point of your last paragraph about world-building.

Oh, we don´t need to argue about the execution, the only thing I find important is pointing out the design paradigm to break down "magic" as a single block and explicitly silo it into combat magic, exploration magic, utility magic with very little overlap and such.

The point I was musing about hits a bit on the mundane vs. magic divide, especially when it comes to characters, especially since someone earlier criticized that adding magic as part of the mundane will mean that everyone is a caster then.

I don't know how the english version of the CoC Cthulhu Arcana is, but a lot of the "spells" there have an explicit physical component that works because of the "caster" understands the mystical background of it. So, for example, "Summon Hastur" means building a stone tower with a window pointing in the right direction and if you've done everything right, Hastur will appear once the full moon shines thru that window at the right angle.

IMHO, that moves "Summon Hastor" away from the "it´s a spell, so it is for spell casters" territory, over to setting and world building, moving it closer to being a mundane activity.

Yes. That actually makes sense. But too many people like their martials so completely mundane they somehow can't do anything magical in a magical world. And those people are the ones holding the game back for the last...well, since inception, really.

In my experience, that phenomenon is only more or less common in D&D and PF, nearly nowhere else. The important part here is to keep the "look & feel" intact, that it is the character doing the heroic deeds, not the equipment or spells.
While a SR Street Samurai or Razorbabe is as equipment-dependent as a D&D/PF Fighter or Barbarian, including potentially lugging around modifications in the million Nuyen range, the feeling that it´s the character, no outside force or abilities, doing the action stays more or less intact. I also think that is why trying to solve certain issues with subsystems like Path of War often fail, because they feel even more spell like.

Edit: Ok, I use SM again as an example. The game abilities are structured around three tiers of play, the normal range, the heroic range and the legendary range, which also include hard caps on max attributes, skill ranks and active magical effects that can be sustained. A starting character will most likely start at ceiling of the normal range and will have to grow horizontally, before being able to advance vertically, then repeat that process.

The group I play in has one of those "mundane only" players, as well as a "wizard only" player, still we all have a fairly 50-50 distribution between mundane and magical skills and talents.
- Elementalist: Has all focus points in reserve for "use", gives off a very caster-y vibe because the answer to everything is "Spell!".
- Bladedancer: 50-50 mix of "use" and "lock", Great Wuxia vibe because of the focus on flashy moves.
- Warden: Has all focus points "locked" for subtle self-enhancements like a heightened aura auk aggression.

The interesting thing is, according to D&D/PF design-truisms, this should not work. We are all using identical mechanics and resource pools, something that is considered to be a no-go. But I think what these abilities interface with makes the difference. Locking an anti-magic effect on the shield still means that the Warden will use his very mundane combat skills at blocking, just expanding the options to now block incoming spells, too. The Elementalist had to invest into ranged combat things for aiming his spells and precision, but the spell format keeps this from feeling like a mundane thing.

[Satinavian]

I believe that determining what level of challenge something is "supposed to be" is railroading. Just present the scenario, and let the reality of the rules, the characters capabilities, and their choices determine how difficult it is.

No, i wholeheartly agree with just presenting the scenario and let the characters/players figure it out - or not.

But if i like that, why would i want to have a character in the group who trivializes every scenario that gives the group a day or more to plan or prepare ? Such a character is poisonous to this approach.

The funny thing is, afaict, the Wizard is the former. He can only solve the subset of problems that he has a spell prepared for. Memorize Knock? What if there's two locked doors? Or none? There's so many different types of potential problems, real Wizards at real tables don't actually solve everything. What they can do is adapt to different parties, to cover weaknesses.

Yes, that would be nice. But you don't need the ability to completely change your spellcasting selection every day with a theoretically unlimited pool of options. A sorcerer would have the spell to solve something or not. That is an inherently better design.

There is also no reason why wizards should be more versatile than other classes when it comes to closing gaps/covering weaknesses. In most other systems the charatcer options that could cover a lot of weaknesses at least in a rudimentary way are those that don't excel anywhere and only have comparatively weak powers.

[Florian]

Yes, that would be nice. But you don't need the ability to completely change your spellcasting selection every day with a theoretically unlimited pool of options. A sorcerer would have the spell to solve something or not. That is an inherently better design.

There is also no reason why wizards should be more versatile than other classes when it comes to closing gaps/covering weaknesses. In most other systems the charatcer options that could cover a lot of weaknesses at least in a rudimentary way are those that don't excel anywhere and only have comparatively weak powers.

Just musing a bit: Prior to 3E, the only cost attached to becoming a specialist was by picking a class. The rest you got for free as part of the whole class package and by leveling up. So there was a real cost involved when the Magic User hat to pack Knock to replace the Thief, for example when that player couldn't come to a session.

Now we basically have the reverse situation. A Rogue will have to invest their limited resources (skill points, feats, Rogue Talents) to be able to be a specialist in their chosen field, stuff that are most likely permanent investments, while the comparative cost, either "wasting" one spell slot or lugging around a scroll of Knock is trivial because it is not permanent.

[Ignimortis]

In my experience, that phenomenon is only more or less common in D&D and PF, nearly nowhere else. The important part here is to keep the "look & feel" intact, that it is the character doing the heroic deeds, not the equipment or spells.
While a SR Street Samurai or Razorbabe is as equipment-dependent as a D&D/PF Fighter or Barbarian, including potentially lugging around modifications in the million Nuyen range, the feeling that it´s the character, no outside force or abilities, doing the action stays more or less intact. I also think that is why trying to solve certain issues with subsystems like Path of War often fail, because they feel even more spell like.

I dunno, I very much like PoW because it actually feels like my own character's abilities. I'd say those systems often fail because they're too fantastical for the "muh realism" crowd. And I like SR Street Samurai, because, well, it's rather hard to take away your cyberarm unless you're in a position to lose everything anyways.

The interesting thing is, according to D&D/PF design-truisms, this should not work. We are all using identical mechanics and resource pools, something that is considered to be a no-go. But I think what these abilities interface with makes the difference. Locking an anti-magic effect on the shield still means that the Warden will use his very mundane combat skills at blocking, just expanding the options to now block incoming spells, too. The Elementalist had to invest into ranged combat things for aiming his spells and precision, but the spell format keeps this from feeling like a mundane thing.

That is...interesting. I might look into it when I finally get off my rear and start doing something about my own system in the works.

[Satinavian]

In my opinion, the best way to let everyone have more utility outside of combat in D&D is to slaughter a few sacred cows and take a page from 4e.

Take a subset of current spell effects, remove them from the spell lists entirely, and transform them into "incantations" that anyone of the appropriate level can learn and use. Make them require one or more of
a) substantial time
b) costly components
c) special circumstances ("an arcane conflux of ley lines", "cast by the blood of the high prince", etc)

The classic "ritual" classes (wizard, cleric) could get bonuses when they perform certain types of incantations or "free" incantations at level up. Then anyone can provide the teleportation, water breathing, plane-shifting, etc.

In a 5e context, the relevant spells would be something like
* all current ritual spells.
* many of the current "non-combat" spells (those with cast times > 1 action) other than the summoning spells
* A lot of the "altered movement" or "information gathering" spells such as fly, Locate X, etc. spells.
* All of the "resting utility" ones like Tiny Hut, Rope Trick, etc.

These would be willing-only, so even things like polymorph could get split into a combat version (still a spell, but able to be used balefully and to create stronger creatures) and a weaker, low-CR-only version (say capped out at CR 1/8) as an group incantation.

Sounds like "everyone is a mage but some mages use swords to fight".

For me those things that can work as rituals were always the core of what magic is about.

[GloatingSwine]

Sounds like "everyone is a mage but some mages use swords to fight".

For me those things that can work as rituals were always the core of what magic is about.

It also sounds like "The world is so thoroughly and inherently magical that people learn to use it about as commonly as they learn to walk".

Which is basically true of your average fantasy RPG setting that has caster/martial disparity.

It isn't actually rare and special to be a mighty wizard, every adventuring party's got one and probably a spare, there's an old sage on the outskirts of every damn town and village and they run one or more countries.

With magic and mages already that common, the real question is why isn't everyone capable of at least a little basic magery.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sounds like "everyone is a mage but some mages use swords to fight".

For me those things that can work as rituals were always the core of what magic is about.

Everyone (of consequence) can do magic, but not everyone choses to. And even throughout magical history, there are a lot of "rituals" that anyone capable of carefully following directions could do, even if they weren't a mage. That's what I'm going for here. There are still a lot of specialized things (summoning creatures is a big one) that don't fit here and the "magic-using" classes are better at using incantations than joe average is, but the raw capability is spread throughout. Because the other way lies the Caster-Martial disparity.

It also sounds like "The world is so thoroughly and inherently magical that people learn to use it about as commonly as they learn to walk".

Which is basically true of your average fantasy RPG setting that has caster/martial disparity.

It isn't actually rare and special to be a mighty wizard, every adventuring party's got one and probably a spare, there's an old sage on the outskirts of every damn town and village and they run one or more countries.

With magic and mages already that common, the real question is why isn't everyone capable of at least a little basic magery.

I wouldn't say "as commonly as they learn to walk", but certainly more widespread than just wizards. My setting has whole tranches of "common magic"--chants and rituals used by commoners as part of their daily life. THings like chants, that while they're being performed, make the weeds easier to pull or keep flies away from cattle. They only have small effects, and don't have persistent effects. Larger things, usually involving a ritual sacrifice (animal or a token blood sacrifice) can have longer-lasting effects and are used, for example, to aid the birthing process for animals. Sacrifice an old sheep with a particular chant and ceremony and the lambs will be born more easily and stronger. Combine a pin-prick's worth of blood from a community and, mixed with animal blood (for volume) and with a particular dedication ceremony, spread it on the gates of the village to ward against accident and disease. Etc.

Adventurer incantations require more soul-power (ie higher level) and either time, monetary sacrifice, or special circumstances because their effects are much larger scale, including planeshifting, teleportation, resurrection, etc.

[Quertus]

No, i wholeheartly agree with just presenting the scenario and let the characters/players figure it out - or not.

But if i like that, why would i want to have a character in the group who trivializes every scenario that gives the group a day or more to plan or prepare ? Such a character is poisonous to this approach.
Yes, that would be nice. But you don't need the ability to completely change your spellcasting selection every day with a theoretically unlimited pool of options. A sorcerer would have the spell to solve something or not. That is an inherently better design.

Is it? A great many modules I've ran would disagree, as they are predicated upon the notion that the party will eventually be able to do "x", for various values of "x".

Now, one could argue that the combination of "mutable abilities" and "win buttons" is a bad one, and I wholeheartedly agree: the one time I was given a *real* shapeshifter, I 100% dominated every single encounter. I was quite literally the broken definition of "tier 1 - better than the specialists in their chosen field".

But the Wizard is not that. They are "mutable abilities" + (some) "win buttons", given time. Whenever I talk about how the Muggle could handle travel to another plane simply by knowing about and walking to an existing portal, or when I talk about how a muggle could get from Point A to Point B (in 2d Space) by walking there, people always shoot that down? Exactly the same thing here. Sure, eventually the Wizard could open the door, but the Rogue (or even Fighter) can do it now.

Since this multidimensional balance seems too challenging, I continue to recommend making all Wizard spells be usable at will, to make achieving balance easier.

There is also no reason why wizards should be more versatile than other classes when it comes to closing gaps/covering weaknesses. In most other systems the charatcer options that could cover a lot of weaknesses at least in a rudimentary way are those that don't excel anywhere and only have comparatively weak powers.

… Honestly, I think that the problem is bigger and deeper than this.

Just look at all the ways I have personally dealt with the epic challenge the locked door IRL while avoiding the "pick the lock" minigame. Oh, and I even left out "copy the key". Now imagine all the other mundane ways one might approach that challenge, even before magic is added into the mix.

Game designers, scenario designers (both module writers and GMs), and players are all at fault for a lack of creativity, for linear thinking, for unrealistic niche dividing lines.

IRL, I'm a software developer by trade - probably about as "Wizard" a profession as you can get. Yet I've used each of (depending on how you count) 5-7 "handle locked door" techniques… eh, we'll say 1 to several times each in my life. Imagine what a trained adventurer should be able to do to the epic challenge of a locked door in comparison!

IMO, if you have to rely on the Wizard doing something about it tomorrow, somebody probably failed, hard, somewhere. Whether that's the game designer, the adventure writer, the players, or some combination thereof.

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named? In the past ~10 levels, his net contribution to the party - outside logistics - could have been handled by a bag of flour. And if the Muggle players had known that trick, and packed flour? He probably would not have had to have contributed even that.

Wizards are not "versatile" in any way that should be meaningful to a properly versatile, skilled, well-rounded Muggle, when IRL *me* has around half a dozen Muggle methods to laugh at the need for Knock… tomorrow.

[Satinavian]

But the Wizard is not that. They are "mutable abilities" + (some) "win buttons", given time.

That is the same thing for every scenario that provides time. Which most of them do. Especially if you want to have foreshadowing buildup and information gathering.

Really, the only situation where "given time" means that the wizard is not this broken a combination are those where he can't prepare anyway and the ability to switch spells is irrelevant.


There is really no reason to keep it. Which is why nearly all other RPGs, as soon as they got a bit away from being a D&D clone got rid of it.

Whenever I talk about how the Muggle could handle travel to another plane simply by knowing about and walking to an existing portal, or when I talk about how a muggle could get from Point A to Point B (in 2d Space) by walking there, people always shoot that down?

Because it is not a power, only a plot device ? Because such a portal might not even exist ?

I don't even know what that is supposed to prove and why you bring it again and again. If you want to say that knowledge skills, if the system has them, are a nice tool, i don't see any disagreement.

Exactly the same thing here. Sure, eventually the Wizard could open the door, but the Rogue (or even Fighter) can do it now. Since this multidimensional balance seems too challenging, I continue to recommend making all Wizard spells be usable at will, to make achieving balance easier.

Yes, the ability to nova is one of the issues with D&D spellcasting. Wizards get rare ressources they can bundle where it matters and hold back when it is not needed. Everyone else can't. That is one of the reasons, casters tend to dominate the most important and memorable scenes in D&D even if they are horribly unoptimized.

Wizards are not "versatile" in any way that should be meaningful to a properly versatile, skilled, well-rounded Muggle, when IRL *me* has around half a dozen Muggle methods to laugh at the need for Knock… tomorrow.

The knock spell was never my example.

The knock spell is weak and rather irrelevant. The only reason it seems good is that the "open locks"-skill is utter garbage by comparison. It costs skillpoints, a heavy investment for noncasters and it can fail.

Everyone (of consequence) can do magic, but not everyone choses to. And even throughout magical history, there are a lot of "rituals" that anyone capable of carefully following directions could do, even if they weren't a mage. That's what I'm going for here. There are still a lot of specialized things (summoning creatures is a big one) that don't fit here and the "magic-using" classes are better at using incantations than joe average is, but the raw capability is spread throughout. Because the other way lies the Caster-Martial disparity.

You misunderstood.

For me those who do ritual magic with all the utility applications, long casting times and big effects are the primary magic users of the setting that deserve names like wizards while those who only can do fast fast magical combat tricks and use magic only for fighting are hardly deserving this designation.

I have played several characters in various (non D&D) systems that only could do ritual and utility magic and would take up a weapon and armor if the need to fight arose. Those were always wizards or magicians or druids or witches. No one would ever have considered them on the martial side of a caster-martial disparity.


I am very sceptical of you can remove all the important magic and make it into rituals everyone can learn while still keep the idea of "caster classes" or "muggle classes". The class stops being particularly relevant for how magical your character actually is.

Also summoning is one of the most iconic rituals you can make rules for. This one you want to keep as a spell ?

[Talakeal]

Yes. That actually makes sense. But too many people like their martials so completely mundane they somehow can't do anything magical in a magical world. And those people are the ones holding the game back for the last...well, since inception, reallyt.

That's kind of a loaded way of phrasing it.

Prefering a more low-key or grounded world is a preferance, and its just as valid as any other.

Imagine saying the same thing about say, Game of Thrones or even The Lord of the Rings, tremendously popular and succsesful fantasy works which do not incude omnipresent over the top super-powers.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You misunderstood.

For me those who do ritual magic with all the utility applications, long casting times and big effects are the primary magic users of the setting that deserve names like wizards while those who only can do fast fast magical combat tricks and use magic only for fighting are hardly deserving this designation.

I have played several characters in various (non D&D) systems that only could do ritual and utility magic and would take up a weapon and armor if the need to fight arose. Those were always wizards or magicians or druids or witches. No one would ever have considered them on the martial side of a caster-martial disparity.

I am very sceptical of you can remove all the important magic and make it into rituals everyone can learn while still keep the idea of "caster classes" or "muggle classes". The class stops being particularly relevant for how magical your character actually is.

Also summoning is one of the most iconic rituals you can make rules for. This one you want to keep as a spell ?

I'm working in a D&D framework here, and thus trying to be as compatible as possible. Since the primary complaint is that "fighters" can only fight and "wizards" can fight AND utility, the idea is to spread out the utility to everyone that wants it. In this style, ritualistic magic is available to anyone who can pay the price in time, intrinsic power, costly components, and focus. This works well, for me, because it fits the general fictional pattern of someone conducting a ritual that they found in a book and it actually works (usually with bad results, but...).

Specialists (wizards, etc) can do those rituals more effectively and efficiently and can wield magic in places that a non-specialist can't (ie without the trappings of a ritual to hold and channel the energy for them). For a specialist caster, they themselves are the ritual object. For most people, the mental and spiritual discipline needed for this is beyond them--if they try they usually fail. A wizard is the arcane ritual for these prompt effects. A cleric is the literal channel for the will of their deity. Anyone can bless water, given the equipment and the time. Only a cleric, the embodiment of the will of their god, can call down fire from heaven onto the wicked.

So specialist casters give up weapon prowess (to some degree) to instead channel the magic around them into spells. They can also do things that no one else can do with rituals.

This last part is where summoning fits. I'd make a general "summon to make a deal/do a task" process (ie the part that doesn't involve gaining a combat-minion) a series of incantations ranging from the easy to the very difficult (depending on what you're summoning and what you're asking them to do). You'd probably need some form of name, with having the true name letting you summon precisely and actually bind them to an unwilling task.

On the other hand, summoning a generic creature to fight for you or accompany you in your adventures is a different process and would remain a spell. Because summoning an elemental to break down a door or a demon to assault your foes is a different level of risk, both for you and for them, and has a different bargain/reward/duration structure. It's an open-ended task, something that no creature will willingly accept unless it's short and fixed duration. And being short duration, having a huge ritual to perform it makes it useless. It requires binding them to your will, something you can't do normally without a true name. But since you're not summoning a specific individual creature, you can't have the true name.

So specialist casters can do magic faster, cheaper, and more effectively than non-specialists. But magic is everywhere and through everything. Everyone, whether they do it in the form of spells or not, is using magic. This framework is designed to grant the "non-casters" access to the whole library of ancillary effects in a D&D-compatible framework.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's kind of a loaded way of phrasing it.

Prefering a more low-key or grounded world is a preferance, and its just as valid as any other.

Imagine saying the same thing about say, Game of Thrones or even The Lord of the Rings, tremendously popular and succsesful fantasy works which do not incude omnipresent over the top super-powers.

In such a low-key/grounded world, there already isn't the caster/martial disparity because you've lopped off the top of the power curve entirely, the part that only casters can reach. The problem only exists in the mid-level or fully fantastic worlds.

And even in Game of Thrones you have fantastic elements and people with "super-powers", people who do/are magic. Not as much at the beginning, but certainly in the later books/seasons. You're quite far from grounded here.

With a framework for what's allowed, you can scale things properly in both directions and keep balance. If you insist that "non-casters" have to stay pure and can't have anything fantastic at all, then things break as soon as you move away from that very-low-power regime.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's kind of a loaded way of phrasing it.

Preferring a more low-key or grounded world is a preference, and its just as valid as any other.

Imagine saying the same thing about say, Game of Thrones or even The Lord of the Rings, tremendously popular and successful fantasy works which do not include omnipresent over the top super-powers.

The problem isn't that some people want to read about or game in a low-key / grounded world. Hell, both settings I'm working on are on the aggregate more low-key and grounded than any D&D setting ever.

The problem comes about when a certain subset of gamers adamantly demands that in even the most very fantastic magic-laden worlds, their martial characters must be utterly totally completely free of any magic, fantastic, or supernatural mojo, with all their abilities 100% based on skill, grit, will, effort, and normal human capability -- and able to keep up with the most fantastic capabilities of the spell-casting characters. At most, they have a magic sword or armor or whatever, but the actual character-person must be absolutely within the realm what could be imagined as a peak-capability real-world human-being.

In such a low-key/grounded world, there already isn't the caster/martial disparity because you've lopped off the top of the power curve entirely, the part that only casters can reach. The problem only exists in the mid-level or fully fantastic worlds.

And even in Game of Thrones you have fantastic elements and people with "super-powers", people who do/are magic. Not as much at the beginning, but certainly in the later books/seasons. You're quite far from grounded here.

With a framework for what's allowed, you can scale things properly in both directions and keep balance. If you insist that "non-casters" have to stay pure and can't have anything fantastic at all, then things break as soon as you move away from that very-low-power regime.

Or, what he said.

[Talakeal]

The problem isn't that some people want to read about or game in a low-key / grounded world. Hell, both settings I'm working on are on the aggregate more low-key and grounded than any D&D setting ever.

The problem comes about when a certain subset of gamers adamantly demands that in even the most very fantastic magic-laden worlds, their martial characters must be utterly totally completely free of any magic, fantastic, or supernatural mojo, with all their abilities 100% based on skill, grit, will, effort, and normal human capability -- and able to keep up with the most fantastic capabilities of the spell-casting characters. At most, they have a magic sword or armor or whatever, but the actual character-person must be absolutely within the realm what could be imagined as a peak-capability real-world human-being.




Or, what he said.

That's not the impression I got, to me the post I was responding to seemed to imp,y that mundane characters were holding the entire settin back rather than simply creating a balance disparity.

Are there people who insist a perfectly mundane character can compete with high level magic, or is that a popular strawman?

I personally have said that with an abstract combat system like D&D a pre-epic composite martial character who took the best parts of each edition could hold their own alongside a 3.X wizard whose GM had the good sense to ban or modify the cheesiest spells, and that you can pair up a super-hero and an action-hero in a narrative witho breaking versimilitude, but thats about as far as I go.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not the impression I got, to me the post I was responding to seemed to imp,y that mundane characters were holding the entire settin back rather than simply creating a balance disparity.

Are there people who insist a perfectly mundane character can compete with high level magic, or is that a popular strawman?

Those gamers exist -- I first encountered it as a thing here, on these forums. Right from the first time I participated in a discussion here on this topic, whenever someone suggested that "martials" could have fantastic abilities of their own, "magic" but not spellcasting, at least one poster has objected on the grounds that it violates their conception of the character as utterly non-magical.

As I read it, the post you were replying to was saying that the demand by those players that their martial characters be utterly unmagical and yet absolutely able to keep up with the sort of spellcasters that D&D presents at high level, is one of the root causes of the issue this thread is addressing -- which ties into my assertion that something has to give, and that part of the problem is that certain players refuse to "give" on any of the elements.

IMO, it's asking for the impossible to have a setting that's "grounded" and at least appears to work like the real world of some time and place that exists or used to exist, right down to the people being like real-world humans for the most part... and D&D-scale magic and spellcaster characters... and perfectly nonmagical martial characters who keep up with them or even best them just based on "steel and grit and cleverness and sinew"... all packaged together in a way that makes any darn sense.

The players in question want their character in the range and type of Conan or Fafhrd or The Gray Mouser, living up to the tales of these characters besting evil sorcerers... mastering the witch-queen either in battle or in bed... overcoming magic not with magic of their own, but with the aforementioned "steel and grit and cleverness and sinew". But... the magic and the magic users that they're besting are for the most part minor compared to what the magic users of D&D are capable of. The "pulp fantasy hero" scale of those characters and the "D&D scale" are two entirely different things. Even the recurring antagonist or one particular protagonist of my WIP fiction would go through most of Conan's sorcerous foes like a hot mage-knife through butter, and they very roughly map out around level 12 in 5e, with neither being an actual wizard as such.


I think those players would be far happier with something along the lines of Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed Of (the Mophidius product that is based on a TON of research, and that I think has the Howard estate's stamp approval), or Primeval Thule, or the like, or using one of those systems for their own setting.

[Talakeal]

Those gamers exist -- I first encountered it as a thing here, on these forums. Right from the first time I participated in a discussion here on this topic, whenever someone suggested that "martials" could have fantastic abilities of their own, "magic" but not spellcasting, at least one poster has objected on the grounds that it violates their conception of the character as utterly non-magical.

As I read it, the post you were replying to was saying that the demand by those players that their martial characters be utterly unmagical and yet absolutely able to keep up with the sort of spellcasters that D&D presents at high level, is one of the root causes of the issue this thread is addressing -- which ties into my assertion that something has to give, and that part of the problem is that certain players refuse to "give" on any of the elements.

IMO, it's asking for the impossible to have a setting that's "grounded" and at least appears to work like the real world of some time and place that exists or used to exist, right down to the people being like real-world humans for the most part... and D&D-scale magic and spellcaster characters... and perfectly nonmagical martial characters who keep up with them or even best them just based on "steel and grit and cleverness and sinew"... all packaged together in a way that makes any darn sense.

The players in question want their character in the range and type of Conan or Fafhrd or The Gray Mouser, living up to the tales of these characters besting evil sorcerers... mastering the witch-queen either in battle or in bed... overcoming magic not with magic of their own, but with the aforementioned "steel and grit and cleverness and sinew". But... the magic and the magic users that they're besting are for the most part minor compared to what the magic users of D&D are capable of. The "pulp fantasy hero" scale of those characters and the "D&D scale" are two entirely different things. Even the recurring antagonist or one particular protagonist of my WIP fiction would go through most of Conan's sorcerous foes like a hot mage-knife through butter, and they very roughly map out around level 12 in 5e, with neither being an actual wizard as such.


I think those players would be far happier with something along the lines of Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed Of (the Mophidius product that is based on a TON of research, and that I think has the Howard estate's stamp approval), or Primeval Thule, or the like, or using one of those systems for their own setting.

This is a really common claim, but I have yet to see any good evidence in favor of it and tons of (admittedly anecdotal) evidence against.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is a really common claim, but I have yet to see any good evidence in favor of it and tons of (admittedly anecdotal) evidence against.

The claim that they'd be happier with a different system?

Or a different claim?

D&D is very unlikely to ever be what they want it to be. It is likely that even in some future edition, the scale of spellcasting / spellcaster power will always invalidate what they say they want -- the magic in D&D will always get to the point where they have to accept at least one of the following:

* their martial character also has to have fantastic / supernatural / "magical" abilities (not spellcasting or the like, magical) to be on par with the spellcasters
* their martial character is not and cannot be on par with the spellcasters
* the setting is such that humans / human-like-beings have a "natural scale of potential" that far exceeds that of real-world humans
* the setting falls apart at the slightest objective examination

[Talakeal]

The claim that they'd be happier with a different system?

Or a different claim?

D&D is very unlikely to ever be what they want it to be. It is likely that even in some future edition, the scale of spellcasting / spellcaster power will always invalidate what they say they want -- the magic in D&D will always get to the point where they have to accept at least one of the following:

* their martial character also has to have fantastic / supernatural / "magical" abilities (not spellcasting or the like, magical) to be on par with the spellcasters
* their martial character is not and cannot be on par with the spellcasters
* the setting is such that humans / human-like-beings have a "natural scale of potential" that far exceeds that of real-world humans
* the setting falls apart at the slightest objective examination

All of the above.

IMO AD&D works fine to counter all of these points.

Note the term "sligtest" on your last point. All fiction falls apart at some level of scrutiny, the real question is the more subjective one about how closely you need to scrutinize something to be immersed in it.

[Max_Killjoy]

All of the above.

Um... the player has to accept "all of the above", even the ones that conflict with each other?

That sounds more like the fourth one -- "falls apart under the slightest scrutiny".

Note the term "sligtest" on your last point. All fiction falls apart at some level of scrutiny, the real question is the more subjective one about how closely you need to scrutinize something to be immersed in it.

See sig below.

IMO AD&D works fine to counter all of these points.

AD&D... where the spellcaster gets Wish, Meteor Swarm, and a host of other such spells.. and an absolutely-no-fantastic-no-supernatural-no-magic "martial character" gets... a sword, and determination, and mighty thews?

If the "martial character" is actually on par with that spellcaster at higher levels... then that's either option 3 or option 4 on my list.