D&D General The Importance of Verisimilitude (or "Why you don't need realism to keep it real")

[TwoSix]

Why?

I think the point @Pedantic was raising is that any magic capability, no matter how small, will always be superior to NOT having it because having the magic capability doesn't preclude any of the non-magic capability the character would have possessed before.

Now, that doesn't mean character classes are inherently unbalanced simply by the presence or absence of magic. You simply have to set the baseline of what non-magical activities a magic-possessing character to a fairly low level, and then not have the magical ability be overwhelming compared to the elite non-magical baseline a nonmagical class will be able to accomplish.

If a non-classed character has 4 hit points and can only attack with a knife or a club, then the non-magical class that gives him 20 more hit points and 2 attacks with a greatsword will probably be preferable to the magical class that slowly grants him stronger abilities to charm naked mole rats.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the point @Pedantic was raising is that any magic capability, no matter how small, will always be superior to NOT having it because having the magic capability doesn't preclude any of the non-magic capability the character would have possessed before.

Well, OT1H, having an ability, whether it's to levitate a feather when the wind is just right, or ride a unicycle, or run a decent RPG session, is better than not having it - and no one can have every possible ability, you do have to make choices.

OTOH, magic, being what it is (non-existent and entirely arbitrary), could require eschewing certain mundane options. For most of D&D's history, magic-users couldn't wear armor, for instance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is biased against non-magic character archetypes.

Get everyone to agree to a solution to fix that, or find one for your own game. No other option is going to make any progress.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, that classes should be balanced should be non-controversial. Balancing choices in a cooperative game gives players a chance to make appealing choices without hurting the collective effort towards beating the game. RL is neither fair nor balanced, games should be.

Having a normal class with grounded RL restrictions on what it can do is fine. If the other classes are balanced with it. There's nothing about representing a class as supernatural that requires it to be powerful. Create Water is supernatural, for instance. It's not exactly OP.

By the same token, the need to boost a non-supernatural class to extraordinary or superhuman levels only becomes necessary if there's a desire to make supernatural classes similarly powerful.

Now, TBF, genre strongly supports very limited magic that is slaved to the plot, and extraordinary heroes who don't directly tap such magic. It's just dramatic. Waving your hand and solving all the problems doesn't make for a great, heroic, story.

Perhaps non-supernatural classes shouldn't be used at tables where this is an issue.

I know...hot take.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps non-supernatural classes shouldn't be used at tables where this is an issue.

I know...hot take.

Lack of balance isn't a table issue - it's an issue some tables solve, formally or informally, and others revel in - it's a game issue.
And, yes, aA game presenting only supernatural player facing options would be fine. Ars Magica and Mage: the Ascension are two examples. The former even works back in lesser non-mages, as secondary characters.

 

[TwoSix]

Perhaps non-supernatural classes shouldn't be used at tables where this is an issue.

I know...hot take.

I first noticed the gap during the 3.X era, and my solution during that time was simply to always play casters. Worked fine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If your arms are less than 1' long and you don't have tongs. :|

Magic can be overtly supernatural and absolutely magic, but useless.

Not really relevant to the discussion though, is it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not really relevant to the discussion though, is it?

Seems entirely relevant. You can plead V-tude to say that real and magical abilities must be different, but there's no reason magic must be superior, since the capabilities and challenges faced by magic are entirely arbitrary.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Seems entirely relevant. You can plead V-tude to say that real and magical abilities must be different, but there's no reason magic must be superior, since the capabilities and challenges faced by magic are entirely arbitrary.

But if you make magic useless as you suggest, why bother? I'm using your extreme here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But if you make magic useless as you suggest, why bother? I'm using your extreme here.

Why bother with mundane classes if they're strictly inferior? The point is that balance is necessary, and that if there's any desire for V-tude, limiting how good non-magical player options can be, the workable solution is to tune magical options to balance with them. That they could as easily be intentionally imbalanced low to make playing a caster a woeful sacrifice, is just making the point.

More philosophically, even the most trivial magic could mean something in a given setting, or have a very specific use woven into a plot. If, IRL, you could prove that you could levitate match sticks, you would be an international celebrity and drive physicists crazy.