D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 2 - The Mundane Limit

[Scars Unseen]

You can’t separate those to meanings in choosing the word mundane.

Perhaps you can't, but it seems presumptuous to say that the people using a word must mean the least charitable interpretation when there's no evidence that's the intent. Considering the entire discussion is about a comparison of earthly might versus otherworldly power, the usage of the word "mundane" should be taken in that context as the literal "of the earth" definition.

More specifically, the discussion seems mostly to be about finding the line between the mundane and the supernatural, how far that line can be pushed before it breaks credulity, and whether or not it's a bad thing when it does. Obviously people have varying opinions on each of those discussion points, but at the very least there seems to be a general agreement that the current balance between classes that lean on the supernatural and those that cleave to the mundane is off at higher levels of play, and that something should be done to address that.

Personally, I feel that the line drawn depends on the fiction you're trying to emulate, but D&D has problems emulating any specific kind of fiction, especially since different classes seem to be designed with different fictions in mind. I think D&D would be better as a game if it targeted specific fictional goals and then put out material to support that, with a somewhat more malleable baseline to start with.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, context alone leads to the 'not supernatural' meaning of mundane, even if traditional D&D saddles it with the 'boring' meaning to prop up mage superiority.

 

[TheSword]

Perhaps you can't, but it seems presumptuous to say that the people using a word must mean the least charitable interpretation when there's no evidence that's the intent. Considering the entire discussion is about a comparison of earthly might versus otherworldly power, the usage of the word "mundane" should be taken in that context as the literal "of the earth" definition.

The negative connotation remains even if you use it for an unrelated term. It’s a poor choice of word… in my opinion.

More specifically, the discussion seems mostly to be about finding the line between the mundane and the supernatural, how far that line can be pushed before it breaks credulity, and whether or not it's a bad thing when it does. Obviously people have varying opinions on each of those discussion points, but at the very least there seems to be a general agreement that the current balance between classes that lean on the supernatural and those that cleave to the mundane is off at higher levels of play, and that something should be done to address that.

It may be the general agreement in the posters of this thread up to this point. But only because the many people who disagree aren’t engaging with the umpteenth Martial Caster disparity thread. Or rather, part 2 of the previous Martial Caster disparity thread.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

@TheSword has a point. Let's call the martial method of doing thing "muggle" instead, to remove the amiguity.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I’m late to the party but the whole framing of this debate is geared to denigrate martials and complain about the power of magic.

Mundane might mean non-magical but it also means lacking interest or excitement; dull. You can’t separate those to meanings in choosing the word mundane.

Yet I don’t think there is anything dull or lacking excitement about martial combat. In fact I would say the opposite. Climbing a cliff hand hold by handhold with the risk of falling to your death is far more interesting and exciting than using a levitate spell.

I don’t need my martials to be realistic. What I do want them to be is ‘possible’ however unlikely that is. Whereas magic is the preview of the ‘impossible’. Possible doesn’t have to mean easy, simple or obvious though. What John Wick does is in theory possible, though it would take a great deal of training and endurance beyond anything seen… it can be conceived as possible though. Levitating an inch of the ground without some external force is impossible though. That’s the difference with magic. Things martials can do are thoroughly not mundane!

By the same token magic doesn’t mean better, stronger, or more powerful… it just lets you do things that aren’t possible.

A lot of the abilities are great, but you can keep your disintegrating strikes and dispelling blows.

Please explain how using "possible" as a rubric has any practical difference from using "realistic" considering that "realistic" has thus far been used to describe whether things are possible using Earth standard assumptions.

A perfect flaw in this argument is the immediate dismissal of a "dispelling" strike. Why would that be impossible? There is no "real-world" basis on which to judge such a thing. It's pure preference masked as common sense.

 

[Maxperson]

Like I said before, I'm fine with martials doing disintegrating strikes and dispelling blows if they are weilding a magic weapon.

For me that's not even sufficient. I want those abilities to be a result of such extreme training and skill that the fighter(or other martial) has progressed beyond natural limits and into the supernatural. Think Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat.

 

[Maxperson]

Please explain how using "possible" as a rubric has any practical difference from using "realistic" considering that "realistic" has thus far been used to describe whether things are possible using Earth standard assumptions.

A perfect flaw in this argument is the immediate dismissal of a "dispelling" strike. Why would that be impossible? There is no "real-world" basis on which to judge such a thing. It's pure preference masked as common sense.

That's not a flaw in the argument. The 5e books talk about what magic is and at no point is a mundane strike a magical thing that can dispel magic. Plus 5e explicitly uses the 5e common real world understandings of words for how it functions, there is absolutely a real world basis on which to judge what is or is not magical or mundane. For a dispelling strike not to be supernatural, you have to re-write the common usages of what mundane and magical/supernatural mean.

 

[Gammadoodler]

That's not a flaw in the argument. The 5e books talk about what magic is and at no point is a mundane strike a magical thing that can dispel magic. Plus 5e explicitly uses the 5e common real world understandings of words for how it functions, there is absolutely a real world basis on which to judge what is or is not magical or mundane. For a dispelling strike not to be supernatural, you have to re-write the common usages of what mundane and magical/supernatural mean.

If it's silent, as you've just indicated, then adding in the ability to dispell things would not be contradictory in any way.

The only way to judge a dispelling strike by "real-world" standards is to acknowledge that spells do not exist in the real-world. But if that is the rubric for attack effectiveness, then martials shouldn't be able to do much of anything, since most of the things they attack also do not exist in the real world.

 

[Maxperson]

If it's silent, as you've just indicated, then adding in the ability to dispell things would not be contradictory in any way.

It's not silent. It talks about magical/supernatural abilities that creatures get, which in the normal course of understanding shows that if you have something beyond real world mundanity, it's supernatural or magical. You don't see a creature with a dispelling strike that isn't a magical ability. You don't see a creature that turns people to stone with mundane gaze or touch. And of course the words natural, mundane, supernatural and magical use their commonly understood real world meanings.

A mundane ability to dispel magic would be contradictory to what 5e states about itself and meanings.

The only way to judge a dispelling strike by "real-world" standards is to acknowledge that spells do not exist in the real-world. But if that is the rubric for attack effectiveness, then martials shouldn't be able to do much of anything, since most of the things they attack also do not exist in the real world

And I can in fact judge dispelling strike by the real world commonly used definition standards for the words mundane, magical and supernatural.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I want those abilities to be a result of such extreme training and skill that the fighter(or other martial) has progressed beyond natural limits and into the supernatural. Think Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat.

I think there should be a distinction made between the supernatural and the superhuman. Supernatural is, in my mind, a matter of origin, where superhuman is a matter of result. An ability can be both, but what you're describing - training and skill that pushes capabilities beyond those of an ordinary human - would only be the latter. It hints at a fictional conceit that most humans don't live up to their true potential, but with enough training, experience and perhaps inborn talent, we are capable of feats that appear supernatural to the eye. I wouldn't cite the games you mentioned, but rather certain manga like Rurouni Kenshin (or the Japanese legends that inspired them).

Supernatural, on the other hand, requires a catalyst of some sort. Whether it's circumstances of birth (a lot of Greek myths), encounters with beings that, themselves, are supernatural (specifically the myth of Achilles), exposure to some source of augmentation or change (most comic superheroes), etc. It points to a source of power that is not wholly theirs or an association or nature that isn't fully natural. The recent Mortal Kombat movie is explicitly this, with the fairly pointless inclusion of arcana as an explicit power source.

I think there is room for the superhuman in a character who is not supernatural, but it requires a fiction that supports that premise. It would be out of place in an Alexandre Dumas novel, but entirely at home in a lot of Hollywood action films (e.g. Wanted, the movie where they could curve bullets the way a pitcher throws a curve ball).