It's not required to give mundanes "magic" to make them competitive with the mages. Just give them more tools to deal with a world of magic (e.g. saves, magic resist, etc.). Increase their survival versus magic.
or dial back magic to a point many would find somewhat dull given the tradition of how the game has worked.
Lanefan
It's certainly not everything that's required to repair the parity, but it would help in recreating some of the epic feeling of warriors and thieves.I hear this a lot, but the problem is it doesn't at all address the agency that casters have. Even at level 1 your wizard can drop 4 enemies instantly with no save, make someone instantly into a friend, unerringly shoot a lethal (to normal people and most at-level monsters at least) bolt of magic, etc. Now, at that level the fighter could do things IN COMBAT that are at least as useful, but out of combat what could he do? Nothing the wizard couldn't do just as well, except take damage, which is nice but not much. That's the BEST you get, and it goes downhill from there.
It is a mistake for people to think that equality means "equally useful in a fight", that's only scratching the surface.
That's one way to do it, to be sure.I want magic toned back. If sticking with spell levels, I want spells like sleep moved to another level for balance. I want spell damage toned down. I want slower spell acquisition similar to a bards so that clerics, druids, wizards, etc. are getting their 6th level spells around 18th level.
Great post.Eh, Elminster, Gandalf, and Merlin are the arcane analogs of Heracles and the like.
<snip>
I think D&D gets way more out of being a balanced, cooperative, and social game focused on teamwork and shared narrative than it does from any "realism" about how special spell-casters are vs. everyone else.
Likewise.I hear this a lot, but the problem is it doesn't at all address the agency that casters have.
<snip<
It is a mistake for people to think that equality means "equally useful in a fight", that's only scratching the surface.
Personally, I don't mind the game being open-ended as to level but I'd rather see it designed such that levels above about 10th are really difficult to achieve as a PC - easily enough done by slowing the advancement rate at that point to an absolute crawl. If you get to 12th, you've done something. 13th? Wow!
Or wait for the inevitable clamoring for "Grim Tales Next."Yeah...some of you want to keep martial types relegated more to Conan levels than Hercules. But D&D needs Hercules if it is going to keep the game interesting for sword guy at all levels. Don't like that? Then cap character advancement at level 10 or so in your own games, rather than conforming the game as a whole solely to the sword and sorcery genre. Afterall, some of us want to be playing balls-out wuxia fantasy superheroes at level 20 and beyond.