Mundane utility to match magic

[Blue]

If mundane utility has the same reality-changing power of magic... what is magic? Why have something be "magic" if the mundane approach is equivalent?

Magic is an in-game change of reality.

The mundane options I've been describing our out-of-game changes of reality.

If the party is being tracked by bloodhounds, Magic might allow one to open a short range portal to elsewhere so the dogs lose the scent, while a Prepared character might have picked up a strong perfume "at some previous time" that will mess up the dogs sense of smell for a few hours.

This is a central question of game balance - the point is not to make all branches of power have the same "reality altering power", but to have all characters equally able to impact the course of fictional events, which is not the same thing.

This actually strongly supports what I was saying. I do not see a way to have one type of advantage that can give authorial control and then have other characters equally able to impact the course of the narrative without also having authorial control.

So, having the ability to frame things in the narrative that are reality altering in-game, such as magic, and having the ability to frame things in the narrative that are not-reality-altering in-game (but are out-of-game, like flashbacks, adding a contact, etc.) is about the only way I can think that meets your criteria - both "equally able to affect the course of fictional events" but different.

Like, yes the wizard can destroy the enemy army with huge balls of fire, killing scores and hundreds. But the mundane person with a decent persuasion skill can talk the general into not attacking. This is a smaller change in reality, but has similar impact on the course of events - the war ends either way.

Which doesn't fit what is being discussed at all, unless you are barring the caster from also talking to the general. That's part of the original mandate.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Which doesn't fit what is being discussed at all, unless you are barring the caster from also talking to the general. That's part of the original mandate.

expanding on what i mentioned in my previous comment, i would say that the solution to this IS to bar the caster from talking to them, at least functionally, a wizard can try to talk to the general but they'll get turned away pretty quick being dismissed as 'a civilian' or 'not having proper clearance and authorisation', they have to spend resources casting a charm to get them to listen, and likely will have to cast a few more if anyone questions anything, whereas a fighter or a rogue can walk up to the guy, say 'give me the situation' and get a salute, information and a hot fresh coffee in return.

IMO a martial should have ties and 'be connected' to the world in a way a caster isn't.

 

[pemerton]

Which doesn't fit what is being discussed at all, unless you are barring the caster from also talking to the general. That's part of the original mandate.

My first thought was that the martial character has an ability that opens up the opportunity for an audience with the general.

This would be a meta-ish sort of thing.

IMO a martial should have ties and 'be connected' to the world in a way a caster isn't.

This is a way of making it "in fiction" rather than meta. It would require a strong sort of take on what spell caster is - a being very alienated from ordinary human reality.

 

[CreamCloud0]

My first thought was that the martial character has an ability that opens up the opportunity for an audience with the general.

This would be a meta-ish sort of thing.

This is a way of making it "in fiction" rather than meta. It would require a strong sort of take on what spell caster is - a being very alienated from ordinary human reality.

i mean, i didn't so much mean make them alienated from ordinary reality, just more, organisations that casters tend to learn their craft through and the credentials that they earn arent typically recognised as meaning much to people outside of the groups that already involved in those magical matters.

meanwhile the organisations martials tend to learn under are more widespread and their credentials are recognised more commonly, their specialties are more 'practical', like, a engine mechanic is more likely to be seen as useful to most people than a scientist of theoretical physics.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If (general) your game really has such a wide imbalance in getting to accomplish things in-game between the players who have spellcaster characters and the players who don't... the easiest solution is to just not let your better players play spellcasters.

Having a spellcaster doesn't do much good if the player just doesn't have the true imagination needed to use the magical tools effectively. If the better players are the ones solving the problems, then the lesser player with the Wizard is still just the lesser player, even though their PC is the one with the theoretically overpowered toybox.

Are any of (general) your players genuinely feeling like they aren't contributing? Then you have a very specific issue you can solve for at your table with a specialized and direct solution... rather than trying to come up with some generalized solution that is theoretically meant to solve issues on the off-chance they happen at some random point in time.

 

[aco175]

Do not forget backgrounds and feats. If I'm a criminal- I know people already through the rules, or a folk hero getting free lodging. Add more here over just giving more stuff to non-casters and saying "Magic need not apply." Also think about multiclassed casters or sub-classed casters and how an arcane trickster can now do all these shortcut things we decry, but we already given him all the other things.

What about science. If the magic man can light his pipe with snapping his fingers, I can use this tindertwig or Bic lighter. If he can charm person, I can use Persuasion or Deception. If he can have mops and buckets animate to clean the room, I can hire a few people or get my folk hero background to have someone lend me a hand cleaning.

I'm reminded of the PSA chasing rainbows all the This class sucks threads so we need to boost them, which just puts another class in need of a boost.

 

[TwoSix]

If (general) your game really has such a wide imbalance in getting to accomplish things in-game between the players who have spellcaster characters and the players who don't... the easiest solution is to just not let your better players play spellcasters.

Having a spellcaster doesn't do much good if the player just doesn't have the true imagination needed to use the magical tools effectively. If the better players are the ones solving the problems, then the lesser player with the Wizard is still just the lesser player, even though their PC is the one with the theoretically overpowered toybox.

Are any of (general) your players genuinely feeling like they aren't contributing? Then you have a very specific issue you can solve for at your table with a specialized and direct solution... rather than trying to come up with some generalized solution that is theoretically meant to solve issues on the off-chance they happen at some random point in time.

Or maybe just have spellcasters who are limited in scope, and leave the strong magic as a function of ritual and resources.

If wizards were limited to blasting spells and personal abjurations, and clerics were limited to varieties of heals and group defense buffs, we wouldn't see these kinds of issues.

The core issue between magic and martial classes isn't magic; it's specifically the D&D implementation of the wizard (and casters who mimic wizards) who has a nigh-unlimited toolkit.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or maybe just have spellcasters who are limited in scope, and leave the strong magic as a function of ritual and resources.

If wizards were limited to blasting spells and personal abjurations, and clerics were limited to varieties of heals and group defense buffs, we wouldn't see these kinds of issues.

The core issue between magic and martial classes isn't magic; it's specifically the D&D implementation of the wizard (and casters who mimic wizards) who has a nigh-unlimited toolkit.

Yeah, but that toolkit only matters if you have a player capable of planning for the contingencies needed to make use of it. And more often than not... I suspect most tables won't actually have a spell prepared to cover those contingencies because the caster player didn't figure out the action they were going to need. And even for those times when a spell is in fact prepared... there's no guarantee the player is going to know when or how best to use it.

More often than not, all this talk about casters being "overpowered" comes from people suggesting it with 'perfect information'. That the needed Knock or See Invisibility or Phantasmal Terrain or Enhance Ability or whatever other spell is going to needed at that moment in time is going to be on hand and having been prepared. But that doesn't really happen all that much. Players in the moment just don't have that perfect information. Thus problems just get solved by all the players together working as a group, not because a single character class has all the answers.

If any individual DM sees an issue at their table with a really skilled player that plays a Wizard all the time and is able to solve every issue on their own and never shares the spotlight and the other players are becoming disheartened... then sure, that DM can figure out what might need to happen for their table. But there's no need for some generalized "solution" for people to come up with for ALL tables, because those general solutions just aren't useful. After all... we've had an entire decade of 5E with DMs thinking this spellcaster thing was a problem and ten years of generic "solutions" being suggested and thrown out there... and yet none of them seem be worth anything because DMs are still looking for more solutions to this supposed problem. So maybe universal rules just aren't worth it? As a DM, target your specific needs for your table and stop concerning yourself with anyone else's.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, but that toolkit only matters if you have a player capable of planning for the contingencies needed to make use of it. And more often than not... I suspect most tables won't actually have a spell prepared to cover those contingencies because the caster player didn't figure out the action they were going to need. And even for those times when a spell is in fact prepared... there's no guarantee the player is going to know when or how best to use it.

More often than not, all this talk about casters being "overpowered" comes from people suggesting it with 'perfect information'. That the needed Knock or See Invisibility or Phantasmal Terrain or Enhance Ability or whatever other spell is going to needed at that moment in time is going to be on hand and having been prepared. But that doesn't really happen all that much. Players in the moment just don't have that perfect information. Thus problems just get solved by all the players together working as a group, not because a single character class has all the answers.

If any individual DM sees an issue at their table with a really skilled player that plays a Wizard all the time and is able to solve every issue on their own and never shares the spotlight and the other players are becoming disheartened... then sure, that DM can figure out what might need to happen for their table. But there's no need for some generalized "solution" for people to come up with for ALL tables, because those general solutions just aren't useful. After all... we've had an entire decade of 5E with DMs thinking this spellcaster thing was a problem and ten years of generic "solutions" being suggested and thrown out there... and yet none of them seem be worth anything because DMs are still looking for more solutions to this supposed problem. So maybe universal rules just aren't worth it? As a DM, target your specific needs for your table and stop concerning yourself with anyone else's.

Oh, don't worry about me, I've already corrected this problem.

All I'm saying is that as a general framework for fantasy gaming, more limited spellcasters are better. If you're working on your homebrew, and you're concerned about the balance of magic classes, chucking the generalist wizard should be one of the first things you consider.