Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9150782" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I made something of a career out of disagreeing with this point in the past, though I've softened somewhat. Generally speaking, I think it's impractical to put supernatural and "natural" archetypes next to each other and expect them to remain on the same playing field, if you're going to address the aesthetic concerns that natural archetypes raise. The standard response is just to not do that, which clearly doesn't work for all consumers of the product, or we wouldn't be having these discussions.Magic is definitionally better than non-magic in some significant way. Either action at a distance, action with less effort, action with a deferred cost, impossible action, etc. That capability then exists on top of mundane capability, because it is a quite reasonable assumption that having access to extra-normal capabilities doesn't affect your ability to solve problems conventionally.The only way I think it's actually viable is to sufficiently quantify mundane actions such that you can actually limit them when you hand out magical utility. Pulley+mage hand is always better than pulley alone, thus access to mage hand must somehow prevent you from using a pulley.</blockquote>