D&D General The Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard Problem

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
D&D does not attempt to explain the physical nature of the universe or how magic works in any great detail, any more than it attempts to get you to calculate the number of newtons that a person undergoes after falling before calculating the damage.

I don't know what the intent was. All I'm doing is looking at what is provided and trying to come up with some coherent description of it. If we accept four elemental planes and wizards can cast magic by chanting words to say nothing of giant spiders, then the universe that D&D exists in is not the real universe because the laws of physics prevent that.

What is natural to an inhabitant of that universe would be very unnatural to us.

What I think we would find is that at different points, different writers have provided different ideas about how the D&D universe worked because D&D never has undertaken to set out a coherent description of how it works. We all agree that there is some sort of gravity, but there is no reason to assume it obeys the law G*m1+M2/r^2. D&D doesn't specify, so if you want to think it does, then fine, but then you are left with the problem that how does the magic work.

Look at it this way. I think we all agree at some level that as a fighter levels up, his reflexes, his evasion, his speed in combat, and so forth are increasing incrementally. We know that because if we've done any real fighting at all, we know that there is a limit to how "good" you can be without increasing in fitness. You can do a lot with skill in tennis, but at some point if your ability to cover ground and strike the ball hard doesn't increase, you won't get any better and you'll be destroyed by people with more speed and faster reflexes.

So there is exists some point in the progression of a fighter leveling up incrementally where they are as fast and skilled with the blade as it is possible for a real person in this universe to be. If they at that point gain one more level, then what they are doing is at that point superhuman. After that point, they can do things like wrestle 2000lb grizzly bears with their bare hands and the bear is at a distinct disadvantage. This is something D&D fighters can already do, that real world people cannot. The point where it happens may differ between systems, but it eventually happens in any system. The fighter's hit points and combat ability eventually drown out the bears obvious natural advantages over a human.

So if that is "magic" then in D&D it is already happening. But here is the real crux of it. The people within the D&D universe already live in a universe where some humans get to the point they can wrestle a bear and beat it to death with their bear hands and come out of it with just a few scratches. Our idea that this outside the realm of the limits of human ability comes to us from our bias as outside observers talking about what humans can do in this world. But a commoner in the D&D universe doesn't describe wrestling a bear and beating it to death with your bare hands as outside the limits of human ability. In his world, people can already do that.

I'm putting it to you that historically, D&D has typically assumed that our ideas as outsiders of what is the limits of human ability are reached at about 5th level. Then D&D just keeps going from their incrementally. In the real world, the peak human ability in the long jump is about a meter less than what a kangaroo can do. Whether or not the two things are comparable isn't really the point. If the triple jump is more your measure of comparable jumping ability, then the D&D universe is still one where peak human jumping ability might incrementally reach and exceed real world peak human jumping ability as characters level up in skill in jumping in the same way that the D&D universe is a universe where peak human combat ability levels up so far past peak real world combat ability such that if we were to watch a D&D fighter in combat moving with uncanny reflexes and blinding speed we'd think it was supernatural.
That assumption has never been stated in the history of D&D, to my knowledge. Do you think that every development team for the game for the last 48 years just assumed everyone knew that so there was no point in spelling it out? It is far more likely to me that the default assumption is that D&D is like the real except as expressly specified otherwise.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
I would rule that Insects don't use any skill checks to climb unless like someone blows on them or something.

Much more so than 5e, 3e was focused on being able to use its rules to simulate things at a casual level. So insects might have a "natural climb speed" that gave them a +8 bonus on climb checks and various other benefits like the ability to "take 10" on a climb check whenever someone wasn't blowing on them or something.

5e abandoned that when it went to the bounded model and made the variable part of the fortune - the D20 - inherently bigger than the range of bonuses (say +1 to +7). This works fine for combat, but it doesn't work very well for skills if you are wanting to simulate things at a casual realistic level. As a result, to simulate ordinary things you'd have to silo out ordinary or even mundane ability as a feat, class ability, racial ability or other thing that no amount of skill would ever allow you to do.

That in my opinion is a problem and it violates what I think is good design.
 
Last edited:

Celebrim

Legend
In every edition of D&D to date, by default what you propose is not true. Mundane(normal) and magic(supernatural) are distinctions that every edition, including 5e makes.

They are useful distinctions for me as well, but the existence of these distinctions doesn't make what I say untrue. The trouble is that I can coherently explain what those distinctions are and you can't. You're still thinking the distinction is "exists in the real world" which is incoherent.

An example of this is that a fire elemental that wasn't summoned by a spell can step into an anti-magic field and doesn't wink out of existence. Because the fire elemental is as mundane in D&D as it is magical in the real world. Likewise a ghoul doesn't stop moving despite being obviously "magical" in the sense you use it. And ironically, in 3e the ghoul loses the ability to spread disease (suggesting it is a curse) but retains the ability to cause paralysis by touch (suggesting it is "mundane magic").

So yes, there is a distinction, but that distinction doesn't prove me wrong. You are using the words mundane and magical incorrectly. Mundane in the D&D universe isn't mundane in his universe. Supernatural is a term I inherently dislike as at best it just means "something I don't understand" and at worst it means "impossible thing", but applied to the D&D universe it certainly can't be judged on the basis of whether or not it can happen in this world.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
They are useful distinctions for me as well, but the existence of these distinctions doesn't make what I say untrue. The trouble is that I can coherently explain what those distinctions are and you can't. You're still thinking the distinction is "exists in the real world" which is incoherent.

An example of this is that a fire elemental that wasn't summoned by a spell can step into an anti-magic field and doesn't wink out of existence. Because the fire elemental is as mundane in D&D as it is magical in the real world. Likewise a ghoul doesn't stop moving despite being obviously "magical" in the sense you use it. And ironically, in 3e the ghoul loses the ability to spread disease (suggesting it is a curse) but retains the ability to cause paralysis by touch (suggesting it is "mundane magic").

So yes, there is a distinction, but that distinction doesn't prove me wrong. You are using the words mundane and magical incorrectly. Mundane in the D&D universe isn't mundane in his universe. Supernatural is a term I inherently dislike as at best it just means "something I don't understand" and at worst it means "impossible thing", but applied to the D&D universe it certainly can't be judged on the basis of whether or not it can happen in this world.
Again, show me in any D&D book where confirm your point of view. As I said above, this is your personal opinion of how things work in D&D. It is not supported by the text.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Again, show me in any D&D book where confirm your point of view. As I said above, this is your personal opinion of how things work in D&D. It is not supported by the text.

I feel like the anti-magic field example is in fact above the level of "personal opinion on how things work in D&D" and very much on the level of "any D&D book". If you aren't conceding that, then I'm not sure what evidence I could provide.

But since I'm feeling like explaining myself, lets return to the larger point.

Both of us surely concede that there is a level at which a D&D fighter can take on a 40 ton fire breathing lizard whose "teeth are like swords, armor is like ten-fold shields, wings are hurricane, it's tail a thunderbolt, and it's breath death" using only a sharped bit of metal, and by virtue of the fighter's reflexes, hardiness, strength, and fight intuition come out the victor. Further, I think you'll have to agree that that degree of reflexes, hardiness, strength, and skill with a sword is pretty much impossible if we mean a real world human bound to the laws of physics as we know it. Beating a tiger with a sword is one thing (mundane skill), but it's near enough impossible to beat an angry elephant in melee combat, and a dragon is beyond the bounds of credulity. But of course, if we accept the dragon as real, then we are accepting along with that the hero whose skill in combat exceeds any of ordinary experience as well (the real meaning of mundane, by the way). But to the inhabitants of the D&D universe, both the fire breathing dragon and the hero that defeats are mundane, even though neither could exist in this world. Real world dragons couldn't fly. Real world heroes couldn't move fast enough with enough precision and enough strength to kill a dragon.

If we accept both of those things with respect to combat, why is it hard to accept that the heroes above real world human capabilities in combat might also translate to above real world human capabilities outside of combat. I'm not saying that on the scale we are talking about we are talking about lifting the sky on your back, or drinking the ocean down, or what have you. I'm just saying somewhere above what we would expect real humans to do, but somewhat less than what the gods of stories do. If a real person can jump a meter shy of what a kangaroo can, why can't a guy that can kill a dragon without "magic" jump a meter more than a kangaroo can? If a real person can run at like 28mph, why can't a guy that can kill a dragon in melee combat run at 30mph without claiming that is "magic"?
 
Last edited:



Celebrim

Legend
Read the Bushi class from Adventures in Rokugan. It’s the martial class you’ve always wanted.

I'd have to buy the pdf, but you might not be entirely wrong. It would depend on the implementation. I've toyed with maneuver systems and combat currency, but I've never come up with our seen one I'm fully happy with. I don't think it impossible though there is one.

However, I'm worried that a maneuver/currency system that I'd be happy with would turn combat into playing chess and either make playing a fighter intimidating to the novice or slow down play too much. Sometimes there are things you think you want, but any implementation you'd be happy with brings drawbacks you hate more.

Also, eastern and western martial arts use very different language to describe the principles of combat. The martial class I've always wanted would be able to describe the full range of cultural approaches while grounding them in the less mystical approaches. The mystical approaches while fine for fantasy, to me represent either a different class or more likely if implemented well, multiclassing.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
They are useful distinctions for me as well, but the existence of these distinctions doesn't make what I say untrue. The trouble is that I can coherently explain what those distinctions are and you can't. You're still thinking the distinction is "exists in the real world" which is incoherent.
I have explained it clearly. In the world mundane items and creatures are NOT magical. They just aren't. Magic in the D&D universe is like the force. It flows in and around all things, but only those who can actually use the force have magic. Some creatures can do this innately. Normal Giant Spiders are not one of those creatures.
An example of this is that a fire elemental that wasn't summoned by a spell can step into an anti-magic field and doesn't wink out of existence. Because the fire elemental is as mundane in D&D as it is magical in the real world.
So is the one that was summoned. None of them are magical. They are simply creatures. The magic is in the summoning, not the elemental.
Likewise a ghoul doesn't stop moving despite being obviously "magical" in the sense you use it.
A ghoul is not magical. Some of them can be created through magic. Others arise spontaneously. The result, though, is an undead creature connected to the negative plane.
And ironically, in 3e the ghoul loses the ability to spread disease (suggesting it is a curse) but retains the ability to cause paralysis by touch (suggesting it is "mundane magic").
Ghouls have some innate magical ability, but that does not make them magical. Their attacks will not go through the resistance of a creature that is immune to normal weapons.
So yes, there is a distinction, but that distinction doesn't prove me wrong. You are using the words mundane and magical incorrectly. Mundane in the D&D universe isn't mundane in his universe. Supernatural is a term I inherently dislike as at best it just means "something I don't understand" and at worst it means "impossible thing", but applied to the D&D universe it certainly can't be judged on the basis of whether or not it can happen in this world.
I am using them correctly. Your coherent explanation is anything but. Creatures are not all magical just because magic(the force) is everywhere or they originated magically(undead animation). Create Food and Water makes entirely unmagical food and water.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I feel like the anti-magic field example is in fact above the level of "personal opinion on how things work in D&D" and very much on the level of "any D&D book". If you aren't conceding that, then I'm not sure what evidence I could provide.
Your anti-magic example proves OUR position, not yours. That the elemental doesn't wink out is because it is NOT magical, not because it is. If your position was correct, an anti-magic field would instant annihilate everything in its area. All dirt, rock, creatures, everything would go.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top