Magic Versus Mundanes - The Double Standard

[AndyJames]

Open a door and then smash a door. Let me know if you notice the difference in things being able to go through the door.

[Kajhera]

I like this option when the players smash a door:
"As the metal buckles around around your shoulder then falls away you spot a tiny room with a mop against the wall and a bucket of dirty water on the floor. Conjurations you've busted down the door to a broom closet. Have any plans with your new bucket and mop?"

You can't overuse it or it gets dull, but the first time I think is hilarious.

This reminds me of our strenuous efforts to check the pantry door for traps.

In a different campaign, a Spawn of Kyuss wound up bursting out of a different pantry door, so... it apparently was justified.

[Brainpiercing]

Open a door and then smash a door. Let me know if you notice the difference in things being able to go through the door.

Oh, you're applying logic, which clearly has no place here .

If you apply logic, I say that my 10 foot glaive smashes door and trap in one thrust.

Fact is, if you set off a trap you get a save - if that trap offers a save, and I would argue a melee or ranged attack trap should offer one, or have an attack bonus -, unless the trap rolls an attack roll. It doesn't matter how you set it off. Also, if removing the door - via opening or smashing - is the method of triggering the trap, then the "rogue" can check for that mechanism, whether it's behind the door or not. It's not supposed to be realistically possible, it's putting two random numbers against each other, or putting a random number against a fixed number. It's the GM's job to make the numbers fun. Guess what, I don't like traps much. Traps are only good (meaning: interesting) as direct defensive measures, to enforce a certain tactical situation - for example pit traps (or any others) that need to be cleared to reach the archers on the other side. Clearing dungeons full of traps is only good for masochists.

[Rebel7284]

Clearing dungeons full of traps is only good for masochists.

I wonder if I could use this as a tool to get more masochists to play D&D 

[MalcolmSprye]

I think one possible way to help alleviate the magic/mundane gap is to take public opinion into account.  And by that I mean in game public opinion. Everyone respects the front line fighter.  He's brave, he's dashing, and everybody can understand what he's doing, even if they couldn't do it themselves.  The spell-caster, on the other hand, especially a BFC style one, won't be doing stuff that people identify as awesome.  Even if they do, they'll think it's awesome in a sort of cowardly way.  Then there's the issue:  even if they respect them, your average peasant or armsman probably isn't very comfortable around powerful magic.

So: Leadership bonuses for non-casters.  Leadership penalties for casters.  You can also extend this to diplomacy checks, and possibly even to initial attitude. 

[veekie]

One thing you could do with doors is put oh...a hatch to the bottom of a lake on the other side.
Let them find out theres a VERY good reason for the ultra tough locks.

[Sunic_Flames]

I think one possible way to help alleviate the magic/mundane gap is to take public opinion into account.  And by that I mean in game public opinion. Everyone respects the front line fighter.  He's brave, he's dashing, and everybody can understand what he's doing, even if they couldn't do it themselves.  The spell-caster, on the other hand, especially a BFC style one, won't be doing stuff that people identify as awesome.  Even if they do, they'll think it's awesome in a sort of cowardly way.  Then there's the issue:  even if they respect them, your average peasant or armsman probably isn't very comfortable around powerful magic.

So: Leadership bonuses for non-casters.  Leadership penalties for casters.  You can also extend this to diplomacy checks, and possibly even to initial attitude. 

"Great Power."

[Kajhera]

On mundane vs. magic: Harmonia est discordia concors. As is, magic can do what mundanes can do. It needs to be different to be beautiful and interesting. Mars as a Warblade and Venus as a Beguiler might make an interesting and reasonable party. Mars as a Fighter and Venus as any spellcaster would not so much. But Mars and Venus should perfectly well both be able to do cool things.


/just got out of an exam and is loopy.

[MalcolmSprye]

I think one possible way to help alleviate the magic/mundane gap is to take public opinion into account.  And by that I mean in game public opinion. Everyone respects the front line fighter.  He's brave, he's dashing, and everybody can understand what he's doing, even if they couldn't do it themselves.  The spell-caster, on the other hand, especially a BFC style one, won't be doing stuff that people identify as awesome.  Even if they do, they'll think it's awesome in a sort of cowardly way.  Then there's the issue:  even if they respect them, your average peasant or armsman probably isn't very comfortable around powerful magic.

So: Leadership bonuses for non-casters.  Leadership penalties for casters.  You can also extend this to diplomacy checks, and possibly even to initial attitude. 

"Great Power."

yes, I know that modifier for leadership, but it quite subjective.  I'm looking for ways that don't involve arbitrary nerfs to casters... and the GM shifting the culture of the world somewhat is certainly a way to do that.  Circumstance bonuses and penalties are pretty much at the GM's discretion: "Sorry, but the culture here is more Norse than usual.  People may fear magic users if they're powerful enough, but they don't respect them as much, and they're far less likely to follow them than they are a mighty berserker."

[Rebel7284]

On mundane vs. magic: Harmonia est discordia concors. As is, magic can do what mundanes can do. It needs to be different to be beautiful and interesting. Mars as a Warblade and Venus as a Beguiler might make an interesting and reasonable party. Mars as a Fighter and Venus as any spellcaster would not so much. But Mars and Venus should perfectly well both be able to do cool things.


/just got out of an exam and is loopy.

I love your analogies and examples <3

[Kajhera]

On mundane vs. magic: Harmonia est discordia concors. As is, magic can do what mundanes can do. It needs to be different to be beautiful and interesting. Mars as a Warblade and Venus as a Beguiler might make an interesting and reasonable party. Mars as a Fighter and Venus as any spellcaster would not so much. But Mars and Venus should perfectly well both be able to do cool things.


/just got out of an exam and is loopy.

I love your analogies and examples <3

You have the professors who have made me write for around six hours straight in the last couple days to thank. 

[Sunic_Flames]

I think one possible way to help alleviate the magic/mundane gap is to take public opinion into account.  And by that I mean in game public opinion. Everyone respects the front line fighter.  He's brave, he's dashing, and everybody can understand what he's doing, even if they couldn't do it themselves.  The spell-caster, on the other hand, especially a BFC style one, won't be doing stuff that people identify as awesome.  Even if they do, they'll think it's awesome in a sort of cowardly way.  Then there's the issue:  even if they respect them, your average peasant or armsman probably isn't very comfortable around powerful magic.

So: Leadership bonuses for non-casters.  Leadership penalties for casters.  You can also extend this to diplomacy checks, and possibly even to initial attitude. 

"Great Power."

yes, I know that modifier for leadership, but it quite subjective.  I'm looking for ways that don't involve arbitrary nerfs to casters... and the GM shifting the culture of the world somewhat is certainly a way to do that.  Circumstance bonuses and penalties are pretty much at the GM's discretion: "Sorry, but the culture here is more Norse than usual.  People may fear magic users if they're powerful enough, but they don't respect them as much, and they're far less likely to follow them than they are a mighty berserker."

My point is that casters, almost by default qualify for a Leadership boost and beatsticks, almost by default do not qualify for the same boost.

And in any case, "Oh yeah, people don't like you as much." is neither going to impress anyone, or balance out fantastic cosmic power. Especially since to be liked, and to benefit from such you kind of need to be alive... At best it does nothing. More likely it results in a "Well fuck you too then." type attitude.

[Ramaloke]

Except that this whole idea of social acceptableness doesn't work.

Hey guys, casters have charm person and sorcerers have charisma as primary stat, clerics has charisma as a secondary stat.

Also, how is Joe Bob the Uneducated Peasant going to figure out you are a magic user?

Also, are you going to tell me that the peasants wont rally around "Adrian Lighbearer, High Priest of Lathandar"?

"Hey this guy has healing magic! Lets not trust him as much as the guy with the two foot long broadsword!"

[Tenebrus]

I'd like there to be essentially no magic items for casters.  Here's the reasoning:

A mage makes a +1 sword obviously to sell.  But if I'm going through the trouble, expense, and XP to make something for a magician, I'm keeping it.  It thus follows that there are fewer mage-oriented items in circulation, affecting their price and availability.  So if mages want an item, they can:

a. Burn feats to craft it themselves and lose that Apocalyptic Spell metamagic they had planned;
b. Quest for it (allowing the GM complete control over the item and when it is received);
c. Take it from some other mage's cold dead fingers (allowing the GM control over the item and when it is received).

Nothing you can do on multi-use stuff, although the item of +2 Dex might be more common than the one for +2 Int/Cha/Wis.

[Garryl]

I disagree with your assessment, Tenebrus. The raw materials of crafting (in this case, gold and XP) are fungible. As long as there is enough such materials to go around, anything they produce should be about as available as anything else of the same or similar cost. The only reason for a crafter to make more of one type than the other is demand; there's no point in making an item to sell if nobody will buy it. But as long as there are mages willing and able to craft and others willing to pay for the crafted items, there will be enough of all of the possible items (or not enough, or too much, but either way there will be a similar availability from one magical commodity to the next).

[Lycanthromancer]

I would think there would be far MORE magic items for casters than others. After all, the casters can use the headband of Int. Not so much that +1 kukri.

Casters die, the items they made for themselves enter circulation when whatever killed them is killed in turn (generally by other casters, since no wizard should die after level 5, and no cleric after about level 7). Sure, a fighter can use the cleric's mace and armor, but you'd never get anything beyond +1 weapons that way, and swords would be rare (since the cleric can turn it into a +5 mace or whatever, and clerics don't generally use swords, 'cept for elves).

[The_Mad_Linguist]

That's why I find the idea of mages only being able to use magic items with a CL higher than their own appealing (provided you're able to voluntarily lower your CL for the day while preparing spells).

Suddenly, magic items geared towards casters are almost only made for your apprentice!

[Tenebrus]

I disagree with your assessment, Tenebrus. The raw materials of crafting (in this case, gold and XP) are fungible. As long as there is enough such materials to go around, anything they produce should be about as available as anything else of the same or similar cost. The only reason for a crafter to make more of one type than the other is demand; there's no point in making an item to sell if nobody will buy it. But as long as there are mages willing and able to craft and others willing to pay for the crafted items, there will be enough of all of the possible items (or not enough, or too much, but either way there will be a similar availability from one magical commodity to the next).

Demand includes the willingness to sell.  Most commodities like apples or swords don't involve investing your life force into it. 

I'm trying to get to a balance point, so bear with me and look at this as something that could be possible rather than something that is the most possible.  Think about your mage character, or the mage in your group.  They take the item creation feat, rather than Superior Improved Favored Metamagic of Doom, and start putting in gold and XP.  In your experience, what do they actually make?  My experience is of our party cleric, who made some stuff for the fighters and made himself a hellracious holy symbol that did tons of stuff for him (and thus, for us; he was the cleric, after all).  He would never sell that item.  Nor do I think he would make anything for anyone else.

I'm not saying this is a model of commerce that resembles the real world.  I'm saying that it is a rationale that accomplishes something good for the game.  Is there general support for the goals supported by this proposal, i.e., restraining casters from getting Swiss army items to fill out their repertoire?

Happy to hear more of the critique.

That's why I the idea of mages only being able to use magic items with a CL higher than their own is appealing (provided you're able to voluntarily lower your CL for the day while preparing spells).

Suddenly, magic items geared towards casters are almost only made for your apprentice!

I'm also warming to this idea.  Not sure I could sell the "your magical aura overwhelms the item" argument, though.  Oh, I'd try, but not sure I'd succeed.

[MalcolmSprye]

Except that this whole idea of social acceptableness doesn't work.

Hey guys, casters have charm person and sorcerers have charisma as primary stat, clerics has charisma as a secondary stat.

Also, how is Joe Bob the Uneducated Peasant going to figure out you are a magic user?

Also, are you going to tell me that the peasants wont rally around "Adrian Lighbearer, High Priest of Lathandar"?

"Hey this guy has healing magic! Lets not trust him as much as the guy with the two foot long broadsword!"

Charm person won't help you with leadership.  You're not casting charm person on 100 followers twice a day. Also, since there's nothing that says you don't remember being charmed, my GM usually has people pissed off at me when it wears off.

and yes, sorcerers have charisma as a primary stat, so their base leadership score will be high.  Then they'll get a "this guy is into some wacky shit" penalty.

I'm not sure about divine casters.  I agree that this argument makes no sense for them.

It certainly can make sense for almost any arcane casters, with the possible exception of bard type guys.

[Rejakor]

I like the Tome answer to the problem.

'Instead of saying that these fantasy characters can only do things that a realistic real world character would be able to feasibly perform, let's say that they can instead do fantastical things that realistic characters would not be able to perform'.

In other words, 'fuck you, i'm the fighter, here's your goddamn realism'.