So...

Then what the fuck is the point? Other than pandering to crybaby martials.

Except there's clearly more restrictions than what you juat quoted, since later on he says that mages can't fly. Birds can fly without magic though, so cleary theres more requirements outside of it just being something that happens without magic.

Since it seems to be tied to human skill, perhaps it's the case that magic doesnt recognize firing a cannon as a skill, and puts it in the same category as a rockslide or an avalanche. It's something that happens, possibly triggered by a human, but ultimately an outside reaction of forces.

Now name a game that actually succeeded at that.
>Hint: You can't

No, a mage is as capable of weaving a fine tapestry as a non-mage that is as talented as said mage at crafting fine tapestries, with no advantages or disadvantages.

The magic-crafted tapestry takes exactly as long to make and is of the exact same quality as one that was crafted by an equivalent craftsman. Magic provides absolutely no advantage over mundane methods, it is simply an alternate method of doing something that a non-caster could do.

So if a caster wanted to use the offensive spell to mimic the attack of an archer, he would still have to carry a bow and an arrow for each shot he wanted to take?

I don't think you've thought this through. All you've really done is made one class that has proficiency with every weapon and skill while only using one stat.

So why bother learning magic?

worst system ever made, imo

GURPS.

Sounds a bit like 3D&T (where whatever you attack with a punch, a sword, guns, lazors, magic or whatever is just aesthetic). There are spells, but they are their own thing.

Nah. Caster supremacy is extremely easy in GURPS, in all magic systems (except maybe Sorcery), if master doesn't know what he is doing.

>symmetrical balance is the only form of balance
Nice meme. If you have wizards and such dealing only with magical threats, while martials and such deal only with mundane threats, each person has a field in which they are dominant and one in which they step back. Obviously it won't be so clear-cut, but this philosophy allows for more unique mechanical choices without 3.X's god-casters.

I try to praise it as little as possible, but Shadowrun manages to accomplish this if the GM actually pays attention to the rules. Gunners/adepts deal with the physical security, mages take out the spirits and do counterspelling, hackers/technomancers deal with any digital obstacles, the rigger provides getaway, and then the face deals with getting any heat off you and gets intel on the next run. How well this works in play varies (I've had some great sessions and some shit sessions), but the core concept is solid.

Couldn't a mage craft a spell to emulate an animal, spirit, element or whatever?

Only as well as a non-mage of equivalent power could emulate an animal, spirit, element or whatever with non-magical means.

You really can't think of any advantages to using magic if it won't let you outstrip mortal effort out of hand?
Bullshit. Magic can ramp up so quickly and potently, if the player wants to go in that direction, that you'd need to jump TL to match or challenge it, on top of npcs AND pcs needing abilities from the magic sourcebook to defend themselves at all, further tilting the entire game towards mages merely by having them EXIST.
>Shadowrun manages to accomplish this if the GM actually pays attention to the rules.
You know the adage "The more you know about hacking, the less it can do, the more you know about magic, the more you can do"?
It exists because mages can do some bullshit nonsense given time and actually using something other than direct use/combat magic (which most players don't).
Even in your example, in order to slow the mage down, you MUST have something like spirits, wards, or other mages there, lest the mage runner go wild. That you need a mage to counter a mage is evidence of the problem; have the same runner team go to the same place that has earned such high grade protection, and they are fucking impotent by dint of only magic can counter magic.

>You really can't think of any advantages to using magic if it won't let you outstrip mortal effort out of hand?
Alright then smart guy, what are the advantages of this retarded magic system?

OP, I get what you're trying to say, but you're looking at this from the wrong direction. Balance between two character archetypes isn't about making them equally useful all the time. It's about ensuring they're roughly equally impactful on the challenges you set before them. I'll give an example and walk you through it.

In Darkest Dungeon you control a squad of four characters, each of which comes from one of about a dozen classes. Each character thus has certain strengths and weaknesses. The Crusader is an excellent front-liner fighter who specializes against undead, but he can't hit back-line enemies and struggles against certain bosses. The Vestal does little damage but has status-effect inducing powers that weaken enemies, and the only character with reliable single and multi-target healing. The Plague Doctor has neither good healing or good burst damage, but has excellent damage over time from bleeding and blight it can inflict, which is critical in defeating certain types of enemies. Even the combat-weak Antiquarian increases how much money you make with each mission, which is surprisingly vital to keeping financially solvent into the late game.

Each of these classes is balanced because they excel at a few things but are sorely lacking in others. This, ultimately, is what balance is all about when it comes to character creation and progression. Spellcasters do not need to be identical to warriors, they just need to be similar in the scope and usefulness of what they are capable of. Nobody is complaining that a Wizard can turn invisible or throw a Fireball. They complain when turning invisible makes that Wizard better at thieving than the Thief, or when throwing a fireball makes that Wizard better at fighting than a Fighter.

So the next time you're thinking about game balance, don't think "Is every class equally good at every activity?", think "Does every class have a role they excel at that doesn't make them strictly better than another class?".

What's the point if it does the exact same thing? I think it would be more interesting if it was equivalent in power / utility, but *couldn't* do anything that could be done without magic, or at least anything that's commonly done without magic.

So you can be as deadly as a fully equipped warrior without any of the problems that come from owning that equipment (weight, expense, maintenance, easily confiscated or stolen, obvious to anyone looking at you) or having to buy up physical stats?

Why would anyone play a warrior in a system like that?

Being able to achieve feats in a fraction of the time, material (if needed at all), without restriction of location or in some cases, range. Further, if the limits of the human body is the limit of magic, then you are ignoring the fucking INCREDIBLE things humans can do, if only for a small percentage of the population or at certain times. Being able to move as fast as a athletic man drenched in adrenaline on command? Having the deceptive strength to weight of an olympic power lifter whenever you want?
user, please be less stupid with magic.
You haven't approached OP at all, just started complaining that you couldn't be better than someone else at what you did.

So, let me get this straight.
A mage is capable of using MAGIC to open a lock that a lockpicker (as proficient in opening locks as the mage is in magic) could? They can create music with MAGIC just as well as a musician (as talented in making music as the mage is at magic)? They can shrug off wounds via MAGIC just as well as a fit, hearty person (as able to do such...)?
They might not be as flashy as in some other settings, but even someone who is above average with magic is fucking bullshit, and generally invalidates everyone else because HEY MAGIC.
Congratulations.

And look how long it took for people to come and realize "hey, magic is still really potent, just not as flashy, and far more versatile!".
Proof this board is full of fucking morons.

>being able to achieve feats in a fraction of the time,
Except you're fucking wrong. Look what OP said:
>The magic-crafted tapestry takes exactly as long to make and is of the exact same quality as one that was crafted by an equivalent craftsman.
So, no, you can't even do it faster.

You presuppose that a mage can learn all of these feats faster than a normal person can learn its mundane equivalents. Since everything OP has said suggests otherwise, there literally is no difference between learning the magical equivalent and the mundane equivalent.

Sounds boring as fuck and not so much a setting as a GM's "fuck casters" magical realm.

>Since everything OP has said suggests otherwise,
Pull this up, because you are talking out of your ass.

I didn't say Shadowrun was good, I gave it as an example of niche protection with caveats. There are obviously problems with it, but it provides a more mechanically and narratively interesting base than OP's idea.

Also
>Even in your example, in order to slow the Street Samurai down, you MUST have something like guards, turrets, or other Street Sams there, lest the Sam runner go wild. That you need a gun to counter a gun is evidence of the problem; have the same runner team go to the same place that has earned such high grade protection, and they are fucking impotent by dint of only guns can counter guns.

Since OP has said that the magical equivalent of an action takes as long as the mundane version of an action (), that a mage's skill at that magic equivalent is equal to a mundane's skill of similar level () and that a mage can never exceed a human's mundane ability at something (also ), what makes you think that you'll be able to learn the magical equivalent faster than the mundane?

The entire point of OP's shitty magic system is that there is no difference between doing something magically or mundanely.

This. At best, it's a versatile skill monkey that knows how to do everything and uses only 1 skill to actually do it. At worst, you actually need the tools available that the warrior uses, since otherwise there would be an advantage with not needing to carry arrows to use a 'shoot arrow' spell, meaning that while you're using magic to pick that lock, it isn't any faster and you still need lockpicks.

You can see nust what this class is by taking a D&D Wizard, removing all of the spells, and making the only class feature the ability to use Intelligence for any skill or ability check. All skills are on the skill list, and weapons and armor just require investing in feats to 'learn the spell' assosciated with them.

>in order to slow the Street Samurai down, you MUST have something like guards, turrets, drones, a wall or fence, spirits, any manner of magical wards keyed to physical entities, hackers, riggers, other street sams, wage mages, etc to slow them down
Your example is so ridiculous, it borders on farce.
>a mage's pinnacle of skill is the equivalent of mortal pinnacle
You think people spend their entire lives learning a single skill?

Better question: would a given person be interested in playing a warrior.

>You haven't approached OP at all, just started complaining that you couldn't be better than someone else at what you did.
You haven't represented my argument accurately and you know it.

Rather than approach OP, you immediately segued off into proposing something different.
The only thing you attempted to do was shill your preferred method of internal balance as though it were relevant.
>At best, it's a versatile skill monkey that knows how to do everything and uses only 1 skill to actually do it. At worst, you actually need the tools available that the warrior uses, since otherwise there would be an advantage with not needing to carry arrows to use a 'shoot arrow' spell, meaning that while you're using magic to pick that lock, it isn't any faster and you still need lockpicks.
One of these is apparent from the text, the other is nonsense that isn't stated at any point.

It certainly was, on account of the fact that it wasn't an argument. Have you never been in a thread when a pasta was born before? Your post seemed like it would be a good base for one.

There's also the fact that a SR mage is stopped by high explosives or a hacker doxxing him about as well as a Sam or decker would be stopped by a spirit (at least until we get to Batman levels of preparedness), but that was never the core of my argument.

>stopped by high explosives
Applies to everyone.
>a hacker doxxing him
Applies to everyone.
>spirit shows up
Requires a mage to deal with or absurd amounts of firepower and a suicidal stand.
The last thing is not the same as the first 2, so stop being a cunt.

>the other is nonsense that isn't stated at any point

That's because OP hasnt ever answered me about if you need the tool for the task to use a spell.

If you don't, then mages are great, because all other things being equal that means they can shoot bolts of energy as strong as arrows, light a fire like they had a torch, or lob a ball of acid the size of a flask of acid. This is great for utility as it means they can mimic mundane objects along with their skill use.

If you do, then they're no different from a standard character, and possibly worse. Your offensive warrior spell has a sword as a material component and requires you to swing it as you cast. Otherwise, it'd be better since you wouldn't have to draw your sword or could do it while bound.

It alao depends heavily on how difficult any spell is to learn, and if theres any sort of mana or resource involved.

>shoot bolts of energy as strong as arrows, light a fire like they had a torch, or lob a ball of acid the size of a flask of acid.

Nope, can't be done according to OP:

> system in which users of magic are not capable of using magic to do anything which cannot be done without magic

You can only do what a regular person can. A regular person can use a bow to shoot an arrow, but he can't make a bolt of energy or shoot an arrow all his lonesome. So no, no fireballs, no acid attacks, no energy bolts since a mundane human can't do that.

Fine, I'll admit that I was wrong about a tangential point made about a system I'm neither intimately familiar with nor like, that was used purely as an example with several disclaimers you fag.

So you're a Wizard. At the start of the day you put on your breastplate arcane focus, which gices you all the defensive benefits of a breastplate. You take your trusty arcane sword, to allow you to cast your sword spell. During your day you climb up a cliff by using your climb spell and some rope as a material component to let you move your hands and feet to the handholds on it without falling.

Why ever play a Wizard if you're just a Warrior with a different stat written down?

That depends, does the Wizard need to have the skills to do something, or just an understanding of magic?

For example, if a wizard wanted to pick a lock, would he need to have an understanding of how to actually pick a lock, or just an equivalent level of understanding of magic?

In the first case, no I wouldn't play a caster, because you would need to invest in another class, like a rogue, and then invest into the caster class just to magically unlock a door. So it would take a Level 2 caster to do what a Level 1 rogue can do.

In the second case, yes I would play a caster because that's overpowered as fuck. Essentially, casters can do everything just as well as the rogue, with the added benefit of being able to do everything a fighter/Barbarian/anyone else can do.

So, as far as I can see, you've either made casters totally fucking worthless or fucking amazing.

Based on the original post and his replies it's exceedingly clear that OP is presenting this example of a magic system to make a greater point about Martials vs. Casters. If you don't see this you're either deluding yourself or you're very new to Veeky Forums. My entire argument and example of Darkest Dungeon is a counterargument to his core motive behind his original post.

Furthermore, my argument is logically sound and you haven't claimed otherwise.

But a mundane person can do those things, or at least the equivalent. They just need the proper tool with them instead.

Note how OP says the strongest offensive spell is no more powerful than a warrior swinging a sword, not that the strongest offensive spell is literally the mage swinging a sword.

The distinction implied there seems clear to me. These are still spells the wizard is casting, they just aren't more powerful.

In any case, OP calling magic a shortcut is very misleading, since every example people have suggested thus far seems like it's exactly as difficult as doing the thing normally.

I believe that's the main complaint in this thread.

Pretty much, which is a shame. With a little bit of polish, such an idea could function as the basis of a magic system. Spells being as taxing as the task would be for an average person, allowing you to bypass some of the training and prep needed for various tasks in exchange for magic being harder to learn as a whole or using up magical energy.

Nah this is more or less equally boring to quadratic wizards and linear fighters.

Instead of trying to limit wizards to what fighters can do, allow fighters to do more of what wizards can.

Fighters who can do area attacks to clear out a bunch of opponents, or fly, or deflect an enemy wizard's attack. Those are cool things to let fighters to do.

Counterpoint: possession mage.

I'd say the answer is to meet halfway. Fighters as they are usually end up boring and weak. Wizards as end up all powerful and unstoppable.

Instead, both should have cool things that only they can do, but also not be capable of literally everything under the sun. Maybe both have AoE strikes, but only Wizards can Fly while only Fighters get the abiliry to deflect attacks and really defend themselves directly, for example.

Like in the chain above, SR isn't perfect, but the basic idea (mages deal with mage things, fighty guys deal with fights, and so on) is a better one than OP's, both for interesting crunch and fluff.

>My entire argument and example of Darkest Dungeon is a counterargument to his core motive behind his original post.
No, it was sidestepping the post with a method YOU liked, in a game that has nothing to do with the above topic.
The reining excuse for "it's magic".
\It needs to "feel" different, and if your feelies aren't satisfied, it doesn't matter how actually good the game is, you will shit on it.
SR has had escalating problems with it's mages, both mechanically and in setting for 10 years. Mages are supposed to be literally 1 in a million born, but are so omnipresent in the setting you'd think there was a wizarding school, on top of mage/elf dicksucking.

This is bad and you should feel bad.

Overpowered.

Best swordsman slash people with very expensive titanium sword.

Expert Wizard can do the same for FREE

Apprentice wizard can cast a lot of Apprentice level slashes done with TITANIUM sword for FREE

Fuck that, even a low level mage can cast TITANIUM needle on the eye of the enemy for FREE

No Fly spell, fuck that, just cast STILTS, no invisibility, fuck you, cast SMOKE.

>Because their power in this system is strictly equal to that of an equivalently powerful warrior.
Then there's kinda no point in pursuing knowledge of manipulating reality or other such stuff, at least for practical use. It doesn't really seem like a shortcut when the wizard is limited in power of the spell by equivalence to a warrior of similar skill level while at the same time likely suffering from worse health and condition.

At best, it's a system where magic sounds interesting but is useless and there's no difference between classes beside descriptions of their actions.
At worst, it's a way to make spellcasters absolutely useless and subpar to warriors in any and all ways.

Seriously, spare yourself troubles and players - disappointments and go with magicless setting instead if you plan such kind of gameplay.

But you didn't provide anything more that fighters can do, you just gimped wizards to be forced to play on fighter's, or even lower, level - as long as they don't try to game the system like suggested.
It's not "meeting halfway" by any stretch.

So, let's say someone makes a system in which non-magic users are capable of using doing anything that can be done with magic, without magic. To put it simply, doing things mundanely is just more straightforward.

The most complicated and reality breaking spell of the greatest mage in the world is exactly as powerful than the most mindbending and unexpected action in the world being undertaken by the greatest trickster in the world.
Meanwhile, the attacks of an apprentice warrior is no more powerful than the fireball spell of a novice mage, whatever their weapon might be.
If there is a method that allows a mage to fly, go invisible or obtain any other utility-based advantage, warriors are similarly capable of such feats in the name of balance.

There is perfect symmetry of power level and ability between martials and casters in this system and at no point is a martial more powerful than a mage that's at an equivalent stage of progression. At no point will a martial ever be able to do anything that an equivalent mage can't do, nor will they be able to do any task better or worse than that mage. They simply have a different method, resorting to the use of physical prowess and quick wits rather than spells.

In such a system of rigidly uniform ability sets and power levels, would you be interested in playing a martial?

yes because magic is cool

sure why not, fighters are cool

Cast-iron bell housings that project the force of a gunpowder propellant into a cast iron ball to send it hurtling out at incredible speeds.

So basically, a warrior would need the most expensive materials in the setting to slice through a deamon prince in one swing while a mage gets to do the same for free because "it can be done without magic?"

Because if that's how that shit works then of course I'd play a mage, it'd basically be Martial++ since I gain more power the more people advance in power.

Sounds like 4e.

You say that, but a powerful mage can do the job of a powerful ANY OTHER TYPE OF PERSON.

A strong mage is also a talented artist, a scholar, a warrior, an athlete and everything else.

There is no reason to NOT learn magic, there is no other worthwhile pursuit

>A strong mage is also a talented artist
>No, a mage is as capable of weaving a fine tapestry as a non-mage that is as talented as said mage at crafting fine tapestries

Sorry user, OP's magic system already said no to that

No, that is explicitly saying yes, user. If you'd studied magic you'd have been able to read that.

What?

The mage can make a tapestry with magic.
The tapestry is as fine as that made by a non-mage of equivalent tapestry-making talent

So, if the mage is great at magic but shit at tapestries, his magically-made tapestry is shit.

I was thinking about a setting where magic is just asserting a mathematical proof to the universe and the magic part is just a force multiplier.

So an individual in order to cast a spell must first prove conceptually that they can accomplish the result given enough time, and then the amount of magic input accounts for the time difference and wham result occurs.

This would mean that muscle wizards wouldn't be too farfetched considering they would be able to make their magical juice go much farther than a scrawny wizard.

I know the plot of the book was rather bad, but wasn't this roughly the magic system of Eragon? Magic takes as much energy as doing a thing by hand, but without the limitations of that and with 100% efficiency or near enough. So you use it to rip out people's brains if you're bad at magic, or read an anatomy textbook and pinch shut a couple arteries if you're good. You can use it for extremely limited flight, since you can drag yourself up with your arms using normal strength, but magic lets you do it without needing a handhold.

At one point, the leader of the slightly misanthropic rebellion works out that magic can be used to duplicate fancy lacemaking really quickly, so she finances some of her war on that.

The downside, of course, is that if you don't know the right words for a spell, try to do a "fire" spell wordlessly and someone distracts you, you set them on fire instead, and a grammar mistake on a spell can fuck you immensely. Also, there's no limit to the energy you can expend, so if you fuck it up then you can kill yourself trying to lift a castle or something because it'll drain you all at once, and you don't get fatigued enough to force you to stop like you would with mundane hard labour.

I like the concept.

Maybe instead make it that Magic cannot create a force greater than the force an average man would produce himself physically?

So magic is a metaphysical catalyst? Seems actually fairly cool, although you could probably use that to pretty seriously break some things. Could you not cast on a nuclear reactor to cause a meltdown, or on a flame to get yourself an explosion? What are the physical limits on casting? Do you need to be next to stuff or just wave a staff around?