What's a good balance for magic and technology for

Depends on the setting.

Generally each should have some distinct advantages. Even if one is dominant, unless you give both some degree of unique utility then you're just cluttering up the setting with pointless redundancy.

That is, unless you're doing a superhero setting or similar, where magic, science and magitech are all equally viable routes to the same end. But those tend to focus much less on the setting and more on the particular characters and their unique capabilities, so that sort of foundation worldbuilding is less important.

>>52062844
Personally, I don't think one should overpower the other.

I've warmed up to the idea, but it's always been a pet peeve of mine to have mechs or robots in a setting that's largely been based on a more classical aesthetic or early 20th century.

File: When_the_weapon_only_does_1d4_of_damage.gif (2MB, 288x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 288x288px

>>52062815
Shield spell doesnt stop bullets, but hardened magical steel does. This way martials can survive gun slingers, but not mages. Mages can cook martials but can get sniped by gunslingers. Gunslingers can magdump martials but will have to be damn lucky to find somewhere the full plate dont cover before they catch a sword.

>>52062815
Depend on your plot.
You do technology only when it suit your purpose like to make the enemy seem more stronger. Otherwise, don't bother ever to explain how it works. Nobody in real life is interested in wasting time in listening how you touch yourself at night or your inane garbage.

You go for magic when you require quick plot devices or give immediate options to your players to navigate through your plot instantly without making the players doze off. Never quantified magic aside from combat options because that make magic mundane and boring, which defeats the whole point of magic.

>>52062986
Interesting way to look at it, I'll be sure to use akin to that next time

>>52062815
>What's good for any given setting
Are you literally retarded?

>>52062815
I woofle of magic per 2.7 grams of science.

Mix it up.

Knights wearing feather light steel plate thick enough to survive cannon-balls at point blank enchanted with "airconditioning" providing both coolness or warmth if desired as well as circulating fresh air. And to top it off, give the helmet true sight and true hearing, avoiding the problem of having to put your visor up if you have to focus on a target or if you want to listen to your surroundings.

>>52062815

Magic requires significant focus, and only persists so long as the spellcaster can make it persist. Magic items only stay enchanted for a short while, with only a few magic items in history lasting longer than beyond the death of the mage that created them (and some say this is because whatever being made them simply never died, like a god, demon or an immortal fey).

This means that a mage has a lot of individual power, but no real ability to spread that power around and influence much beyond his immediate range. Technology, on the other hand, works for anyone and doesn't just poof away randomly.

So magic is about individual power, but technology advances on a much more widely available level. And after a certain point, 10 dudes with commonly available tech probably beat your one wizard. And even if they don't, there is always another 10 dudes to finish the job.

>>52063075
That sounds like some solid advice, Anon. Please keep posting.

Also, if it defeats the point of magic when it is used mundanely, what about using spiritual beings and spiritual lore/knowledge mundanely? Is that bad?

bump for interest

>>52062815
This is already defined. Magic can theoretically summon up more power than anything possible. However, it is limited in use, and requires extensive training making the actual amount of magic users rare.

Technology is mass-producable, can equate to technology given time and research, and any person can use it.

So all in all, technology is less powerful on an individual scale, but masses quickly while magic can be practically omnipotent but is limited in the amount of people using it, making it vulnerable to simply being overwhelmed.

>>52062815

Both the scientists and the alchemists have equal time to study? I mean, in your average D&D setting, the reason that magic seems superior to tech is often it gets research priority over technology and thus is somewhere in the early information age as far as utility goes. If both have the same amount of progress built into them, then they should theoretically be balanced against each other: like in Shadowrun, where both have been developed to the point that they can end the world.

>>52068450

Except that statement about magic has no basis whatsoever aside from you asserting it and it, presumably, being true in whatever setting you're thinking about.

Heck, given the function of imaginary and unreal worlds, how you describe technology as working isn't even set in stone.

>>52068544
I tried to address the most universal tropes. And I'm trying to help OP out. So this is as best as it gets.

Sorry, random anon.

>>52062815
Magic is technology. There's your balance.

File: 1488810484118.jpg (963KB, 770x990px) Image search: [Google]

963KB, 770x990px

>>52062815

Sorcery is like the Force, magitech is like laser blasters and holograms and shit.

Both have their limitations; you need training and not!Midichlorians to master sorcery, while magitech is like ordinary tech in the sense it breaks down, malfunctions, requires maintanence, costs a ton, you need to read a manual before you know how to use it properly etc.

If magic is a reliable phenomena then there will be technology that uses it and develops it.

Im a big fan of magitech.

>>52062815
Source of the animu?

>>52070150
Little Witch Academia

>>52070188
Ah. Saw the movie. Haven't watched the tv show yet. I'll have to get on that.

>>52062815
Either roughly equal or a large disparity.

>>52062815
It all depends on what you want your setting to be like, just like you have to decide all the other aspects of when and where and why and how and who and why they did.

I can tell you what works for me

I like the idea that magic is the generalist and tech is the specialist. Magic takes time to learn and can do just about anything you turn it to if you spend long enough figuring it out - but unless you're the Grand Bogan of the Bedknob Academy who's been at it for a couple odd centuries, you aren't going to beat out the dedicated technological solution.

So your super fireball isn't as good as a missile launcher, your magic missile can only kill one or two guys and takes a bit to recharge after each use, and your portal takes more maintenance and upkeep than a properly installed and provisioned teleporter.

But the nice thing about magic is, you can do most of it with a flick of the wrist and your dick in your hand. You don't need the missile launcher, you don't need to tote around an AR, you don't need a huge backpack if you want to do personal teleportation.

So your wizards are generalists, or they are kings in disarmed/civilian areas where they can use their spells to overwhelm whatever gets in their way and then disappear before a proper armed response can arrive and kick them flat.