D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[nevin]

Add it to the power, or to the class description of whatever version of the rules you're using. That's what calling it out means to me. Saying it should be assumed because "it's a fantasy world" is not enough for my taste.

and yet the game goes on....variations of this argument have been going on since the beginning. Fact is most people just don't care. Fighter's and Rogues can do what Fighters and Rogues can do and that's Ok. i'd actually argue not knowing why just make it more special. Sometimes not knowing everything just make's it seem even more magical.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Question: do you understand that no one in our reality has, or can have, that kind of strength in a "natural" way?

Good thing we're not--and should not--be using our reality as the basis for a fantasy one.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Actually I feel better about that, in large part because they called it out.

3e was actually great for that.

To me, "the game" is D&D in its many forms. It is not exclusively WotC 5e unless a point is made calling out that specific version.

And no, putting a thread in the Dungeons & Dragons forum does not implicitly mean "WotC 5e only".

Be kind of silly of me to ask for rules for rolls that are already in the rules, wouldn't it? I bet you if I looked over all of the rules for every single version of DnD and all of its clones... a lot of the things I'm asking for already exist.

So, if I'm asking for rules, and I'm not in the DnD Older Editions sub-forum, which is specifically for discussing "D&D 4E, 3.x, AD&D 1E and 2E, OD&D, and other editions here, as well as variants such as 13th Age." And I'm not in the Pathfinder Sub-forum.... I'm probably talking about the current 5th edition of the rules, aren't I?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Add it to the power, or to the class description of whatever version of the rules you're using. That's what calling it out means to me. Saying it should be assumed because "it's a fantasy world" is not enough for my taste.

Fine. Ship me your Player's Handbook and I'll take a permanent marker to write it in for you.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I would argue the current fighter class does offer supernatural powers, specifically extra attack when combined with action surge. Being able to swing a greatsword at someone 8 times in 6 seconds is not really possible.

Yes, it absolutely is possible.
By humans.
In our reality.

It might be "supernatural" to you and Micah Sweet. Presumably those people who are currently doing so are using the magic available to them in real life.
Its not even extraordinary to many of us.
(And this is before we even get into the "is every attack required to be a single discrete swing" discussion, which is way outside the scope of this thread.)

Some of the battlemaster maneuvers are clearly supernatural - Rally, Goading Attack, Menacing Attack, Bait and Switch and sweeping attack come immediately to mind. Others maneuvers aren't but those are IMO.

The things with the maneuvers above is they are explicitly contrary to physics. You hit someone with a weapon and someone else is wounded? You and someone else switch places.?

. . . You can't imagine a swing at one creature continuing onwards to strike the creature next to it as well?

Or two people moving around each other? Google "dancing". It'll blow your mind.

No Second Wind. At first level I can get stabbed with a dagger, be close to bleeding out and completely heal myself .... and do it multiple times a day.

D&D is not responsible for the cognitive dissonance caused by your own houserules.
There is plenty of cognitive dissonance in D&D to go around, but human fighter hit points have pretty much never been required to be pure meat.;

In 3e they explicitly made that distinction.

Actually I feel better about that, in large part because they called it out.

3e was actually great for that.

To me, "the game" is D&D in its many forms. It is not exclusively WotC 5e unless a point is made calling out that specific version.

And no, putting a thread in the Dungeons & Dragons forum does not implicitly mean "WotC 5e only".

In 3e/3.5e, a goodly chunk of the things that you are currently claiming must be called out as "supernatural" . . . were explicitly not supernatural.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, but that is immaterial. IF you want to call that level of strength supernatural, I would agree with you. Just like psychic powers and shadow powers and magic.

Yep, that is my preference (though not a requirement).

Where the struggle seems to come in is, people seem to want to make it require something beyond training. I am fine with it just being training, with nothing special added in. Other people demand it must be some sort of mystical or special training, using unnamed techniques, because just training cannot allow a body to be that strong. Which assumes the body must act under the same rules as our own bodies. But the fantasy world does not require that assumption.

Interesting, that (the bold part) has never been my point or the point that I have seen anyone make (but I dropped out for a good portion of the discussion). I am fine with gaining supernatural strength just through training in a fantasy world. My point, and I think @Micah Sweet 's point has never been about in fictional reality of the game world, but game jargon for the players (not the characters). It would simply be an acknowledgement that in this setting characters surpass what is physically possible in our world/reality. It could be one line of text in the book and be done.

 

[dave2008]

Good thing we're not--and should not--be using our reality as the basis for a fantasy one.

I think it is good that we do and should. Otherwise everything I did in my fantasy world would seem as boring as driving to and from work each day.*

*To be fair, I find myself day dreaming about Tiamat, Demogorgon, and Godzilla a lot my drives to / from work.

 

[dave2008]

I mean 5e doesn't make a distinction between things that are not possible for earth humans IRL (or earth animals IRL) and things that are possible.

But it does, sort of, as I mentioned further down my post.

Was talking about 5e

I wasn't limiting myself to the current edition. And it may not have been you, but I think it was, but someone commented that D&D has never made magic distinct. Hard to take such a statement to be only about 5e (but realize if you were only think about 5e it makes sense to you - just point out why people didn't make that assumption too).

Sure, innate magic seems pretty similar. But, like you pointed out and like was pointed out by the designers, 5e doesn't care about that. You cannot affect Dragon Flight or Roc Flight in the game, whether it is mundane, supernatural or innate magic doesn't matter. You can cast a spell to ground people, but that would apply regardless of the source of the flight.

Same with Paladin Auras, Monk Ki, Barbarian Rage.



And that is 100% of the problem with Anti-Magic. What is a magical effect?

A Druid's Wildshape says that they take the form of an animal "magically" so it could be argued that Anti-magic suppresses it. A Monk's fists "count as magical" for overcoming resistance, but by that phrasing, they are not magical themselves. They just count as magical. A Paladin's Lay on Hands is because they have a "blessed touch" and it never says the word "magical" once in the entire description of the ability, same with Aura of Protection. Meanwhile, the Immunity to disease is because they have divine magic flowing through their body.

So... could a paladin catch a disease while in an Anti-magic sphere, but they could lay on hands to remove it? Because one says magic and the other doesn't. What about the aura of Sunlight the Devotion Paladin can emit? It doesn't say it is magical in any way.

But, it can't just say "spells" because magic items don't always create spells, and that is the trick. Anti-magic fields were designed to care about spells and magic items... including Adamantium Armor which isn't enchanted, just made out of adamantium.

So, you have a problem. What is "magical"? Is the ability for a dragon to fly and shoot acid magical? What about a Paladin's aura and ability to heal? What about the protective benefits of Adamantium? The Shadow Monk's teleport? We absolutely want to make sure Dragons can still fly and live in an anti-magic field, because anti-magic isn't meant to be a death sentence against dragons, undead and giants. But if a Lich can still exist in anti-magic, why can't my paladin's aura? And if the paladin aura can because it doesn't say it is magical, why can't my Shadow Monk still use CLoak of Shadows to become invisible.

Magic ie Casting spells and spell like effects is the easy part of all of this. The rest of it... 5e didn't care about, because it wasn't something meant to be cared about.

So basically, I feel like you are pointing out why it matters. All of this confusion is created because the designers didn't care enough about making a distinction. I think the game rules (not the game world) would be more clear if we had clearly defined game terms.

 

[dave2008]

No one in our reality has magic either.

So you agree that it is magical to do those things? Great we are basically on the same page.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think it is good that we do and should. Otherwise everything I did in my fantasy world would seem as boring as driving to and from work each day.*

*To be fair, I find myself day dreaming about Tiamat, Demogorgon, and Godzilla a lot my drives to / from work.

I'm trying very hard to parse this.

If we don't use our reality as the basis of fantasy... then fantasy would then somehow become more like our reality to the point of becoming identical?

How?