Yeah, I guess that was my point. Not everything that plays havoc with the laws of physics is magic, though it is definitely supernatural. The problem arises from 3E's definition of supernatural as a tag.Libertad wrote:Depends on who you ask. Most of the abilities are Extraordinary, and thus not magical. Or rely upon things like training beyond normal human limits through self-discipline. Blazing Phoenix and Shadow Hand are the exceptions.Verisimilitudinous wrote:So, I'm curious - what about the Bo9S classes? Are they all explicitly magical?
By 3.X mechanics, most of the abilities are not magical because they don't have the Supernatural or Spell-like descriptors.
However, the detractors call it "Weeaboo Fightan Magic" because the system is similar to the Vancian slots, or allows noncasters to replicate extra-normal abilities.
The BO9S did not go far enough, but it's a very useful model for giving noncasters nice things, and I hope that the writers of D&D Next incorporate its ideas for the martial classes. They should definitely extend it to non-combat utility actions as well.
I just really hate the idea that if it's supernatural it must be magic, because it's pointlessly limiting. Sure, if you want a campaign where the only way to be powerful is to dip into magic that's great. But insisting that that is the only possibility is disingenuous. Like your example about psionics; they're quite literally not magic but they're very supernatural.