The Five Cornerstones to Adventuring

[Username17]

In D&D 'griffon rider' is just as mundane as 'fighter riding a horse.'

That is stupid and wrong on every possible level. A griffon is not a mundane beast, it is magical beast. It even says "magical beast" right in its fucking creature type. Any abilities you can use entirely because you have a non-mundane pokemon, a non-mundane magic ring, or a non-mundane patron deity are very probably not mundane. Indeed, any non-mundane abilities granted in such a fashion are non-mundane by definition.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

boots:winged boots
cloak:cloak of elvenkind
gloves:gauntlets of ogre power
belt:belt of giant strength
hammer:hammer of thunderbolts
horse:griffon

[shadzar]

In D&D 'griffon rider' is just as mundane as 'fighter riding a horse.'

No. It isn't. Because griffons are not mundane.

griffons are as mundane as a horse or a chicken. they are creatures in the world, expected to be there, maybe scary to common folk, but known to them. that makes them MUNDANE to the world. NOT mundane to OUR world.


mundane doesn't mean devoid of magic, since a mundane fighter would still ahve magic weapons and armor, he just cant do magical things without a magical tool.

griffon = magical tool
flying carpet = magical tool

you have to think in terms of context and perspective, not just "keywords". and owlbear also is mundane, though magic created it, because it doesnt DO magical type things that break physics, it just IS a magically created thing that breaks biology.

[Voss]

In D&D 'griffon rider' is just as mundane as 'fighter riding a horse.'

No. It isn't. Because griffons are not mundane.

griffons are as mundane as a horse or a chicken. they are creatures in the world, expected to be there, maybe scary to common folk, but known to them. that makes them MUNDANE to the world. NOT mundane to OUR world.


mundane doesn't mean devoid of magic, since a mundane fighter would still ahve magic weapons and armor, he just cant do magical things without a magical tool.

griffon = magical tool
flying carpet = magical tool

you have to think in terms of context and perspective, not just "keywords". and owlbear also is mundane, though magic created it, because it doesnt DO magical type things that break physics, it just IS a magically created thing that breaks biology.

This really has to be preserved and copied for people who have the crazy on ignore.

And I'm sure previn will appreciate the support for his position

[shadzar]

then what is your INSANE definition of "mundane" pray tell?

[Voss]

Mundane would be normal, standard, average. Something mundane would not be described by the word 'magical' half a dozen times. For a fantasy farmer, a cow is still mundane. The fantasy farmer does not have a flock of griffons in his daily life, therefor they are not.

[shadzar]

The fantasy farmer does not have a flock of griffons in his daily life, therefor they are not.

why not? this is a fantasy world afterall. why arent there owlbear herders? griffon herders? for them these things ARE mundane.

its jsut a fucking mashup creature, there is nothing really magical about it other than it is not of OUR world. no magical attacks, no magical abilities. jsut a DNA splice of eagle and lion that lvoes to eat horses.

the fact it cannot do anything magical, makes it mundane.

if you create a hammer with magic, does it make it a magical hammer, even though it is an identical copy of the one the blacksmith uses? no.

griffon is just created with magic. orcs, ogres, gnolls, flinds, they are all also mundane to the fantasy world. they have NO magic ability, that is what mundane means.

does a human level 1 fighter that was brought from another plane instantly become "non-mundane" because magic "created" him in this new fantasy world?

OMGLOLWUT! griffons fly though! yeah, well birds do that all the time and even bees that scientifically should not be able to do so. they eat horses? well French people do that to. MUNDANE!

mundane is the fact that something does NOT do thing magical. flight is not magical as it exists in OUR world. griffons are mundane to the fantasy world as they are just another type of wild animal.

if something changed from 2nd to make griffon not mundane, then that is a flaw in WotC design, and i surely don't know about it. are they in the SRD or do i have to run borrow a 3.x book again to see how WotC fucked up griffons?

they are just cattle/horses/etc and that is ALL i would ever use them as. i never saw a bit of fiction that had fire-breathing griffons. just lion/eagle hybrid creatures that instill fear because FUCKING FLYIN' LION!

[codeGlaze]

Mundane would be normal, standard, average. Something mundane would not be described by the word 'magical' half a dozen times. For a fantasy farmer, a cow is still mundane. The fantasy farmer does not have a flock of griffons in his daily life, therefor they are not.

There are fantasy settings where that's (relatively) untrue.

[radthemad4]

Mundane would be normal, standard, average. Something mundane would not be described by the word 'magical' half a dozen times. For a fantasy farmer, a cow is still mundane. The fantasy farmer does not have a flock of griffons in his daily life, therefor they are not.

There are fantasy settings where that's (relatively) untrue.

You mean like these (Warning TVTropes link)?

[Voss]

Mundane would be normal, standard, average. Something mundane would not be described by the word 'magical' half a dozen times. For a fantasy farmer, a cow is still mundane. The fantasy farmer does not have a flock of griffons in his daily life, therefor they are not.

There are fantasy settings where that's (relatively) untrue.

Sure, but it usually is true for D&D. D&D farmers deal with cows, chickens, goats and all the usual mundane stuff. Griffons are rare and special, with high costs (100s of gp) associated with obtaining and raising them, taking them out of the daily mundane lives of mostly everyone. Usually if there are griffon mounts, they're used by the nation's military, or retired ex-adventurers with class levels usually clocking in at a minimum of 7+

That pretty much defaults to 'not mundane' even if they don't have active magical abilities- as if that even mattered. In much the same way that tiger farms are not mundane, because they are absurdly rare and not part of normal life.

[fectin]

So, "mundane" is anything that doesn't break verisimilitude.

Stellar.

[Voss]

So, "mundane" is anything that doesn't break verisimilitude.

Stellar.

No. Mundane is the stuff that average people (who aren't adventurers, who by definition are exceptional) deal with on a day to day basis. It has nothing to do with verisimilitude, which is solely concerned with what the players/readers will accept.

[DSMatticus]

We aren't really talking about whether things are mundane or not. That is an argument you can have and has been had and... sigh... will be had again. And again. And again. We are talking about whether or not you have to beg the DM for something in order to participate in the same adventures ther other characters are. The fighter can be expected to acquire a horse because the equipment rules say he can, and 99.99% of the time those rules will be in play. The fighter cannot be expected to acquire a griffon, because there are no rules for how he would do so beyond "pretty please?" You can certainly write equipment rules that make griffon access a thing fighters can rely on without having to beg the DM, but at that point "buy griffons" is just another thing a fighter can do in the same way "learn fly" is a thing wizards can do. I am not amenable to the argument that "fighters don't get access to fly just because they have access to a rule subset which they can spend character resources on in order to acquire fly without DM approval."

Now, if you move solutions to noncombat problems into the equipment rules and give every character access to them, you're declaring that the ye olde magicke marte is a thing. That has its own problems, both mechanically (characters who depend more heavily on the magicke marte need more resources to spend in it, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't have your fighter buying a bunch of shit and leaving it to his wizard cousin in his will then killing himself) and flavorfully (I think more tables would hate magicke marts than would enjoy them, and it makes magic items feel like meaningless trinkets).

But the fucking point is: "everyone can buy the solutions to noncombat problems as equipment" is completely 100% consistent with the original statement, and it's not currently a thing D&D-style games let fighters do without DM fiat.

[Previn]

In D&D 'griffon rider' is just as mundane as 'fighter riding a horse.'

That is stupid and wrong on every possible level. A griffon is not a mundane beast, it is magical beast. It even says "magical beast" right in its fucking creature type.

-Username17

You're arguing about the color. Replace Griffon with Dire Bat. Heck the only reason the griffon is a magical beast is because D&D says you can't be an animal if you have an Int higher than 2.

And I'm sure previn will appreciate the support for his position

It does make me take a long hard look at what I'm saying.

But I thought this thread was part of the TNE threads about not carrying over bad things from D&D, but making a new and better Fantasy game. So, I am a bit confused when 'has a griffon Dire bat' on your character sheet as a class ability is getting D&D specific tropes and rules trotted out to attack it.

Is this thread secretly only about 3.x and not about making an entirely new game and I just missed it?

[shadzar]

The fighter can be expected to acquire a horse because the equipment rules say he can, and 99.99% of the time those rules will be in play. The fighter cannot be expected to acquire a griffon, because there are no rules for how he would do so beyond "pretty please?"

Ecology: If trained from a very early age (three years or less), griffons will serve as mounts.

~~~~~~~

Fledgling griffons sell for 5,000 gold pieces on the open market; eggs sell for 2,000 gold pieces each.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

you people play with Magic-Mart, so yeah, there are rules.

they must have REALLY fucked shit up in 3rd edition.

and yes, if the griffons are there, then the DM is expected to let you get one from the griffon herder. otherwise you are dealing with Chekov's gun, and you have a bad DM if the griffon roost is not open to PCs. no "rules" will fix this DM.

let me guess, someone will suggest a "fighter" should have innate planar travel abilities in the event someone wants a guest done to the elemental plane of fire to retrieve a kingdoms yearly supply of ever-burning torches?

[Voss]

The thread is 5 years old- I don't really give a shit what it was originally about. The argument was about the D&D fighter, and clearly so.

[DSMatticus]

So, I am a bit confused when 'has a griffon Dire bat' on your character sheet as a class ability is getting D&D specific tropes and rules trotted out to attack it.

Alternatively, you're very confused and think that the dragontamer doesn't have flight because he can only fly by riding the dragon his class features give him.

I addressed that in post numero uno. Get with the god damn program. Jesus fucktastic Christ.

Also, note that you didn't start this argument by claiming that fighters would get pokemon as class features and then everything would be okay - you started it by claiming that requiring griffons is permissible because requiring horses is permissible. That is obviously true if and only if griffons are as easily acquired (at the level they are needed) as horses are (at the level they are needed). And you can't hide that hugely non-trivial setting requirement behind "oh, I thought we weren't porting in D&D's shittiness" BS, because there are plenty of reasons to not want griffon farms as ubiquitous and accessible as horse farms other than "D&D doesn't have them." If your solution requires an asterisk that reads "*only valid in HoMM: the RPGening", you should probably... put the asterisk, because that's a big one, and people are going to want better solutions. Like pokemon or anime airwalk.

[fectin]

So, "mundane" is anything that doesn't break verisimilitude.

Stellar.

No. Mundane is the stuff that average people (who aren't adventurers, who by definition are exceptional) deal with on a day to day basis. It has nothing to do with verisimilitude, which is solely concerned with what the players/readers will accept.

Mea culpa. I was responding to posts further upthread and got lazy about quotes.