Shitty character concepts need to die

[Verisimilitudinous]

Given Frank's claim that swaths of European myth wouldn't function in higher levels and the standard rebuttal to the no mundanes argument uses European myth, this is a choice that has a large canvas to play in.

The problem with the "Euro-Myth" argument is that it actually does support uber casters. They often lose in the stories they are in, but whether they lose or not they never, ever lose a fair fight. Koschei cannot be killed by conventional means. That is in his fucking wikipedia entry.

Defeating him requires a long journey and a dangerous quest to a faraway land. And I don't mean "defeating him" in the sense of achieving final victory of your side over his, I mean the simple benchmark of defeating him in the sense of taking on a challenge in an encounter and coming out victorious. That's completely beyond anything any mundane swordsman could ever dream of. He literally cannot lose in a straight fight against any number of mundane characters of any skill.

That is your primary source material for Wizards in European myths. If you bring up European myths, 3e D&D is pretty spot on. Because Wizards > You is pretty much the actual standard in that source material. The idea that non-wizards could compete in a fair contest against a Wizard is radical 21st century communist revisionism.

-Username17

So uh if 3E is pretty spot on can you tell me when the last time a European myth wizard cast Fireball or Time Stop or Force Cage?

And, tell me, aren't these wizards, when antagonists, handily defeated? How many myths did you have to go through to find one 'caster' (and I use the term loosely because it applies to mythical figures in the same way 'fruit' applies to potatoes) that wasn't defeated handily? Hell, even Koschei, this godlike wizard of super high levels if you're to be believed, is defeated by a normal dude whose only magic that I can find is a horse.

[Verisimilitudinous]

This isn't a discussion on level, this is a discussion of people or creatures doing supernatural things that are not magic. You just can't wrap your head around it.

That argument makes no sense. Supernatural = Magic. Your argument amounts to you wanting magical creatures or abilities that are not magical.

Definition of SUPERNATURAL
1
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Can you show me the word magic there? Because while magic is certainly supernatural, supernatural is not only magic.

[Username17]

So mundane sword guy is not a high level concept. Let's look over some of the potential sword guy concepts that have some staying power I.E. Phletobitnum.

Supernatural Martial Artist: You do phletobitnumy martial art stuff mastering the secret art of weeaboo fightan' magic. this covers Ki/Chi/and other Eastern martial art's mysticism as well as Shadowdancers.

Gish: This covers any charater who suplaments their swording with some actual magic. Genraly the sorts of magic that help you sword people in the face. Ex. Paladin's and Ranger's.

Bloodline/Transformational: This covers any case where the Phletobitnum is intergated into your body/changes your creature type. There are alot of shitty prestige classes from 3.5 that work like this like the Acolyte of the Skin or Green Star Adept but the concept is salvageable.

I would say that Supernatural Martial Artist and Gish are not actually different. Are Jedis Supernatural Martial Artists or Gishes? The truth is that they are both, because that is the same thing. I would also say that Bloodline and Transformational are pretty different in concept. In the one, you are magic, in the other magic is done to you.

Further, I think that your focus on the Sword/Magic dichotomy is pretty unwarranted. Not every character who has a non-magical contribution has a non-magical contribution that is related to stabbing people in the face with a sword. They could be a merchant or a tactician or a scout. Indeed, I'd go for a pretty different schema altogether.

You Get Magic Because...	Wholesome Knight	Sneaky Bastard
You found out that you were magic the whole time	Demigod	Half Fiend
You got turned into a magic thing	Dragon Disciple	Vampire
You got a magic thing	Grail Knight	Ringwraith
You draw magic power from something	Gaea's Avenger	Harbinger of Sorrow
You learn magic to enhance what you do	Angelic Guardian	Shadowdancer
You develop totally unreleated magic powers	Witch King	Mind Lord

I'm not sure, but that might be complete. I mean, obviously at the micro level there are basically limitless ways to have magic thrust upon you, because there are limitless kinds of magic you could theoretically have. You could find out that you have Jotun ancestry and just start developing ice magic. Sky is the limit there. But at the higher level of view, I think this might cover it.

-Username17

[Grek]

Protip: If your argument involves quoting from a dictionary, you are retarded, full stop. This is exactly as dumb looking up the word "sound" in the dictionary during a "If a falls tree in a forest when nobody's around..." debate is.

[Verisimilitudinous]

Protip: If your argument involves quoting from a dictionary, you are retarded, full stop. This is exactly as dumb looking up the word "sound" in the dictionary during a "If a falls tree in a forest when nobody's around..." debate is.

When people don't know the definition of supernatural it's a very cogent point.

It's an easy distinction. All that is magic is supernatural. All that is supernatural is not magic.

[nockermensch]

As for the two who might actually count, leaving aside discussions of what level they are, you know those are magical characters. Right? For fuck's sake Caliban's entire shtick is that he is half monster and has magic blood. That's the whole reason he's even a character. Every single thing he can do that is of any account is because of magic.

How does he have magic blood? He's half-monster, the monsters aren't 'magical' unless your entire definition of magic is that it is everything not-mundane. In which case I feel really bad for you because your imagination is dead.

Frank's definition of "magic" is "the ability of doing cool things".

[Verisimilitudinous]

As for the two who might actually count, leaving aside discussions of what level they are, you know those are magical characters. Right? For fuck's sake Caliban's entire shtick is that he is half monster and has magic blood. That's the whole reason he's even a character. Every single thing he can do that is of any account is because of magic.

How does he have magic blood? He's half-monster, the monsters aren't 'magical' unless your entire definition of magic is that it is everything not-mundane. In which case I feel really bad for you because your imagination is dead.

Frank's definition of "magic" is "the ability of doing cool things".

It's really sad because all it does is put limits on your imagination.

Non-casters getting supernatural abilities doesn't make them magic, it makes them supernatural, as in not restrained to normal limitations. There are tons of examples of this in mythology; as I've already said Beowulf and Cu Chulainn both do supernatural things. Are they super high-level examples of D&D characters? Nope, but I'd love to see the high level caster equivalent in myth. Can you name one figure that casts Time Stop? Horrid Wilting? Prismatic Spray? If not, then what is the problem with admitting that D&D does not emulate mythology except in the very vaguest sense and then admitting that maybe we shouldn't be forcing non-caster characters into a skewed perception of realism?

[Username17]

It's an easy distinction. All that is magic is supernatural. All that is supernatural is not magic.

Uh... no. "Magical" and "Supernatural" are synonyms. They are listed as such in a thesaurus. Assuming that you're legitimately incorrect rather than being a trolling asshole, I think I might be able to see where you got this totally bogus notion.

See, the words "Magical" and "Supernatural", in addition to being used to describe things that don't exist within the laws of nature (and thus, do not exist at all by definition), are also used poetically to describe things that are simply superlative. A boxer might be described as striking with "supernatural fury", a nightclub's jazz ensemble might be described as playing with "magical innovation". But that's poetic license. The boxer isn't literally supernatural and the jazz ensemble isn't literally magical. They are just referred to in that manner as a form of hyperbole to indicate that the describer has a big vocabulary and wants to impress upon you that the things being described are very good.

I mean, for fuck's sake, you just linked to a dictionary entry that gave a list of examples that appear on lists of magical creatures and tried to claim semantic victory by claiming that the word "magical" wasn't literally used (although as previously shown, the dictionary definition for "magical" uses the word "supernatural" several times). But of course, the word "magical" was indirectly used all over those definitions because gods and ghosts and spirits are all magical beings. There literally isn't anything that is actually supernatural (as opposed to "figuratively supernatural") that isn't also actually magical. Nothing. It's an integral part of the definition of the word.

Your entire argument is gibberish. It's not that we don't understand you (man), it's that we understand your argument and it is definitionally false. You are literally taking me to task for refusing to admit that there are As that are also ~As.

-Username17

[Libertad]

If not, then what is the problem with admitting that D&D does not emulate mythology except in the very vaguest sense and then admitting that maybe we shouldn't be forcing non-caster characters into a skewed perception of realism?

The problem with the "Euro-Myth" argument is that it actually does support uber casters. They often lose in the stories they are in, but whether they lose or not they never, ever lose a fair fight. Koschei cannot be killed by conventional means. That is in his fucking wikipedia entry.

Defeating him requires a long journey and a dangerous quest to a faraway land. And I don't mean "defeating him" in the sense of achieving final victory of your side over his, I mean the simple benchmark of defeating him in the sense of taking on a challenge in an encounter and coming out victorious. That's completely beyond anything any mundane swordsman could ever dream of. He literally cannot lose in a straight fight against any number of mundane characters of any skill.

That is your primary source material for Wizards in European myths. If you bring up European myths, 3e D&D is pretty spot on. Because Wizards > You is pretty much the actual standard in that source material. The idea that non-wizards could compete in a fair contest against a Wizard is radical 21st century communist revisionism.

-Username17

D&D 3.X is a poor system to replicate many myths and works of fiction, European or otherwise. Most fiction does not include Magic Item Christmas Trees or the ubiquitous Magic Wal-Mart, nor does it have all the martial characters being uneducated and dumb. The Warrior Poet or Scholarly Swordsman isn't really an option when martials need to pump up their physical scores at the expense of their mental ones.

[Kaelik]

When people don't know the definition of supernatural it's a very cogent point.

It's an easy distinction. All that is magic is supernatural. All that is supernatural is not magic.

Except of course, that you are completely wrong.

mag·ic (mjk)

adj.
1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: "stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time" (John Milton).

If it relates to the supernatural, it is accurately described as magic. Since the supernatural always relates to itself, all supernatural things are accurately described as magic.

Eat all the dicks whiny troll.

[Libertad]

@ Frank: Upholding the idea that magic can do things that non-magical people cannot is just reinforcing Caster Supremacy. It's also not necessarily the definition used in D&D.

In myth and fiction, magic often means your description, but other times it's much more limited in versatility and power than traditional 3.X. 3rd Edition is a very poor model to use for trying to get noncasters on par. Arguing that non-Wizards fighting Wizards on equal footing as "modern Communist revision" isn't going to help promote game balance between casters and noncasters, as it implies that such balance is inherently "not true to the source material" and incompatible with heroic fantasy, which will just turn others off of the idea of balance. Well then neither is 3rd Edition true to source material with its non-standard traditions (Magic Item Wal-Marts, Dumb Melee Fighters, and all that).

In D&D, many people think of Vancian spellcasters as "magic," and Fighters and Rogues as "mundane." Nevermind that Rogues can use magic devices, or that Monks have supernatural powers yet are not considered spellcasters. And Fighters can use magic swords. If we include them all as magic instead of just the spellcasters, then there's no point in promoting mundane options past higher levels.

You said earlier in this thread (or on a related one) that being able to interact with magic makes you magical by default. This... isn't how it works in D&D. A summoned monster who can speak Common can hold a conversation with a Commoner, even though the Commoner has no supernatural powers. If we go by that definition, then everybody's magic.

I personally like the idea that people with magical powers are spellcasters, but that "extra-normal" can be accomplished by noncasters without it being "magic" as in spellcasting. Dragons can fly despite their massive body weight, even in anti-magic fields. It's an Extraordinary ability, and not supernatural, with minimal explanation as to how it works. In D&D, beyond "normal" does not automatically equal magic. For something to be magical, it either has to use some power source, such as the Weave or other Planes or something.

In fact, this is similar to a model I promoted for the idea of noncasters getting nice things: "She's Just That Good."

The idea that "non-magic people can't replicate magic things" is what got us Caster Supremacy in 3rd Edition, and is present at high levels in earlier Editions as well (but not to the same extent). The D&D idea that noncasters can't replicate or interact with magic stuff, or that doing so breaks suspension of disbelief, needs to be shelved in order to encourage viable non-magical characters at high levels.

In D&D, magic is part of the world. It permeates the planes and interacts with people on a physical, mental, and spiritual level. A person without magic to a spellcaster is like someone without sight: limited, and does tasks the spellcaster performs routinely with great difficulty (or not all). Through training, a blind person can make up for the loss of sight, but it would take lots of work and even then he can't discern details which require vision. Animals with poor eyesight use echolocation and can maneuver around their environment, but they still can't see. It is expected in fantasy fiction for magic to be more powerful and "beyond" the "Muggles."

"A Wizard Did It" is a very common excuse in fantasy games, used to justify all manner of stuff which we won't do with non-magic stuff. I propose a second thing to go alongside this: "She's Just That Good."

I've talked about on another site about letting D&D characters replicate magical effects through skill and talent. I once said that a smart character might be able to replicate divination spells through planning, investigation, and deductive reasoning.

Here's an example, from the shoot-em-up Anime Black Lagoon.

Eda's (the nun with sunglasses) plan is pretty much guesswork and theory based upon the motivations of the runaway girl and the criminals, reinforced through some careful planning beforehand. She has no guarantee that the thugs will approach the girl and chase after her in such a way, but it happens according to plan. In a way, her recollection of events is similar to the Augury and Scry spells, and can be replicated this way in D&D. (If you don't have a YouTube account, I'd recommend getting one to see the content. It's the kind of thing you'd need to see for yourself)

"But wait, Libertad, couldn't PCs normally do this through player skill, by manually planning out such steps?"

Yes, but it should be a special ability with game mechanics. Lots of times we play PCs who are smarter, wiser, and more well-spoken than we are. Additionally, making players think up of plans the normal way makes it reliant upon DM Fiat. Giving a Sherlock Holmes PC Divination-like abilities both reinforces the character concept, and gives the player a useful option when he can't think up a plan the old-fashioned way.

For more "physical" effects, there's Samurai Jack in the episode "Jump Good," where he trains among a civilization of sapient primates to jump so high that he might as well be flying.

The Barbarian claps his hands together to make a cone-shaped sonic attack because he's just that strong.

Samurai Jack can "fly" because he's just that skilled at jumping.

Eda the Nun can make assumptions about the actions of people who are not immediately present because she's just that good at deductive reasoning.

"But this sounds like magic!" Right. That's exactly the point. Noncasters should be able to mimic spell-like abilities, and we need this kind of stuff in D&D to encourage people to play people who aren't spellcasters, especially at high levels.

How did they breed an Owlbear? A Wizard Did It.

How does Sherlock Holmes know that the ground beneath him concealed a secret tunnel? He's Just That Good.

TL;DR Noncasters can replicate spells and extra-normal abilities through sheer talent. It might seem no different than "magic" if we go by the definition of "beyond mundane abilities," but the world of D&D is not restricted to real-world physics or human limits, noncasters included.

[Verisimilitudinous]

When people don't know the definition of supernatural it's a very cogent point.

It's an easy distinction. All that is magic is supernatural. All that is supernatural is not magic.

Except of course, that you are completely wrong.

mag·ic (mjk)

adj.
1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: "stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time" (John Milton).

If it relates to the supernatural, it is accurately described as magic. Since the supernatural always relates to itself, all supernatural things are accurately described as magic.

Eat all the dicks whiny troll.

So, your argument is that the definition of magic has a line that says, "It relates to the supernatural," and that means that all supernatural things are magic?

I didn't know it was possible to be this disingenuous.

If you want me to explain it to you I'll be happy: Processors relate to computers. Does that make computers just processors? Or are they just one part? Do you 'accurately' describe computers by saying 'processor'?

[Username17]

@ Frank and some other posters: Upholding the idea that magic can do things that non-magical people cannot is just reinforcing Caster Supremacy.

No. That is stupid and you are stupid for saying it.
Caster supremacy is reinforced by refusing to allow people to become magical people at the levels where they would need to do that in order to do the things that need to get done.

In myth and fiction, magic often means this, but oftentimes it's much more limited in versatility and power than traditional 3.X.

There exists magical effects which are low level. There also exist magical effects that are high level. There exist non-magical effects that are low level, and that's pretty much it.

I mean yes, the Bremen Town Musicians are magical in that a non-magical donkey cannot play musical instruments. They are still low level (not even Heroic tier) because their magical abilities allow them to do things normal civilians can do, but by magic. But the existence of low level magical effects does not preclude the existence of high level magical effects. There's still Koschei with his "deathlessness", that's still totally a thing.

You don't have to be "a caster" to be high level, you just have to have some fucking magic. There are lots of magical, high level concepts. And only some of them "cast spells". You could achieve the same kind of magical deathlessness as Koschei without even knowing what you were doing by just happening to be a Master Vampire or have the burning blood of the Phoenix or something.

3rd Edition is a very poor model to use for trying to get noncasters on par.

Agreed. But only because it hands out asstastic abilities over way too many levels for people who decide to turn into dragons or whatever the fuck.

Arguing that non-Wizards fighting Wizards on equal footing as "modern Communist revision" isn't going to help promote game balance between casters and noncasters, as it implies that such balance is inherently "not fantasy" and incompatible with heroic fantasy. Well then, so is 3rd Edition with its non-standard traditions (Magic Item Wal-Marts, Dumb Melee Fighters, and all that).

I'm not against communist revisionism, I'm just bluntly telling you that the very concept of someone being able to fight a "powerful wizard" on a remotely equal footing without being a powerful wizard themselves is communist revisionism. In the source material "powerful wizard" literally means "better than you are". Saying that someone is a mighty sorcerer or something in a European myth is pretty much the equivalent of saying "their power is over nine thousand!"

In an RPG, it comes time to relegate things to specific power "levels" so that they can be adequately incorporated into stories where they are allied or opposed and have things make the slightest fuckwidth of sense. And that means, among other things, that we need to have "wizards" of each available power level, meaning that we have things in our stories that are not wizards that are nonetheless as powerful or more powerful than the mighty wizards our stories concern ourselves with. But that's contrary to the way the mythological source material goes. I mean, you can go on about how Piotr kills Koschei, but he doesn't do it in a fair fight, and the whole point of the story is that Piotr is hopelessly, impossibly outmatched until other people solve all the riddles for him and give him the plot macguffin that hands him victory in spite of being totally underpowered compared to his opponent.

In D&D, many people think of Vancian spellcasters as "magic," and Fighters and Rogues as "mundane." Nevermind that Rogues can use magic devices, or that Monks have supernatural powers yet are not considered spellcasters.

As we established with Veri on this very thread, some people are retards who don't know what words mean. And I have no interest in catering to those people, because a necessary prerequisite of written communication is that the target audience understands the language being written in. When people like Veri don't understand the language, it is absolutely pointless to write any rules for them at all, because there is no available assumption that the rules that are written will be coherently decoded.

Frank, you said earlier in this thread (or on a related one) that being able to interact with magic makes you magical by default. This... isn't how it works in D&D. A summoned monster who can speak Common can hold a conversation with a Commoner, even though the Commoner has no supernatural powers. If we go by that definition, then everybody's magic.

You are using a definition of "interact" that is stupid and I can't for the life of me understand why you would attempt to do that. Yes, if you include "and then if someone shoots you with magical fire, you'll burn" as a form of interaction, then my statement becomes meaningless. Even wrong. That is however an obviously retarded reading, to the point of being a deliberate straw man. And you should go fuck yourself.

-Username17

[Verisimilitudinous]

It's an easy distinction. All that is magic is supernatural. All that is supernatural is not magic.

Uh... no. "Magical" and "Supernatural" are synonyms. They are listed as such in a thesaurus. Assuming that you're legitimately incorrect rather than being a trolling asshole, I think I might be able to see where you got this totally bogus notion.

See, the words "Magical" and "Supernatural", in addition to being used to describe things that don't exist within the laws of nature (and thus, do not exist at all by definition), are also used poetically to describe things that are simply superlative. A boxer might be described as striking with "supernatural fury", a nightclub's jazz ensemble might be described as playing with "magical innovation". But that's poetic license. The boxer isn't literally supernatural and the jazz ensemble isn't literally magical. They are just referred to in that manner as a form of hyperbole to indicate that the describer has a big vocabulary and wants to impress upon you that the things being described are very good.

I mean, for fuck's sake, you just linked to a dictionary entry that gave a list of examples that appear on lists of magical creatures and tried to claim semantic victory by claiming that the word "magical" wasn't literally used (although as previously shown, the dictionary definition for "magical" uses the word "supernatural" several times). But of course, the word "magical" was indirectly used all over those definitions because gods and ghosts and spirits are all magical beings. There literally isn't anything that is actually supernatural (as opposed to "figuratively supernatural") that isn't also actually magical. Nothing. It's an integral part of the definition of the word.

Your entire argument is gibberish. It's not that we don't understand you (man), it's that we understand your argument and it is definitionally false. You are literally taking me to task for refusing to admit that there are As that are also ~As.

-Username17

So this is what it looks like when a full-grown adult goes, "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING!"

I mean come on man your argument is so broken that you have to resort to trying to redifine words so that the argument can work! I mean, christ, supernatural isn't even a synonym for magic like you want to claim! The actual definition of supernatural says nothing about magic!

I get that you're incapable of defining supernatural as anything other than magic. That really sucks for you. But it's literally wrong.

[Kaelik]

So, your argument is that the definition of magic has a line that says, "It relates to the supernatural," and that means that all supernatural things are magic?

No, I am saying that the entire definition of magic, 100% of it, is "of or relating to the supernatural." and therefore they mean the same thing.

If the definition of magic was "of or relating to the supernatural, but X" then not all supernatural would be magic. But since that but does not exist, all supernatural is magic, just like all magic is supernatural.

If you want me to explain it to you I'll be happy: Processors relate to computers. Does that make computers just processors? Or are they just one part? Do you 'accurately' describe computers by saying 'processor'?

Except that is not the definition of processor. The definition of Processor is a piece that performs specific computations. Processors relate to computers, but to use the form of above, there is a "but" clause that makes them different things.

Also, you are an idiot who doesn't know computers, because the statement that all computers are processors and all processors are computers are both true. But I went ahead and countered the argument so that you can replace the word processor with monitor, and I still countered it.

[Libertad]

As we established with Veri on this very thread, some people are retards who don't know what words mean. And I have no interest in catering to those people, because a necessary prerequisite of written communication is that the target audience understands the language being written in. When people like Veri don't understand the language, it is absolutely pointless to write any rules for them at all, because there is no available assumption that the rules that are written will be coherently decoded.

Once again, you're assuming that "magic" in D&D is as generic, and means the same thing, as the common usage. I've been talking about magic as how it's defined in D&D, not as it's used elsewhere.

Psionic powers are considered distinct from magic in D&D in several settings, yet both are supernatural.

Even in mythology, supernatural does not equate to magic. In the Bible, gifts from God and miracle-working is not considered "magical," because Magic is from the devil. Both are extra-normal, yet are defined by the source of the power.

In mythology, fiction, and D&D, "extra-normal" does not automatically equal "magic."

[Whatever]

I mean, christ, supernatural isn't even a synonym for magic like you want to claim!

Nouns and adjectives cannot be synonyms.

[Verisimilitudinous]

So, your argument is that the definition of magic has a line that says, "It relates to the supernatural," and that means that all supernatural things are magic?

No, I am saying that the entire definition of magic, 100% of it, is "of or relating to the supernatural." and therefore they mean the same thing.

If the definition of magic was "of or relating to the supernatural, but X" then not all supernatural would be magic. But since that but does not exist, all supernatural is magic, just like all magic is supernatural.

I don't even know where to begin with this. You are taking a line that says that magic relates to the supernatural and then stating that a relation means that they mean the same thing! How do you even do that? You're related to an awful lot of things, does that mean that you're the same as them, or does it mean you're related?

If you want me to explain it to you I'll be happy: Processors relate to computers. Does that make computers just processors? Or are they just one part? Do you 'accurately' describe computers by saying 'processor'?

Except that is not the definition of processor. The definition of Processor is a piece that performs specific computations. Processors relate to computers, but to use the form of above, there is a "but" clause that makes them different things.

Also, you are an idiot who doesn't know computers, because the statement that all computers are processors and all processors are computers are both true.

Yeah, it was a pretty bad comparison.

Look! People are capable of admitting that they're wrong!

Now you try it.

[Verisimilitudinous]

I mean, christ, supernatural isn't even a synonym for magic like you want to claim!

Nouns and adjectives cannot be synonyms.

Here you go

[Verisimilitudinous]

Seriously I lay all the blame on 3E's insistence that the Su tag = magic. I mean, sure, D&D has always had its own terminology that has no relation to actual definitions, but 3E was the one that said that everything supernatural is magic in the game itself.

Amusingly the definition of Ex abilities means that they can fit the actual definition of supernatural.

[Verisimilitudinous]

"The definition of magic has the word supernatural in it, so of course everything supernatural is magic! What do you mean that's flawed logic and the definition of supernatural has no mention of magic in it? I am going to conveniently ignore that."

[Verisimilitudinous]

Hey guys the definition for pancake has the word cake in it, so all cakes are pancakes.

[Username17]

Once again, you're assuming that "magic" in D&D is as generic, and means the same thing, as the common usage. I've been talking about magic as how it's defined in D&D, not as it's used elsewhere.

Psionic powers are considered distinct from magic in D&D in several settings, yet both are supernatural.

OK, this is a stupid argument, but at least it's not Veri's "Wat is words!?" argument, so let's have this.

Some D&D settings have various types of magic that aren't "Magic" because there is a type of magic called "Magic" that is affected by certain specific magic affecting effects. So you have "Shadow Weave" that totes isn't "Magic" because it has a different set of effect descriptors and still works in "dead zones" but is hurt by some other stuff I don't even remember or care about.

But that isn't that "Shadow Weave" abilities aren't magical. They totally are. They just labor under the problem that there is a term that is used for several (but not quite all of) the types of magic recognized in D&D, and that term is unfortunately "Magic". And that's shitty and confusing terminology, but it in no way changes the argument about magical and mundane characters and the extent to which they are and are not capable of meeting expectations and beating challenges at specific power levels.

When making a new game, you're going ultimately to want to divide magic up into some number of categories and give each of the categories definable shticks and rules. And you're not going to want to have confusing terminology. The thing where divine magic, arcane weaves, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities are all magic that is collectively called "Magic" in Toril, while psionics, divine manifestations, and shadow weaves are all magic that doesn't have a collective name but is specifically excluded from the "Magic" descriptor is super bullshit. You are going to want a much much cleaner set of descriptors than that. Also, you're going to want to divide up your magical abilities in ways that make a lot more sense. The thing where Monk Super Speed is the same kind of "Magic" as Dragon Breath, and so is a Paladin's Smite Evil, but the Paladin's Detect Evil is a completely different flavor of "Magic" and so is the Paladin's Cure Light Wounds... that is some serious bullshit.

But I hardly think it's a revelation that D&D's magical abilities need a better and more coherent set of classifications. And I really don't see how it has fuckall to do with the fact that you still need to be a magic dude if you want to have a high level adventure and not be an animal companion.

-Username17

[Verisimilitudinous]

So, I'm curious - what about the Bo9S classes? Are they all explicitly magical?

[Libertad]

But I hardly think it's a revelation that D&D's magical abilities need a better and more coherent set of classifications. And I really don't see how it has fuckall to do with the fact that you still need to be a magic dude if you want to have a high level adventure and not be an animal companion.

-Username17

It matters a great deal because it contributes to the inconsistent definitions among D&D gamers.

I agree with you on having characters having "extra-normal powers" at higher levels, by your definition. But assuming that your definition is the only relevant one won't add to the discussion when other gamers see your definition as their own.

A community cannot have a productive discussion if everyone's arguing over the semantics of a word. And I'm not just talking about The Gaming Den

So, I'm curious - what about the Bo9S classes? Are they all explicitly magical?

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.

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.