Verbs Vs. Nouns

[Whatever]

EDIT: I can tell the difference, one of them is interesting, the other one isn't, and just hopes you get confused and think it is because it is associated with interesting things like Daenerys Targaryen pretending she is a well written character because she is in the same book as well written characters.

That sentence is nearly impossible to parse. "because it is associated with interesting things like Daenerys Targaryen" is fucking awful and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Mask_De_H]

What the flying fuck are you even on, Kaelik? You're just straight WHARRRRGARBL now.

[John Magnum]

Beowulf might not have a long beard, pointy hat, robes, and spellbook, but he's not fucking mundane. Being a mythic figure who bests supernatural opponents and is immortalized in verse is actually pretty much the opposite of mundane! Yes, Beowulf does not explicitly spell out a source of extramundane phlebotinum that Beowulf taps to perform his feats, but he's absolutely not mundane.

I'm perfectly fine with the aesthetic skin of big burly dude, lots of weapons, rough-looking armor. The desire to tie this to "mundane fighter" is idiotic.

[Kaelik]

There is a lot of traits that go into a character to make it interesting, not just skills and powers. History, personality and even the level of interest and affection for the character by the writer and the level of skill the writer or actor portraying that character can serve to make a character more or less interesting depending on the mixture. Even the same character can be boring or interesting when handled by different writers. And on top of that is what the audience brings to it; some people find a particular trait or mix of traits intriguing and others find no interest at all.

Other things that make characters more or less interesting are skills and powers. And setting. And since those are things that game designers deal with, and skill of writers are not, those are the things that matter for making an RPG game that facilitates interesting characters.

But since specifically what I said was that the examples used in the OP are a further example of how I do not find anything mundane to be interesting, I don't know why you think the possibility of different audiences is a useful or meaningful concept in contradicting me on that point.

So, despite the fact I've never read the book you're talking about and don't know who this person is, you know for a fact I don't find that character interesting?

Does the concept of a simile confuse you? You may or may not like her, but it doesn't matter for the purpose of a simile that you should probably be able to get.

X blanks Y like A blanks B.

A is a boring character who is in the same book as interesting characters.

X is a character who has no interesting abilities, but pretends it does by hanging out with Wizards and begging for spells, or fighting magical creatures that are weak to "sharp stick" because they are allergic to wood.

Kaelik, just get out. People in here are trying to talk about things like Beowulf and Lancelot and all the other mythological literary characters that don't have what their setting labels as Official Magic TM but are nonetheless capable of feats that generic shit-covered peasants aren't, because they are Just That Awesome.

No, there are hundreds of bullshit threads that have been about that sort of shit, but this is not one of them. This thread is about why one person thinks all you fucking idiots (of which he is one) fap so hard to your "no you can't make my character have a power source he is just too awesome for a power source" shit.

Specifically about how it has to do with punching being cooler than shooting electricity rays. Whether or not punching is actually cooler than shooting electricity rays is highly relevant to that conversation, where fapping to "JUST THAT AWESOME! I HAVE TO USE CAPITAL LETTERS BECAUSE IT SO AWESOME" is not unless you are describing an actual reason why those characters are cool.

There really is a large precedent for people wanting to play a superhuman character without having an explicit in-setting power source, and shitting all over the thread because you personally can't cope with characters that haven't licked the Day-Glo Staff of Magic being supernatural is just pissing everyone off.

There really is a large precedent for people wanting to play those characters. But this is not a thread where everyone faps to how awesome those characters are, this is a thread that seeks to determine why people like those characters. As such, whether or not specifically ghost punching is cool, and what would make it cool, if it was cool, is fucking relevant.

And no, I'm not going to get out because you don't want to have to talk about why people like mundane characters in a thread about why people like mundane characters because you would rather just start from the premise that everyone loves mundane characters and start fapping. If you don't want to fucking have a discussion about what is or is not cool about ghost punching, then don't read and post in a thread about what is or is not cool about ghost punching.

That sentence is nearly impossible to parse. "because it is associated with interesting things like Daenerys Targaryen" is fucking awful and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Do you not understand the concept of a simile?

X blanks Y like A blanks B.

Like is the word that separates both sides of the simile. This is not difficult, if you read the entire sentence to completion without your brain shutting down, it is actually pretty simple.

[K]

You know, once magic has reliable rules obeys any physical laws, even fantasy physical laws, it ceases to be magic. It's technology. All of the mystery and handwaving-that-hurts-RPGs that goes into the phrase "it's magic" goes away if you can even explain part of it.

I think that's why people want to enchant a Flametogue sword and not forge a Flametogue sword. Forging implies a technological process that would be made in an assembly-line fashion in factory where shipments of dragonsblood are paid for by purchase orders from the Accounting Department and enchanters get health insurance and a pension if the work in the Flametogue Factory.

Understandable magic become a known commodity and not a mysterious mark of power, and thus is less cool.

I'm not sure that fantasy RPGs should even use "real magic." It seems that grounding things in physical laws of fantastic origin solves a lot of the mundane/magic issues almost immediately. For example, maybe all Warrior drink jangajanaga juice from the jangajanga tree and it gives them bizarre bursts of physical might, or maybe the baseline of the setting is that the gods do help heroes with amazing feats of power and skill when needed.

It's the not explaining that causes issues, as I explained as a side-issue in the Ten Levels thread. Most games seem to be more than willing to explore hundreds of pages of spells and monster entries, but never spend any time at all on the baseline game assumptions and that's an issue.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Kaelik, just get out. People in here are trying to talk about things like Beowulf and Lancelot and all the other mythological literary characters that don't have what their setting labels as Official Magic TM but are nonetheless capable of feats that generic shit-covered peasants aren't, because they are Just That Awesome. There really is a large precedent for people wanting to play a superhuman character without having an explicit in-setting power source, and shitting all over the thread because you personally can't cope with characters that haven't licked the Day-Glo Staff of Magic being supernatural is just pissing everyone off.

I don't even really give a shit about that, since I'm pretty firmly on the record as saying that all archetypes need magic sooner or later to remain competitive, even if that magic is fluffed as "Ki resonance" or "Secret techniques." No, what I was replying to was Kaelik's asinine claim that anything that allows you to directly interact with ghosts has to definitionally be magical. And that statement is asinine because it assumes that exploiting a magical creature's weaknesses makes you magical too.

My arguement has no bearing on whether or not making ghosts vulnrable to cold iron (For example) make Badass Normals competitive. It does not, because then a magically-enhanced character that can do combat (like a Cleric or Druid) can pick up a fireplace poker too and the Fighting Man is back to eating at the Kid's Table again.

[Whatever]

Do you not understand the concept of a simile?

X blanks Y like A blanks B.

Like is the word that separates both sides of the simile. This is not difficult, if you read the entire sentence to completion without your brain shutting down, it is actually pretty simple.

I did understand what you were saying. That's why I highlighted that bit as being especially terrible (which, in a sentence with three comma splices, is saying something). Writing it that way made it harder to read. I get that it makes sense in your head, but you need to understand that not everything that makes sense in your head makes sense to everyone else, especially when you don't take the time to write it down clearly.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

So, despite the fact I've never read the book you're talking about and don't know who this person is, you know for a fact I don't find that character interesting?

Does the concept of a simile confuse you? You may or may not like her, but it doesn't matter for the purpose of a simile that you should probably be able to get.

I apparently understand what a simile is better than you, because I know they need context to work. I don't know who this character is, I have not read any books featuring this character. I have not seen any movies or TV shows featuring this character. I don't know if I find this character interesting or not and I sure as shit ain't taking your word for it.

Except you insist that I don't find this character interesting. Right after upbraiding me for apparently dictating what you do or don't like, too. And you completely ignored me calling you out on this. So since you're too stupid to understand more subtlety than that of a sledgehammer I'll say it outright: You are a goddamned hypocrite, and you need to shore up your own logical failings if you want any hope of anyone taking you seriously.

[Chamomile]

FYI: Danaerys Tagaryen is a godawful Mary Sue character who infests the otherwise believable and interesting cast of the Game of Thrones series. I'd say fuck Dany, but those scenes were the worst part of the trainwreck of writing failures that make her chapters so unbearably awful to read. I dread reaching the point of the books where she actually begins interacting with the rest of the plot.

[Kaelik]

I apparently understand what a simile is better than you, because I know they need context to work. I don't know who this character is, I have not read any books featuring this character. I have not seen any movies or TV shows featuring this character. I don't know if I find this character interesting or not and I sure as shit ain't taking your word for it.

Yes, because knowledge of that specific character is totally essential to understanding the concept of an uninteresting character in the same book as interesting characters. Oh wait, it is a concept lots of people can get without knowing that character.

Now sure, I picked the most readily known character from the most commonly read current work of fantasy in order to maximize the possible audience of the simile who directly understand it, but even if you haven't read it, your personal ignorance is not a defense against the simile which only requires the context of having ever read an uninteresting character in the same book as interesting characters.

Except you insist that I don't find this character interesting. Right after upbraiding me for apparently dictating what you do or don't like, too. And you completely ignored me calling you out on this. So since you're too stupid to understand more subtlety than that of a sledgehammer I'll say it outright: You are a goddamned hypocrite, and you need to shore up your own logical failings if you want any hope of anyone taking you seriously.

No you dumbshit, I did not insist that you don't find her interesting. That was the point. I "ignored" you calling me out on this because you didn't call me out on anything, and I pointed that out. It does not matter whether you personally like Danni or not. The point is that by using that analogy I 1) Made my point to anyone ever who has ever read an uninteresting character in a book with interesting characters, 2) Made that point super well to anyone who has read the currently most popular fantasy work.

I don't care whether you like Danni or not, I don't care whether you like Pile of Shit McGee, Steve the Crap Covered Farmer's Follower Who Is Literally a Pile of Shit. You can like whatever you damn well want. But when I said "This large set of sentences is just further confusing me on why you guys like X, because X is the least interesting thing about every one of these sentences to me." You decided to throw a shit fit about how I damn well had to find X to be the most interesting part of those sentences because... no adequately defined reason.

[MGuy]

FYI: Danaerys Tagaryen is a godawful Mary Sue character who infests the otherwise believable and interesting cast of the Game of Thrones series. I'd say fuck Dany, but those scenes were the worst part of the trainwreck of writing failures that make her chapters so unbearably awful to read. I dread reaching the point of the books where she actually begins interacting with the rest of the plot.

At the risk of derailing this uninteresting argument, I'm only slightly familiar with GoT. What does she do, have, that makes her a Mary Sue. As far as I know she has some dickhead brother, marries a barbarian, and... that's all I got. Oh and is like displaced royalty or something.

[Chamomile]

Normally I'd make a new thread for this, but Kaelik is going off on another uninteresting derail where he strokes his e-cock at the expense of interesting discussion, so whatever.

Also, I should first mention that I have only read the first book and about 80% of the second so far, so I can't speak to whether she gets any better over the course of the series.

-Danaerys Tagaryen has yet to interact with the main plot. At all. She's on a different continent from every other major character, interacting with a completely different political landscape. While she is the last of the exiled Tagaryen line that used to rule Westeros, her impact on the rest of the plot is basically nil. Also, while she intends to go back and reclaim her throne, her progress towards completion of that goal is also basically nil. Reading her chapters is like reading some whole other different story and it makes me wonder how much of this is really necessary. It seems like everything she's done so far would have been better explained as two paragraphs of background exposition once she actually shows up on Westeros and starts doing stuff rather than multiple chapters wherein she wanders around swooning over Drogo and suffering all her indignities in silence until someone else solves with no assistance or even provocation from her.

-Speaking of: through the entire first book, Dany does nothing of her own volition. She gets dragged around by her nasty brother Viserys who marries her off to Genghis Khan Khal Drogo. Then Khal Drogo gets fed up with Viserys' stupidity and nastiness and dumps a pot of molten gold on his head. By the end of the book she has three baby dragons, otherwise centuries-extinct legendary killing machines. The eggs were a gift, and her method of hatching them is based purely off of arbitrary (and poorly explained) magic that is based in either bloodline or faith. She doesn't do anything, and she ends up on the receiving end of legendary power and a small army anyway.

In the second book she has a bigger hand in actually doing stuff and (spoiler alert) leading the tiny remnants of the dead Khal Drogo's army, but whenever something goes right it still tends to tie back to dumb luck (she leaders her people through an inhospitable wasteland and survives only because she stumbles across the ruins of a forgotten city with a water source and leftover food) or people fawning over her because of her dragons or bloodline, neither of which have the slightest bit to do with her actual personality or accomplishments. The bit where she wanders through the warlock ghost palace is moderately interesting, but she triumphs through first following explicit instructions from one of the people who think she's awesome because of the dragons she did nothing to earn, and then when it turns out to be a trap she gets saved when one of her dragons eats a magical heart thing.

Ned Stark navigates intrigue and conspiracy, Tyrion Lannister talks his way out of one sticky situation after another, Robb Stark wins a hopeless war using cunning and strategy, and Danaerys Tagaryen blindly follows one person after another, even after she hypothetically becomes a leader. She does nothing of her own volition.

-Dany, who is 14 years old, is clearly a vehicle for George R.R. Martin's sexual fantasies, which dramatically exacerbates all the problems of her other flaws. You don't generally get egregious scenes in Game of Thrones. When the Starks make open war upon the Lannisters, you never get a scene of some random bloody skirmish just so we can watch some footmen get their necks split open and some poor bastard get trampled under horses. Half of the major battles we don't even view directly, we just hear about their aftermath from the perspective of a major character receiving word of the results from three days' ride away.

Similarly, Tyrion Lannister has a whole character arc where he has trust issues with women because he's a super-rich noble who's also ugly as sin and thus every woman wants something from him, and the first woman he had was literally a whore hired by his family to fake a real relationship with him, resulting in a huge mess of complications. Tyrion's sexual relations with his latest whore are a major part of his character arc, but the scenes are almost purely implicit and Martin again seems more interested in building up tension and then skimming over the climax, putting less then a paragraph into the actual event (if that), and skipping straight to resolution. This might not be spectacular, but it works.

Dany, on the other hand, gets the exact opposite; an extended climax with no build-up or aftermath, meaning I don't care in the slightest about the action that's going on. Nobody cares whether or not Khal Drogo makes soft passionate love with her or if he's as rough and vicious with her as his men are with the serving girls they kill each other to fuck in public. It doesn't make any difference to anyone we care about, but Martin is happy to spend two pages solid telling us in loving detail how she gets stripped naked and then Drogo takes off his clothes and then he starts touching her and on and on and on. Probably about half of her chapters up until Drogo's death include some kind of scene like this. It's porn, and I don't want random porn dropped into my book about political intrigue and feudal brutality. Every other character is defined by their strategy or diplomacy. Dany is defined by the awesome sex she has, while the universe just gives her what every other character is required to actually achieve (or die trying).

-Finally, it seems like Martin is trying to set up Dany as one of his sympathetic characters. She uses Khal Drogo's love for her (which, again, she has done nothing to earn, since everything she knows about sex came from a handmaid given to her at her wedding and we never see her actually learning how to have better sex, we just skip to the part where she's awesome at it) to stop a couple of Drogo's Dothraki army from raping the locals. Drogo supports her because he loves the fucktoy with a soul made of cardboard better than the men who die for him, apparently. Later on, one of the people she saves (ultimately by taking them as her slaves) stabs her in the back with her witch magic. When Dany accuses of her of ingratitude, the "ingrate" tells her that stopping the fourth dude from raping her after three had already had a go and Drogo's army had destroyed her home, and that her protection mostly consisted of being abducted by the nomads that took everything she had from her and raped her three times, instead of being raped four times and then killed. This is not a huge improvement. And the witch has a damn good point but it's still written as though we're supposed to be sympathetic to Dany over her.

[Whipstitch]

Daenerys isn't a Sue triumphant yet, but the entire premise of her storyline is that if she gets her way she totally will be Queen Stu, Mother of Dragons. Mind you, she's actually a pretty flawed character and may very well end up going down as a deconstruction of such ambitions before things are all said and done, but in the mean time her role in the story is to succeed despite her own naivete and by merely existing she basically threaten the reader with the grim notion that most of the characters they actually care and read about may end up being rather superfluous in the grand scheme of things. So, yeah, people hate her, and I have a hard time blaming them too much even if I do think the way people criticize her while simultaneously doing lines of coke off of Jon Stu's dick reeks of latent sexism.*


*Come at me, Lord Snow fanboys.

[Chamomile]

Question: Why do you say Jon Snow counts as a Mary Sue? He's far from my favorite character and shares Dany's issue with a lack of interaction with the main plot, but unlike Dany he takes action and those actions have consequences and things don't always work out perfectly for him. Granted, I have only read the first 1 4/5 books so far, it might just be that he gets worse as the series progresses.

[Username17]

Kaelik is totally right. It's incredibly simple:

• If your "ghost" has the power "immune to all physical attacks", you can't fucking punch it without magic. Period. End of fucking story.
• If your "ghost" has the power "immune to all physical attacks except cold iron which it is magically weak against", that is a different and much weaker power. But in any case, you still can't fucking punch it without fucking magic. And if you hit it with a cold iron blade you aren't using your own magic, you're able to hit it because of the explicit parameters of the ghost's magic. You are doing something that is not particularly impressive, because literally any of the extras in the village could do the same thing in this circumstance.

I genuinely don't understand how this is an argument. You can't punch ghosts unless one of the following is true:

• You have magic that lets you punch ghosts.
• Your ghosts are much weaker than truly incorporeal ghosts, and have some normal escape clause for their immunities ("can be punched in the sunlight", "can be punched if their fetters have been moved", "can be punched if you have a silver ring on", or whatever).
• Your ghosts are so weak and stupid that they don't have physical immunity under any circumstances, in which case your "ghost" is just a ghoul or a zombie and you are moving goalposts for the purposes of shitting on the conversation.

That's it. There is no option four, and there is no option where you non-magically punch a ghost that doesn't involve you either shitting on the conversation or your character being a stand-in for a random NPC villager who sucks. It is not possible to non-magically punch a ghost and still be "cool". For you to be able to non-magically punch a ghost in the first place, the bar for ghost punching has to be set so low that the fact you could do it isn't cool.

-Username17

[Roog]

That's it. There is no option four, and there is no option where you non-magically punch a ghost that doesn't involve you either shitting on the conversation or your character being a stand-in for a random NPC villager who sucks. It is not possible to non-magically punch a ghost and still be "cool". For you to be able to non-magically punch a ghost in the first place, the bar for ghost punching has to be set so low that the fact you could do it isn't cool.

Option two allows possibilities where this is not necessarily the case. If the escape clause for the immunity sets a sufficiently high bar, random NPC villagers would be unable to punch the ghost.

[Username17]

That's it. There is no option four, and there is no option where you non-magically punch a ghost that doesn't involve you either shitting on the conversation or your character being a stand-in for a random NPC villager who sucks. It is not possible to non-magically punch a ghost and still be "cool". For you to be able to non-magically punch a ghost in the first place, the bar for ghost punching has to be set so low that the fact you could do it isn't cool.

Option two allows possibilities where this is not necessarily the case. If the escape clause for the immunity sets a sufficiently high bar, random NPC villagers would be unable to punch the ghost.

Name a bar.

Seriously: name a bar it is possible to have in which some random NPC villager would not be able to punch the ghost and yet simultaneously a mundane PC can punch that ghost without having, knowing, using, being, or be aided by magic.

If you can flippantly state that a "sufficiently high bar" exists, I'm sure you could name at least one possible bar that would satisfy that condition. Right? I mean, that would be a prerequisite for such a bar existing.

-Username17

[Stubbazubba]

I am honestly perplexed as to how both Kaelik and Frank can say with a straight face that ghosts being hurt by swords that are magical for no interesting reason whatsoever is OK, but being hurt by a secret technique known only to a nomadic tribe of quasi-mystical warriors but is not explicitly magical is so stupid and boring it pains them to read it.

Why does a select group of highly-trained warriors being able to punch ghosts automatically mean every peasant can punch a ghost? Is it that any mundane could just go out, find these warriors, learn their ways and come back and punch ghosts? Why is that different than saying that any peasant can become an adventurer, go out, get his hands on a magic weapon in some horde, come back, and kill a ghost, which is apparently OK? How is ghosts having a weakness against silver or cold iron different from being vulnerable to magical weapons, as far as the 'interestingness' of the character wielding said weapon is concerned? That argument is all kinds of contorted and stupid. Ghosts being incorporeal already has a laundry list of exceptions; all magical weapons and effects. Any common peasant could pick up a magic sword and attack a ghost, so clearly they're not Immune Enough for Kaelik and Frank.

[Username17]

Hint: a secret knowledge that allows you to bypass the laws of physics as experienced by other people is fucking magic, you fucking twat.

-Username17

[Stubbazubba]

Frank: Did you read the OP? That's what we've been talking about since the first page. Kaelik is giving it his all to derail it into something its not, and you're lining up right behind him because you didn't read the context, did you?

And I'm still waiting to see you explain why a character who uses an enchanted sword from Ye Olde Magic Shoppe to kill a ghost is more interesting than a character who uses a silver-plated weapon from Ye Olde Magic Shoppe to do so.

[Roog]

The lowest bar I can think of that would mean "some random NPC villager would not be able to punch the ghost and yet simultaneously a mundane PC can punch that ghost" would be:
Only characters with sufficient karmic significance (i.e. PCs and significant NPCs) can punch the ghost.

I wouldn't find that satisfying in a game, but it meets the criteria.


How about an example from earlier in the thread?

Maybe ghost are emotions, and if you're emotional enough, or emotionally disciplined enough you can actually punch them, without resorting to magic.

Or how about:
Ghosts can be punched if they can be tricked into making themselves solid, but doing this would require exceptional guile (more than some random NPC villager).

[Username17]

The lowest bar I can think of that would mean "some random NPC villager would not be able to punch the ghost and yet simultaneously a mundane PC can punch that ghost" would be:
Only characters with sufficient karmic significance (i.e. PCs and significant NPCs) can punch the ghost.

So if the "mundane" character is actually magic, then they can punch the ghost?

Maybe ghost are emotions, and if you're emotional enough, or emotionally disciplined enough you can actually punch them, without resorting to magic.

So if in fact, ghosts aren't really special at all, and you can just punch them by being upset and the hero punching them is a meaningless feat, then the "mundane" character can compete on the same level as "housewife villager #3".

Ghosts can be punched if they can be tricked into making themselves solid, but doing this would require exceptional guile (more than some random NPC villager).

Wat.

Your "wait for the ghost's immunity to be waived voluntarily" thing should obviously not even be considered. Since by definition they wouldn't be incorporeal at that point.

Again and still:

Seriously: name a bar it is possible to have in which some random NPC villager would not be able to punch the ghost and yet simultaneously a mundane PC can punch that ghost without having, knowing, using, being, or be aided by magic.

-Username17

[shadzar]

not sure what all is going on here, but IF i have the right idea...

You do not.

This thread isn't about what specific words should be used to describe magical effects, but rather about where the magic comes from. Is the magic sword made by:

A] Enchanting a mundane sword made from mundane metal in mundane fire by casting a spell on it.
B] Forging a magic sword made from magic metal in a mundane fire.
C] Forging a magic sword made from mundane metal in a magic fire.
D] Imbuing a mundane sword made from mundane metal in mundane fire with magic power by dipping it into a magic liquid.

The basic problem is that people will be upset if the fighter ever says anything that starts with, "I enchant..." because they are so caught up in stereotypes that they can't imagine a anyone not wearing a robe and a pointy hat knowing how to enchant something. But for whatever reason, they're OK with it if a blacksmith forges a special sword out of special metal, or with a special fire to get special effects. Their entire hangup is based on muscular people not being allowed to know things about magic.

oh, one of those things.

A) The girl with red hair kicked me.

B) The girl kicked me with red hair.

A states a girl kicked someone. which girl? the one with red hair.

B states someone was kicked by a girl. how were they kicked? with red hair.

a fighter cannot "enchant a". he can forged enchanted metal, but even with magical fire he is only forging, unless he is imbuing the metal with magical properties. i dont know of any magical fire that can imbue metal with properties, but the fire would be enchanting the metal WHILE the fighter forges it.

it has nothing to do with stereotypes, but the English language, as well as the definition of the terms.

your A would just be empowering a sword with enchantments. not something a fighter can do without access to arcane or divine means.

your B, a fighter can do as well as anyone. the metal already has properties, and would be connotationally "enchanted" metal by having the unusual properties.

your C is the same as your B in that anyone could do it, the question would be does the magical fire actually imbue any sort of enchantment? otherwise like B, the fighter would only be forging a sword. there is nothing the fighter has access with in which to imbue the fire or metal with magical properties.

your D just confusing as fuck....

put simply i would say the act of enchanting is done by the thing imbuing the magical properties into the metal. magic fire, magic liquid, arcane or divine magic; these things can enchant a weapon. this is by virtue of the definitions of the words, and not anything against a fighter class character. IF there is a fighter class character somewhere that CAN imbue metal with magical properties, THEN he has enchanted a swrod.

also with a blacksmith working magical metals, this blacksmith is not enchanting a swrod, he is forging and enchanted metal. it goes back to the girl and the red hair and the kicking. adjectives, adverbs, and the like.

also notice your own example you state "fighter enchants", then turn around and say "blacksmith forges". yeah the first is wrong, and the second is right, because you arent claiming a blacksmith is enchanting, only doing the mundane task of forging, which is the same as a fighter does. if you tried to say "blacksmith enchants" you would and should rightly be faced with the same gruff from improper use of the English language.


enchantment is the act of imbuing magical properties. a fighter has NO magical properties (99.9% of the time) in which he can use to imbue into the finished product. even using magical fire or magical elixir, it is the fire and elixir that is doing the enchanting, not the fighter.

the problem is that a fighter does NOT know how to imbue magical properties into a weapon outside of 4E's rituals, or special cases or classes that are not FIGHTERs.

the fighter doesnt do magic. he hits things with a bit stick as is his schtick. if you want someone that can do light magic stuff and mostly hit things with a big stick and want less resistance, then just dont call it a fighter. call it Bob, a warlord, a paladin, a whatever. the fighter is the one who doesnt use magic, just magical stuff. "fighter" that can use some magic including but not limited to enchanting weapons/armor would be something found in a kit/PrC, etc.

[Red_Rob]

The lowest bar I can think of that would mean "some random NPC villager would not be able to punch the ghost and yet simultaneously a mundane PC can punch that ghost" would be:
Only characters with sufficient karmic significance (i.e. PCs and significant NPCs) can punch the ghost.

So if the "mundane" character is actually magic, then they can punch the ghost?

Here we are getting into the "What is magic?" argument again. If someone capable of feats that are impossible in the real world is definitionally magic then sure, it is tautologically true that them punching a ghost by any means is magic as we just defined it. The point was whether a character without an obvious power source should be allowed to do fantastic things in a fantasy story by dint of their "incredible skill" or "legendary prowess". By which we mean it would be a class feature of a level 4 Fighter, and therefore not available to the hoi poloi of the fantasy world.

So, given that framework, what is the objection to having a nonmagical warrior able to punch a ghost, in the same way as nonmagical Cuchulain was able to transform into a hulking beast and slay armies, or nonmagical Beowulf was able to wrestle giant monsters and fight underwater for extended periods?

[Chamomile]

Seriously: name a bar it is possible to have in which some random NPC villager would not be able to punch the ghost and yet simultaneously a mundane PC can punch that ghost without having, knowing, using, being, or be aided by magic.

Okay, sure. Blue Dragon can cut up ghosts. Blue Dragon weighs 100 pounds. If you are Guan Yu, you can cut up ghosts with Blue Dragon. If you are villager #6, you cannot. Or, ghosts have a shimmering weakspot that constantly shifts around their body which, if physically disturbed by a living being, will cause it to take damage. If you are fast and accurate enough to hit that moving weakspot, you can punch a ghost and villager #6 cannot. Or, ghost-cutting magical weapons are actually sentient and refuse to activate their magical powers for anyone who isn't a sufficiently awesome warrior or has a strong enough will or whatever (the latter will obviously necessitate martial classes having higher Will saves or equivalent as compared to magical classes). Or, the magical incorporeality of ghosts is actually nullified by humming the Ghostbusters theme, but in D&D-land this song is a closely guarded secret given only to powerful adventurers so that the Wizards in national governments won't be threatened by villagers humming an 80s song slightly off-key.

And that's all ignoring the fact that a mundane verb affecting a magical noun is the premise of the discussion, so of course the end result isn't really mundane, but it feels more mundane to fold your katana seven hundred times while forging it with the end result that it is so sharp that it can cut incorporeal beings rather than inscribing it with glowing blue runes or saying words of power or something else more in the Wizard's wheelhouse. Or to be sufficiently angry that you can punch ghosts. The entire idea here is that we throw the Fighter's coat of paint onto the Wizard's actual abilities. If having Fighter paint on Wizard abilities is that repulsive to you, just leave the thread. We aren't talking about the game you want to play. Go talk about something else.