Oofta
Legend
This has nothing to do with liking or disliking 4E. Nor have I ever misrepresented the rules text. I agree fighter powers had a martial label.
But I digress. Of course sir, you are correct sir, I am wrong sir, whatever you say sir.
Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
This has nothing to do with liking or disliking 4E. Nor have I ever misrepresented the rules text. I agree fighter powers had a martial label.
But I digress. Of course sir, you are correct sir, I am wrong sir, whatever you say sir.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Not about opinions, yes, I believe I said that.
You said that 4e fighters cast spells, that is misrepresenting rules text, which unambiguously gave fighters martial powers, inauspiciously named 'exploits,' not spells. Now you admit that they did not cast spells, but wish not to admit that you formerly said they did? Maybe I'm not following you ...but, in any case, as long as we get to the factual misapprehensions out of the way...
Said with the same degree of integrity and honesty as everything else in this thread, I will assume, for the sake of polite discourse.
Last edited:
Oofta
Legend
I said we thought martial powers were frequently supernatural and spell-like regardless of the "martial" label. That is, as far as I can tell, a fact. You think we were mistaken in our opinion, but it is a fact that it was our opinion.
Somehow you think that means that I'm saying fighters had powers that were labeled "spells". I've never stated that.
As far as my sarcasm I don't know how else to reply. You will obviously not accept anything other than complete capitulation as a satisfactory answer.
What else do you want me to say? That the books called them martial powers? OK. The books called them martial powers. Done. Again.
Tony Vargas
Legend
It is a statement of fact about a past misapprehension. A thousand years ago, most people still thought the world was flat, is a pretty fair statement, but it doesn't mean the world is flat.
Lack of threading strikes again:
You're right. TheCosmicKid actually said that (in a broader form). I'm sorry for mis-attributing that to you. My mistake.Pssh. It was 4E. Everyone cast spells, some of them just pretended they didn't.
You just jumped in to defend him:
Sarcasm is tricky in this medium. That you were being sarcastic certainly came through (not always easy, so hat tip for that), but it came through, to me, as a defense & re-affirmation of the factual error in the original statement.
I have little patience left for regurgitated edition war bile. So, yeah, lets stick to the facts when talking about the deceased edition.
Last edited:
TheCosmicKid
Hero
So when other people adopt a definition of magic, it's "blithely accepting", and when they reject one, it's "bitterly denying", because definitions of magic are "arbitrary".
But when you adopt a definition of magic, it's "reasonable", and when you reject one, it's because it's contrary to the "objective facts".
And all this constitutes "engaging with the statements", and not "jumping to conclusions about what they feel or why".
...
I think you're right to worry that the "underlying disagreement cannot be expressed honestly", but you need to expand your suspect pool a bit.
Tony Vargas
Legend
I have not rejected a definition of magic w/in its native context: 3e had fairly clear lines about magic: what was (SU, spell-like abilities, spells, magic items) was not (EX abilities) and what was or was not at the DM's option (Psionics). 4e was equally clear, the Martial Source was not magical, only the Arcane source used 'spells,' etc. 5e is a bit more vague about it, but you can puzzle out most of what is & is not magic (and is divine rather than arcane magic, for that matter), with only a few odd results (Lay on Hands might /technically/ not be magic, for instance).
So, when I rejected the idea of a 5e McBard as a Warlord substitute, it was because I was respecting the 5e definitions of magic & spellcasting - the Bard being clearly a spellcaster in 5e (though a little muddy whether it's really arcane or maybe a teeny bit divine) in the context of 5e - and the 4e definitions of the martial source & spellcasting - the Warlord being a Martial class that had no spellcasting abilities, and appeared in a PH1 only in that edition.
Seemed "reasonable" to me.
Last edited:
Oofta
Legend
Just to state what I would think would be an obvious fact. Most people do no limit their definition of magic, spells or supernatural to the rule book definition.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Thus "in native context." If you're playing 3e, you use it's definition of magic when discussing what is or is not magic in it. You can contrast to what magic is like in genre or legend or traditional belief systems, if you like, but it won't change what magic is in that game. (It might inform a fairly valid opinion about how well the game emulates genre.)
Oofta
Legend
I'm not a lawyer. Most people that I play with are not. Therefore we don't discuss topics in legal technicalities or "in native context", whatever that means.
If you want to do so feel free. The terms magic, spell-like and supernatural have a much broader definition than what they are defined as in the books.
Unless discussing a specific rule, I'm going to continue use the common definition of the terms.
Tony Vargas
Legend
It means in the context it came from.
It's just English.
Similar Threads
