Shardstone
Hero
In word salad, there is no true gospel, just hard and soft suggestions.
D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Okay. But you do agree that silence on fighters getting wish at level 1 does mean the fighter doesn’t get wish at level 1? This establishes a principle, silence on a topic is not always ambiguous.
So why do you believe silence about the ability means he doesn’t get it but silence about being magical means he could be? Or in more general terms, why is silence about a mechanical ability different than silence about the narrative cause of that ability?
Agreed.
Why? Is this just because Gammadoodler says so?
Barbarian rage does claim to bestow supernatural strength and resilience. So I’m not really sure it matters how people view them.
No one disagrees with what the text says. Its just ‘not mundane’ does not necessitate supernatural or magical. No interpretation needed to get to this point - it’s the definition.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
So that’s quite a different argument than your previous defense of them potentially being magical.
I might could get behind this for fighters - of course their extradordinary abilities in the book are mostly only exraordinary in that their numbers are better than their more mundane counterparts. So I don’t know we can use them not being mundane to justify all kinds of extraordinary abilities, whatever not mundane for the fighter means seems fairly limited in scope based on the base fighter abilities they get.
Faolyn
(she/her)
Well, just because something is inborn doesn't mean it awakened with puberty like a Marvel mutant. Something could be latent and wait for a triggering event to manifest... such as any of the hundreds of weird things that a typical adventurer goes through.
Gammadoodler
Hero
Because the rulebook is there to define the game abilities player characters should have, not why they have them.
A player's mechanical choices at the table do not change if 100% of the fighter's abilities are coded as magic, supernatural, mundane, or whatever else. Thus, silence leaves room for mechanically irrelevant creative expression.
A player's mechanical choices do change if an additional mechanical ability is included for the class. Abilities a player gets are positive statements in the game. Thus, silence, in this case, is the absence of incremental positive statements for PC abilities.
Silence in a rule book for these two scenarios is not equivalent.
So we agree that "Not mundane" means "Not mundane"?
Cool.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
That was true for 4e’s ignore the fluff and make your own. That’s not the case for 5e. Fluff is just as much a rule as any mechanic again.
the conclusion here does not follow from the premise.
Okay. Why do you say class fluff isn’t the same?
I don’t think your explanations here make a case for them being different at all.
Of course!
Gammadoodler
Hero
There is no fluff to ignore. There is an absence of fluff.
In the same way that Portent has an absence of fluff. Or Instinctive Charm, or Minor Alchemy, or Aura of Protection, or any other of the dozens of abilities that receive no justification for how or why they work.
Gammadoodler
Hero
I'm not sure what to make of this?
People want abilities that are extraordinary in a way that the book doesn't currently provide.
But the abilities in the book are not all that extraordinary..
So the abilities we give them can't be all that extraordinary..
This appears to be circular logic?
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
The fighter in the book is not mundane.
Thus, he’s at minimum extraordinary.
Thus, at least some of his abilities must be extraordinary.
Not circular at all.
It may not be what people want when they say extraordinary but doesn’t mean the current fighter is not so.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Because of this qualification you're actually agreeing with his thesis.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Bizuids and Clercerocks
