When I play a RPG, the fiction matters. I care whether a character is a wizard or not.Whether the flavor text of 4e counts martial powers as magic or not is debatable, but also irrelevant. The point is that looking from a PF (or other D&D-based) perspective, they would be. They are used in such a way and produce outcomes that would be considered as such. The comparison above is just wrong, and really an irrelevant tangent regardless.
What is apparently irrelevant to you is therefore highly relevant to me. If it is true that the only way to make PF work is for rogues to turn themselves into item-toting quasi-wizards, that is a problem for me. And it is not a problem because I don't like the resolution mechanics. (Though I'm not the biggest fan of the UMD skill.) It is a problem for me because the fiction to which it gives rise has little resemblance to the fantasy fiction I like my RPGs to emulate.
In 4e, on the other hand, it is very straightforward to have a game in which the principle protagonists are not magic-users: not primarily, perhaps not at all (once you build in inherent bonuses and use boons, grandmaster training etc). It is also possible to play such a game in B/X, which shows that the tendency you diagnose in PF is not even an inherent consequence of more traditional D&D mechanics.
***************************************
And therefore, perhaps, not magic.Extraordinary abilities are a great way to describe capabilities that aren't magical yet may break the laws of our own reality in favor of something more literary, cinematic, or legendary. They are precisely the sort of "nice things" that non-magical classes should have as their more potent capabilities.
Instead, we got the martial power source which was not magical "in the traditional sense".
The practical significance, in 3E/PF, of the EX category is to regulate how certain abilities interact with the Anti-Magic Field spell and analogue effects. Earlier editions of the game got by without that category - for example, was a high-level monk's ability to fall any distance if within 8' of a wall magical or not? The game left the question open.
4e doesn't use 3E's Anti-Magic Field rules. Hence it doesn't need a technical definition of abilities as magical or not. What it does want to make room for is epic heroes who are not priests, wizards, psionicists or Iron Fist-style chi-wielders. It calls such characters "martial characters" wielding martial power, the power (to quote from p 54 of the PHB) of "training and dedication".
As others have pointed out, 3E and PF are predicated on the assumption that non-magical abilities can break the laws of physics. Why is 4e being held to a different standard in this respect?Apparently the ability of being naturally fast can somehow break the laws of physics... *shrug* again sounds like some type of magic to me but I'm sure there's some off the wall explanation for how it's accomplished mundanely.
I pointed out upthread that you are misstating this. It might help the conversation if you ceased to do so.Only the definition of martial power in 4e, explains these things away as magic just not of the traditional sort.
Here is the passage in question, from p 54 of the 4e PHB: "Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals." That does not explain martial powers as magic. It does not assert that they are magic. Nor does it deny that they are magic. It leaves that matter open
I think that is a fair comparison.If I said being a Striper isn't being a whore in a traditional sense, I could mean it is still being a whore, or that there is just some connection to whoreing.
It means that stripping isn't prostitution in the traditional sense, but leaves open that there is some sort of connection between stripping and prostitution - eg the commercialisation of one's sexuality.So either way there is a connection between being a stripper and whoring... what I'm asking is does this phrase ever mean absolutely no attachment to whoring? Or can it mean being a stripper is the opposite of whoring?
The passage I have just quoted from the 4e PHB makes it clear how martial powers resemble magical ones: they permit characters to perform feats well beyond what ordinary mortals can do. Are they therefore magic, although not in the traditional sense of spells or clerical prayers? The rulebooks do not answer that question. Deliberately so.
***************************************
How about Hide in Plain Sight for the rogue?
How is Hide in Plain Sight, used on a brightly-lit featureless plain, any different from Improved Evasion used by a rogue in a 5' square room filled with a Flame Strike? Both are corner-cases that put pressure on the characterisation of the ability in question as non-magical. I have never seen it argued that Improved Evasion is therefore mislabelled as EX in the 3E and PF rules.a power is found that is marked martial and allows one to do things that are impossible to explain without magic in certain situations
What story do you tell yourself to explain how Improved Evasion, used in such a situation, is nevertheless non-magical? Whatever it is, tell the same story about the 4e rogue using Hide in Plain Sight on a featureless brightly-lit plain.
A ranger's Hide in Plain Sight is EX in both 3E and PF. Does that mean that some EX abilities are actually magic despite the rules text asserting the contrary?But no worries, it's magic and it's not a problem in Pathfinder
***************************************
IMO, getting the boost of energy, in order to draw, aim, and attack with the precision to blind 6 different people with 6 daggers in less than 6 seconds is non-traditional magic.
Seriously? A 16th level PF or 3E character using Rapid Shot and Quickdraw can draw, aim and attack with precision (eg Sneak Attack) 5 different people with 5 different daggers in 6 seconds. (I don't see why you say "less than 6 seconds". A round is 6 seconds long. Unless you are working with a stop-motion model according to which every character acts from some fraction of a second then stands around watching others take their turns - talk about the ultimate "combat as sport"!) To the best of my knowledge no poster on these boards has ever suggested that must be some form of "non-traditional magic".I still contend that the martial power source by default is a form of magic... what type? Non-traditional. A player can describe himself as "just that fast" but that's not really explaining why he is just that fast.
But because a 4e rogue can make 6 rather than 5 such attacks it must be magical?
In 3E/PF, a character with Rapid Reload and Rapid Shot can do 5 shots with a light crossbow in a single round. (I wouldn't be surprised if there is a feat to allow the same thing with a sling by making the load action a free action.)Actually, having the power work with a crossbow or sling makes it much more problematic in the light of the RW.
While drawing and throwing daggers accurately in rapid fashion may be demonstrable, a (standard, non-repeating) crossbow's or sling's mechanics would prevent the firing of 6 rounds at 6 targets in 6 seconds.
Is this magical too (and does the character lose the ability in an Anti-Magic Field)? Or only in 4e?
***************************************
Boundless Endurance Fighter Utility 2
As others have pointed out, "regeneration" in 4e has the same meaning it had in AD&D and B/X (before 3E introduced the contrast between regeneration and fast-healing): it means the recovery of lost hit points at a fixed rate per round.You do know that you can be dropped to 1 hp and regenerate back to full health and stay there.
Now in fact Boundless Endurance does not permit regeneration back to full health: as per the power text you only gain the regeneration when you are bloodied. But there are other martial powers that do permit regeneration back to full health (eg the 15th level power Unyielding Avalanche). All this shows is that the game includes martial healing, and that some of this includes self-healing that is not rationed by way of healing surges and instead by way of daily power usage. Unless you think that hit point recovery is per se magical, I don't see that anything interesting follows from this.
This is a non-sequitur. Hit point loss for a fighter PC means something quite different from hit point loss for a troll, just as, in Gygax's AD&D, hit point loss for a dragon or a giant slug means something quite different from hit point loss for a fighter.Let's break this down shall we?
The power initiates whenever you reach bloodied. I'm sure we can all guess what the word "bloodied" involves, seeing as it has the word "blood" in it. Now, Trolls have regeneration which can be stopped using fire. This means that the meat is actually repairing itself, like it always has, unless a specific type of damage is used. Trolls usually "shake off" most damage because of their Regeneration ability.
Hit point loss in 4e is not defined in terms of injury at all. It is defined in terms of verve, skill and the capacity to endure and persevere (PHB p 293):When a fighter uses that ability and gains Regeneration, does he lose that damage he has taken when the fight is over? No. Is HP 100% non meat? No. Does this ability heal even the parts of HP that are meat? Yes.
Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve - all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.
A troll perseveres because it regrows its hacked-off flesh. That, therefore, is what its hp recovery maps to in the fiction. Given that a fighter can't regrow hacked-off flesh, it follows that that is not what his/her regeneration is mapping to. As the name suggests, it maps to "boundless endurance", to"unyieldingness". That isn't magic, or at least needn't be interpreted as such. This is what let Boromir keep going, at Amon Hen, even as orcs feathered him with arrows.
Previous versions of D&D modelled Boromir simply by giving him lots of hp. 4e uses powers like Boundless Endurance, and abilities like Second Wind, as part of the modelling. The change in mechanical model is not intended to signal a change to the fiction - rather, and relating to what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] said about the experiential aspect of play, it changes the mechanical dynamics of that modelling. For example, Boundless Endurance changes the mechanical dynamic from one of mere attrition, to an interplay between recovery and damage on a round-by-round basis. For some of us, at least, that creates a more dramatic, engaging and therefore immersive play experience.
"Regeneration" is defined in the rulebooks (PHB p 293), as a "special form of healing that restores a fixed number of hit points every round" and that "doesn’t rely on healing surges". The same page defines "healing" as "[p]owers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points".if you have to make the argument that a power that gives you regeneration 2+ Con is not really giving you regeneration, then I think you are at the point where you are just being contrary to be contrary. Regeneration is more or less defined as your flesh stitching itself back together.
And if you are going to complain that this is an outrageous distortion of ordinary English usage, I refer you (just by way of two examples; more could be given) to the D&D tradition of using "hit" to mean "blow struck that has a certain mechanical significance (of beating an armour class)", contrary to the ordinary English meaning of "hit" as "an impact or collision" or "a stroke that reaches an object" or "a blow"; and of using "successful saving throw" to describe even those rolls whose mechanical result does not end up with the character being saved (eg saving for half damage, which doesn't save any character who lacks further special abilities from taking some of the effect, and can easily leave a character dead despite having "saved").