D&D General The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)

Tony Vargas said:

I'm sorry, but I can't accept your use of my insistence that concepts that call for magic v not magic NOT be forced to the opposite side of the distinction and asked to 'refluff' as an example of fanaticism comparable to those (especially not Saelorn's - c'mon, his thing with whatever he means by 'metagaming' doesn't even make sense, like, you can't even parse it).

It's very simple: magic vs not /has mechanical meaning in D&D/. You can't re-fluff that, end of story. It's a reality of the system in every edition.

I am, OTOH, /fine/ with taking the exact same power in Hero System, and 're-fluffing' (in Hero it's called a 'special effect') it as magic for one character and something else (martial arts, technology, mutant power, whatever) for another. In that system, anything you designate as magic in it's F/X interacts with advantages, disadvantages, & limitations calling out magic as such. There's no mechanical issue.

D&D just takes some things that probably rightly /should/ be fluff, and hard-codes them. Even 4e, which let you endlessly re-fluff your powers, didn't let you change their Source Keywords, so Martial was Martial, and Divine was Divine and there's no pretending one is the other. Heck, if 4e were designed like Hero in that sense, it would have only had 4 classes.

But, you can still use me as an example: I'll admit to my "fanaticism" (I prefer 'zeal,'), in this context, which wanting to see 5e live up to it's goal of inclusion of fans of all past editions, including fans who clamor for things I'd never been able to stand, myself, which I'd always felt should have no place in the game.
And, yeah, I acknowledge how annoying that can get.

Click to expand...

Whoah. I'm not sure I even followed all of that.

In this particular case I was just referring to your zeal, not to any parallels between the topics of zealotry.

happyhermit said:

At the same time, if someone saying; "I don't like this thing and think the game is better without it." results in them being piled on with attacks and attempts to shut down any discussion, then that probably needs to pushed back against by someone.

Click to expand...

There's a world of difference between that opinion, expressed in a discussion of what supplemental material DM might want to opt into, and what standard PH material he might want to ban - and expressed in the context of what material should be prevented from every being offered in a supplement, or even put in the very-hypothetical UA pipeline.

The former is a discussion of preference, even if we don't agree with another DM's preferences, we shouldn't attack them (too seriously - waving a Paladin in front of Lowkey13 is probably OK, for instance).
But the latter is exclusionary, creates hostility in the community, and actively sabotages 5e's goal of 'big tent' inclusiveness.

Elfcrusher said:

Whoah. I'm not sure I even followed all of that.

Click to expand...

'Magic' /has mechanical meaning in D&D/. You can't just 're-fluff' spell casting as being non-magical. It will still be subject to counter-spelling, it will still fail in an anti-magic field, it will still accomplish results that "can only be done with magic," it will still detect as magic.
It's a reality of the system in every edition.

So when I say, for instance, that the Valor Bard is off the table as a viable component to faking a warlord under extant 5e options, I'm not speaking from a place of fanaticism or even opinion, it's just hard-and-fast mechanics.

The Warlord /was/ Martial, there's no question of them every having been magical in nature nor being re-fluffed to be Arcane (as the 4e Bard was Arcane). The Valor Bard's relevant abilities are prettymuch all magic. (Apparently it's official that bardic inspiration is NOT magic, though you can't poach actually it without also gaining casting.)

In this particular case I was just referring to your zeal, not to any parallels between the topics of zealotry.

Click to expand...

Several times in this discussion you've presumed to create an equivalency between the above, and your unwillingness to work with other players to find a relationship dynamic that works for both yourself and a hypothetical player bringing a warlord to the table.

That equivalency is false.

Tony Vargas said:

'Magic' /has mechanical meaning in D&D/. You can't just 're-fluff' spell casting as being non-magical. It will still be subject to counter-spelling, it will still fail in an anti-magic field, it will still accomplish results that "can only be done with magic," it will still detect as magic.
It's a reality of the system in every edition.

So when I say, for instance, that the Valor Bard is off the table as a viable component to faking a warlord under extant 5e options, I'm not speaking from a place of fanaticism or even opinion, it's just hard-and-fast mechanics.

The Warlord /was/ Martial, there's no question of them every having been magical in nature nor being re-fluffed to be Arcane (as the 4e Bard was Arcane). The Valor Bard's relevant abilities are prettymuch all magic. (Apparently it's official that bardic inspiration is magic, too.)

Click to expand...

Ah, got it. Sorry just couldn't parse it the first time. Yes, I understand and there's nothing there I disagree with.

Several times in this discussion you've presumed to create an equivalency between the above, and your unwillingness to work with other players to find a relationship dynamic that works for both yourself and a hypothetical player bringing a warlord to the table.

Click to expand...

1. That's why I was clarifying that in this case I was just referring to the zealotry. I understand that was confusing.

2. I would distinguish between "my unwillingness to subvert my values" and "my (supposed) unwillingness to work with others." We are both unwilling to subvert our values. The difference is that your value can coexist with its inverse. My value is that the presence of a certain theme is actually corrosive. If I ever find myself in that situation, though, of course I'll find a way to work with it. (Unless my fears are totally realized, in which case I'll politely demure from returning to that table.)

Elfcrusher said:

1. That's why I was clarifying that in this case I was just referring to the zealotry. I understand that was confusing.

Click to expand...

I had to object because the subject (object?) of said Zealotry was incorrectly stated.

It wasn't 'magic/not-magic,' but "5e inclusivity."

2. I would distinguish between "my unwillingness to subvert my values" and "my (supposed) unwillingness to work with others." We are both unwilling to subvert our values. The difference is that your value can coexist with its inverse. My value is that the presence of a certain theme is actually corrosive.

Click to expand...

I don't see it.

I mean, the inverse of "The thoughts/feelings/decisions of my Character constitute my sacred Player Agency and must never be compromised" would seem to be "oops, failed a saving throw and now have the charmed condition, and I'm OK with that." You hold both of those simultaneously. ( I know, I know, "but, /magic/!") Another inverse might be, ironically "Player Agency limited to decisions-making with no influence on the outcome is not Agency, at all." But, I don't see how: "If you choose from among a range of relationship dynamics with another PC - like, most simply 'ally,' something the game seems to pervasively assume - you may gain benefits from that ally" is such an inverse.

And, I don't see how the inverse of "big-tent inclusiveness of all fans of past editions" - which'd have to be something like - "Xe is the One True Edition and all others must be erased from living memory" can coexist with, well, anything - especially itself but for different values of X.

If I ever find myself in that situation, though, of course I'll find a way to work with it. (Unless my fears are totally realized, in which case I'll politely demure from returning to that table.)

Click to expand...

I hope /both/ that a warlord option someday becomes official - and that, even in that increasingly improbable eventuality, you never happen to find yourself at a stranger's table where someone is already playing one.

OK, I guess that /is/ "a value coexisting with it's inverse."

It'd've been clearer if you'd just said "tolerance."

I was in a thread recently... the thread was about Save OR Dies.

I hate save or dies with a passion. (Gygax put them into the game spite of his elegant argument about critical hits being bad because Conan doesnt die to some random arrow out the blue he wasnt very consistant)

I showed a video about how Fluttershy is heroic as hell when she is fighting a Cockatrice.. and it isnt an all or nothing succumbing or throwing off the attack its a gradual build up, she brow beats the creature into submission and throws of its power.

The process of fighting off that Stoning effect felt like a mini story ... ie what a battle is supposed to feel like in my opinion.

I after mentioning / posting the above.

I said that I felt "save or dies" make D&D characters feel less heroic than my little pony characters.

I wasnt argued with over it with explanations about why this all or nothing instant death was necessary. I wasn't repeating word for word lines from an ewar.

I was booted from the thread and unable to post to it or see it.

Tony Vargas said:

I had to object because the subject (object?) of said Zealotry was incorrectly stated.

It wasn't 'magic/not-magic,' but "5e inclusivity."

I don't see it.

I mean, the inverse of "The thoughts/feelings/decisions of my Character constitute my sacred Player Agency and must never be compromised" would seem to be "oops, failed a saving throw and now have the charmed condition, and I'm OK with that." You hold both of those simultaneously. ( I know, I know, "but, /magic/!") Another inverse might be, ironically "Player Agency limited to decisions-making with no influence on the outcome is not Agency, at all." But, I don't see how: "If you choose from among a range of relationship dynamics with another PC - like, most simply 'ally,' something the game seems to pervasively assume - you may gain benefits from that ally" is such an inverse.

And, I don't see how the inverse of "big-tent inclusiveness of all fans of past editions" - which'd have to be something like - "Xe is the One True Edition and all others must be erased from living memory" can coexist with, well, anything - especially itself but for different values of X.

I hope /both/ that a warlord option someday becomes official - and that, even in that increasingly improbable eventuality, you never happen to find yourself at a stranger's table where someone is already playing one.

OK, I guess that /is/ "a value coexisting with it's inverse."

It'd've been clearer if you'd just said "tolerance."

Click to expand...

I have to admit, I'm frequently tempted to reciprocate and start referring to your non-magic fixation as dismissively and derisively as you do my preferences. But since you clearly are blind to the parallels, and are on your way back up into that well-worn high saddle of yours, I'll just drop it. Happy gaming.

My opinion did not get opposed it got shut out entirely.

Garthanos said:

My opinion did not get opposed it got shut out entirely.

Click to expand...

You probably weren’t booted, just put on ignore by the person who started it if you couldn’t see the thread any longer. Besides, what does that have to do with this topic?

Sacrosanct said:

You probably weren’t booted, just put on ignore by the person who started it if you couldn’t see the thread any longer. Besides, what does that have to do with this topic?

Click to expand...

No I see threads from people who have blocked me. Feature of the phone app generally speaking.

happyhermit said:

---> At the same time, if someone saying; "I don't like this thing and think the game is better without it." results in them being piled on with attacks and attempts to shut down any discussion, then that probably needs to pushed back against by someone.

Click to expand...

He went on to say/imply it only happened for complaints about 4e

Elfcrusher said:

I have to admit, I'm frequently tempted to reciprocate and start referring to your non-magic fixation

Click to expand...

Again: The distinction between magic vs not-magic is a mechanical one, present & intractable, in all editions of the game. It is not my fixation, it is D&D's.

If you want to play a fighter, warlord, ranger, Monk, or almost any other sort of martial artist - or if you want to play a psionic - it's a distinction that may very well prevent your character concept from being realized.