Pathfinder 1E So what do you think is wrong with Pathfinder? Post your problems and we will fix it.

[Ahnehnois]

You do realize that it goes on to define what it means. right?

"Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. Martial characters use their own strength and willpower to vanquish their enemies. Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers to grant fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords, among others, their power."

So I guess training, dedication, strength and willpower is magic. That's what you are saying right?

That appears to be exactly what this text is saying, since it is directly comparing those things to arcane formulas and prayers, which are.

In real life, the strength and willpower and stuff are not magical, nor is anything else, because magic is not real. In 4e, pretty much everything can be looked at as magic, the way I see it. Certainly nothing in that quote says otherwise.

Beyond certain levels, yes... I don't think anyone would argue that even though Hercules didn't cast spells his strength wasn't magical...

Seems like a terminological issue to me; it might be supernatural (in the literal sense of being above and beyond what is natural) but not magical (in the D&D-specific sense of referring to discrete powers granted in some organized form by specific entities or forces).

As the E6 (or, pertinently P6) manifesto notes, the game is no longer reality-based after a certain level.

 

[Wicht]

Beyond certain levels, yes... I don't think anyone would argue that even though Hercules didn't cast spells his strength wasn't magical...

The inner strength form of magic which comes from dedication, meditation, and sheer will-power is the magic of wuxia is it not?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

A good deal of problems I see are not the actual rules but how wrong they are interpreted.

 

[herrozerro]

I'm still not seeing the issue. it's no different than the EX abilities of 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

3rd srd
"Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training."

PF SRD
"These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics."

4e just rolled EX abilities into the martial power source.

 

[Imaro]

The inner strength form of magic which comes from dedication, meditation, and sheer will-power is the magic of wuxia is it not?

That's very similar to how I've always seen it in 4e. Not sure why it's so hard to accept when there is a counterpoint to it in psionics where instead of training and drawing on one's body for "non-traditional" magic one draws on willpower and the mind for "non-traditional" magic...

 

[Imaro]

I'm still not seeing the issue. it's no different than the EX abilities of 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

3rd srd
"Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training."

PF SRD
"These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics."

4e just rolled EX abilities into the martial power source.

You don't see that one specifically calls them out as non-magical but extraordinary(3rd/PF)... while another specifically calls them out as a type of "non-traditional"-magic(4e)?? I'm not saying one explanation is better than the other but let's not pretend that words don't have meanings and these explanations are different...

 

[herrozerro]

You don't see that one specifically calls them out as non-magical but extraordinary(3rd/PF)... while another specifically calls them out as a type of "non-traditional"-magic(4e)?? I'm not saying one explanation is better than the other but let's not pretend that words don't have meanings and these explanations are different...

What would you call mundane actions that potentially break the laws of physics? I'd call it non-traditional magic.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A good deal of problems I see are not the actual rules but how wrong they are interpreted.

Why did you create this thread? The title says to fix issues with pathfinder but so far you have been more interested in telling people how wrong they are and the problems don't exsist?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

[D][/D]

What would you call mundane actions that potentially break the laws of physics? I'd call it non-traditional magic.

Like a PF or 3.5 D&D fighter falling 150ft and standing up to walk away from it

Or a rogue getting hit by a 30ft blast of fire in a 10ft hall way and taking no damage

Or a PF gunslinger useing his grit to do things no one else can do

Or non magic rage

If that is non traditional bug still magic then I say fighters always have been

 

[Imaro]

What would you call mundane actions that potentially break the laws of physics? I'd call it non-traditional magic.

If I wanted to claim that they were magic of a different nature from that commonly used I would call them non-traditional magic...

If I wanted to identify them as something wholly different from magic... I'd use something like non-magical, or maybe... extraordinary...