Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

[Oofta]

Still not about opinions. You can lov4 or h4te 4e all you want. Whether to make it look better or worse, though, it's not constructive to say things about its content that do not match up with what's between the covers.

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]

This has nothing to do with liking or disliking 4E.

Not about opinions, yes, I believe I said that.

Nor have I ever misrepresented the rules text. I agree fighter powers had a martial label.

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...

But I digress. Of course sir, you are correct sir, I am wrong sir, whatever you say sir.

Said with the same degree of integrity and honesty as everything else in this thread, I will assume, for the sake of polite discourse.

 

[Oofta]

Not about opinions, yes. You said that 4e fighters cast spells, that is misrepresenting rules text. Now you admit that they did not, but wish not to admit that you formerly said they did? Maybe I'm not following you in a convoluted attempt to admit you were mistaken without appearing to admit fallibility, or perhaps you really have been trolling me. 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.

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]

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.

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.

Somehow you think that means that I'm saying fighters had powers that were labeled "spells". I've never stated that.

Lack of threading strikes again:

Pssh. It was 4E. Everyone cast spells, some of them just pretended they didn't.

You're right. TheCosmicKid actually said that (in a broader form). I'm sorry for mis-attributing that to you. My mistake.

You just jumped in to defend him:

Wow, it took a whole 11 minutes for someone to disagree with you. That must be a record.
Because my fighter definitely didn't cast spells. He just had an aura that did weapon damage. And could temporarily turn invisible. And force pull creatures to him so he could smack them around even if they didn't understand a word he said. Meanwhile my rogue buddy had an AOE blinding spell that used a single dagger as it's component that he threw at multiple enemies simultaneously.
But they were labeled "powers" so of course they weren't spells or supernatural in any way.

As far as my sarcasm I don't know how else to reply.

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.

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.

I have little patience left for regurgitated edition war bile. So, yeah, lets stick to the facts when talking about the deceased edition.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The irony is in blithely accepting the arbitrary definition of what is and is not magic in one case, but bitterly denying it in the other, even though any definition of magic (a thing that, afterall, does not exist), is going to be arbitrary.

No 4e fighter power shot flames at his enemies or conjured monsters or did anything /obviously magical/, by any reasonable definition. They did things that were improbable, superhuman, or over-the-top-action-tropes, sure - more or less so depending on how you described them.

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]

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".

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.

 

[Oofta]

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).

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]

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.

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]

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.)

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]

I Therefore we don't discuss topics in legal technicalities or "in native context", whatever that means.

It means in the context it came from.
It's just English.