Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

[Oofta]

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

I have never heard anyone ever use that phrase. I intuited the meaning, I was just curious if it was a legal term or commonly used phrase on different message boards.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have never heard anyone ever use that phrase. I intuited the meaning, I was just curious if it was a legal term or commonly used phrase on different message boards.

No special meaning, I just thought it would be fairly clear: if I want to say whether a class in a certain ed was using magic or not, how that ed defines "magic" would have to be considered. Whether that conflicted with 'magic' relative to another ed... well, only psionics has really varied much in that regard, from explicitly magic, to explicitly not, to DM's choice.... so were it not for the preceding conversation, I probably wouldn't have felt the need to try to make it /that/ clear.
Still wasn't clear enough, it seems.

 

[MechaPilot]

If you see irony here, then as experienced an edition warrior as you are, you have somehow failed to apprehend the fundamental nature of the disagreement you are currently allowing yourself to be trolled over. 5E eldritch knights can cast spells, which are described in the fluff as spells and justified by the character studying magic. 4E fighters could create effects which to many people seem obviously magical, but which the fluff "explicitly" denies to be. You seem to be under the impression that citing that denial is a silver-bullet solution to the problem, but really it's just restating the problem. To your opponents, it looks like a contradiction of the objective facts about what the character is doing. Ridiculous, dissonant, possibly even disingenuous.

If there'd been a line in the PHB to the effect that everything the wizard does is just card tricks, would you (a) accept and repeat the line as incontrovertible proof that the wizard isn't magical, or (b) think the line is stupid? Because that's how the people you're addressing feel about the fighter. I'm not asking you to agree with them. But I am asking you to understand them well enough to realize that "it's not magic because the book says it's not" is unlikely to be a productive avenue of argument.

I've seen more of the edition wars than I care to have seen. I've always tried to stay objective when edition war stuff comes up, because I've played and greatly enjoyed every edition of D&D from BECMI to 5e. Each has its own great parts, its own flaws and foibles, and its own missed opportunities. I've also tried my best to stay out of edition war discussions when they come up, because they never end well for anyone but those who enjoy making others miserable.

However, I've seen a LOT of people bash 4e on the premise that martial characters are magical only to then turn around and claim that 3e's (Ex) powers aren't magical just because the book says so. If one is magical because it breaks the laws of physics, then so must both be; if one is not-magical because the book says so, then so must both be. Whichever opinion anyone holds is their opinion, and that's fine, but it's the cross-edition hypocrisy of accepting one as non-magical on the basis of the book saying so but holding the other to be magical that garners my disrespect.

And, to be frank, I can't recall if that specific brand of hypocrisy has been bandied about in this discussion. However, I think it says a great deal about the nature of edition warriors (which I don't consider myself one) that I've seen the cross-edition hypocrisy so closely and repeatedly tied to the factually incorrect assertion that martial exploits are spells. Maybe I've seen it so often as part of that assertion that I'm seeing it present when it's not, but repetition does build expectation.

 

[MoonSong]

Each has their own great parts, their own flaws and foibles, and their own missed opportunities.

Sorry for being pedantic but the English teacher in me can't help it, it should be: Each has its own great parts, its own flaws and foibles, and its own missed opportunities. (D&D editions aren't people)

 

[ccs]

I forgot to stack a paladin's smite onto that stunning paw, which leaves the foe smitten by the kitten.

How do I take xp away from you for that one?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

However, I've seen a LOT of people bash 4e on the premise that martial characters are magical only to then turn around and claim that 3e's (Ex) powers aren't magical just because the book says so. If one is magical because it breaks the laws of physics, then so much both be; if one is not-magical because the book says so, then so must both be. Whichever opinion anyone holds is their opinion, and that's fine, but it's the cross-edition hypocrisy of accepting one as non-magical on the basis of the book saying so but holding the other to be magical that garners my disrespect.

And, to be frank, I can't recall if that specific brand of hypocrisy has been bandied about in this discussion. However, I think it says a great deal about the nature of edition warriors (which I don't consider myself one) that I've seen the cross-edition hypocrisy so closely and repeatedly tied to the factually incorrect assertion that martial exploits are spells. Maybe I've seen it so often as part of that assertion that I'm seeing it present when it's not, but repetition does build expectation.

How am I supposed to respond to this? You're attacking a position which you frankly state that you haven't even seen here. Whoever you're talking about aren't around to speak for themselves. And if I'm being honest, I have to suspect that your summary of their reasoning or lack thereof is not entirely fair to them, any more than your attempt to associate that reasoning-or-lack-thereof with me is fair to me. Now, I'm tempted to put on my devil's advocate hat and start defending this thing you call "hypocrisy", just on the principle that somebody ought to, and also because nothing you've described actually sounds difficult to justify. But no. You can try doing that yourself, if you're looking for an exercise in objectivity. Better for me just to say that this is an egregious strawman, and it garners my disrespect.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How am I supposed to respond to this? .

"Yeah, edition warring sucks?"

 

[MechaPilot]

How am I supposed to respond to this?

I'm not really sure there is a specific way you're supposed to respond to what I said.

You're attacking a position which you frankly state that you haven't even seen here. Whoever you're talking about aren't around to speak for themselves. And if I'm being honest, I have to suspect that your summary of their reasoning or lack thereof is not entirely fair to them, any more than your attempt to associate that reasoning-or-lack-thereof with me is fair to me. Now, I'm tempted to put on my devil's advocate hat and start defending this thing you call "hypocrisy", just on the principle that somebody ought to, and also because nothing you've described actually sounds difficult to justify. But no. You can try doing that yourself, if you're looking for an exercise in objectivity. Better for me just to say that this is an egregious strawman, and it garners my disrespect.

You know, I think ultimately I was just waxing contemplative about the uselessness and the bile of edition warring, and about how some who've been through it have repeatedly heard certain inaccurate arguments in tandem such that it's hard to hear one without also hearing the other (even when it may not be present).

For what it's worth to you, on retrospect, I probably shouldn't have quoted you because that does create the assumption of my statements being targeted at you, or the expectation of you somehow having to answer them. I apologize. Although your post did set my thoughts into motion on that topic, it wasn't fair of me to quote you.

 

[MechaPilot]

Sorry for being pedantic but the English teacher in me can't help it, it should be: Each has its own great parts, its own flaws and foibles, and its own missed opportunities. (D&D editions aren't people)

Noted, and corrected.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION],
Ok, I admit it. I considered 4E's martial powers to be effectively spells and supernatural. Not that they were Spells(TM) or Supernatural(TM) as defined in the book, but spells and supernatural as a layman not into gamer-speak would define them. For better or worse, even though I've played D&D pretty much since it started, I don't do gamer-speak.

In addition, I was disappointed from level 1 that my 4E fighter couldn't be just a straight-up mechanically mundane fighter. He just wasn't. Many people I played with expressed the same opinion.

That didn't make it a bad game. I had quite a bit of fun playing my supernaturally talented (again, not Supernatural(TM)) fighter for quite a while. But he never felt like my 3E fighter. He lived in a cartoon/anime/superhero universe where all heroes could do things that weren't physically possible, even accounting for the simplified representation of the universe required by a game. It bugs me that people won't accept that in my opinion, no amount of fluff could justify that without magic supernatural mystical* abilities he could not have done much of what he did encounter after encounter.

In 5E, I can play my fighter again. A Champion that doesn't need anything other than his blazingly fast trusty sword. Or I can play a rogue that relies on skill and talent to get the job done. There are some martial archetypes that have capabilities that are borderline mystical in nature (or of course the Eldritch Knight that is explicitly magical). Which is also fine. As long as there's room for my completely mundane fighter that has no supernatural or Supernatural(TM) capabilities.

I don't intend or mean any of what I just said as "bashing" 4E. The game was what it was, I played it from inception to release of the 5E starter set. The problems I had with it were only partly because my fighter could not fit an archetype of the fighting man that had always existed in previous editions. I'm just happy that in 5E I can get back to playing that completely mundane fighter. Now that I'm done with my arcane trickster, and after my paladin, my monk, maybe a barbarian ... hmm. It may be a while before I have the opportunity. But at least it's there.

*mystical is OK, right? I don't think it was ever defined as a game term anywhere in 4E