Mundane in this case being not a magical creature, as the context clearly indicated. Context is your friend.
Then of course there was the joke in there, since many people view pumpkin pie as a magical desert, but alas that one went unnoticed.
Except that they
are magical creatures. That's my point. It doesn't matter if their magical-ness is pretty low level. They're still magical. I fundamentally reject your statement that "magic can create it and the situation that allows it to survive without it being a magical creature." That LITERALLY DOES mean that
gorram bloody DRAGONS can be "mundane" creatures, because once you've written off the magic that creates them and which allows them to exist as they do (y'know, being able to fly with such huge bodies and such),
there's nothing left to explain.
@Jack Daniel I don't really think there's much more to be said here, then. If you see the process of playing D&D as literally having no human-interaction component beyond the execution of the rules (in other words, no
relationship between
people, merely the procedural execution of defined roles), there's no possible space for us to discuss in. Because I absolutely would say that a "referee" behaving in the aforementioned way (absolute, unilateral, and obdurate refusal/denial/whatever) would be incredibly rude and, if they did so in any kind of professional establishment (something equivalent to an FLGS), I
would be complaining to management about their behavior. I wouldn't make a
scene about it, because I'm not a Karen-analogue, but yeah, this would be enough to overcome my
strong aversion to complaining about anything. (Despite what my willingness to argue about minutiae online might imply, I'm actually hugely averse to "rocking the boat" IRL unless I'm pushed extremely hard.)
Guns and ammo exist in one of the core rulebooks of D&D.
Also, the knight is still limited to certain planes of movement. What those planes are is irrelevant to the ability to access them.
...so is the queen. The queen cannot move in any plane other than that of the chessboard. But
only the knight has the ability to leap
over enemy pieces to reach its destination, the closest analogue we have in a nominally 2D game to the three-dimensional movement of flight. As I said. And yet this special superpower--
it can break enemy lines!--not only doesn't afford it a special position, it is actually tied for the second-worst piece on the board, only one step (3 points vs 1 point) above
pawns.
Arguments by analogy hinge on the effectiveness of your analogy. The queen/piece-value analogy is bunk for what you want to argue. Don't use it. That's my entire point here.
And I specifically have been arguing about
the Player's Handbook options. AKA, the options specifically offered to "Players," in the book specifically meant for "Players" to read in order to know how to play and--here's the kicker--what you CAN play. Options in the DMG are,
by the very naming of the book, Dungeon Master's options. If the
Dungeom Master doesn't use something in the book
meant for Dungeon Masters, the
Players don't have any standing to object.
It's an extremely simple distinction, and one I've been making
this entire time, many pages before you showed up, and which I have repeatedly used. No matter what Maxperson thinks of the word "assume," it
is reasonable to
assume that PHB options are probably available
unless and until the DM says otherwise. It is incumbent upon the DM to specify when and where their game deviates from that common baseline, and it is incumbent upon players to pay attention to what the DM specifies.