D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Voadam]

Let’s try looking at this in a different way… At level 11, paladins get improved divine smite. Each of their attacks does an additional 1d8 radiant damage. One interpretation is that they are so holy, they are leaking holiness out of every orifice.

This isn’t magic. Improved divine smite works in an anti-magic field. It can’t be dispelled or counterspelled. It is part of the paladin’s nature.

Smites can work in the same manner. Particularly since the basic smite doesn’t even need to be “cast” the way other smites are.


I prefer to leave that to the individual players. Maybe one will tie it to their weapon being blessed. Maybe another will tie it to their righteousness (the same way a monk’s ki empowers their extraordinary abilities). I would love it for a genasi paladin to tie it to the manifestation of their racial heritage and express it as fire, cold, lightning or acid damage instead.

I'd have a hard time saying any of those explanations was narratively non-magical, even with technically not being suppressed in an anti-magic field. Leaking holy power out of every orifice does not seem non-magical.

None of them are close to "I am just non-magically good at hitting things." The closest might be Captain Planet heart style righteousness powering smite damage, but even then the radiant energy aspect kind of begs for an explanation if you stick with non-magical.

You could go with there is just holiness of the person that comes forward at points and cosmically wrong things react badly to it (vampires stop regenerating, etc.) but that kind of does not really work if you smite a bear as holiness does not generally narratively translate to general damage.

I mean for monks, thinking of ki as non-magically powering extra attacks or better dodging can work. Ki powering street fighter fireballs seems magical.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Each of their attacks does an additional 1d8 radiant damage. One interpretation is that they are so holy, they are leaking holiness out of every orifice.

This isn’t magic. Improved divine smite works in an anti-magic field. It can’t be dispelled or counterspelled. It is part of the paladin’s nature.

Ok, so you are defining 'magic' differently than a lot of people here. That clears things up a bit.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'd have a hard time saying any of those explanations was narratively non-magical, even with technically not being suppressed in an anti-magic field. Leaking holy power out of every orifice does not seem non-magical.

None of them are close to "I am just non-magically good at hitting things."

I agree with that.

But then I read the kind of powers some people want their non-magical, martial fighter to have...holding their breath underwater for three days, jumping over buildings, throwing ogres around...and I have to ask how, exactly, are those things non-magical? Is it because there's no glowing sparkles around it? Because the damage type is still B/P/S? Because it works in an anti-magic field?

 

[MGibster]

If you are essentially leading with, "Check out my new campaign, now with 100% more tedium!" many players are going to be (understandably) turned off.

I'm sometimes astonished by just how tedious some old school games were and I sometimes wonder why we tolerated it.

1. We didn't know any better. That's just how all the games were.
2. We had more time on our hands. No families, career, or other adult responsibilities getting in the way.
3. We liked granularity? I can't deny that there are a number of players who love crunching numbers and using the rules to come up with solutions to in game problems.

 

[Mort]

I agree with that.

But then I read the kind of powers some people want their non-magical, martial fighter to have...holding their breath underwater for three days, jumping over buildings, throwing ogres around...and I have to ask how, exactly, are those things non-magical? Is it because there's no glowing sparkles around it? Because the damage type is still B/P/S? Because it works in an anti-magic field?

Mythic does not mean magic.

Neither does epic (as in great or a lot not as in super high level) skill.

Look at Shang Chi (without the rings, I'm thinking of the recent marvel movie). He's a representation of someone who is just that good, without magic. A level of training that can be achieved in the MCU, but not in the "real" world.

 

[niklinna]

Ok, so you are defining 'magic' differently than a lot of people here. That clears things up a bit.

You don't have to look far in roleplaying games, fiction, and even human cultures to find systems of thought that make a huge, vital distinction between magical and spiritual power. But yeah, D&D long ago took a great big eraser to that line.

 

[niklinna]

I agree with that.

But then I read the kind of powers some people want their non-magical, martial fighter to have...holding their breath underwater for three days, jumping over buildings, throwing ogres around...and I have to ask how, exactly, are those things non-magical? Is it because there's no glowing sparkles around it? Because the damage type is still B/P/S? Because it works in an anti-magic field?

They're non-magical because this is fiction and you can posit other mechanisms than a single reified version of "we don't understand how it works" for fantastic abilities and phenomena—or even sail along without the need to justify them, because this is fantastic fiction.

 

[Minigiant]

Too late, monkey's paw has already closed. Blue-armoured Ultraman Fighters will be coming to D&Done.

PHB or MM

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm sometimes astonished by just how tedious some old school games were and I sometimes wonder why we tolerated it.

1. We didn't know any better. That's just how all the games were.
2. We had more time on our hands. No families, career, or other adult responsibilities getting in the way.
3. We liked granularity? I can't deny that there are a number of players who love crunching numbers and using the rules to come up with solutions to in game problems.

My thought is that it's like 3D.

The first time you do it's it's neat that your character has to deal with that and how it's so realistic and a marvel that they did that with pen and paper, just like how it's really cool and trippy that object pop out of the screen.

But then when you keep encountering it, the novelty wears off and you don't really like having to put on the glasses every time, and now the objects popping on the screen are just distracting.

 

[Cadence]

It was annoying in some senses, but PF1e (and I presume 3.5) spelled things out at least:

I doubt anyone would agree with all of the classifications, but it might be interesting to see what one could make with a campaign where only (Ex) or only (Ex+Su) abilities were allowed. Is the former what would often be classified as Martial or non-Magical by many (or at least a subset of it?).

Anyway...

For Barbarians, Fast Movement, Rage, Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense, and Damage Reduction are all (Ex). There are rage powers of each of the three types:

Rage Powers – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

For Druids, Natures Bond, Trackless Step, Resist Nature's Lure are (Ex), Wild Shape is (Su)

For Bards, the Knowledge is (Ex), the performances are (Su)

For Paladins, the Aura of Good and Divine Health are (Ex), Detect Evil is (Sp), Smite Evil, Lay on Hands, and Aura of Courage are (Su)