D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[James Gasik]

Hopefully being so powerfully enchanted will keep the farm tool clean; no one likes a dirty hoe.

Heh. But it should help out when a dragon shows up to bother Farmer Giles.

 

[Remathilis]

Why do you think mundane refers to that which is possible?

I’d say that’s not in the scope of my statement

Again - not the scope of my statement.

I don’t either. Who is suggesting this?

Not going point by point, so I'll restate the obvious. Mundane is a term that has as much if not more ambiguity than magic. If mundane isn't in the realm of possible, it's meaningless.

 

[Shardstone]

If the world isnt the same as it was 30 years ago, why keep livin'?

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah we don't know which version of "mundane" the writer was going for. It could be normal. It could be boring. It could be commonplace. It could be worldy.

I'm reminded of something from Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic, where Tim describes something he acquired as a "normal egg" when in reality, it's a Mundane Egg, capable of "hatching" worlds.

 

[James Gasik]

If the world isnt the same as it was 30 years ago, why keep livin'?

If the world's history no longer exists, is it the same world?

 

[Shardstone]

If the world's history no longer exists, is it the same world?

Quantum World.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Sure, but this is not like you saying you are going to the store and not saying how.

We have a book, specifically a rule book for a game, that’s supposed to be exhaustive of the abilities each class gets, including the fluff that explains those abilities.

The simple fact is that if you took the time to answer my question about fighters getting wish at level 1 or wizards making 20 attacks at level 20, it would immediately show how untenable your position is for silence in a game rulebook.

Edit: removed comment that might come across rudely.

We’ve often had the discussion about what mundane means, and we’ve even touched on it in this thread. The best explanation for those variations is it can mean different things depending on context.

Is an Olympic athlete mundane? Compared to reality bending wizard magic, yes. Compared to average couch potato Joe, he’s extraordinary, but not magical, not mundane.

The question related to wish at level 1 is distinctively NOT the same as tagging a class's abilities as magical or otherwise.

It is asking if fighters get a mechanical ability not what the narrative justification is for any particular ability.

Saying a fighter is or isn't magical does not change the abilities they are given in the book. Silence regarding such narrative justifications doesn't not constitute proof either way. As a good example of this, consider the different ways people have viewed Barbarian rage.

I chose not to address your example because it is inapplicable.

Regarding the fighter write up quote, as I said to Micah, the text says what the text says. Interpretation is a choice.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The books are literally world salad meant go inspire fantastical ideas in you. I am all for literary analysis, but the word salad is meant to justify all interpretations of a concept, not limit them.

Except crap like the druid 'will not' wear metal armor. That's clearly meant to limit imagination.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not going point by point, so I'll restate the obvious. Mundane is a term that has as much if not more ambiguity than magic. If mundane isn't in the realm of possible, it's meaningless.

I’ll restate the obvious too. If it happened on earth then it’s possible. Thus, everything on earth is mundane? That doesn’t sound right…

 

[Gammadoodler]

I should note. My personal feeling on the fighter quote that I posted is that the fighter is "beyond mundane warriors".

I don't need them to be magical. I, personally, would prefer otherwise.

But..I. think there is adequate justification for extraordinary abilities..beyond those of the mundane warrior.