D&D General What does "magic" mean? [Read carefully, you can't change your vote]

Crimson Longinus said:

Duh! Both dinosaurs and bears are obviously magical!

But I meant things that would blatantly be impossible due the square cube law. Dragons flying, giant insects existing, some other giant creatures that are not build in a way that they could actually support their weight etc.

Click to expand...

There have been very large arthropods that were basically giant scorpions that were 8 feet long (although they were aquatic), as well as 6 foot long millipedes. Of course there were also dragonflies with a 3 foot wingspan. But the biggest limitation is how arthropods breath since they don't have lungs.

But yeah, it takes Hollywood magic to make giant ants.

Magic is imaginative will made manifest. In D&D, everything that happens in the game world is magical, as it is the result of the imagination of the players.

EzekielRaiden said:

And which would be your gut answer, the thing you would act to do first if someone casually asked you the question? Would you immediately say "well, it depends on the edition," or would you say "the way I see it..."?

Click to expand...

Well, I would say "it depends on the edition" which is why I did, but if the idea is to force a choice without looking at the contexts, I'll go with anything supernatural.

Micah Sweet said:

The square-cube law is the greatest killjoy of all the laws of physics. It's the first thing to go once I ascend to a higher level of existence.

Click to expand...

If you could clear out the light speed limit too, science fiction aficionados would be most grateful. 'K thanx bye

I think in addition to "magic" in the game, we should have a force of "narrativium". That covers all the Hollywood physics, fantastical beasts and whatnot that aren't typically considered "magic" by the game rules but, are nevertheless completely impossible in the real world. So, HP, dragons flying, giant insects, etc. as was mentioned things that are needed for the game to be fun, are covered by narrativium. Heck, I wouldn't mind adding it into the game as a resource for the players. They can find raw Narrativium in very rare, highly guarded places, and then do all sorts of fun stuff to the setting.

Then again, the DM is pretty much made of pure narrativium.

Hussar said:

I think in addition to "magic" in the game, we should have a force of "narrativium". That covers all the Hollywood physics, fantastical beasts and whatnot that aren't typically considered "magic" by the game rules but, are nevertheless completely impossible in the real world. So, HP, dragons flying, giant insects, etc. as was mentioned things that are needed for the game to be fun, are covered by narrativium. Heck, I wouldn't mind adding it into the game as a resource for the players. They can find raw Narrativium in very rare, highly guarded places, and then do all sorts of fun stuff to the setting.

Then again, the DM is pretty much made of pure narrativium.

Click to expand...

Absolutely wouldn't mind something of this nature. Perhaps even going as far as speculating (but not explicitly confirming) that Martial characters are those who have learned how to tap into their own, innate narrativium.

I recently had a player try and discover a mimic by casting detect magic. I reluctantly ruled against it and explained that creatures like undead and constructs don't detect as magical even though they clearly are magical. The Player wasn't actually looking for a mimic per se, he's just really suspicious and likes getting creative with his spells.

I don't generally don't like thinking too hard about this kind of thing. It's trying to make sense out of nonsense; which I understand is a core tradition of the game, but I don't like it nonetheless.

I would rather preserve the mystery of magic by not defining it. So, rather paradoxically, I will settle on the first option--the most definitive one. This narrow interpretation allows me...us, to make exceptions as needed. Maybe next time that mimic will detect as magical (but probably not).

I like to break the rules as much as I like to make them; and, in the end, play the game despite the rules.

Lakesidefantasy said:

I recently had a player try and discover a mimic by casting detect magic. I reluctantly ruled against it and explained that creatures like undead and constructs don't detect as magical even though they clearly are magical. The Player wasn't actually looking for a mimic per se, he's just really suspicious and likes getting creative with his spells.

I don't generally don't like thinking too hard about this kind of thing. It's trying to make sense out of nonsense; which I understand is a core tradition of the game, but I don't like it nonetheless.

I would rather preserve the mystery of magic by not defining it. So, rather paradoxically, I will settle on the first option--the most definitive one. This narrow interpretation allows me...us, to make exceptions as needed. Maybe next time that mimic will detect as magical (but probably not).

Click to expand...

The background magic of the environment would be such that detecting magic to find a mimic would be like casting detect oxygen in an air-filled room: the mimic matches the baseline perfectly. That said, props to that player for creative thinking!

Where being a magic-based creature becomes relevant is that if somehow a place is stripped of its magic (e.g. becomes a powerful null-magic zone) then any magic-based creatures in that area have to either leave or, before long, die. A really heavy Dispel Magic can also really make a magic-based creature sit up and take notice, but as Dispel is an instantaneous effect it's almost never going to kill one.

I chose the last option, mostly because it depends on context.

If we are talking about magic in a metatextual way, then most of D&D involves magic. Elves' ability to rest through meditation is magic. A barbarian's ability to spiritually attune themselves with totem animals is magic. Scythe traps built using inexplicable technology is magic. Basically, any bull***t that we assume just works because the game says it does is magic.

But from the perspective of the characters not all of those things are magic. Sometimes psionics is magic, sometimes it isn't. Depends on what the books say.

Voted "special snowflake".

I think, magic is a thing that should not be. An impossibility. Not something that breaks the natural laws of our, real world, but something that makes the people go "what the hell?! h... how?!"

Otherwise, that's just an unusual or rare skill. Think about this way: I absolutely can't play violin, but I understand that some people can — when someone plays La Follia, it is captivating, but it doesn't feel like sorcery. It's just something I can't do. But a weird rig that produces music from a mushroom? That's freaking witchcraft, something that I just can't comprehend, at least, at this point in time.

So, what can or cannot be classified as magic entirely depends on the perspective.

Now, from a more practical standpoint, when it comes to fantastic worlds of swords, sorcery and graverobbery, where I draw the line is reliability and understanding. Magic is a power beyond any mortal mind, it ain't no tool, and, more importantly, it can never be no tool. Otherwise? That's just technology.

What's the difference between slinging firebolts and shooting a blaster? There's none. You do some series of manipulations and reliably get a projectile of superheated gas. Yeah, one is explained through plasma unobtanium mumbo-jumbo, the other through weaving Mystra mumbo-jumbo, but at the end of the day, both are just tools to inflict violence on people.

Now, imagine, that instead of just waving your hands and speaking weird words, you were calling forth a fire spirit? You ain't controlling the mofo, you just unleash it. That ain't no tool, and only a suicidal nutjob would call it a tool. That's a dangerous gamble, at best.