Remathilis
Legend
Right. So then the answer is all or none?And that, is the gremlin.
Right. So then the answer is all or none?And that, is the gremlin.
Right. So then the answer is all or none?
How many people in that thorp have the potential to become sorcerers?Imagine for a minute I am a an extremely powerful mythic hero and I enter a thorp of 50 people. Average farmers, bakers, cobblers, good wives, etc. I institute a policy that I will train every one of them to be an adventurer and eventually reach a level where they can do an impossible task. (Cleave a mountain, divert a river, swim up a waterfall, etc). I have the power and resources to train them all and keep them alive until they reach said level. Additionally, they are slavishly devoted and will do everything in their power to accomplish this goal.
How many of those 50 people will be able to accomplish that impossible task? One? Ten? All fifty? Zero?
The answer you provide is essentially my concern with this system. If everyone is able to do impossible things with sufficient time and devotion, then the world should be full of people doing impossible things. Not everyone, but lots of them. If we say not everyone has the spark needed to reach that level, then we have to say why. Is it genetics, magical aptitude, supernatural blessing? Why are some able and other not?
Hercules is mythical because he's the only person in ancient Greece who can do that kind of epic stuff. There are other great heros, but none of them can divert a river. Jason is favored and Odysseus clever, but neither are matching Hercules in power. He's got some great parentage to thank for that.
Which returns me to my original question: how many people in that thorp have the potential to be Hercules?
Then maybe use a different definition of "magic"? This seems like a self-inflicted problem.
"I don't want every class to be magical, so if you like non-magical things, tough luck buddy, you're just going to be screwed"
From my perspective, the problem is that it's a logic error at the levels you have been championing. As I said, I'm willing to accommodate action movie physics under the mantle of "mundane", but anything beyond that really falls into the supernatural category by the standards of the people in this world, actually playing the game. Determining where that line falls for me is always going to be based on that perspective.The laws of physics still exist and things are pretty much all the same (more or less as they’re managed to be simulated by game rules) the only difference is that when they train for it people can become stronger, faster, tougher than they can in the real world, I don’t see what’s so hard to grasp about that?
Then magic should be held to the same standard.From my perspective, the problem is that it's a logic error at the levels you have been championing. As I said, I'm willing to accommodate action movie physics under the mantle of "mundane", but anything beyond that really falls into the supernatural category by the standards of the people in this world, actually playing the game. Determining where that line falls for me is always going to be based on that perspective.
It isn't my hangup though. You keep insisting--without evidence of any kind--that "magic" is the word for absolutely everything supernatural.Maybe accept that 5e runs on assumptions of "magic" for fantastical things? I'm fine with magic, or gremlins if you prefer, being the power source for pretty much everything in the game.
I dont think you grasp the totality of my position here.
I dont want every class to be magical, and therefore I am perfectly fine with a mundane fighter.
If you, as in literally you, want non-magical? You are in the same boat I am, so I dont know what the problem is...unless....
The actual issue here is your hang-up on the term 'Magic'. You want to pretend to do fantastical, otherworldly, supernatural, mag...oops.
Its not my hang-up at all, its yours.
I still think stuff like that should be subject to antimagic effects.Actually the 5e designers have specifically called it "innate" magic. Like a dragon's, or beholder's, ability fly. This is magic that can't be dispelled. I don't think this is ever noted in the books, but I could be wrong.
It isn't my hangup though. You keep insisting--without evidence of any kind--that "magic" is the word for absolutely everything supernatural.
Prove it.
As it turns out, supernatural and mundane are different things and possess different properties. Wizards are a class powered by a kind of supernatural, and they can do things that those who aren't supernaturally powered, or even powered by a different supernatural source, can't do. If that weren't the case, then what you're asking for is for everyone to have the same tricks, more or less, with different names. That doesn't sound fun to me.Then magic should be held to the same standard.
Wizards should not be able to achieve anything that a "wizard" in our world cannot achieve.
That's actually fair. That's actually putting the same standard on everyone, instead of giving straight-up BS excuses for why the classes that have always been stupidly overpowered continue to remain stupidly overpowered and the classes that have always been kept under the casters' heels remain under the casters' heels.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.