Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9598398" data-attributes="member: 6790260">But notice: it refers to &quot;magical&quot; means to communicate with animals because that is expressed as a spell (&quot;You can cast the Beast Sense and Speak with Animals spells but only as Rituals.&quot;) Then it refers to the beyond-mortal-limits effects you can achieve with Rage, and calls them &quot;supernatural might&quot;, NOT &quot;magic.&quot; There's a very good reason for that: some forms of beyond-mundane power are not &quot;magic&quot;.Which, y'know, has kinda been my whole argument all along. That Fighters (and Rogues, and Barbarians, and Warlords, and...) can be supernatural without being &quot;magic.&quot; Because &quot;magic&quot; means something too specific within the structures of D&amp;D. &quot;Magic&quot; does not describe the beyond-mundane things a Fighter would do, unless that Fighter is specifically one of a handful of subclasses that explicitly use magic, e.g. Eldritch Knight.If we cannot shift the Wizard down at all ever no matter what, then the Fighter(/Rogue/etc.) needs to be shifted up to compensate. That doesn't mean turning every single Fighter(/etc.) into Superman; that's a pretty blatant strawman argument here. But it does mean that there is both valid room (supernatural things that explicitly are not &quot;magic&quot;) and warranted complaint (spellcasters simply have superior access to controlling the game's direction, and the party's success rates) that could be addressed thereby.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9598398, member: 6790260"] But notice: it refers to "magical" means to communicate with animals [I]because that is expressed as a spell[/I] ("You can cast the Beast Sense and Speak with Animals spells but only as Rituals.") Then it refers to the beyond-mortal-limits effects you can achieve with Rage, and calls them "supernatural might", NOT "magic." There's a very good reason for that: [I]some forms of beyond-mundane power are not "magic".[/I] Which, y'know, has kinda been my whole argument all along. That Fighters (and Rogues, and Barbarians, and Warlords, and...) can be supernatural without being "magic." Because "magic" means something too specific within the structures of D&D. "Magic" [I]does not[/I] describe the beyond-mundane things a Fighter would do, unless that Fighter is specifically one of a handful of subclasses that explicitly use magic, e.g. Eldritch Knight. If we cannot shift the Wizard down at all ever no matter what, then the Fighter(/Rogue/etc.) needs to be shifted [I]up[/I] to compensate. That doesn't mean turning every single Fighter(/etc.) into Superman; that's a pretty blatant strawman argument here. But it does mean that there is both valid room (supernatural things [I]that explicitly are not "magic"[/I]) and warranted complaint (spellcasters simply have superior access to controlling the game's direction, and the party's success rates) that could be addressed thereby. [/QUOTE]

Verification