Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9599412" data-attributes="member: 6790260">For my part? No. Absolutely not.As soon as you call it &quot;magic&quot; you've killed it dead. Permanently.It's both.The narrative is a problem, because if it's magic, then it cannot be rooted in the mundane. It must, by definition, be rooted in something anti-mundane. If no one can grow from mundane soil into fantastical heights, we have lost a critically important story-element. The everyman who heroically pushes past limits is now gone. That's a problem, on a purely narrative axis.The mechanics are also a problem. As soon as you call it &quot;magic&quot;, it's affected by an antimagic field. It's theoretically vulnerable to counterspell. It can be resisted with magic resistance. It can be subject to a wide variety of effects that only apply to things D&amp;D calls &quot;magic&quot; and not to things that D&amp;D doesn't call &quot;magic.&quot; Those are problems, all of which exist on a purely mechanical axis.And then there's areas where they overlap. Given it's magic, does that mean it also involves weird chanting and hand-jives and such? That's gonna be a hard, HARD no from most martial fans, for both mechanical and thematic reasons. Given it's magic, why can't someone else learn the same stuff? Why can't a Bard copy it, for instance?Calling it &quot;magic&quot; opens both thematic and narrative holes that are a serious stumbling block.I accept, begrudgingly, calling it &quot;supernatural.&quot; I would prefer &quot;transmundane&quot;, or 3e's &quot;extraordinary&quot;, but I will accept &quot;supernatural&quot; if that is absolutely required. I won't accept &quot;magic.&quot; Supernaturalness is bigger than &quot;magic&quot;, especially in the context of D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9599412, member: 6790260"] For my part? No. Absolutely not. As soon as you call it "magic" you've killed it dead. Permanently. It's both. The narrative is a problem, because if it's magic, then it cannot be rooted in the mundane. It must, [I]by definition[/I], be rooted in something anti-mundane. If no one can grow from mundane soil into fantastical heights, we have lost a critically important story-element. The everyman who heroically pushes past limits is now gone. That's a problem, on a purely narrative axis. The mechanics are also a problem. As soon as you call it "magic", it's affected by an [I]antimagic field[/I]. It's theoretically vulnerable to [I]counterspell[/I]. It can be resisted with magic resistance. It can be subject to a wide variety of effects that only apply to things D&D calls "magic" and not to things that D&D doesn't call "magic." Those are problems, all of which exist on a purely mechanical axis. And then there's areas where they overlap. Given it's magic, does that mean it also involves weird chanting and hand-jives and such? That's gonna be a hard, [I]HARD[/I] no from most martial fans, for both mechanical and thematic reasons. Given it's magic, why can't someone else learn the same stuff? Why can't a Bard copy it, for instance? Calling it "magic" opens both thematic and narrative holes that are a serious stumbling block. I accept, begrudgingly, calling it "supernatural." I would prefer "transmundane", or 3e's "extraordinary", but I will accept "supernatural" if that is absolutely required. I won't accept "magic." Supernaturalness is bigger than "magic", [I]especially[/I] in the context of D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification