Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6881540" data-attributes="member: 996">'Arcane,' technically, not 'magic' - though the Arcane source was defined as being magical.  But, you are, again, demonstrably wrong.  There are other differences, here's a big one:Visions of Avarice was subject to Dispel Magic.  Come & Get It, Rain of Steel - and, indeed, all the fighter's other attack powers - were not.As did Come & Get It in 4e and even Stunning Fist (which was a Fighter Bonus Feat and was another example of a non-magical daily) in 3.x/PF.On the contrary, Action movies totally go that far.There are facts about the content of the game, yes, it's there in black & white.  You can open the book and check what it says.I'm not talking about the 'facts' of what's going on in the imagined fiction - there aren't any, just imagination.  In 4e, in the case of powers, that's even a design 'feature' (or bug, I suppose, if you don't like it), in that the fluff text of a power is subject to change by the player to fit his character concept, changing that imagined un-reality.Technically, most of the class powers in the game were supernatural, because Martial Powers, the only ones that weren't supernatural, constituted a minority (~2/9ths, if it matters) of those powers.  Might be helpful in discussion 5e or maybe 3e, but 4e went so far down the jargon rabbit-hole that there's no point.  Sub class, all 5e classes have at least one sub-class with supernatural elements, a few have one or two without them.  If you don't hold to your earlier definition of any limited-use power being magical, that is.  In 3e, you could play several such classes - the Fighter, Rogue, and Barbarian (all EX powers, just double-checked) - and you could fold in up to three levels of Ranger with them to make MC builds with no supernatural powers.  In 4e you could play 4 classes with no supernatural powers - the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Warlord - each with 2 builds just in the PH.  In 5e, you can play Barbarian, Fighter or Rogue, but not all their sub-classes, if you want to avoid explicitly-magical powers. Unless you have issues with things like Rage or Indomitable being x/day, that is.  You could also go beyond what the rules strictly said, of course.   In 4e, you could re-skin classes & their powers, too, if you really wanted (FREX: in a 4e steampunk campaign, a mad scientist with a flamethrower was a re-skinned Sorcerer) but the keywords stayed (if the mad scientist used the wrong power to set an area on fire, it might be dispelled - if anyone had a Dispel Magic handy - though the one Wizard in the campiagn re-skinned as a hypnotist didn't).  Re-skinning isn't a player thing so much, but in 5e the DM could up and declare, for instance, that he was using the Mystic, and that the class's psionic powers were not magical, and they wouldn't be, no pesky keywords or jargon.</blockquote>

Verification