D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Micah Sweet]

Have you met the cleric, druid, ranger and Monk?

Every one of those gets their superpowers from something diagetically capable of providing them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the chant that Bard used before shooting the Black Arrow was magical, does that make Bard magical as well? I would argue that it doesn’t, and therefore Bard is a reasonable representative of a mid-to-high level fighter.

The main point is that it is Bard’s player’s choice as to how magical he is, and whether actions in game are magical. Maybe one Rogue’s Evasion ability is tied to his being a tiefling, tabaxi or a halfling, or having some sort of latent magical ability, or just being that good.

But tagging Evasion with a Ex tag or a Su tag is a solution in search of a problem.

Unless someone has a different opinion about it than you.

I simply will not accept "just being that good" by itself as an acceptable in-universe rationale for superpowers.

 

[Maxperson]

So that I'm clear, the following does not provide you with magical power:

• Anger
• Devotion to a cause
• Fanatical Faith
• Performative arts
• Reading

And the following things do:

• Being a badass
• A powerful otherworldly being giving you that power

Did I miss anything or have we now cleared up who is giving these abilities and who isn't?

Weeeeeeell, most of the first list can provide it under certain circumstances.

Anger if channeled properly can resist any damage except psychic, see perfectly well up to 1 mile, channel wolf spirits, and more!

Devotion to a cause CAN make you a paladin or cleric, or not depending on the cause and level of devotion.

Fanatical Faith is similar to devotion. It can also make you a warlock if you enter into a pact with the being you are fanatical about.

Performative arts is one I know of no class that gets power from. Bards use words of creation that the weave into their music. Once they achieve bardhood, simply playing an instrument can sometimes be enough.

Reading works if you also have the ability to become a wizard and learn how to read, understand and use the spells and arcana that you read. Of course that takes years of study and apprenticeship. Unless you are a PC and want to multiclass into wizard. Then all it takes is one adventuring day and a few encounters!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Unless someone has a different opinion about it than you.

I simply will not accept "just being that good" by itself as an acceptable in-universe rationale for superpowers.

How do you feel about the wuxia genre, where supposedly "normal" martial artists simply learn techniques that allows them to do things that are impossible in the real life? How about just good old Hollywood action movie physics? These often are not even set in a magical world like D&D, but take place on our Earth (or rather a fictionalised movie version of it.)

 

[Maxperson]

If the chant that Bard used before shooting the Black Arrow was magical, does that make Bard magical as well? I would argue that it doesn’t, and therefore Bard is a reasonable representative of a mid-to-high level fighter.

The main point is that it is Bard’s player’s choice as to how magical he is, and whether actions in game are magical. Maybe one Rogue’s Evasion ability is tied to his being a tiefling, tabaxi or a halfling, or having some sort of latent magical ability, or just being that good.

But tagging Evasion with a Ex tag or a Su tag is a solution in search of a problem.

I would argue that since he could understand the language of thrushes, Bard could have been a ranger.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Whether it ceases to be important or not is very much a playstyle preference. I know from experience that if my ranger is from the Troll Moors where troll attacks are frequent, he is very much more likely to be a Monster Slayer subclass than a Gloom Stalker or Horizon Walker. The background influences how his class plays out. Other people might not give a fig and it truly does not matter once you hit level 1.

I think that answers a different question . Your background should inform who you are, it shouldn’t limit who you become.

My cleric’s background is that he is an acolyte of his faith. He served as a priest in his village for years before he was called for something greater. Should the DM limit the cleric’s spellcasting because most acolytes aren’t empowered to cast spells?

So why should fighters be limited to mundane features just because soldier and town guard are common backgrounds?

 

[FrozenNorth]

All of those classes have at least some abilities that are explicitly supernatural, and an explanation is provided in their class description for why they might have such abilities. I don't see anything like that under fighter or rogue. Feel free to check yourself; I'll wait.

Well, you explicitly conceded that the Rogue’s Evasion was supernatural, as was their stroke of luck feature, which is at least as supernatural as the Barbarian’s Danger Sense.

So that just leaves the Fighter. Which goes back to the fact that a fighter’s combat abilities (such as the ability to beat up an Owlbear in a straight up melee) isn’t natural, either.

Edit. Which brings me back to my original point: what is the purpose of WotC tagging certain abilities as Extraordinary or Supernatural if it is only relevant for 2 subclasses of 1 class?

 

[TwoSix]

But...that's not what a paladin is.

It is now.

Descriptivism always wins in the end. The only thing that defines a word or idea is group consensus.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The idea of what a paladin is in D&D, wiseacre, was established for some forty years prior to 5e. Even 4e didn't mess with it.

But James is correct here: in the Complete Paladin’s handbook, back in 2e, Charlemagne’s paladins are the explicit inspiration for the class.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But James is correct here: in the Complete Paladin’s handbook, back in 2e, Charlemagne’s paladins are the explicit inspiration for the class.

Yes, but their narrative role was defenders of Christianity. So the religious connotation was there from the start.