D&D 5E The Door, Player Expectations, and why 5e can't unify the fanbase.

[chaochou]

Magic itself doesn't have to be explained...

So a wizard can 'magic' themselves up a mountain thanks to a 'power that doesn't have to be explained'.

But a fighter can't leap to the top of it thanks to a 'power that doesn't have to be explained'.

You seem to be confusing justification of Magic (of which your quote admits there is none) with constraints on magic - which are called spells.

 

[Imaro]

So a wizard can 'magic' themselves up a mountain thanks to a 'power that doesn't have to be explained'.

But a fighter can't leap to the top of it thanks to a 'power that doesn't have to be explained'.

You seem to be confusing justification of Magic (of which your quote admits there is none) with constraints on magic - which are called spells.

No, A wizard memorizes and casts a spell that allows him to manipulate a force called magic to levitate up a mountain...

A fighter... does what exactly to tap into and manipulate this power?

You seem to be confusing the justification of how one uses "magic" with the justification and definition of magic itself... again, they are two different things.

EDIT: Magic has been established since day one in D&D as allowing those who can maniplate it to transcend the normal limitations of those in the gameworld... what is this new power the fighter is tapping into and how does he manipulate it? And if he can manipulate it through training and skill, then why don't we have cooks, and blacksmiths and other occupations that have trained so hard they can now do the impossible? Why does only training in combat allow this power to be tapped?

 

[Imaro]

In 4e, elves and halflings both have reroll abilities - elves for themselves (they're accurate) and halflings for their enemies (they're lucky). Is this skill or magic? The mechanics don't say, and don't need to say. When dealing with these fey(-ish) folk, there is no need to draw the distinction.

See, and IMO, this is an example of 4e being inconsistent. Certain powers it clearly marks as "magical" through keywords... but others it leaves unlabeled. As a DM, since it doesn't have the Arcane keyword I would be tempted to rule that neither of these abilities is magical especially as they pertain to the Arcana skill and using it to modify, detect, etc. these powers... of course then we have feystep which, IMO, seems clearly magical yet has no arcane keyword either... I think rules wise there is a strong argument for the need to draw the distinction.

 

[Neonchameleon]

See, and IMO, this is an example of 4e being inconsistent. Certain powers it clearly marks as "magical" through keywords... but others it leaves unlabeled. As a DM, since it doesn't have the Arcane keyword I would be tempted to rule that neither of these abilities is magical especially as they pertain to the Arcana skill and using it to modify, detect, etc. these powers... of course then we have feystep which, IMO, seems clearly magical yet has no arcane keyword either... I think rules wise there is a strong argument for the need to draw the distinction.

No.

Magic flows through the world, and certain creatures are rich in it. Without magic flowing through their bones hill giants would collapse under their own weight due to the square cube ratio and dragons would tear their own wings off before blowing up in a nasty mess of internal plumbing. An anti-magic field should kill a dragon stone cold dead; their very existance relies on magic.

Arcane spells are a way of manipulating magic. They are creatures directly taking and sculpting the magic to their own ends rather than channeling it through the lens of a god (divine) or the spirits inherent in nature (primal). To use 3.x terminology, Fey Step is (Su). Arcane magic ranges from (Sp) to out and out spellcasting (with the Bard being its normal mishmash).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

See, and IMO, this is an example of 4e being inconsistent. Certain powers it clearly marks as "magical" through keywords... but others it leaves unlabeled. As a DM, since it doesn't have the Arcane keyword I would be tempted to rule that neither of these abilities is magical especially as they pertain to the Arcana skill and using it to modify, detect, etc. these powers... of course then we have feystep which, IMO, seems clearly magical yet has no arcane keyword either... I think rules wise there is a strong argument for the need to draw the distinction.

Not all magic is arcane. unless you don't call divine magic or primal/druid magic magic.

Another thing here - let's say Fighter cannot possibly do something fantastic because fantastic automatically assumes they use magic, and that violates the idea of them being just "martial dudes", so to speak.

Why even have a level 20 Fighter? What does Level 20 even mean if a Level 20 Wizard is superpowerful but a Level 20 Fighter is weak?

3E basically said there are wealth by level guidelines so that a high level Fighter has the necessary equipment to deal with equal level threats that may have magic at their disposal.

Alternative, maybe Fighter Levels just stop at 10, and afterwards, you become "Supernatural Warrior", maybe sacrifie your soul to some demon or swear and oath with a god or learn sword magic or acquire a fantastical magic artifact, but you get magic abilities that bring you en par with equal level "traditional" spellcasters.*

But what I just cannot see ever leading to satisfying play for me is the idea that a high level fighter is mundane and outshined by spellcasters. Either there is no high level fighter without magic abilities, or we define that in a fantastic world of Giants and Dragons, you don't need magic spells to do so fantastic things (it just helps.).

Of course, you could say levels are just a number to indicate when you get new abilities, it doesn't tell you if the abilities are good or as powerful as abilities from other classes. But then you're removing the game even further from anything I want to play. Not that you can't do that, I am just saying. t's hardly as if you need me on this ride.


*) That's kinda 4E imlicitely did - it introduced Paragon Pathes and Epic Destinies to highlight: "You're not just a Fighter Dude anymore." Whether people actually played this transition as meaningful is another matter.

 

[Underman]

Magic flows through the world, and certain creatures are rich in it. Without magic flowing through their bones hill giants would collapse under their own weight due to the square cube ratio and dragons would tear their own wings off before blowing up in a nasty mess of internal plumbing.

Huh, I thought it was established that fantasy worlds don't have the same physical laws such that we don't need to worry about that; that hill giants can walk around just fine without magic.

An anti-magic field should kill a dragon stone cold dead; their very existance relies on magic.

Not in any game of D&D I ever knew about.

 

[chaochou]

No, A wizard memorizes and casts a spell that allows him to manipulate a force called magic to levitate up a mountain...

That's what I said: A wizard can magic themselves to the top of the mountain thanks to magic - which doesn't have to be explained.

If, as you admit, magic can't be explained then by definition spells can't be explained either since they are the manifestation of something which has already been conceded as inexplicable. Spells constrain magic, they don't explain it.

So when you say - what does a warrior tap into to jump up a mountain all you're asking about is what mechanism to use to constrain the warrior in the same way that spells constrain wizards.

Lets call it his force of will and heroism - although I think a far catchier and shorter term for that might be 'level'.

 

[Underman]

And if he can manipulate it through training and skill, then why don't we have cooks, and blacksmiths and other occupations that have trained so hard they can now do the impossible? Why does only training in combat allow this power to be tapped?

So when you say - what does a warrior tap into to jump up a mountain all you're asking about is what mechanism to use to constrain the warrior in the same way that spells constrain wizards.

Lets call it his force of will and heroism - although I think a far catchier and shorter term for that might be 'level'.

Perhaps in a fantasy world, some people are fantastically gifted in certain crafts and skillsets such that they can achieve the seemingly impossible. Eberron took D&D magic to a logical conclusion, so reimagining a world of super-natural prodigies is also possible. I would love to see a D&D campaign that was alive with maester chefs and legendary blacksmiths.

The thing I like to expect from natural laws, even natural fantasy laws, is some sort of consistency, or at least an honest attempt at it. So a fighter can smash a mountain in half -- ok, what is his strength score? Must be higher than a Titan? I guess his mountain-smashing strength can be redirected to squashing all his enemies, why or why not? Is that a daily and why is that? Does he have trouble opening an iron-bound door in the morning but smashes mountains in the afternoon? Is he so strong that he accidentally maims people with a handshake, and kills his wife with a slap?

I know you can do this kind of muckraking for many other aspects of fantasy. But traditional fantasy elements has, in my opinion, at least a thin veneer of respectability and suspension of disbelief. Dragon pseudo-physiology even gets a section in the Draconomicon.

Maybe it's better not to ask too many questions -- just have a fighter crush a mountain and not think of the cause-and-effect and repercussions through his daily life, so then you don't have to worry about being consistent. I'm not sure what's more unreasonable: asking for some amount of verisimilitude for a compelling story or not caring a whit about what mountain-smashing really means to the character. One compromise is to say that it's magic, that's why the fighter can only summon the strength to smash a mountain (and nothing but a mountain) exactly once a day or whatever. But some people don't want magical fighters either. Doesn't seem to be an issue with any universal resolution then, except to scale down the power level of wizards, which I don't have a problem with, as long as magic is fun and makes for compelling stories.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Huh, I thought it was established that fantasy worlds don't have the same physical laws such that we don't need to worry about that; that hill giants can walk around just fine without magic.

No. It's established that hill giants can walk around just fine. It's never established how. I call this ambient magic.

But if fantasy worlds follow different physical laws to the real world then why must fighters follow the physical laws of the real world and not those of a fantasy world?

 

[Underman]

No. It's established that hill giants can walk around just fine. It's never established how. I call this ambient magic.

But if fantasy worlds follow different physical laws to the real world then why must fighters follow the physical laws of the real world and not those of a fantasy world?

See above.

I'm cool with the idea of ambient magic (but I don't think its the status quo in D&D in my experience, and I prefer supra-natural laws in fantasy). But do you think ambient magic can be dispelled or negated? Because that's not possible in D&D. You could say that hill giants are supernatural, so it's magic that's not dispel-able, but I'm not sure it means anything.

Do you want fighters to be filled with ambient magic such that they can do more? Can it be dispelled? Some people seem very serious about keeping their fighters non-magical.