D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[dave2008]

Let's take your "slash an enemy from 30 ft away" ability.

Zoro from One Piece does this with his various Phoenix Cannon techniques, where he takes a stance, swings, and sends compressed blasts of air to cut the enemy. You are going to tell me "that makes no sense, you can't do that, no one is strong enough or fast enough to do that."

I have also seen a similar technique wear a users Aura/Ki/Life Energy/Soul is compressed and sent through the blade, forming an energy slash. This is also impossible and makes no sense. You cannot compress or manipulate the energy your body produces in anyway, let alone send it out of your own body.

I have also seen a technique where the user swung, and their shadow is what cut the person, becoming solid as they manipulated their shadow. This is impossible and makes no sense. Shadows are simply the absence of light caused by an object blocking that light. They cannot be made solid and hurt someone. Neither could it be possible for a shadow to stab a shadow and use the principle of sympathy to cause a wound on the real person, your shadow being harmed does not harm you.

I have also seen a technique were carving runes and sigils on the blade allows it to shoot blasts of energy. This is impossible and makes no sense. Writing something on a blade cannot cause it to gather energy, especially something that nebulous, let alone release it in a controlled slash, instead of releasing it on every movement of the blade, which would cause constant explosions of energy.

A technique where you psychically extend the concept of a blade or cutting into the mind of the opponent, causing them to bleed? Impossible, blades don't have psyches, and making someone think you cut them when you clearly didn't touch them could not possibly make them bleed.

ALL OF THEM are impossible and make no sense. And yet, every single one of those is a real technique I've seen used in fantasy media, with the real explanation that media gave. None of it makes sense, if you really break it down, because humans can't do these things.... until they can.

The only one you seem to have a problem with is the one where it is pure training, claiming it is impossible because people aren't that strong and they can't train to be that strong. However... the fantasy world doesn't care about that. Zoro's training and strength were on display LONG before he was shown able to send blasts of air. All of the below pictures come from before that moment.

View attachment 362279

View attachment 362280

How do they explain this? Simple. Zoro is really strong. End of explanation. Other people are as strong or stronger than he is in the same world. Why would they need a different explanation? By the time we see him lifting a building we've seen a man made of rubber, a man made of smoke, a man made of sand, giants, a woman who can turn into a mole, a clown that can't be cut and can move his disconnected body parts, a reindeer-man who can shapeshift, a whale whose head it taller than the Eiffel Tower.

No reader ever went "well, I can accept all that, but a man who is really strong? That just isn't possible!" It clearly IS possible, does this mean literally anything is possible? No, the world still has rules it follows. It just doesn't follow the rule that humans are not capable of extreme feats of strength.

So, if gave fighter something like
Impossible Blow: Starting at level 11, as a bonus action you can extend your reach by +30 ft and increase the range of all ranged attacks by +60 ft.

Well... it isn't called out as "supernatural" and so the "how" of the ability is left to the player. You think it has to be magic, cool, your version can be magic. I'll call it a blast of fighting spirit that isn't magical. That works too. An edgy player who is playing a Shadar-Kai and delving into shadow magic might make it them manipulating shadows. That works to. The explanation doesn't matter, because it can be tailored to the character.

Question: do you understand that no one in our reality has, or can have, that kind of strength in a "natural" way?

 

[dave2008]

I will disagree here, because DnD doesn't CARE if something is supernatural. DnD cares if something is magical, specifically if something is a spell, and only because of dispel magic, counterspell, and Anti-magic fields.

Well that depends what you mean be "care" and what you mean by supernatural.

3e, maybe others,
Definitely had some difference between divine and arcane magic. I know I treated them very differently when I learned to play game in 1e (however, I don't know if it was a rule or just how we played)

4e
Specifically had different power sources: martial, arcane, divine, and primal where the major ones IIRC.

5e
Has divine, arcane, and psionics all as simple magic. They do however distinguish innate magic (like dragon flight) and casting magic (like spells and magic items). I think "innate magic" is pretty similar to supernatural.

Also, there is some different classed of magic too (from the antimagic spell):

"Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it."

PS - I already regret wading back into these waters

 

[Chaosmancer]

You said "at no time".

I said that I could not think of any time the game called it out. The game being Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition. The one we are talking about.

Sure 3rd edition called it out. It had the term "extraordinary" and allowed for people who were trained and skilled enough to do things like walk on clouds. Which, you don't like and don't think is possible.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Or you call it out. Or you split the difference, and call it out after a certain level. I mentioned Tier 3 several times.

Call what out? If we say that Fighters and Rogues have an extraordinary power source, like Ki.... you just tell us that it doesn't say that, and challenge us if it were true, why doesn't it say that.

So even when we try and add it, you demand to know why it wasn't already inherent in the class.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Question: do you understand that no one in our reality has, or can have, that kind of strength in a "natural" way?

Yes, but that is immaterial. IF you want to call that level of strength supernatural, I would agree with you. Just like psychic powers and shadow powers and magic.

Where the struggle seems to come in is, people seem to want to make it require something beyond training. I am fine with it just being training, with nothing special added in. Other people demand it must be some sort of mystical or special training, using unnamed techniques, because just training cannot allow a body to be that strong. Which assumes the body must act under the same rules as our own bodies. But the fantasy world does not require that assumption.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Question: do you understand that no one in our reality has, or can have, that kind of strength in a "natural" way?

No one in our reality has magic either.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well that depends what you mean be "care" and what you mean by supernatural.

I mean 5e doesn't make a distinction between things that are not possible for earth humans IRL (or earth animals IRL) and things that are possible.

3e, maybe others,
Definitely had some difference between divine and arcane magic. I know I treated them very differently when I learned to play game in 1e (however, I don't know if it was a rule or just how we played)

4e
Specifically had different power sources: martial, arcane, divine, and primal where the major ones IIRC.

Was talking about 5e

5e
Has divine, arcane, and psionics all as simple magic. They do however distinguish innate magic (like dragon flight) and casting magic (like spells and magic items). I think "innate magic" is pretty similar to supernatural.

Sure, innate magic seems pretty similar. But, like you pointed out and like was pointed out by the designers, 5e doesn't care about that. You cannot affect Dragon Flight or Roc Flight in the game, whether it is mundane, supernatural or innate magic doesn't matter. You can cast a spell to ground people, but that would apply regardless of the source of the flight.

Same with Paladin Auras, Monk Ki, Barbarian Rage.

Also, there is some different classed of magic too (from the antimagic spell):

"Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it."

And that is 100% of the problem with Anti-Magic. What is a magical effect?

A Druid's Wildshape says that they take the form of an animal "magically" so it could be argued that Anti-magic suppresses it. A Monk's fists "count as magical" for overcoming resistance, but by that phrasing, they are not magical themselves. They just count as magical. A Paladin's Lay on Hands is because they have a "blessed touch" and it never says the word "magical" once in the entire description of the ability, same with Aura of Protection. Meanwhile, the Immunity to disease is because they have divine magic flowing through their body.

So... could a paladin catch a disease while in an Anti-magic sphere, but they could lay on hands to remove it? Because one says magic and the other doesn't. What about the aura of Sunlight the Devotion Paladin can emit? It doesn't say it is magical in any way.

But, it can't just say "spells" because magic items don't always create spells, and that is the trick. Anti-magic fields were designed to care about spells and magic items... including Adamantium Armor which isn't enchanted, just made out of adamantium.

So, you have a problem. What is "magical"? Is the ability for a dragon to fly and shoot acid magical? What about a Paladin's aura and ability to heal? What about the protective benefits of Adamantium? The Shadow Monk's teleport? We absolutely want to make sure Dragons can still fly and live in an anti-magic field, because anti-magic isn't meant to be a death sentence against dragons, undead and giants. But if a Lich can still exist in anti-magic, why can't my paladin's aura? And if the paladin aura can because it doesn't say it is magical, why can't my Shadow Monk still use CLoak of Shadows to become invisible.

Magic ie Casting spells and spell like effects is the easy part of all of this. The rest of it... 5e didn't care about, because it wasn't something meant to be cared about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I said that I could not think of any time the game called it out. The game being Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition. The one we are talking about.

Sure 3rd edition called it out. It had the term "extraordinary" and allowed for people who were trained and skilled enough to do things like walk on clouds. Which, you don't like and don't think is possible.

Actually I feel better about that, in large part because they called it out.

3e was actually great for that.

To me, "the game" is D&D in its many forms. It is not exclusively WotC 5e unless a point is made calling out that specific version.

And no, putting a thread in the Dungeons & Dragons forum does not implicitly mean "WotC 5e only".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Call what out? If we say that Fighters and Rogues have an extraordinary power source, like Ki.... you just tell us that it doesn't say that, and challenge us if it were true, why doesn't it say that.

So even when we try and add it, you demand to know why it wasn't already inherent in the class.

Add it to the power, or to the class description of whatever version of the rules you're using. That's what calling it out means to me. Saying it should be assumed because "it's a fantasy world" is not enough for my taste.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Add it to the power, or to the class description of whatever version of the rules you're using. That's what calling it out means to me. Saying it should be assumed because "it's a fantasy world" is not enough for my taste.

sure, maybe, but you're never going to achieve getting the PHB changed by telling us you don't believe martials can't do things without supernatural aid and insisting that the non-descriptions don't live up to your standards here on Enword.