D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[Gammadoodler]

I do presuppose fantasy means magic. You have dragons and unicorns and all kinds of magic. Dragons have wings, but fly because of magic, etc. It hardly seams strange the people would have innate magic too. To me it seems to be exactly what all the media about fantasy stories are telling us.

I do use the 1:1 because that is the only basis we have to go on. Magic isn't really so we have to make it up, while everyone should be able to get an idea of what is really possible. If we use 1:1 we are all, in theory, starting from the same starting point.

Then it's a valueless label for the characters in a fantasy setting.

Using that label, the fighter who shoots 100 arrows in a round can do so for the same reason that casters can cast spells for the same reason that a monk can stin..

But..

Only from a player perspective.

The characters would see the way they do things very differently.

Why would we want to define things in a fantasy world using a yardstick that is invisible and meaningless to that world's inhabitants?

 

[dave2008]

I don't care what I can do, I don't even qualify as a level 1 character.
We've got races like aarakokra that can already fly as a "natural" ability. Giants who don't crumble under their own weight being "normal".

Yet, when a fighter attempts a feat of derring-do, "it's no, no - put the rock down and stop being silly."

No, no, and no.

The aarakokra flying is innate magic like the dragon. No one is telling it can't do anything, we are just being honest that it is innate fantasy magic. Fantasy natural = innate magic

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think either of those are what @Micah Sweet is talking about. At least neither of those would count as supernatural for me.

So again why doesn't

"that level of power doesn't make sense for a mundane character"?

 

[dave2008]

Then it's a valueless label for the characters in a fantasy setting.

Using that label, the fighter who shoots 100 arrows in a round can do so for the same reason that casters can cast spells for the same reason that a monk can stin..

But..

Only from a player perspective.

The characters would see the way they do things very differently.

Why would we want to define things in a fantasy world using a yardstick that is invisible and meaningless to that world's inhabitants?

I agree with you.

I am not talking about characters viewpoint, but the players and the games viewpoint. D&D is used to play many different types of games, I can't change the basis of the rules the players read for each and every fantasy or non fantasy or sci-fi setting. We cater the rules to players, not the characters.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I agree with you.

I am not talking about characters viewpoint, but the players and the games viewpoint. D&D is used to play many different types of games, I can't change the basis of the rules the players read for each and every fantasy or non fantasy or sci-fi setting. We cater the rules to players, not the characters.

You don't need a rule for "why" your PC can do something.

You only need a rule for "what" your PC can do.

 

[FrogReaver]

You don't need a rule for "why" your PC can do something.

You only need a rule for "what" your PC can do.

I find both are important.

 

[dave2008]

I do presuppose fantasy means magic. You have dragons and unicorns and all kinds of magic. Dragons have wings, but fly because of magic, etc. It hardly seams strange the people would have innate magic too. To me it seems to be exactly what all the media about fantasy stories are telling us.

I do use the 1:1 because that is the only basis we have to go on. Magic isn't really so we have to make it up, while everyone should be able to get an idea of what is really possible. If we use 1:1 we are all, in theory, starting from the same starting point.

why the sad face @CreamCloud0? My version supports all types of games, from fantasy to grim dark, to modern, etc. Why be said at more inclusion?

 

[dave2008]

You don't need a rule for "why" your PC can do something.

You only need a rule for "what" your PC can do.

I generally agree, what is your point?

 

[dave2008]

?"

a
"that level of power doesn't make sense for a mundane character"?

I have given several examples, yet you always fail to respond. What can I do?

I will try again:

100 arrows at 100 targets 1,500 ft away all within 6 seconds.

throwing 4 boulders up to a mile each and having them explode into 40 ft radius of destruction

lifting 10,000 lbs

etc.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I generally agree, what is your point?

That saying the fighter can shoot 100 arrows in a round is the bit that matters.

Whether it's mundane or magical is an irrelevance.