D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[Vaalingrade]

I don't have any issue with fantasy worlds being different from reality, I in fact encourage it. I am not looking for in-world / in-fiction justifications. I just want to understand it from a game rules perspective.

I want:

1. I would prefer the game to have clear game jargon for various different magical or supernatural elements. So rules interactions are clearly understood. Like anti-magic works on magic, but not supernatural things (as an example). What this means for setting could be different from setting to setting.
2. I have had several posts suggest that it is not a fantasy game if my humans can't do amazing unreal physical things (things people can not do in real life). I don't wish to gatekeep. I want to be able to play mundane characters and fantastic characters (and understand the difference) in the same rules (doesn't even have to be the same setting - it is all about clear rules for me).

That is basically what I am asking for, not sure why that is such a no go for some people. I am not trying to prevent people from playing anything. I in fact want everything to possible from playing a normal human to playing a literal deity. I want my fantasy game rules to be all encompassing.

None of that matches up to the assertion you made that not forcing fantasy to be grounded in reality would make that fantasy mundane.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don't think anyone is arguing for those things.

There are people arguing that any capability that seems unrealistic for the real world should be labelled as Supernatural or Magical. Someone pointed out that this could be possible to justify in very general terms, but not in the context of the actual game. Another person asked what the distinction was.
I explained.

Hey, I'm willing to change my stance on what's possible on Earth in the face of new evidence.

This was more aimed at the person suggesting that 8 swings of a weapon in 6 seconds is supernatural.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are people arguing that any capability that seems unrealistic for the real world should be labelled as Supernatural or Magical. Someone pointed out that this could be possible to justify in very general terms, but not in the context of the actual game. Another person asked what the distinction was.
I explained.

This was more aimed at the person suggesting that 8 swings of a weapon in 6 seconds is supernatural.

I'm actually in favor of labeling abilities as mundane, supernatural, or magical (spells) for the benefit of the real life players. How those lines would be drawn in-setting would of course vary significantly.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ok, a friend of mine finally explained to me what the heck One Piece is. My take-away is that it is a rather silly story that doesn't take itself at all seriously where many characters have ridiculous superpowers that basically runs on "Rule of Cool". Is that what you've been wanting this whole time? That style would and has driven me nuts; I actually kind of hate it.

This actually makes me feel a lot better. Now I understand why you, @Gammadoodler , and @CreamCloud0 have been making the arguments you have. You are actively seeking a style of play (at least in this aspect of the game) for D&D that I would only engage in under some form of duress, or if I were doing a favor for someone.

Ok, this makes sense. There's really no middle ground here. Sorry I was fighting you all on this. There's really no reason to.

Your friend gave you a bad explanation.

One Piece is a story about dreams and freedom in the face of a totalitarian government. Doesn't take itself seriously?

Nami - An orphan who watched her adoptive mother shot and killed in front of her, because she refused to deny that she was her mother, and they were too poor to pay the tax to be allowed to "live". Kidnapped by the man who killed her mother, forced to wear his mark and work for him for over a decade, all for the money to buy her villages freedom. Which he tricked her out of, making her forever his slave.

Sanji - Born to a family who did genetic experiments on him, beaten bloody by his siblings, mocked for caring for his sick mother who died because she took poison trying to protect her children. Was such a disappointment to his father that he was locked away in the dungeon and declared dead. Escaped, only to end up on a ship that was attacked by pirates. Marooned with a pirate on a rock, and nearly starved to death. Only survived because that pirate tricked him into taking all the food, and ate his own leg so the kid would survive.

Robin - Grew up an orphan, called a monster for her abilities. At the age of 8 she passed the test to become an archeologist, as the archeologists on the island were the only ones she cared for. Met a giant who washed up on shore, made a friend. Days later the Government comes, because the archeologists discovered a secret history the government is covering up. They murder everyone, blast the island to a barren wasteland, destroy all the books. Robin watches her only friend killed in front of her, but is allowed to escape on a whim from the man who did so. She is labeled a demon and hunted for over a decade as they try to kill her for what she might know. The culmination of her character arc was declaring that she wanted to live, that she no longer was just waiting for death and wanted to live her life.

Sure, One Piece has jokes and silly moments. Their powers do tend into the epic with the designs meant to invoke a sense of power and awe. But I would argue that a series that deals so heavily in such deep, traumatic themes, slavery, racism, child soldiers, child experimentation, government corruption, religious corruption, bio-weapons, weapons of mass destruction, war and rebellion, torture, assassination... they kind of need to have the lighter, sillier moments. When facing Arlong who brutalized a young girl after murdering her mother in front of her own eyes, who terrorizes a village because he hates all humans and sees them as inferior (which we later find out is a reflection of the racism against his own people) it kind of helps soften things to see a giant sea cow with a dopey cow face. It is still a monster capable of ripping buildings apart, but it least it looks kind of silly

 

[Gammadoodler]

Ok, a friend of mine finally explained to me what the heck One Piece is. My take-away is that it is a rather silly story that doesn't take itself at all seriously where many characters have ridiculous superpowers that basically runs on "Rule of Cool". Is that what you've been wanting this whole time? That style would and has driven me nuts; I actually kind of hate it.

This actually makes me feel a lot better. Now I understand why you, @Gammadoodler , and @CreamCloud0 have been making the arguments you have. You are actively seeking a style of play (at least in this aspect of the game) for D&D that I would only engage in under some form of duress, or if I were doing a favor for someone.

Ok, this makes sense. There's really no middle ground here. Sorry I was fighting you all on this. There's really no reason to.

Is this..back-handed reconciliation?
Ok.

No middle ground between One Piece as a touchstone..and Game of Thrones as a touchstone.
Ok.

I guess we just...throw out..all the fantasy, myths, legends, comics, anime, etc. that live between these two very different bits of fantasy literature.

Wild.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I really have no idea what your are trying to argue. Do at least agree there is confusion in the way the game (and here I am talking about 5e) treats magical things?

Not quite.

The problem is that magical is used to refer to three different things, but the game only cares about two of them. All spells are treated consistently, no confusion there. All magical items are treated consistently, no confusion. But then it uses the word "magic" to refer to other types of energy, and things get murky, only because anti-magic was designed to handle spells and magical items.

Take Anti-Magic out of the equation, and everything functions perfectly fine, but because we keep trying to divide out "this is magical" "this is not magical" but the term magic is being used in multiple different ways... it creates confusion. It doesn't treat anything differently, the confusion comes because the word was used in places that make sense, but in different ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is this..back-handed reconciliation?
Ok.

No middle ground between One Piece as a touchstone..and Game of Thrones as a touchstone.
Ok.

I guess we just...throw out..all the fantasy, myths, legends, comics, anime, etc. that live between these two very different bits of fantasy literature.

Wild.

No, but if you want Rule of Cool as a guiding principle of worldbuilding I very much do not, so we are not going to meet because the middle is too far apart for either of us to have fun.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yes I agree. The disagreement seems to be twofold (but I am not really sure why people are getting so worked up about it). Different people may not share both this concerns.

1. I would prefer the game to have clear game jargon for various different magical or supernatural elements. So rules interactions are clearly understood. Like anti-magic works on magic, but not supernatural things (as an example). What this means for setting could be different from setting to setting.
2. I have had several posts suggest that it is not a fantasy game if my humans can't do amazing unreal physical things (things people can not do in real life). I don't wish to gatekeep. I want to be able to play mundane characters and fantastic characters (and understand the difference) in the same rules (doesn't even have to be the same setting - it is all about clear rules for me).

That is basically what I am asking for, not sure why that is such a no go for some people.

I can get behind labeling for mechanical clarity generally.

For 5e, specifically, I don't think there are enough mechanical elements that would interact with the jargon you are asking for to make it worthwhile.

I think it is fully limited to anti-magic. And I think we could just fix the wording on that effect to achieve the rules clarity you're looking for.

 

[nevin]

Yes, it absolutely is possible.
By humans.
In our reality.

It might be "supernatural" to you and Micah Sweet. Presumably those people who are currently doing so are using the magic available to them in real life.
Its not even extraordinary to many of us.
(And this is before we even get into the "is every attack required to be a single discrete swing" discussion, which is way outside the scope of this thread.)


. . . You can't imagine a swing at one creature continuing onwards to strike the creature next to it as well?

Or two people moving around each other? Google "dancing". It'll blow your mind.


D&D is not responsible for the cognitive dissonance caused by your own houserules.
There is plenty of cognitive dissonance in D&D to go around, but human fighter hit points have pretty much never been required to be pure meat.;




In 3e/3.5e, a goodly chunk of the things that you are currently claiming must be called out as "supernatural" . . . were explicitly not supernatural.

Yeah while dodging fireballs and hacking 100 ton giants to death, surviving being kicked hard by said 100 ton giants because I made my save and killing those beholders, I often think how much like our own reality it is??????????????

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can get behind labeling for mechanical clarity generally.

For 5e, specifically, I don't think there are enough mechanical elements that would interact with the jargon you are asking for to make it worthwhile.

I think it is fully limited to anti-magic. And I think we could just fix the wording on that effect to achieve the rules clarity you're looking for.

That clarity is also useful for players to understand that a given effect is meant to be supernatural or not so they can manage their expectations and keep to one side or the other if that's important to them. Also helpful when worldbuilding to aid in visualization. The "can I Counterspell/Anti-magic this" question is just part of it.