Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6806477" data-attributes="member: 996">The arcane and martial keywords also have different meanings at the 'mechanics layer.'  So, yes, they are conclusively, indisputably different.  For instance, check out Dispel Magic, it dispels zones & conjurations.  Try to find a martial power in any 4e book that has one of those keywords:  there are none.  There are some Ranger powers in Essentials, but they are Primal, not martial, and some area ones in a Dragon mag.Exploits were definitively not spells, and definitively non-magical.  ('Exploit' was a /terrible/ name, though, maneuver is so much better.)In 5e the division is even more pronounced, because spells use different mechanics from other magical abilities, like ki points, and non-magical abilities, like Second Wind or maneuvers, in turn use different sets of mechanics.  There's just orders of magnitude more support and development of spell mechanics than maneuvers.  And, both are, of course, using magic.  Thor, for obvious reasons, divine magic (though, really, Marvel Asgardians are just as reasonably aliens using 'sufficiently advanced technology').  Dr Strange, in spite of often invoking godlike beings, presumably arcane.I suspect it went back further than that.  1e was very off-hand about re-using mechanics, especially in monster descriptions, for instance.  I can't think of a specific case, atm, where a clearly non-magical ability 'counted as' a specific spell.  But I wouldn't be shocked if there were some in a MM or buried in some old module.</blockquote>

Verification