Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 6806505" data-attributes="member: 205">Eh.&nbsp; They're distinguishable, certainly.&nbsp; I don't know about being obviously different.&nbsp; Lots of words have both specific and generalized meanings.&nbsp; I have no issue with 4e calling arcane-keyworded powers &quot;spells', and martial-keyworded powers &quot;exploits&quot;.&nbsp; (Although I agree that maneuvers would be better.)&nbsp; But at the same time, I have no problem with someone grouping all the bundles of rules exceptions that classes have been granted throughout D&amp;D's history and also calling them &quot;spells&quot;.&nbsp; One is a specific use, and one is generalized, because it's recognizing a broader pattern.&nbsp; I don't get confused if someone asks me to drop them off at their car, and their &quot;car&quot; is a Ford F-150, because I recognize that &quot;car&quot; is often used as broader category of personal transportation that can also encompass pickup trucks.tl;dr It's just semantics.&nbsp; The problem was people not recognizing that spells are a fantastic character building mechanic, and it only made sense to generalize it.&nbsp; You just have to leave mechanics = narrative at the door.Yes, but Thor isn't casting a spell.&nbsp; The difference I'm trying to elucidate is that &quot;spells&quot; are a discrete subset of &quot;magic&quot; in the wider narrative.&nbsp; A fey lord isn't casting plane shift when he takes you to his enchanted glade, even if the DM uses the spell description to model it.&nbsp; Thor isn't &quot;casting&quot; lightning bolt, he's making lightning happen because he's the god of thunder.&nbsp; Doctor Strange is an interesting addition to MCU precisely because he's bringing in the trope of academic, extradimensional, language-based magic that's the blood relative of the tropes of the D&amp;D wizard.As someone who didn't start playing until the '90s, I wouldn't be surprised there's material I don't know about.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 6806505, member: 205"] Eh. They're distinguishable, certainly. I don't know about being obviously [I]different[/I]. Lots of words have both specific and generalized meanings. I have no issue with 4e calling arcane-keyworded powers "spells', and martial-keyworded powers "exploits". (Although I agree that maneuvers would be better.) But at the same time, I have no problem with someone grouping all the bundles of rules exceptions that classes have been granted throughout D&D's history and also calling them "spells". One is a specific use, and one is generalized, because it's recognizing a broader pattern. I don't get confused if someone asks me to drop them off at their car, and their "car" is a Ford F-150, because I recognize that "car" is often used as broader category of personal transportation that can also encompass pickup trucks. tl;dr It's just semantics. The problem was people not recognizing that spells are a fantastic character building mechanic, and it only made sense to generalize it. You just have to leave mechanics = narrative at the door. Yes, but Thor isn't [I]casting a spell[/I]. The difference I'm trying to elucidate is that "spells" are a discrete subset of "magic" in the wider narrative. A fey lord isn't casting [I]plane shift[/I] when he takes you to his enchanted glade, even if the DM uses the spell description to model it. Thor isn't "casting" [I]lightning bolt[/I], he's making lightning happen because he's the god of thunder. Doctor Strange is an interesting addition to MCU precisely because he's bringing in the trope of academic, extradimensional, language-based magic that's the blood relative of the tropes of the D&D wizard. As someone who didn't start playing until the '90s, I wouldn't be surprised there's material I don't know about. [/QUOTE]

Verification