D&D (2024) Toward a Theory of 6th Edition

[Oofta]

I'm not going to bother responding to any more "building a castle and getting followers is just like Come and Get It".

I'm not saying 4E was a bad game. I'm just saying that something that could and did happen in the real world is not supernatural. Something that could not and does not physically happen is supernatural.

Disagree all you want, it's just an opinion.

 

[Alexemplar]

I'll just repeat - just because the details are glossed over and because the game assumed it would happen, nothing supernatural is required.

Come and Get It on the other hand literally pulls creatures up to 15 feet whether or not they even know you exist.

It's apples and oranges. Heck it's not even apples and oranges, it's more like apples and a tire iron.

The Fighter warrior feature also gets you a keep and followers, even if those people don't know you, have a high opinion of you, have any wealth or connections of note, etc . It just assumes that by making it to a given level you get followers and a keep whether you were a famous saintly knight who saved the realm or an anonymous shady murder hobo who spent their whole adventuring life in a foreign land.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Impossible is contextual.

No, it's not.

Physically impossible by the standards of modern bio-mechanics & physics is very different from impossible in a mythic or fantasy context, even before supernatural agency comes into it. It's impossible for a RL world high-jump record holder to clear a castle wall. It wasn't impossible for heroes of legend, because the people telling their tall tales weren't being fact-checked by Guinness, it was just a way of illustrating that the hero could really jump.

Impossible for an unaided human IRL is fine & fairly easily established, it's just not relevant to whether something is supernatural in an imaginary fantasy world - it might draw a relatively hypothetical line between the mundane, RL-realistic and the superhuman, fantasy-heroic, though.
Let alone relevant to a fantasy RPG system where some things are explicitly called out as magical and others not.

Ok, I see what you're doing here.

Impossible is still impossible, but in make-believe we can pretend it's otherwise.

So we can say that in our fantasy world, things that would undoubtedly be supernatural don't need supernatural explanations because in this world people are stronger, better, faster than in the real world. So it's not supernatural for a hero to leap over a wall, because in this world the rules about the energy each gram of human muscle can exert are either different or even not relevant, so we're not constrained by physiology and physics. The "super" is now "natural".

Got it.

Except...this means that the line between mundane and supernatural/magical/etc. is arbitrary in a fictional world. We can declare something is non-supernatural, non-magical simply by believing it so.

And thus your argument about the importance of having classes that derive their powers from non-magical, non-supernatural forces falls apart. Because if the line is arbitrary, and not determined by any laws from the real world, then you are free to simply move that line to whatever suits your purpose. You want non-magical healing? Great, just decide that in your game universe the ability to Lay on Hands is not magical, it's mundane. Humans are just "better" on that side of the veil and you don't need chemistry and biology to explain it, it's just non-magical.

Of course, if what suits your purpose is to demonstrate that the game needs non-magical, non-supernatural superpowers, then you can (and do!) adjust the line accordingly. But it's really entirely your choice of where to put that line.

That's how I'm seeing you argue against the distinction between super-human and super-natural that I'm pointing out. You're insisting that because something accomplishes the impossible (twilight) that there is no distinction between the superhuman (day) and the supernatural (night).

Errr...no, I was arguing the opposite. That supernatural and superhuman can mean the same thing, if we're using "superhuman" to literally mean "beyond what is possible for a human". (There are, of course, metaphorical uses for the word, such as "he put in a superhuman effort to get the report done in time for the meeting.")

You, on the other hand, have been arguing that "superhuman" is in a different category than "supernatural". E.g., leaping over a castle wall is merely superhuman because it is a more extreme version of something humans do, while shooting lasers out of your eyes is supernatural because humans don't otherwise emit any light from their eyes. But that's also an arbitrary distinction, easily manipulated to support either conclusion. E.g., teleportation is merely superhuman and not supernatural, because humans do go from point A to point B, and teleportation is just going from point A to point B very, very quickly. The Wish spell is only superhuman because humans do wish for things and sometimes get them, and Wish is just the same thing with a higher success rate. Etc. (Actually this is kind of a fun game....)

Getting back to the twilight argument, I was making the point that leaping over an ox could be called superhuman, and leaping over a hut could be superhuman, and leaping over a castle wall could be superhuman, and leaping all the way around the world could be superhuman. Somewhere in there we went from just being "impressively improbable" to "impossible by the usual definition of the word", and the fact that we might not be able pinpoint exactly where that distinction lies does not mean the distinction isn't there.

At some point leaping becomes just as impossible and thus supernatural as shooting lasers from your eyes.

You have an aesthetic preference for actions which closely resemble real human actions, and that's cool. You are entitled to that preference and I respect it. I have an aesthetic bias that does not include rapiers, especially dual-wielded, and thinks that rogues should stab things not shoot them. Neither of us is going to be able to objectively prove that our preference belongs or does not belong in the game.

 

[Oofta]

At some point leaping becomes just as impossible and thus supernatural as shooting lasers from your eyes.

<SARCASM>Right, but we all know that Superman isn't supernatural he's super-human. After all he's actually vulnerable to magic. </SARCASM>

 

[Alexemplar]

Except...this means that the line between mundane and supernatural/magical/etc. is arbitrary in a fictional world. We can declare something is non-supernatural, non-magical simply by believing it so.

That's exactly how it works when dealing with fantasy worlds- and often times the real world, depending on who you're talking to. The human mind is intrinsically geared towards this kind of blurring and it becomes even more true when formulating narratives.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's different from a rogue's Blinding Barrage where they get to attack and blind multiple opponents because they have possession of a single dagger.

To be fair, that was true only if it was a magical dagger, as they were able to return intantly when thrown - otherwise he'd've needed at least one thrown weapon per target - and quickdraw...

<SARCASM>Right, but we all know that Superman isn't supernatural he's super-human. After all he's actually vulnerable to magic. </SARCASM>

I'm not up on all the canon, but as I recall, the original superman was simply from a high-G world, superhumanly strong, fast, able to leap tall buildings (tad derivative of Burrough's "John Carter," if you think about it) - but not fly or fry eggs by staring at them, and not quite supernatural. At some point he got retconned to the explanation that his powers were psychokinetic and powered by the energy of the yellow sun - and, he crossed that line.

Impossible is still impossible, but in make-believe we can pretend it's otherwise.

Though it's not entirely cogent there's also a line between impossible, for an unaided human (dead-lifting tons), and logically impossible (meaningless), God creating a stone He could not lift.

That supernatural and superhuman can mean the same thing, if we're using "superhuman" to literally mean "beyond what is possible for a human".

And your vehicle for that is the 'twighlight' case of the impossible - because something impossible may be superhuman (day), like leaping over a castle wall, and something supernatural (night), like dematerializing and walking through a castle wall would certainly be impossible, then the two must be the same (night = day, because: twilight).

You, on the other hand, have been arguing that "superhuman" is in a different category than "supernatural"

Yes, because it's a quite easy category difference....

E.g., leaping over a castle wall is merely superhuman because it is a more extreme version of something humans do, while shooting lasers out of your eyes is supernatural because humans don't otherwise emit any light from their eyes. But that's also an arbitrary distinction, easily manipulated to support either conclusion.

Meaning is arbitrary, if you get right down to it, all language is symbolic, but no, it's a very clear test and easy to apply consistently.

E.g., teleportation is merely superhuman and not supernatural, because humans do go from point A to point B, and teleportation is just going from point A to point B very, very quickly.

That is NOT what teleportation is, though. Teleportation is moving from one point to another without passing through any other points on the way. Teleportation is supernatural. A teleport mechanic, in an effects-based game like Hero, might be used to model a non-supernatural power, but it would generally have a limitation placed on it so it did actually include more natural movement - for instance, a super-escape-artist might buy a teleport to escape from impossibly difficult confinement, but the 'effect' would still be wiggling out of it, not moving without traversing space. FWIW.

The Wish spell is only superhuman because humans do wish for things and sometimes get them, and Wish is just the same thing with a higher success rate.

Not actually that far off base. In Mage: the Ascension, for instance, magick can be covered with a coincidence, so if you wish for a million dollars and win the lottery, you're fine, but if you just conjure the money out of thin air in front of everyone, you can invoke some paradox. Not the exact same distinction, but very similar - it's more about how the effect looks. Supernatural is more about how the effect happens, it's really little to do with degree. In the case of Wish, earth-shaking magic is, indeed being invoked - supernatural as all heck.

For instance, aporting a silver piece from your purse into you hand is supernatural, even though it's a trivially easy and natural thing to just reach into your purse and pull out a silver piece - and, even though sleight of hand could appear to do the same thing.

Getting back to the twilight argument, I was making the point that leaping over an ox could be called superhuman, and leaping over a hut could be superhuman, and leaping over a castle wall could be superhuman, and leaping all the way around the world could be superhuman. Somewhere in there we went from just being "impressively improbable" to "impossible by the usual definition of the word", and the fact that we might not be able pinpoint exactly where that distinction lies does not mean the distinction isn't there.

When you get right down to it, entering orbit is just an incredibly powerful leap.

At some point leaping becomes just as impossible and thus supernatural as shooting lasers from your eyes.

Sure, and a certain point, the supernatural - starting a fire pyrokinetically for instance - becomes just as trivial as striking a match. Possible vs impossible, degree of power or believably really has no bearing.

I have an aesthetic bias that does not include rapiers, especially dual-wielded, and thinks that rogues should stab things not shoot them. Neither of us is going to be able to objectively prove that our preference belongs or does not belong in the game.

I think it's more reasonable, in the case of oh-so-inclusive 5e, to say that neither of us has any right to say the other's preferences should be excluded from the game. And, what do you have against the famed Florentine fencing style?

I don't want to be rude, but we just have a different opinion of what qualifies as supernatural. End of discussion.

Oh, I'm fine with that. I was just pointing out that your opinion that one 4e fighter power should have been supernatural in no way alters the fact that no fighter power in 4e was supernatural. The editions have offered different menus of non-magic-using classes. AD&D PH had the Fighter & Thief, both 100% non-magic-suing. 3e PH had the Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian (EX powers but no SU, quite explicitly), likewise. The 4e PH had the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, & Warlord, likewise, 100% non-magical. 5e happened to give every class at least some magical powers, though, it does have specific Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian sub-classes that do not. AD&D, 3e, & 5e all limited their non-magic using classes to DPR and skill-specialist roles - 4e was unique in letting them cover 3 of it's 4 formal roles: Defender (aggro), Striker (DPR - and, incidentally in the case of Ranger & Rogue, skill-specialists), and Leader (support). While Martial lacked the Controller role in 4e, it was a fairly seamless thing to run a campaign with only martial PCs, whether the world was high-, low-. or no- magic - 5e isn't as far away from that as other pre-4e eds, but it could be closer, and 6e certainly could go there if it wanted to...

...Templates could help. Having a 4th (after Race, class & background) major choice point for PCs could give more flexibility in creating a fully-functional party in spite of concept or campaign limitations on what sorts of characters might be appropriate...

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm not up on all the canon, but as I recall, the original superman was simply from a high-G world, superhumanly strong, fast, able to leap tall buildings (tad derivative of Burrough's "John Carter," if you think about it) - but not fly or fry eggs by staring at them, and not quite supernatural. At some point he got retconned to the explanation that his powers were psychokinetic and powered by the energy of the yellow sun - and, he crossed that line.

Though it's not entirely cogent there's also a line between impossible, for an unaided human (dead-lifting tons), and logically impossible (meaningless), God creating a stone He could not lift.

And your vehicle for that is the 'twighlight' case of the impossible - because something impossible may be superhuman (day), like leaping over a castle wall, and something supernatural (night), like dematerializing and walking through a castle wall would certainly be impossible, then the two must be the same (night = day, because: twilight).

Yes, because it's a quite easy category difference.... Meaning is arbitrary, if you get right down to it, all language is symbolic, but no, it's a very clear test and easy to apply consistently. That is NOT what teleportation is, though. Teleportation is moving from one point to another without passing through any other points on the way. Teleportation is supernatural. A teleport mechanic, in an effects-based game like Hero, might be used to model a non-supernatural power, but it would generally have a limitation placed on it so it did actually include more natural movement - for instance, a super-escape-artist might buy a teleport to escape from impossibly difficult confinement, but the 'effect' would still be wiggling out of it, not moving without traversing space. FWIW.

Not actually that far off base. In Mage: the Ascension, for instance, magick can be covered with a coincidence, so if you wish for a million dollars and win the lottery, you're fine, but if you just conjure the money out of thin air in front of everyone, you can invoke some paradox. Not the exact same distinction, but very similar - it's more about how the effect looks. Supernatural is more about how the effect happens, it's really little to do with degree. In the case of Wish, earth-shaking magic is, indeed being invoked - supernatural as all heck.

For instance, aporting a silver piece from your purse into you hand is supernatural, even though it's a trivially easy and natural thing to just reach into your purse and pull out a silver piece - and, even though sleight of hand could appear to do the same thing.

When you get right down to it, entering orbit is just an incredibly powerful leap.

Sure, and a certain point, the supernatural - starting a fire pyrokinetically for instance - becomes just as trivial as striking a match. Possible vs impossible, degree of power or believably really has no bearing.

I think it's more reasonable, in the case of oh-so-inclusive 5e, to say that neither of us has any right to say the other's preferences should be excluded from the game. And, what do you have against the famed Florentine fencing style?

Oh, I'm fine with that. I was just pointing out that your opinion that one 4e fighter power should have been supernatural in no way alters the fact that no fighter power in 4e was supernatural. The editions have offered different menus of non-magic-using classes. AD&D PH had the Fighter & Thief, both 100% non-magic-suing. 3e PH had the Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian (EX powers but no SU, quite explicitly), likewise. The 4e PH had the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, & Warlord, likewise, 100% non-magical. 5e happened to give every class at least some magical powers, though, it does have specific Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian sub-classes that do not. AD&D, 3e, & 5e all limited their non-magic using classes to DPR and skill-specialist roles - 4e was unique in letting them cover 3 of it's 4 formal roles: Defender (aggro), Striker (DPR - and, incidentally in the case of Ranger & Rogue, skill-specialists), and Leader (support). While Martial lacked the Controller role in 4e, it was a fairly seamless thing to run a campaign with only martial PCs, whether the world was high-, low-. or no- magic - 5e isn't as far away from that as other pre-4e eds, but it could be closer, and 6e certainly could go there if it wanted to...

...Templates could help. Having a 4th (after Race, class & background) major choice point for PCs could give more flexibility in creating a fully-functional party in spite of concept or campaign limitations on what sorts of characters might be appropriate...

You are really just making up your own definitions here. I'll grant that you are quite consistent about the application of those definitions, but they are your made-up definitions.

According to Google...
Supernatural:

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

For example...a human jumping over a castle wall.

I do understand your definition, but it's just something you concocted that helps explain your aesthetic preference about RPGs and...conveniently...supports your desired conclusion that martial powers are neither magical nor supernatural.

I propose we introduce two new terms, vargasian and non-vargasian, to distinguish between manifestations or events that are merely greatly enhanced versions of reality from those that are not. Then we can all be using words to mean the same thing and can proceed with this discussion without confusion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

...supports your desired conclusion that martial powers are neither magical nor supernatural.

It's not so much supporting a conclusion as challenging the "opinion" that the game has somehow consistently never meant the things it comes right out and says. 3e & 4e were perfectly clear, with explicit labels, Sources in 4e, and (EX) & (SU) in 3e. 5e, I suppose in keeping with it's design philosophy, is not so succinct, but still makes it perfectly clear that spells and Ki are explicitly magical, leaving only a handful of none-too-varied sub-classes as non-supernatural options.

Taken far enough, an idea like your Templates could let players take a class in different directions, that way. For instance, Divine magic could be part of a Template, applied to a hypothetical warrior class, you have a Paladin...

 

[Oofta]

To be fair, that was true only if it was a magical dagger, as they were able to return intantly when thrown - otherwise he'd've needed at least one thrown weapon per target - and quickdraw...

Nope. Blinding Barrage requirement is: "You must be wielding a crossbow, a light thrown weapon, or a sling." So as long as you were holding a single dagger you were good to go.

I just looked up the exact wording but I remember this particular power because both guys that played rogues (different campaigns) remarked on how silly it was. Then again they had both been playing since 2E.

 

[Oofta]

That's exactly how it works when dealing with fantasy worlds- and often times the real world, depending on who you're talking to. The human mind is intrinsically geared towards this kind of blurring and it becomes even more true when formulating narratives.

By that definition in a world where magic works absolutely nothing would be supernatural. In a world where there are ghosts, they are "natural" to that world.

I think that's silly, but to each his own.