D&D General What does "magic" mean? [Read carefully, you can't change your vote]

[Lyxen]

3e had a sort of classification about this, and it was a fairly good idea, the main drawback being that it was complicated and created a lot of technical tags. 4e used a completely different system, and magic in and of itself was not really a gaming element. As for 5e, there is "background magic" which is actually fairly natural for the world (and therefore not really supernatural in the sense of the game world, although it is supernatural to our world understanding and therefore "magic") and specific magic when manipulated.

All this to say that there almost never was only one answer in any given edition of the game, much less across editions. which leaves DM absolutely free to do whatever they want for their own campaign.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is this a rules question, a metaphysics question or a semantics question? Why would the answer even matter?

 

[niklinna]

I win! I picked the best answer with the most picks!

 

[Baron Opal II]

Within my game world, "magic" are the spells, effects, and items originating from the Will drawing upon heka. This is the energy and possibility coming from the Churning Maelstrom of Chaos.

Sometimes there are effects that are sufficiently advanced technology that utilize the radiance of the Radiant Obelisk of Law. These are called magic by the ignorant, but are actually the argyric sciences or disciplines.

Interacting with natural spirits, elementals, psychic abilities, and the like are tide to the Sublime Pattern of Vril. While druids draw upon vril and use it in some cases quite similarly to magicians, it is not truly magic.

Practically speaking and within the worldview, spells are those abilities that harness the power of one of the Empyrians, and magic are those effects that are not bound by natural Law. Alchemy and artifice blur those boundaries a bit.

Looking at things from a rules standpoint, if something affects "magic" it likely affects any power. There are some exceptions but those are specific and at least semi-predictable. For example, if someone hires a wizard to erect a Ward Against Diracian Portals, it will be hard to teleport into that area. But, if your will is strong and ritual potent you might be able to break through. If they hired an artificer to erect a Sideral Rectifier, an artifact of Law, you're done and need to think up another plan.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I use my "fantasy common sense" when it comes to this question. Most "supernatural" things I consider magic, however, I do not go expressly to the "if it breaks the laws of our Earth physics, it is magical" ruling though. This is because (as @MatthewJHanson mentions) it would mean creature sizes and the ability to fly at those sizes would make these creatures and animals have to be magical. And that's... I just don't feel the need to go that far. It doesn't break my "fantasy common sense" to think a Giant Ape could exist, or that a pegasus could fly with its wings able to lift its body, or that a fighter could actually cut through dragon scale (and maybe even kill a dragon) with just a regular sword. Yes, those all break our Earth-physics... but I'm willing to accept "fantasy world physics" could allow all those to happen without requiring to be "magical".

But anything related to the castings or use of spells or enchantments (including arcane, divine, primal, psionic, runic, alchemical etc. etc.) I say is Magic. Because that stuff is exactly what my fantasy common sense tells me should be Magic. Being able to read someone else's mind is Magic. Having a sword that can spontaneously burst into flame is Magic. Punching someone and having their entire muscular system fail and shut down is Magic. Being able to innately turn invisible is Magic. And so on.

And in terms of Dispel Magic or an Antimagic Field... those are both so inconsequential to any D&D campaign I have played in or run that I never, EVER worry about trying to make a cohesive rules system about it. Hell... I think the Antimagic Field is the least-used trope in D&D that somehow gets thrown around the MOST for arguing why something or some rule in the game should or shouldn't exist. With the amount of times Antimagic Field gets used as a talking point, you'd think it'd show up in every campaign like every-other session. But they like never or barely-ever actually get used, because it's a rather lame trope in the first place. Maybe one time in a campaign a DM might throw it out there for a unique surprise... but that's pretty much it. It's never been worth the words spewed on its behalf talking about stuff in the game in my opinion. And thus I never even think about it.

 

[embee]

UA be damned. The 2e grognard in me says that psionics aren't magic. So I gotta go with #1.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

"Magic" is a unique and special snowflake unconfined by these limits, let me explain why.

Because Ric Ocasek, that's why. Summer Summer Summer

Pictured- My first unsuccessful attempt to cast "Hold Person."

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I answered from the perspective of "What is magic in D&D", which to me is heavily influenced by a combination of 3rd edition and my preference for "Psionics is different". In other words, magic is a particular type of supernatural power, often manipulated via spells and magic items but not exclusive to those and also not the only kind of supernatural power.

 

[el-remmen]

UA be damned. The 2e grognard in me says that psionics aren't magic. So I gotta go with #1.

Funny, I feel the same way but choose #3, because while "many" things are also magic, psionics is not one of them to my mind. (see what I did there?)

 

[Voadam]

Gut reactions

Superhero powers are often not magic.

3.5 truenaming is magic.

Psionics can be magic or not magic.

Iffy on whether supernatural creatures like a ghost are magic or other.