How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition

ExploderWizard · Apr 27, 2009

Scribble said:
Depends what you mean by magic really- but in the case of D&D? "Magic" is a mystical artform/science that allows the magician to manipulate the world around him through a combination of ritualistic gestures, sounds, and components.

Are you saying that if a guy in a robe mutters some words of power, and waves a wand and POOF: a rabbit appears then its magic?

but:

That a guy in armor, swings a sword and strikes a goblin, and POOF: a rabbit appears, then it isn't magic?

Is the window dressing really that much more important than substance of what happens to most people?

Henry · Apr 27, 2009

Kask said:
Really? I've never had a cleric or druid that did that. A Storm Giant uses knowledge of, "a mystical artform/science" to breath water or throw lightning? In the MM it is a natural ability possessed by all Storm Giants.

Maybe you should expand your definition to fit the reality of the game?

All your Clerics and Druids were Storm Giants?

Looks like "magic" in context above was referring to how most spellcasters cast their spells, in which case it was exactly like what Scribble described, and they've been using "V,S,M" since 1978.

EDIT: ...and Scribble clarified. Thanks!

Exploder Wizard said:
Are you saying that if a guy in a robe mutters some words of power, and waves a wand and POOF: a rabbit appears then its magic?

but:

That a guy in armor, swings a sword and strikes a goblin, and POOF: a rabbit appears, then it isn't magic?

Is the window dressing really that much more important than substance of what happens to most people

I don't know how close the analogy is -- if you're talking 4E, most all the martial characters might produce cool effects, but they're not magical in flavor; some of them might be a little loopy in flavor text, but their effects usually don't involve (A) making things appear from nothing, (B) teleporting anyone, or (C) involve making energy from nothing. Most of them just slide people around or cause damage through mundane, if improbable, means. So far, all the magic effects come from Arcane, Divine, or Primal characters, which are all pretty strongly supernatural in tone. Just because you swing a sword doesn't mean you cannot tap into the arcane; Fighter/Magic-users have been around a long time, and Bladesingers have been around since 2E.

Kask · Apr 27, 2009

Scribble said:
I guess I should have been more clear. I was talking about the "magic system" players commonly have used in D&D- my bad.

Like a player does something and "poof" they are healed? Or, a character does something and an enemy is "compelled" to behave in a certain way?

Yep, magic.

Kask · Apr 27, 2009

Henry said:
Looks like "magic" in context above was referring to how most spellcasters cast their spells, in which case it was exactly like what Scribble described, and they've been using "V,S,M" since 1978.

Actually, no. Clerics & Druids have NEVER used spells due to using a a "mystical artform/science". Their magic was bestowed by their deity. What were you playing in '78

Mallus · Apr 27, 2009

ExploderWizard said:
Adventurers are all just superheroes
with different schticks and costumes.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

I know there are many who will disagree with this assessment and I will ask: What makes magic "magical" to you?

I don't want magic to be 'magical'. I want it to be interesting to use. First and foremost it's a tool used to overcome in-game challenges.

It's fine for fantasy literature to wow you with the mysterious and mystical. But that's a cross-purposes with the goals of any RPG that makes magic available as a character resource.

fanboy2000 · Apr 27, 2009

ExploderWizard said:
Is the window dressing really that much more important than substance of what happens to most people?

I don't know about most people, but to me it is. An RPG just isn't that interesting to me without window dressing.

The core mechanic is the same: roll a d20, add modifiers, compare to DC. The result is binary, you succeed at the action or you fail. By itself, this is pretty boring. Add window dressing, and it become a great deal more interesting.

Just so we're clear: if a fighter is rolling 1d20 + 5 to hit Orc's AC with his sword and A Wizard is rolling 1d20 + 5 to hit the Orc's AC with a spell, I consider that difference meaningful because of the change in label.

Of course, your example is somewhat problematic because I don't know of any fighter power that allows the summoning of an animal, but maybe there's a ranger or warden power that does essentially the same thing. Of course, rangers have used spells in the previous editions and I believe a warden's spirit animal is magical/mystical in nature, so it's already built into the description.

Cadfan · Apr 27, 2009

The whole concept of making magic "magical" in a game like D&D where spells have predefined effects is wrongheaded. At least for what I'm taking to be the meaning of the word "magical" in this context.

You can't create a sense of wonder with something pinned to a page like a butterfly impaled by a needle.

Personally I'm ok with that, because 1. not every fantasy cares about magic being any more wondrous than a machine, 2. pc driven magic isn't the only possible sense of wonder in a game, and 3. usability trumps wondrousness.

If I were trying to create an RPG with a sense of wondrousness to its magic, I'd make sure that the magic I wanted to be wondrous was firmly in the hands of the DM and only the DM. Wondrousness doesn't happen once you know all the rules. I'd set up a Paranoia style game where knowing the rules is against the rules. Instead I'd give the players concepts (like affects like, other fake laws of magic, etc), and let them make up whatever they could.

As for differences between 4e and previous editions, and the differences between power sources in 4e, Henry pretty much covered it. The idea that martial abilities do the same thing as magical abilities is much overblown.

ExploderWizard · Apr 27, 2009

fanboy2000 said:
Well, I don't about Scribble, but for me it's mostly how the power is described.

For example, a fighter may have Sure Strike. It allows a fighter to increase his or her chance to hit while denying his or her ability score bonus to damage. This is explained as a fighter taking extra care to aim without putting the speed and force normal expended to make an attack.

This isn't remotely magical. I'm talking more about abilities like come and get it or powers that move others about without a physical shove. A compulsion that forces enemies to rush toward you is magical/supernatural. These abilities work regardless of language, or the presence of a mind so no mundane explanation fits.

fanboy2000 said:
A wizard may have Magic Missile. This a magically created bolt of force, not a crossbow bolt made from wood. Identical mechanics could be given to both, but the flavor makes the difference. I've been known to describe Magic Missile and similer spells as temporaly maifesting a magicical bow or crossbow, actually.

These effects could have similar or identical effects, but for the mundane one to work there must actually be a physical bow and projectile. If a mundane character suddenly summoned such a missile weapon into his hands then shot it like a normal one it wouldn't be any less magical, just a difference in the nature/type of magic.

Aside: I was describing a Durger Thurge's use of Firebolt like that in my game on Saturday. I prefaced it with the question "you guys remember the D&D cartoon?" At that point have the group asked "there was a D&D cartoon?" And the rest of us just shook our heads and said "yes." I then continued to run the encounter, but feeling a little bit older.[/quote]

:lol:

I understand completely. Real magic = abracadavy United States Navy!!

nightwyrm · Apr 27, 2009

D&D magic is just a matter of "graphics" or imagery. If the wizard shoots lightning and blows the orc back 20 feet that's magic. If the fighter kicks the orc back 20 feet, that's non magic.

I subscribe to the idea that magic is just another way or tool for the player/PC to interact with or cause an effect in the game world. I don't see a fundamental difference between "mundane" and "magical" in a game world. Mundane is just the name we give to things that we're familiar with in the real world.

The players find stuff in a game world to be magical because they don't have experience with it in the real world. For the wizard character who casts spells reliably everyday of his life, magic is as much a tool to him as PCR gel-electrophoresis is to a real life geneticist.

Of course, I came from an asian background heavily influenced by tropes where natural and supernatural aren't divided by a sharp line and where the protagonist can accomplish any feat if he trains hard enough.

Kask · Apr 27, 2009

ExploderWizard said:
This isn't remotely magical. I'm talking more about abilities like come and get it or powers that move others about without a physical shove. A compulsion that forces enemies to rush toward you is magical/supernatural. These abilities work regardless of language, or the presence of a mind so no mundane explanation fits.

Correct. In prior edition core rules this could only be accomplished with "magic". 4.0 has simply redefined the word. So, in 4.0, all characters have magic abilities, if viewed from prior editions.

How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition

ExploderWizard

Hero

Henry

Autoexreginated

Kask

First Post

Kask

First Post

Mallus

Legend

fanboy2000

Adventurer

Cadfan

First Post

ExploderWizard

Hero

nightwyrm

First Post

Kask

First Post

Similar Threads