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

[Bumbles]

Why would someone do that when the casting system was based on a different fantasy world, not Tolkien's?

Because they were trying to make some argument criticizing D&D, and hyper-focusing on the terminology used in order to invalidate D&D as an RPG, if I recall the discussion correctly. Which I may not, it has been quite a few years.

Why wouldn't they also say that is not how Yoda does it?

Well, at the time, Yoda wasn't very cool, it being before any movies but the original three came out. So I doubt he had any folks thinking he was all that awesome.

 

[Kask]

The 3rd edition fluff was a bit different than that, but It's offtopic for this thread, so I'm not going to go into it.

Then why did you bring it up?

 

[darjr]

It was deemed that only the fighter, because he didn't spend time on class abilities like spells, thieving skills, etc., had the time to build his strength to those high levels. In other words, fighters had time to physically work out where other classes spent time on their class skills...

Exactly. An otherwise magical result is not because the rules say so. Simple as that.

 

[Ariosto]

This post by Alex319, in the "How much do characters know about game mechanics?" thread, may be illuminating.

Darjr, I think you overstate the matter in the first place with the assertion that the rules somehow make the attainment magical by default.

Is it possible to become a world champion weight lifter while holding down a job as a computer programmer? Perhaps in theory, but I doubt that it has been accomplished. Common sense and life experience suggest at least that it is highly unlikely; such a physique requires dedicated effort to develop and maintain. So does the expertise of a top-notch programmer ... or that of a D&D cleric, magic user or thief.

That -- not magic! -- is the underlying rationale.

In strict realism, perhaps even the fighter should be too preoccupied with other matters and only NPCs whose sole occupation is weight lifting should possess such scores. However, this is a game inspired by a fictional genre in which warriors of legendary strength figure prominently.

Perhaps the most renowned of all had a career that might best be translated into game terms as "dual class" from thief to fighter. Such a worthy is even more extraordinary than a single-classed fighter with 18/xx strength, as reflected in the requirements for the attainment.

Does that suggest that an extraordinary non-fighter should also be able to develop such strength? Should one decide that it does, then one might also bear in mind that by the rules as written there is a cost associated in the dual-class (for humans) or multi-class (for fey folk) structure.

Offhand, I can think of no example from classic sword-and-sorcery fiction of a musclebound mage, and doubt very much that such a figure would not also be a puissant warrior -- but it is your prerogative as Dungeon Master to make such allowances!

One might also note the statement in the PHB that "strength is a measure of muscle, endurance and stamina combined." The implication is that a character might be more gifted in one of those aspects, and less in another, than the composite score suggests. Although employed so rarely as generally to be forgotten, that option is present for any DM who finds it worthwhile.

 

[darjr]

I don't think exceptional str is magical by default, and I don't think I've said so. Neither do I think that the fighters power exploits in 4e are.

I'm simply trying to apply what I think is the reasoning of some who have said that fighter exploits are all magic. Someone, and I think it was echoed, said that power exploits are magic because they recognize it as so in every other way except that the rules state that they are not.

My point, I guess, is I think it is a willful disregard for what the rules state, and yes, even common sense about fighter exploits and a similar disregard leads to the 'exceptional str' being a magical effect.

Please note, I'm not dogmatic about rules. And I do not have a fundamental problem with reflavoring of either AD&D exceptional strength or 4e powers.

 

[Ariosto]

It is rather the flagrant disregard of the rules for common sense -- at least from a role-playing perspective.

If one approaches it instead as a game of "narrative control", from a perspective at such a remove from any character role, then of course the matter may look quite different.

 

[fanboy2000]

I don't think exceptional str is magical by default, and I don't think I've said so. Neither do I think that the fighters power exploits in 4e are.

I'm simply trying to apply what I think is the reasoning of some who have said that fighter exploits are all magic. Someone, and I think it was echoed, said that power exploits are magic because they recognize it as so in every other way except that the rules state that they are not.

Actually, the claim is more like some of the fighter's powers are magic, and all classes have some powers that are magical in nature.

It is rather the flagrant disregard of the rules for common sense -- at least from a role-playing perspective.

If one approaches it instead as a game of "narrative control", from a perspective at such a remove from any character role, then of course the matter may look quite different.

You don't think a player exercising narrative control is a form of roleplaying?

 

[Hexmage-EN]

You don't think a player exercising narrative control is a form of roleplaying?

The point is that there are so few examples of this in the game that when it does come up it seems to be more of an excuse than a feature. If there were larger sections in the PHB and DMG with guidelines and mechanics for shared narrative control then I would be more inclined to accept this view. As it stands the "shared narrative control" argument seems more like an excuse.

I was looking in "Dungeons and Dragons 4E for Dummies" yesterday at the bookstore and saw a section dealing with suspension of disbelief. Basically, it said that the DM should make rulings that don't challenge their basic assumptions of the game world. The example presented was a scenario in which a player asks if he could cast Fly on himself and carry someone else across a pit.

IMO they should have used an example that involved using a Martial power to slow or knock prone an ooze, or to slide a Huge dragon and control how it moves, or to force someone to move wherever you want by glowering at them.

 

[darjr]

Actually, the claim is more like some of the fighter's powers are magic, and all classes have some powers that are magical in nature.

Yes, I should have said that some make the argument that some of the fighters powers are magic.

I thought there were some statements that the powers are just magic spells in disguise?

 

[fanboy2000]

The point is that there are so few examples of this in the game that when it does come up it seems to be more of an excuse than a feature. If there were larger sections in the PHB and DMG with guidelines and mechanics for shared narrative control then I would be more inclined to accept this view. As it stands the "shared narrative control" argument seems more like an excuse.

This certainly goes to the idea that all PC's have magic in 4e, and that because this is so different from previous editions of D&D some people have a hard time accepting it.

If I plug the narrative idea and put it into RC's phraseology I have:

"All players have narrative control and narrative control is available to all" is so far from the implied play style of pre-4e D&D that some people who don't play 4e have a hard time accepting that this is the implied play style 4e is using.​

Again, it's an interesting idea, but I still think it's a matter of personal taste.