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

[Imaro]

Yes you are. Not that there's anything wrong with it. If your explanation works better for you, by all means use it.


True, but the 'narrative control' thing works better for some powers. But, to each his one. Whatever way you find to translate the mechanics into satisfying narrative is cool.

You know what Mallus I would go so far as to ask why a distinction was made in the description of Martial Power if it's suppose to be narrative control? Why didn't they just state outright that exploits were not magic period... why phrase it as not traditional magic if there wasn't a distinction to be drawn... more and more it seems the book does actually support that some exploits are magical (though not in the sense of traditional magic) in nature.


EDIT: This also seems to vibe with the reasoning behind why melee and ranged basic attacks do not fall under any power source as opposed to martial.

 

[Ariosto]

If you're playing a comicbook character who knows she's a comicbook character, then her powers might include demanding re-writes, breaking through panel borders, manipulating speech balloons, and so on.

 

[Ariosto]

Hexmage, I think your summary is good except that I do not see more simulation in 4E.

 

[Imaro]

Would you mind taking a look at my last post an commenting on it? I was skeptical at first, but now I'm pretty sure that the designers did intend for Martial powers to be instances of player narrative control; not just the ones that strain credibility, but every single one that isn't At-Will.

I have no idea why the designers wouldn't state that this is the case, though.

Hexmage, As you can see from my previous post I disagree entirely that "narrative control" is what the designers intended for martial power. In fact I am more and more certain they intended some of the exploits to be magic just not in the same way as an arcane spell or divine prayer. Again Occam's razor... there is way more evidence that this was their intention as opposed to narrative control and it really is the simplest answer.

In fact I think the fact that many proponents of 4e have adopted and pushed the narrative control aspect (without a shred of evidence) as opposed to the non-traditional magic aspect has caused the designers to give pause and remain silent on the matter, since I honestly do not believe that was their intentions in the first place... Though perhaps now they are wishing it was.

 

[Mad Mac]

You know what Mallus I would go so far as to ask why a distinction was made in the description of Martial Power if it's suppose to be narrative control? Why didn't they just state outright that exploits were not magic period... why phrase it as not traditional magic if there wasn't a distinction to be drawn... more and more it seems the book does actually support that some exploits are magical (though not in the sense of traditional magic) in nature.

If you are going to quote from the PHB, you could at least quote all the relevant bits.

At Will Powers They represent easy weapon swings or simple magical effects that don't put any unusual strain on you or tax your resources in any other way.

Encounter Powers Encounter powers produce more powerful, more dramatic effects than at-will powers. If you are a martial character, they are exploits you've practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while.

Daily Powers Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your your physical and mental resources. If you're a martial character, you're reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit.

Both encounter and daily powers use the phrase "Pull Off" for martial characters.

Google definition for "Pull Off"

be successful; achieve a goal; "She succeeded in persuading us all"; "I managed to carry the box upstairs"; "She pulled it off, even though we never thought her capable of it"; "The pianist negociated the difficult runs"

This comes closer to implying a narrative control sort of explanation than it does anything else.

Also,

Why didn't they just state outright that exploits were not magic period...

This phrase "Martial Powers are not magic in the traditional sense" is immediately followed by " although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals"

The reason for the first half of the sentance is given in the 2nd. Martial Characters are not necessarily realistic or bound to what people in the real world can do. This is a far cry from saying they are "Magic"

For further explanation, see T.V. Tropes

Charles Atlas Superpower - Television Tropes & Idioms

Badass Normal - Television Tropes & Idioms

 

[BryonD]

You mean like self-deception?

If it makes you feel better to think so, I'll pretend along with you.
(Hey, irony)

 

[Mallus]

If it makes you feel better to think so, I'll pretend along with you.

No, no... people should stop pretending that D&D settings/campaigns make more sense than they do. That way lies the twin devils pretentiousness and preposterous-ness.

edit: not to mention cities overrun with billions of chickens...

 

[Mallus]

You know what Mallus I would go so far as to ask why a distinction was made in the description of Martial Power if it's suppose to be narrative control?

That's a good question. I don't know. My suspicion is that the decision was made that a explicit discussion of narrative control would have confused more people than it helped.

Things like the Power Sources are meant to be narrative guides. For instance, because my paladin's powers are classified as Divine, I describe him uttering short prayers as he swings, his weapon briefly flashing with numinous light, etc. My buddy playing the fighter describes his attacks differently; they're all badass attitude, coincidence, skill and luck, with no flashy SFX accompanying them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Let me see if I've got this straight:

Pre-3E: Rounds took up a minute of in-game time. The options selected by the players were assumed to have occurred within that timeframe in some way. Combat mechanics were geared towards abstraction.

Mostly. 1E AD&D featured the 1 minute round. Basic D&D used the 6 second combat round also.

 

[Imaro]

If you are going to quote from the PHB, you could at least quote all the relevant bits.

At Will Powers They represent easy weapon swings or simple magical effects that don't put any unusual strain on you or tax your resources in any other way.

Encounter Powers Encounter powers produce more powerful, more dramatic effects than at-will powers. If you are a martial character, they are exploits you've practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while.

Daily Powers Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your your physical and mental resources. If you're a martial character, you're reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit.

Both encounter and daily powers use the phrase "Pull Off" for martial characters.

Google definition for "Pull Off"

be successful; achieve a goal; "She succeeded in persuading us all"; "I managed to carry the box upstairs"; "She pulled it off, even though we never thought her capable of it"; "The pianist negociated the difficult runs"

This comes closer to implying a narrative control sort of explanation than it does anything else.

Uhm... this would be great evidence... if arcane spells, divine prayers, etc. didn't all work the same way. You can only pull off an encounter divine prayer... once per encounter. So how does this in anyway support the fact that they are not magical and based around narrative control...Nowhere in the descriptions do I see a reason why you can only pull off an exploit once per encounter or day. Again not seeing how this supports narrative control as opposed to non-traditional magic... what it is, is blatantly vague about reasons and thus we refer back to the definition of martial power...

unless you're arguing every spell, prayer, etc. is not magic (though the book states they are in the traditional sense) and instead are bits of narrative control since they all work, mechanically, on the same structure.

Or are you arguing a power can be both magical and narrative control... which then does nothing to offset the argument of some martial exploits as non-traditional magic. And while martial encounter powers are vague as toi the reasons one cna pull it off only once per an encounter...martial dailies do talk about drawing on energy as a reason they can only be performed a limited number of times...which along with the definition of martial power supports a mystical or magical definition.

Also,



This phrase "Martial Powers are not magic in the traditional sense" is immediately followed by " although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals"

The reason for the first half of the sentance is given in the 2nd. Martial Characters are not necessarily realistic or bound to what people in the real world can do. This is a far cry from saying they are "Magic"

For further explanation, see T.V. Tropes

Charles Atlas Superpower - Television Tropes & Idioms

Badass Normal - Television Tropes & Idioms

First, I don't understand your first two paragraphs... are you really argument they have t say it's "non-traditional" magic as opposed to "not magic period" because it allows things that are beyond the realm of normal people... but it is not in any way magical?? Is that really what you're arguing? Because if so, I ask again... why not just say it is not magic period, but allows the player of a fighter to gain narrative control for a few moments?? I'm not buying it.

Also, if you're going to use this argument... you've got to stick with the established (up to the point of 4e) tropes of D&D (not those of superheroes which is arguably a different genre with different tropes) in order to have a baseline? I mean tropes are based on a specific genre and since D&D is it's own genre the only way to claim an action is a valid trope of it is to examine it's tropes up until the element under scrutiny was introduced. That's why this really is a bad argument to try and use... in fact IMO, worse than narrative control, but anyway...

So tell me what edition of D&D allowed fighters to force numerous opponents to move adjacent to them and allow him to attack them with no chance to resist?... what edition did they get the ability to regenerate in? What edition was it that a Rogue was able to become invisible without the aid of magic? basically I'm asking when were these supposed tropes of D&D introduced over it's 30yrs+ lifespan.

I guess more importantly for you to push this argument, what I'm asking is what is the basis for the tropes of D&D and what criteria are you using to determine them... since as far as I know there is no official tropes of D&D list? Again why this is, IMO, a weak argument to try and prove or disprove.