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

[LostSoul]

Yes, all high-level human(oid) characters (PC or NPC) in AD&D have explicitly, "by the book", a magical component. How you manage to miss the first word in "magical beast" -- much less to consider it any more than stating what ought to be obvious in the case of a hippogriff -- is beyond me.

What happens when you cast Dispel Magic on them?

 

[Hussar]

Yes, all high-level human(oid) characters (PC or NPC) in AD&D have explicitly, "by the book", a magical component. How you manage to miss the first word in "magical beast" -- much less to consider it any more than stating what ought to be obvious in the case of a hippogriff -- is beyond me.

The difference is in the details. As musketeers were already equipped with guns, why should it matter if we depict them with machine-guns?

Game jargon is not the issue. We all recognize that in the limited game-mechanical precincts of the 4E rules set, martial powers are not "magic per se" -- just as some violations of law may not be "crimes per se".

When you take that rather eccentric usage as negating the more conventional meaning of the term, you raise a problem.

But, Magical Beast only applies to one single edition, 3.5. Pre 3.5, hippogriffs were either Beasts, or nothing.

And, remember, again, if something is magical, then it has very specific rules regarding it. If I smack a hippogriff with a Disjunction, does it fall out of the air? Can it fly in an anti-magic shell? By the rules, it certainly can.

And, in 1e D&D, what explicit magical component did a Fighter have at any level?

And they can, because that's suspension of disbelief for you. Rationally it may not make sense, but in terms of believability, a hippogriff flying is more plausible than a 4E class's "I Can't Believe It's Not Magic".

For you maybe. But, that's hardly universal. It's pretty apparent from this thread alone that people find the 4e classes to be perfectly plausible.

No, it's not fair, but the effect is cumulative (i.e. one hippogriff versus an entire system of handwaved implausible powers for "mundane" classes). I remember predicting this problem of making the mundane compete plausibly with magic, and how hard it would be to design without implausibility.

You also overlook the screentime of a single monster versus continually used powers of a PC class, and how much that matters.

I don't overlook it, I just don't care. I think you overestimate how much players actually give a toss about this sort of thing. The overwhelmingly vast majority of players couldn't give two figs about this sort of thing. And it's not simply "one hippogriff". It's EVERY SINGLE MONSTER. Giants that ignore the square cube law. Giant insects that cannot possibly exist. Far too many predators for any ecosystem. Far too many beings with far too much intelligence to ever allow humans to be the dominant species. On and on and on.

Again, we've seen multiple examples in this thread alone which show that people have no problems believing that the exploits are not magical. It's no different than believing that any of the seven billion other impossibilities that make up the hobby.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What happens when you cast Dispel Magic on them?

Again, you are conflating a bear with to bear, the ell of a house with a carpenter's ell, the specialized jargon of D&D (dispel magic) with the commonly understood parlance of the word (magic).

Specialized jargon does not negate common parlance.

Because a term has more than one definition, it does not follow that an object cannot be discussed in terms of both definitions.......barring ignorance of the multiplicity of meanings, or willful ignorance of the same.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

What happens when you cast Dispel Magic on them?

Nothing -- just as no injury (necessarily) happens to them when they are "hit" for "damage".

It is the conflation of game-mechanical with common usage that poses a hurdle here. I'm not sure what it might mean if there is (as I suspect) a "generation gap" in this fundamental understanding.

 

[LostSoul]

Again, you are conflating a bear with to bear, the ell of a house with a carpenter's ell, the specialized jargon of D&D (dispel magic) with the commonly understood parlance of the word (magic).

Specialized jargon does not negate common parlance.

Because a term has more than one definition, it does not follow that an object cannot be discussed in terms of both definitions.......barring ignorance of the multiplicity of meanings, or willful ignorance of the same.

I'm tired so I just don't get it.

Isn't Dispel Magic the name of a spell in the gameworld?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm tired so I just don't get it.

Isn't Dispel Magic the name of a spell in the gameworld?

Sure is, but it is a spell name that uses specialized jargon, in the same way that specialized (professional) jargon has always been used. It restricts the word to specific meaning within the context of its use; it does not rewrite the definition in common parlance.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

I'm tired so I just don't get it.

Isn't Dispel Magic the name of a spell in the gameworld?

That's up to the GM. The inhabitants of Fantasyland might know it as "The Enervation of Enchantments" -- and, whatever it is called, it does not follow that it is a sovereign remedy to all spells. From the Celestial Spheres to the Earthly Plane, there may be Deeper Magic and stronger than any mortal legerdemain.

 

[LostSoul]

Sure is, but it is a spell name that uses specialized jargon, in the same way that specialized (professional) jargon has always been used. It restricts the word to specific meaning within the context of its use; it does not rewrite the definition in common parlance.

Yeah, okay, I think I get it now.

 

[BryonD]

I walked up to a random person and asked "If I could split an arrow down the shaft with another arrow, consistently and on demand, would that be magic?" The answer was Yes. EDIT: After some sort of con or trickery was eliminated.

I walked up to another random person and asked "Could Robin Hood split an arrow down the shaft with another arrow, consistently and on demand?" The answer was "I thought that was supposed to be a once-in-a-lifetime shot" or words to that effect.

What did I prove?


RC

Nothing. But I strongly question how truly random your selection was. It also shows you know a bit about push polling (at least subconciously), because you tilted the question away from the point.

Again: go to a truly random person and ask THIS QUESTION:
"Did Robin Hood use magic?"
or even
"Did Robin Hood use magic as part of his archery?"

The whole point of the question is: is the character popularly assumed to use magic. Your case is that he did use magic, and yet both of your versions of the question left some critical part of that scenario out. (The first question left out the larger than life and popularly recognized character and the second completely avoided magic).

Regardless, in my opinion, you have marginalized the meaning of magic to the detriment of the experience. But if it works for you, then great.

Being good enough at climbing a stone wall is not magic.
Being even better at climbing is not magic.
Being a vast amount better at climbing is not magic.
Being so astoundingly good that you can cling to the underside of glass is not magic. It is larger than life. But if you demand that the rogue hanging there must be using magic in some way, shape, or form, then you are screwing the character out of part of what makes it.

So be it.

 

[BryonD]

IMO there is a very important difference between the swordplay skill of an 8th level fighter with a normal sword and an otherwise identical 5th level fighter with a +3 sword.


Magic can replicate any normal or larger than life ability. That is cool.
A lot of larger than life things can be done without magic (in a high fantasy RPG). That is cool.

Scratching a line through the second item is scratching some degree of cool out of the game.