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

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

No you don't. You need lots of these kinds of rules in place for the same reason that one child cannot have a slightly larger scoop of ice cream at the party. The multitude of rules exist to sell books after convincing the players that the game falls apart without them.

That's one (slightly cynical but very valid) way of looking at it. It's certainly part of the reason for a company to build rules this way: expandability. But I think it also has some positives. Learning a new set of mechanics when you play a new class is good for your brain (scientifically proven fact!) and adds to replayability (my opinion, YMMV).

A set of good rules shouldn't require the players the to think about the physics engine at all. If the game world and the game rules are created in a manner that compliment each other the issue doesn't even come up.

That's exactly what I was saying. That's part of the distinction between the player and the DM. The players should ideally just see the coliseum. The DM is the one who is constantly aware that the walls are press board and lions are CGI.

Maybe this is because I came from videogames first and then picked up D&D, but I think the 4e rules are fine this way. I do just about the same suspending of disbelief in 4e that I did in 3e. Maybe that's because I've played it even less. Maybe I haven't seen the seams yet. I'll acknowledge the possibility.

When you are playing a videogame, the mechanics are all under the hood and all you do is handle the steering wheel and watch the road.

Nonsense. I spent years as a main tank and raid leader in WoW. Only just recently took a break (hence finding myself gravitating back here again) I was constantly up to my elbows in a level of math far beyond anything I've ever done in D&D in order to optimize a character, since my moment-to-moment performance had a huge impact on the play experience of 10, 25, or 40 other people.

In a tabletop game the hood stays open and the engine has to be interacted with directly. Every sputter,stall, and cloud of black smoke is visible to the player. The more at odds the mechanics are with what is happening the uglier the engine is to look at.

Oh, god, no. I don't really think about the game in those terms at all. It's much more of a movie or a Wizard of OZ (man behind the curtain) metaphor for me. The players should see the pyrotechnic show and hear the roaring voice, not have access to the control panel.

Fudging die rolls and the use of other such DMing tactics is a separate issue from the quality of the rules design.

True. But my point was that the precise structure of the rules design and things like fudging die rolls should be over on the DM's side of the screen, because they are not a value add for the player. For the player, being immersed in that can have a very corrosive effect on their ability to believe the illusion of the game world, regardless of system.

Are my "storyteller" genes showing up a bit strongly?

Maybe I should be playing Paranoia.

Tell me about it. There is nothing as trite as the "narrative" unified principle used to explain every nonsensical rule and design concept. That gets old real fast.

Not sure why I'm on the receiving end of that particular snark. I can disagree quite comfortably with almost everyone who has posted so far, so don't assume I'm all over the narrativist idea. If there is a unifying principle in 4e, I'm of the opinion that it is a gamist one.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I think you're stretching to suggest that newbie players give up on D&D for game balance issues, it just doesn't seem credible when veteran players can't spot the gotchas until years after the fact (e.g. remember when 3E was perfect and couldn't be improved on?). They were easier to spot in 2E splat, but by the time you've read that you're well embedded in the D&Diverse.

You severely underestimate how important game balance is to other types of gamers (it's very much at the core of MMOs, for example). And you severely overestimate the complexity of the D&D rules. Go look at the math and reasoning in any reasonable analysis of WoW rogue dps. Those cats scare me, and I taught statistics for two semesters. A friend who contributes regularly to those discussions read the combat and classes sections of the 3e PHB once and e-mailed, "Who in their right mind would ever play a ranger or monk?" He then asked what the party would need more, a sorcerer or a druid.

In any case, balance was one of the reasons given when people got bored with it. None of the newbies spotted things like trip monkeys and rules cheese, but they noticed that the Rogue got really, really hosed by some of the most popular enemies and that the Druid was a better fighter than the Fighter, as two examples.

A couple of the WoW players started an extended riff on the differences in class balance between D&D and WoW that was actually quite funny. i.e. The WoW designers were probably all rogues in D&D and really just wanted to take out their frustrations on casters.

 

[rounser]

You severely underestimate how important game balance is to other types of gamers (it's very much at the core of MMOs, for example). And you severely overestimate the complexity of the D&D rules.

Oh I see, it's MMORPG players we're talking about in particular, now. With multiple degrees in game balance, and who read the entire ruleset of games they'll eventually decide they'll not bother to play. Gotcha. Must be millions of them out there, all immediately noticing the brokenness of scry/buff/teleport and find the path on the first skim read, and putting D&D back on the shelf.

 

[MichaelSomething]

WOTC 4E Character Optimization Board Threads/Posts: 4,334/79,360
WOTC 4E Character Development Board Threads/Posts: 867/16,522

WOTC D20 Character Optimization Board Threads/Posts: 4,721/137,326
WOTC D20 Character Development Board Threads/Posts: 222/3,195

Looks like people seem to be more intrested in pumping their character's power level then their backstory

If you look at the number of posts and threads on the WOTC boards and here, you'll notice that system rules talk takes up a good chunk of the space. I guess D&D was made more balanced because people were asking for it. I guess those voices were louder then the voices who wanted other stuff.

 

[Ariosto]

The "game balance" concept is certainly central to 4E, and in particular to the controversial rules for powers.

OD&D and AD&D were balanced in a different way than what is desired by whoever is driving design decisions at Wizards. One problem with 3E was that the old context got dumped, but attempts (such as they were) to "correct for" that were inadequate.

Basically, the degree to which it's become less of an actual game makes "game balance" nigh impossible without radically altering the relationships among classes. When level advancement is essentially reduced to an entitlement, it's pretty ruinous to make one class significantly more powerful than another of the same level.

Thus, the need to "nerf" spell-casting classes and "buff" the others that the designers of 4E recognized. The most expedient way to do that was by putting the abstract game and its maths ahead -- by leagues -- of any other concern. Slap on some mumbo-jumbo and colorful pictures, and Bob's your uncle: It's a bouncing baby "D&D" game.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

OD&D and AD&D were balanced in a different way than what is desired by whoever is driving design decisions at Wizards. One problem with 3E was that the old context got dumped, but attempts (such as they were) to "correct for" that were inadequate.

Basically, the degree to which it's become less of an actual game makes "game balance" nigh impossible without radically altering the relationships among classes. When level advancement is essentially reduced to an entitlement, it's pretty ruinous to make one class significantly more powerful than another of the same level.

Thus, the need to "nerf" spell-casting classes and "buff" the others that the designers of 4E recognized.

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean? I started with 3E, but I'd like to get a good idea what you're talking about here.

 

[Ariosto]

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean? I started with 3E, but I'd like to get a good idea what you're talking about here.

To the small degree it makes a difference, I'll be focusing here on first-edition Advanced D&D prior to Unearthed Arcana.

Basically, dead men earn no XP -- and at low levels, are unlikely to get resurrected. Magic-users tend to end up dead enough more often than fighters for the latter to get (and stay) well ahead in levels.

Moving from the original edition (plus supplements) to AD&D, everyone got a boost to average hit points except the magic-user (a.k.a. "wizard" for later-edition players) still stuck with 1 to 4. There was no "maximum HP to start" rule, and it took a constitution of at least 15 to get a bonus. High intelligence was critical in terms of how many (and ultimately what levels of) spells one could learn.

With no armor, four (or five, if the DM was generous) pretty random spells in his grimoire, and the ability to cast but one of those a day, a 1st-level m-u was very vulnerable. He might also be quite powerful, if he was lucky enough to have (or acquire) such a spell as charm person or sleep, and magic missile was not only a sure shot but able to affect things untouchable without enchantment -- but dishing it out and taking it were different matters.

So, unless they were played with a great combination of skill and luck, low-level magic-users tended to have a notably higher mortality rate than fighters.

And it kept on being a challenge. Fighters, thieves (a.k.a. rogues) and even clerics (a.k.a. priests, in 2E) just had their capabilities handed to them upon attaining a new level. A magic-user got the power to cast more spells ... if he could acquire more spells to cast.

Beyond one "freebie" per level, that meant purchase from other mages (who of course would charge all the market could bear if they were willing to part with their secrets at all), securing scrolls or books, or engaging in costly, uncertain and time consuming independent research. The latter recourse naturally meant fewer XP-garnering adventures.

After all that effort, woe betide the conjurer (or thaumaturgist, theurgist, etc.) deprived of his books! Making back-ups and securing them from mishap and thievery consumed more gold, and time even more precious.

Well rested and with books on hand, the master of the mystic arts could replenish his spells. That required a quarter hour per level of spell. For instance, a sorcerer (9th-level m-u) could memorize 4 of 1st, 3 each of 2nd and 3rd, 2 of 4th and 1 of 5th = (4+6+9+8+5)/4 hrs. = 8 hours of preparation. A 25th-level wizard would need 56.25 hours (not including necessary rest) to recover his full allotment -- a far cry from having it as a set of "daily" powers!

What to take? A tyro with sleep available is easily tempted to forget that there are other spells, but planning is key to the most effective preparation. Knowledge is indeed power, and an assault on a stronghold of any sort is best preceded by research and reconnaissance.

Then there were material components, only occasionally of notable cost to acquire or carry -- but without which the careless caster might find himself embarrassed.

It was most definitely not an "easy" class to play!

At every level, the greatest peril to a magic-user was posed by others of his profession. Of course, he was also the prime target for every monster with a modicum of intelligence and something nasty to send his way -- and the First Rule of Initiative was, or so it might seem, "Screw the magic-users."

After (probably) having a few candidates perish, and then taking time off from adventuring for the survivor to research spells, one might at last get a magic-user to the lofty status of (7th level) enchanter. Even without such delays, a player who likewise has suffered no setbacks and has earned a similar number of XP will have a 6th-level fighter with (on average) almost twice as many hit points.

The fighter probably has a magic weapon as well, and maybe enchanted armor. At the next level, he gets 3 melee attacks per 2 rounds versus creatures tougher than normal men. He already gets 6 per round versus lesser foes -- such as the bulk of the world's armies.

Just surviving to enchanter is quite an accomplishment, though. Given only average skill and luck, the fellow playing a fighter might well be a 9th-level Lord by then ... and commanding a company of men at arms.

(Upon becoming an 11th-level wizard, you can also establish a stronghold. However, followers will not come to you as to a fighter, and the revenue from your territory shall be less.)

Unless you were lucky enough to roll an 18, you'll eventually need either to raise your intelligence or stop learning higher-level spells -- or possibly any more at all, except via new research. That is possible via wishes and some other magical means, but not by any mundane method (including gaining levels).

One could make scrolls and potions upon attaining 7th level, and other magic items at 12th. This was no simple matter! Eye of basilisk or mind-flayer brain might be among the ingredients, for instance. The process could require weeks or months. Potions further required upkeep of an alchemical laboratory; a smudge could spoil a scroll, requiring even a virgin quill (of griffon plumage or whatever) for a fresh start; and the manufacture of other items was so debilitating as to require (e.g.) 30 days of complete rest after making a helm of telepathy.

Still ... woo-hoo!

Until some upstart thaumaturgist gets the jump on your enchanter with a 5-die lightning bolt, and you fail the save, and your m-u dies.

Of course, by then you've made arrangements to get raised from the dead. If you make your survival roll, that's down one point of constitution and one of your 9 (or whatever your initial score was) "lives". If the roll fails, or you've used the last of your chances at resurrection, then it's all over.

Eventually (around 15th level, I think) the fighter starts gaining levels faster in terms of needed XP.

 

[Ariosto]

I don't remember all the details of 3E (in which I played a barbarian), but I'm pretty sure it made life easier for magic-users/wizards in a lot of ways. And although it was not exactly a rule, I saw a tendency to make sure that "The Party" was all pretty nearly the same level.

(In AD&D, "an adventure for characters levels 9-14" means that the party members might reasonably encompass that range at one time. As I understand it, that note on a 3E module means that the party should start at the low end, and reach the high end by the adventure's conclusion.)

In 4E, "leveling up" is so nearly an entitlement, a reward for merely marking time, that the DMG goes so far as to suggest that even players who don't show up to play could get it "on schedule". (DMG, p. 121) It notes that "there's nothing wrong with" characters getting XP only for encounters in which they participate. On the other hand, it is claimed that: The game works better in a lot of ways if you just assume that the characters all gain experience and advance levels at the same rate, even if their players miss a session.

In AD&D, one had to score points by accomplishment -- and defeating monsters was at best icing on the cake. The cake, the goal, the home run, the perhaps literal gold ring ... was securing treasure.

Success required not "skill ratings" on a character sheet but actual skill on the part of players, not least of which was knowing how and when to minimize reliance on the luck of the dice.

There was a balance of risk and reward, great defeat or great glory for those who dared great undertakings. A first-level character joining an expedition of 4th-level heroes (actual level title for fighters) was very likely to get killed -- but survival would probably mean gaining 2nd level in a single session. (And if he's able to keep up, then by the time he's 4th, they'll at most be 5th.)

In that context, choosing to play a magic-user was to choose a strategy of high risk commensurate with the potential great reward down the line. It called for a more demanding skill set than playing a fighter or cleric.

The cleric might have an edge over the fighter in the early game, but in the "late game" of high levels and military-political strategy that tended to reverse. The cleric got a leg up in establishing a stronghold, but even the magic-user pulled ahead in hit points. Thieves were always fairly weak in straight-up combat, but gained levels rapidly (despite some drag in training costs) and were rather "jacks of all trades" even if masters of none but their own stealthy craft.

Non-humans started with advantages, but their chief one -- multiclassing -- slowed advancement (which was capped in classes other than thief, or assassin for half-orcs, and for half-elves druid). In the long run, humans outshone them. The limitations, however -- especially on halflings -- were ultimately matters less of game balance per se than of humanocentrism. That rationale was made quite clear in the DMG.

Paladins and rangers advancing to high enough levels acquired some spell-casting along with other powers. Besides the rarity of ability scores required, strict rules of conduct limited their frequency. Monks were both rare and -- like magic-users -- a challenge to get through lower levels to the ones in which they really stood out as powerful.

 

[LostSoul]

When did the Armor spell come into play?

 

[Ariosto]

I'm not sure, but the armor spell was probably introduced first in an issue of Dragon magazine (as I don't recall it from Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth). It was among the spells in Unearthed Arcana (1985).

The terrific flaming sphere was another I missed by neglecting UA; it did not come to my attention until 3E!