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

[ExploderWizard]

Game balance in early editions was achieved throughout the entire game and not just on the battle mat. Maintaining such a balance was more work for a DM but the tradeoff for a more satisfying game in which the character's differences were more meaningful was worth it.

4E (and 3E to an extent) went with the concept of micromanaged auto-balance that requires less DM effort to maintain. There are gamist benefits to this style of balance but at the price of heavy-handed adjustments to flavor.

 

[Ariosto]

Out-of-battle versatility was where even low-level magic-users could really shine. Their combat effectiveness even at high levels was of a notably different nature than the fighter's "mow 'em down till sundown" ability.

Their fragility meant that they were extremely vulnerable without the protection of tougher types until attaining fairly high levels. A mere duo of fighters, operating with appropriate caution and stealth, might well pull off a successful venture where a pair of mages alone dared not tread.

Note that their armament (pre-UA) was limited to dagger, dart and staff (plus poison and lit oil). Unearthed Arcana significantly added the sling to their repertoire, but I don't think crossbows came in until 3E.

Making them more capable combatants infringes on the fighter's "niche", and their other abilities then become salt in that wound. I'm not sure whether that's worse when combat is merely a means often of last resort, or when it is made an end in itself.

In any case, 4E puts the emphasis clearly on balancing the combat game. The concept of a class that is (even if only at low levels) not well suited to engaging in the clash of arms has been set aside.

"If it's a fair fight, then Plan A has failed" used to be the maxim especially of thieves ... and magic-users!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Isn't the reverse then true? You can accept that the meaning of magic in "common parlance" has no effect on game rules, and therefore classes having access to abilities that might (in common parlance) be described as magic, larger then life, super awesome, etc- is no different then it ever was? (As the game has always allowed for abilities and powers not in the "magic" system that could still be considered "magic.")

Scribble,

I can accept that the meaning of magic in common parlance has no effect on game rules, obviously, because I have already said as much.

It is, indeed, true, that within the construct of the game world, some of these "magical in the common parlance meaning" powers might be thought of as mundane. I.e., the line within the game world as to what is, and what is not, magic (as used in common parlance) has become extremely blurry.

Thus my thesis: Everything is magic, and everyone uses magic.


RC

 

[Scribble]

Scribble,

I can accept that the meaning of magic in common parlance has no effect on game rules, obviously, because I have already said as much.

It is, indeed, true, that within the construct of the game world, some of these "magical in the common parlance meaning" powers might be thought of as mundane. I.e., the line within the game world as to what is, and what is not, magic (as used in common parlance) has become extremely blurry.

Thus my thesis: Everything is magic, and everyone uses magic.


RC

Well... if that's how you feel, that's how you feel. I just don't get the point, because D&D has always separated it's elements this way- to allow for a more larger then life (as others have said) play experience. It's a part of D&D that I think helps make D&D what it is.

As a wise man named Dave once said-

"Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was..."

 

[Raven Crowking]

I just don't get the point

That much we agree on.



That it is the "same as it ever was", however, we disagree on. Perhaps your gradients used to measure difference are simply far coarser than my own. I.e., as though it is within the same kilometer for you, therefore my measurement in meters simply doesn't matter.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Raven, I see that difference in gauges -- but I think it depends somewhat on whose ox is getting gored.

A week (or longer, at high levels) to recover full hit points, or six hours? Neither is terribly realistic, and naturally one is likely to be a "lumper" if one prefers the latter and healing surges.

Both the "same as it ever was" and "now for something completely different" positions matter to us because the question of what D&D is matters to us. Take away the title of the work, let it not be offered as a proper replacement for what was formerly known as D&D, and that resonance would be absent.

I think it matters so because we respond to the game as to a significant work of art. Whatever its status in a wider context, it is within our subculture something important. Partisans of the old take it as a touchstone; those favoring the new want to keep the cachet of the name.

The conflict is analogous to that between those who consider Howard's the one true Conan and those who think De Camp's not merely as legitimate but an improvement.

 

[Scribble]

That it is the "same as it ever was", however, we disagree on. Perhaps your gradients used to measure difference are simply far coarser than my own. I.e., as though it is within the same kilometer for you, therefore my measurement in meters simply doesn't matter.

Use whatever sized stick you want the end result doesn't change- it isn't a new thing, as it's been with the game since the beginning.

Some powers in D&D are better then they could be in real life. These powers aren't considered magic by the game. They may or may not be considered "magic" by players of the game based on common perception of what "magic" is outside of the game. (Combined with the level of knowledge players have about physics and such.)

The "implied setting" is the same as it ever was. "Larger then life."

 

[Raven Crowking]

Use whatever sized stick you want the end result doesn't change- it isn't a new thing, as it's been with the game since the beginning.

This is true only insofar as automobiles haven't changed from the Model T Ford to the most recent Corvette. They still have wheels (most often four) and an engine, so they are exactly the same thing.

The "implied setting" is the same as it ever was. "Larger then life."

The implied speed of automobiles hasn't changed from the Model T to the Corvette, either. "Faster than walking."




RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Another way of looking at it is that I could write a pastiche of Robert E. Howard, making Conan roughly the size of Paul Bunyan, breathing spurts of flame through his nostrils, and fighting robot assassins sent from the future, and then claim that my pastiche is essentially the same as REH's work (because they are both "larger than life"), but it would not make it so.


RC

 

[RefinedBean]

Another way of looking at it is that I could write a pastiche of Robert E. Howard, making Conan roughly the size of Paul Bunyan, breathing spurts of flame through his nostrils, and fighting robot assassins sent from the future, and then claim that my pastiche is essentially the same as REH's work (because they are both "larger than life"), but it would not make it so.

I liked your car analogy better.

Earlier editions are the Model T. 4 wheels. Engine. Probably some kind of windshield.

4th edition is a corvette. 4 wheels. Engine. Probably some kind of windshield.

Everything else that's different is just window dressing. Fundamentally, they're the same thing: a car.

So to is it with "magic" in D&D, regardless of edition. Magic is spells, prayers, and whatever else people think should be labeled magical instead of "fantastical." It's whatever the book says it is, really.

That's not to say people don't modify their corvettes, or even their Model T's.