Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hexmage-EN" data-source="post: 4763689" data-attributes="member: 79428"><p>Fourth Edition had gotten rid of almost all the problems that had been plaguing me during Third Edition. However, there was one new problem that marred my enjoyment of the new game and still bugs me to this day: the removal of utility magic. I had been hoping that Arcane Power would introduce elements that would relieve my discontentment, but after taking some time to look through it in the store tody I found that it did no such thing. </p><p></p><p>In Third Edition martial characters had a few options: Attack, Full Attack, Charge and Bullrush, Disarm, Trip, Sunder, and a few class features (Rage for the Barbarian, Sneak Attack for the Rogue, etc.). By contrast spellcasters, especially arcane spellcasters, got a few spells at first level with different types of applications. Spellcasters were the "glass cannons" that the martial characters protected at low levels. By the time the party reached high levels the martial characters were merely tag-alongs that followed the unstoppable god-kings that were the spellcasters. Not only did the spellcasters' offensive capabilities render the martial characters nearly useless in combat, but various other spells could render the out-of-combat specialties of non-spellcasters useless. There were various other problems as well, such as the amount of time it would take to resolve the effects of spells.</p><p></p><p>Come Fourth Edition every class received a similar number of powers. Martial characters finally have more to do during combat and are on even-footing with spellcasters, and that's fanastic. However, I can't help but feel disappointed somewhat. Sure, Third Edition spellcasters were far too powerful compared to their companions in the party, but with Fourth Edition I feel like the designers have gone a smidgen too far in the opposite direction. I feel like their capability in combat is where it should be, but I can't help but miss the types of spells that could be used in creative, novel ways. </p><p></p><p>I think a big part of the problem I've having stems from the fact that Third Edition suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder. Dungeons and Dragons to me is about teams of fantasy-archetype characters doing battle with the forces of evil. Despite this the game has included types of spells that can be used for applications other than combat. The reason for this is because the game was also meant to be a simulation of fantasy media. In my opinion this may have been an error in terms of game balance: It's strange when a game of team-based combat has certain party members whose capabilities are far greater than his peers. However, it's consistent with fantasy media for spellcasters to have such great power. After all, whom is more impressive: A dark champion of great martial prowess who can defeat thousands of oncoming soldiers by himself, or an archwizard who can stand on top of the tower he had built in a day by bound elementals and cause an entire army to turn to stone with a wish? Which one of these two is more likely to be the villain of a campaign and which is more likely to be his subordinate?</p><p></p><p>Fourth Edition finally decided to break tradition and focused on the game's core concept: teams of fantasy-archetypes killing monsters and looting treasure. The designers essentially shucked off many of the simulationist elements of Dungeons and Dragons (especially non-combat spells) in order to make a more gamist system. I don't think this is a negative thing: it makes sense that a game, especially one centering on combat, would be designed with a gamist philosophy.</p><p></p><p>Where does that leave me, though? I miss the unique and creative non-combat spells, but at the same time I recognize that they caused more harm than good to the game as a whole. I'm not sure what I could do to satisfy my craving for more magic, but then again maybe I'm putting too much importance on versatile magic in the first place.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hexmage-EN, post: 4763689, member: 79428"] Fourth Edition had gotten rid of almost all the problems that had been plaguing me during Third Edition. However, there was one new problem that marred my enjoyment of the new game and still bugs me to this day: the removal of utility magic. I had been hoping that Arcane Power would introduce elements that would relieve my discontentment, but after taking some time to look through it in the store tody I found that it did no such thing. In Third Edition martial characters had a few options: Attack, Full Attack, Charge and Bullrush, Disarm, Trip, Sunder, and a few class features (Rage for the Barbarian, Sneak Attack for the Rogue, etc.). By contrast spellcasters, especially arcane spellcasters, got a few spells at first level with different types of applications. Spellcasters were the "glass cannons" that the martial characters protected at low levels. By the time the party reached high levels the martial characters were merely tag-alongs that followed the unstoppable god-kings that were the spellcasters. Not only did the spellcasters' offensive capabilities render the martial characters nearly useless in combat, but various other spells could render the out-of-combat specialties of non-spellcasters useless. There were various other problems as well, such as the amount of time it would take to resolve the effects of spells. Come Fourth Edition every class received a similar number of powers. Martial characters finally have more to do during combat and are on even-footing with spellcasters, and that's fanastic. However, I can't help but feel disappointed somewhat. Sure, Third Edition spellcasters were far too powerful compared to their companions in the party, but with Fourth Edition I feel like the designers have gone a smidgen too far in the opposite direction. I feel like their capability in combat is where it should be, but I can't help but miss the types of spells that could be used in creative, novel ways. I think a big part of the problem I've having stems from the fact that Third Edition suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder. Dungeons and Dragons to me is about teams of fantasy-archetype characters doing battle with the forces of evil. Despite this the game has included types of spells that can be used for applications other than combat. The reason for this is because the game was also meant to be a simulation of fantasy media. In my opinion this may have been an error in terms of game balance: It's strange when a game of team-based combat has certain party members whose capabilities are far greater than his peers. However, it's consistent with fantasy media for spellcasters to have such great power. After all, whom is more impressive: A dark champion of great martial prowess who can defeat thousands of oncoming soldiers by himself, or an archwizard who can stand on top of the tower he had built in a day by bound elementals and cause an entire army to turn to stone with a wish? Which one of these two is more likely to be the villain of a campaign and which is more likely to be his subordinate? Fourth Edition finally decided to break tradition and focused on the game's core concept: teams of fantasy-archetypes killing monsters and looting treasure. The designers essentially shucked off many of the simulationist elements of Dungeons and Dragons (especially non-combat spells) in order to make a more gamist system. I don't think this is a negative thing: it makes sense that a game, especially one centering on combat, would be designed with a gamist philosophy. Where does that leave me, though? I miss the unique and creative non-combat spells, but at the same time I recognize that they caused more harm than good to the game as a whole. I'm not sure what I could do to satisfy my craving for more magic, but then again maybe I'm putting too much importance on versatile magic in the first place. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition
Top