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

[AllisterH]

I'd rather they designed the martial powers with an "opt-out" clause, letting the DM allow NPCs to resist these kinds of effects if he deems that they would. If they resist, something bad happens to them. Stunned until the end of their next turn, for example, or psychic damage that causes them to cower in abject fear if reduced to 0 HP.

No, this is VERY bad game design and you can see an example of this with the TRIP/DISARM feats/manoeuvers in 3e.

What happens with these type of opt-out manoeuvers is that they either become super-efficient and that they get spammed OR that they are super worthless and thus they see use in a blue moon.

If you design martial powers on the "only can be totally realistic method" you end up with the 3e system where you have characters that constantly spam TRIP or the option never gets taken (See Improved Disarm) since the requirements for its success are too onerous...

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think this is the big issue.

Would you let a PC, using mundane means only, dictate the actions of an NPC with the successful resolution of the PC's action?


I'd rather they designed the martial powers with an "opt-out" clause, letting the DM allow NPCs to resist these kinds of effects if he deems that they would. If they resist, something bad happens to them. Stunned until the end of their next turn, for example, or psychic damage that causes them to cower in abject fear if reduced to 0 HP.

(I don't think there are any mindless creatures in 4E. I'm glad for that, mindless creatures who take actions on their own don't make any sense to me. They'd be better off as traps.)

Well said, LostSoul......but I would go even farther.

If it is a mundane power, then C&GI should be available to anyone to try at any time, and the "power" itself should effectively be a bonus.


RC

 

[Ydars]

What is interesting about this discussion is how some people have completely shifted the way they interpret the rules of D&D.

In the old days, rules were there to model reality. You can argue that they didn't do it very well, but the guiding principle was always to relate the RAW to real world physics and see if what came out was reasonable. If it didn't, the DM made a judgement about what actually would happen in any situation. Anything that broke the laws of physics was pretty much labelled "magic".

Now the RAW are king and we are re-modelling our descriptions of reality to fit with way the rules work. So things that are fantastic or crazy are not necessarily labelled as magic.

I guess I can understand both camps, but sympathize with people who don't really like this shift much.

 

[Mallus]

So, the ability changes the nature of its target?

Not exactly. It changes who gets to determine what target's nature is (from the DM to the person playing the fighter, at least temporarily, and only with regard to the question 'do I close?').

And, it is only usable by a select few?

Don't blame me, I didn't make 4e a class-based game. Also, remember that anyone can try to taunt/challenge opponents into closing with them. Use of CaGI just guarantees the result.

And, it is not magic?

Nope. But call it that if you like.

 

[fanboy2000]

I would not say that being damaged changes the nature of the target. It changes the condition of the target. These are two seperate things.

Adjacent is a condition. The NPC/Monster that moves to the PC in Come and Get It changed their condition. Previously the condition was "non-adjacent." Now the condition is "adjacent."

A spiked chain, BTW, is not usable only by a select few. AFAICT, anyone in 3.5 can pick up a spiked chain and make an attack roll.

Sure, anyone can make an attack roll, but most people won't be as effective as the fighter because most people will have a -4 to the attack roll. Similarly, anyone can shout out a group of NPC/Monsters, but they won't be as effective because the decision to "Come and Get It" is up to the DM and the default rules set, not the exception laid out by the power.

 

[fanboy2000]

Well said, LostSoul......but I would go even farther.

If it is a mundane power, then C&GI should be available to anyone to try at any time, and the "power" itself should effectively be a bonus.

Anyone can shout at their enemy's to induce them to come, it's just up to the DM, not the Player, to decide how or if they come.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What is interesting about this discussion is how some people have completely shifted the way they interpret the rules of D&D.

In the old days, rules were there to model reality. You can argue that they didn't do it very well, but the guiding principle was always to relate the RAW to real world physics and see if what came out was reasonable. If it didn't, the DM made a judgement about what actually would happen in any situation. Anything that broke the laws of physics was pretty much labelled "magic".

Now the RAW are king and we are re-modelling our descriptions of reality to fit with way the rules work. So things that are fantastic or crazy are not necessarily labelled as magic.

I guess I can understand both camps, but sympathize with people who don't really like this shift much.

Model reality? I am afraid there are way to many exceptions in D&D to allow me to agree to that.

Hit points don't model anything specific, they are an "abstraction" for whatever is going on when you swing a sword or fireball a target. You have to come up with the in-game description yourself.

1 Minute combat rounds? What's going on there? What does your attack roll stand for?

"Hide in Shadows" was a similar ability - did it model that only the Thief could sneak around? Or he could a special chance no one else could get?

Classes are similar concepts. Why can you never learn to cast a spell as a Fighter (before the invention of multiclassing). Why can't a Wizard just stop casting spells and become a Fighter?


Come and Get Its pull effect is just another "abstraction". The rules don't bother to describe what really happens, they just tell you the end result. Just like hit points don't tell you if your arm hurts, or if the god intervened to protect you, or you cleverly deflected a blow with your sword...

Well said, LostSoul......but I would go even farther.

If it is a mundane power, then C&GI should be available to anyone to try at any time, and the "power" itself should effectively be a bonus.

But couldn't this also apply to magic? Everyone can cast Fireball, but it's so hard you will probably only succeed with a power granting you an effective bonus?
I could just set the DC for C&G so high that you can never succeed without the bonus from the power. What does this change in actual play?

Of course, I say it's the same outcome. If adding an aspect of your model doesn't add anything to the outcome, you can safely cut it out.

I think too much time is wasted on trying to think about "simulating" anything instead of caring about the actual game experience.

 

[fanboy2000]

Snip...

Good stuff.

I think too much time is wasted on trying to think about "simulating" anything instead of caring about the actual game experience.

Oh, come on. Sometimes, in my games, I "simulate" a game of Paranoia. By accident, of course.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I'm with Mustrum here, the rules don't model anything in the actual gameworld they are just abstractions to facilitate ease of use with interacting between the player and DM.

This is why I am such a big supporter of narrative and refluffing, etc. Since that is what is "in-game", the mechanics are just as I said above a way to facilitate the interaction.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Oh bugger. There was another thing, about CaGi: level and at will / encounter / daily. . .? I'm going to guess (or hazily remember, perhaps?) encounter and somewhere in the heroic tier. Either way, if someone could clue me in there, it'd be appreciated.