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

[Wulf Ratbane]

Thanks Wulf.

(On an unrelated note, when's Trailblazer coming out?)

I wouldn't say that's unrelated.

Around (before) GenCon.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

Like a Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive check?

Or a Hide/Move Silently check?

The whole idea of a mundane power that is usable once per day is questionable (at best).

Like barbarian rage?

I'm torn, because I completely empathize with the "4e is too magic" crowd. I get it. I feel it too.

But some of these supporting arguments are weak-sauce.

 

[Sadrik]

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?

Highlighting wonkiness from early editions does not explain wonkiness in the current edition.

 

[billd91]

Why was it not a problem when barbarians did it?

The barbarian rage came with an explanation why it was usable a limited number of times per day and included a condition to drive that home. Simply put, it was tiring. Makes perfect sense why a night's sleep would recharge the power.

The martial dailies? Not quite so clear. Nor does it really help to put in terms of taking narrative control, if you ask me, particularly when the effects of dailies are so varied, yet you have to have a fixed daily in each slot. If it's really about narrative control, why does my PC take narrative control to the same few effects, day in day out? Shouldn't they fit the circumstances better if the dailies are really about narrative control? Or, if I am limited to a few powerful, signature moves, why can't I use them more often? Why is it so hard to get the conditions right that I can only perform them once a day?

Better thematic relationship and structures relating dailies to extra-powerful versions of encounter powers, I think, would help in this regard.

 

[fanboy2000]

"All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is so far from the implied reality of pre-4e D&D that some of those playing 4e D&D seem to have a very hard time accepting that this is the implied reality 4e is using.

Let me make sure I under stand this. You are saying that the implied reality of 4e D&D is that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all." You are also saying that people who disagree with you, like me, do so because previous editions did not have that implied setting. It is an interesting statement.

Unfortunately it ignores an import point: the influence of fiction on D&D.

In fiction characters like Batman who are explicitly stated as having no superpowers, supernatural abilities, magical powers, or paranormal qualities do things which are blatantly impossible.

D&D has always been influenced by fiction. Fafhrd, Elric, and Conan to name a few obvious ones.

That influence continued into the 3.x era. Of course, the influence didn't stop at the fiction enjoyed by Gygax and Arneson. D&D continued to be influenced by fiction that didn't exist at the time of the White Box. This should not be underestimated. During the 3.x era Dragon had an article about running a game like a TV show. Polyhedron published many mini-games explicitly influenced by fiction both old and new. In facts, the first incarnation of d20 Modern published for public consumption, Shadow Chasers, listed the TV shows Special Unit 2 and Buffy the Vampire Slayer as direct influences.

 

[Scribble]

The barbarian rage came with an explanation why it was usable a limited number of times per day and included a condition to drive that home. Simply put, it was tiring. Makes perfect sense why a night's sleep would recharge the power.

Again if that's what someone needs, that's on them. It doesn't bother me in the least as to what the game designer's explaination for it was. I don't even care if he has one. If I like the element in question, then I'm going to have an explaination for it. (I guess it's just how my brain works.)

If the game designer puts his explaination, in a way I feel like it's locking me into a certain play stye. I much prefer coming up with my own reasons for things.

The martial dailies? Not quite so clear. Nor does it really help to put in terms of taking narrative control, if you ask me, particularly when the effects of dailies are so varied, yet you have to have a fixed daily in each slot. If it's really about narrative control, why does my PC take narrative control to the same few effects, day in day out? Shouldn't they fit the circumstances better if the dailies are really about narrative control? Or, if I am limited to a few powerful, signature moves, why can't I use them more often? Why is it so hard to get the conditions right that I can only perform them once a day?

Better thematic relationship and structures relating dailies to extra-powerful versions of encounter powers, I think, would help in this regard.

Shrug, there are countless explainations I can come up with but as to narrative control, I somewhat agree- but I don't fault the rules for it.

I don't see it as being harmfull to the system if players could swap out their various powers every morning, or even if they swap out their encounters between fights and what not.

it's just a lot more work at that point to create a character, so it doesn't need to be the defualt.

I think it just works better if you go with the predefined slots, and then add on with the rules from page 42.

In the future though I'm thinking about running a campaign where there are no predefined powers, just page 42. I'l probably keep the slots, but just for purposes of power level of the attack in question.

 

[billd91]

In the future though I'm thinking about running a campaign where there are no predefined powers, just page 42. I'l probably keep the slots, but just for purposes of power level of the attack in question.

I think even I'd find that more agreeable than the mishmash of exploits/spells that 4e is right now.

 

[fanboy2000]

I'm torn, because I completely empathize with the "4e is too magic" crowd. I get it. I feel it too.

I don't know about you, but for me it's the power system. I don't think 4e is "too magic" but I do feel like the power system lends itself to that. I also think the power system is almost too unwieldy.

But I've ran a 4e game for several months now (my second one, but my first since I moved to San Diego) and I really like it. I think my personal unease comes from the fact that this is the first edition of D&D to really embrace an exception based rules system. D&D has always had a kind of exception based structure, but a lot of it was hidden under special rules that supposedly worked for anyone, but in reality only worked under very special (i.e. exceptional) circumstances. The rules for etherealness in 3.x come to mind.

The advantage of the exception base rules is that it allows classes to have separate and distinct abilities using a common rules system. This is in contrast having several separate subsystems that supposedly anyone can access but again, in reality, PCs specialized in one rule subsystem sometimes to the exclusion of others.

The disadvantage is that each class has it's own separate powers or list of exceptions. Each class re-invents the wheel with it's own at-wills and such, thus leading to unweildness. (Is that a word?)

The advantage of have one set of rules with several sub-systems is that new flavors of classes can be created simply by changes how they access the subsystem. Also, a smaller number of exceptions is built into each class.

The disadvantage of several sub-systems is that often one class access that subsystem very well and the other either don't access it at all or do so poorly. In an exception based rules system, there simply needs to be a way for a class access that particular exception or exceptions to combine concepts and ideas.

Just my thoughts, I've kept the only six 3.5 I'll ever need for any such occasion where a person may wish play that game with me.

 

[Scribble]

I think even I'd find that more agreeable than the mishmash of exploits/spells that 4e is right now.

Shrug, maybe.

I like the powers, because:

1. I've never been one (as mentioned before) to feel like the game needs to tell me how to interpret how an effect happens. (Only what happens after it happens.)

2. They make stuff happen on the battlefield that otherwise might not.

3. It's less for me the DM to have to rule on.

But I don't let them be a straight jacket for me; they're open to modification by myself and my players.

They're kind of like instant suggestions of fun stuff to do. They inspire me to be more descriptive about the events happening, as opposed to falling back on simply "you hit him with a powerful slash of your sword."

I've found myself describing scenes that are more like action scenes in books/moves because of things like slides and pushes. Like the other night one of my players was knocked prone, and used a power that let her attack, and shift a few squares. I found myself describing it like the typical action scene moment where the hero gets knocked down, then takes a swipe and pushes off the wall/enemy sliding along the ground to safety.

It just resonates with me I guess for descriptive purposes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Your trying to use circular logic here that is incorrect.

It's not magic (unless you want it to be) so your statment is incorrect.

Oh. Well. Now I'm convinced. Why didn't you say so before?



Obviously, if we re-define the meaning of the term "magic" it will change whether or not something is "magical".