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

Uhm, you realized you just ignoreed the mechanical differences and only took into consideration the similarities, right... basically exactly what I think RC said many are doing whenever one of the wierder martial powers is brought up and an explanation for how it works is asked for. Just as a quick specific... how is only being able to rage myself vs. allowing anyone to rage not a huge mechanical and flavor difference?

Exactly.

But no one said the hypothetical Barbarian Rage spell worked on everyone. You are adding context not mentioned. He didn't say the Rage spell.

Now, back to the original comment: Barbarian Rage spell on caster (personal). Is there now a flavor difference? What is that difference?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Exactly.

But no one said the hypothetical Barbarian Rage spell worked on everyone. You are adding context not mentioned. He didn't say the Rage spell.

Now, back to the original comment: Barbarian Rage spell on caster (personal). Is there now a flavor difference? What is that difference?

First, totally ignoring why a caster would ever do this willingly too himself, yeah there are still mechanical and flavor differences (since we were originally discussing mechanical differences.).

1. the number of times it can be used isn't a set number but is instead based on spell slots.

2. Dispell magic works on it now

3. Anti-magic prevents it now

4. The spell can be inscribed on a scroll and thus transferred to another individual.

5. Do I really need to keep going? Ok...

6. It can be counterspelled

7. You can stop it from taking effect by smaking the caster right before he casts the spell and him failing a concentration check

8. I think I'll stop now.
 

As for mechanics, I don't really have the energy to make a list of all the differences. Maybe someone else can help.

Sigh..that's a lot of work man. What the heck, I'll take a shot at it.

The thing with mechanical differences in 4th edition, is that 90% of class abilities are contained in the power lists for each class, to really understand what makes a class tick, you need to really look over the powers and notice the trends.

It's like comparing spell lists between classes in 3rd edition, and as such there is often exceptions--like how in 3rd edition Clerics generally excell at healing and buffing but still have a small range of blasty or save or die spells. Wizards are still the blasty class compared to Clerics because they generally have access to a much deeper and more versatile selection of blasty spells.

Anyhow, here we go.

Martial Martial is defined by classes who peform exploits through skill, training, and ability. What they do may be strictly impossible by human standards, but is not overtly supernatural. Martial classes rely heavily on the 3 physical stats, but may use one or more mental stats as a secondary.

Martial classes, whatever their primary role, tend towards striker as a secondary role. All the martial classes do good damage even compared to other classes in their role. Martial Classes use weapons exclusively in all their powers, they have no implement powers at all.

Martial Classes have access to a good range of status effects, and even some healing, but they never* (there is one exception) use any powers with elemental keywords, necrotic, radiant, psychic or force damage. They do not have teleport powers, and they do not create zones, summons or conjurations. They may have enhanced leaping, climbing, or shifting abilities, but cannot fly or grant flight to others. Some stealth based powers use the invisibility keyword, primarily for the Rogue.

Because all martial classes use weapons extensively, weapon choice is key for martial characters, and they are by far the most likely classes to invest in weapon specific feats to enhance their powers and fighting skills.

Martial Characters also have a large number of skill based powers, or abilities that require a minimum level of skill in order to use.

Martial Classes have by far the largest number of stance based powers. Stances are powers that provide effects that last the rest of the encounter unless the stance is cancelled, but cannot be stacked with other stances.

Overall, martial classes are much less flashy than the other power sources, and somewhat less versatile in the range of abilities they posess, but are often highly specialized in their role, and very dangerous to the enemy.



Arcane Arcane is the polar opposite of martial in many ways. While martial characters forgo flashiness for solid damage dealing, Arcane is easily the flashiest and most unpredictable power source.

Arcane characters can gain their power through diverse means, whether they gain their powers by study, dangerous pacts with sinister powers, or harnessing the power inherent to their blood, the arcane power source

Whatever their primary role, Arcane Classes lean towards controller as a secondary role. Compared to other classes in their role, arcane characters have large numbers of aoe attacks and negative status effects.

Arcane classes have probably the largest variety of keywords, as technically almost anything is possible for them. They are especially fond of elemental powers, and have a decent number of relatively rare keywords such as poison, necrotic, and acid damage.

Where Arcane classes really dominate though, is their access to Fire, Cold, Psychic, Force, Teleportation, and Illusion powers. Force, Teleportation and Illusion particularly as almost the exclusive domain of arcane classes, while jedi mind tricks and fire or cold based explosions are just something they have even more of than other power sources that are good at the same thing.

Overall, Arcane classes love combining base trickery with big explosions, preferably while teleporting someone into said explosion.

Arcane classes also make extensive use of conjurations, summons, and zones, and make good use of invisibility and flight as well.

Although a few arcane characters can use weapon powers, all arcane classes can and do use implements as well. In some cases (Wizard staffs, sorcerer daggers, swordmage swords) they use special weapons that can also act as implements. The wand in particular can be used by almost all arcane classes, and is a good choice for arcane dabblers and half-elves.

Arcane characters focus heavily on mental stats, paticularly Intelligence and Charisma, with Con being the most used physical stat.

Divine

Divine Classes are generally ordained with divine powers in order to serve the god they worship. Whatever their primary role, divine classes tend to lean towards leader as a secondary role, with the largest number of powers useful for healing and bolstering allies.

The primary implement for Divine Characters is the Holy Symbol, which is unique in that it does not have to be held in order to be used, making it easier for Divine Characters to make use of weapons and sheilds compared to Arcane or Primal Characters. The one exception is the Invoker, who forgoes the holy symbol in favor of Staves and Rods, carried by the Invoker as a symbol of divine authority.

All Divine Classes have the Channel Divinity Encounter power, which allows them to channel divine energy into a number of minor effects, or to smite the undead. Feats can be used to expand Channel Divinity with God specific powers.

Like Arcane, Divine Characters are much more flashy than martial characters, however their range of powers tend to be much more focused. Divine Powers make massive use of Radiant Damage compared to any other power source, for both attack and defense. It is almost possible to make a character of any divine class who uses nothing but radiant damage.

When not bursting with Divine Radiance, Divine characters most often make use of Thunder, Fear and Psychic Damage. Fear and Psychic are almost always paired, in a "bow down before your god" sort of way, possibly while a thunderclap rumbles overhead.

Fire also gets a fair bit of use, and Invokers like to toss in a bit of lightning from time to time as well.

As most divine characters carry weapons, many of their powers inflict weapon damage as well, but channeling radiant or thunder damage through weapon strikes is a popular way of smiting heretics for any divine character.

Cold, Poison, Necrotic, and Force Damage are almost unheard of among Divinely granted powers.

Divine Characters make good use of Zones and Conjurations, although these are often defensive in nature. They have more teleporation powers than Primal or Martial characters, but still far less than Arcane.


As mentioned above, Divine Characters make extensive use of healing and buffing effects, and Clerics stand out as the best healers in the game.

Wisdom and Charisma are the key stats for most divine classes, with Strength and Intelligence the second most common stats.

In general, Divine Classes stand out in their power against the undead, and their ability to support allies, but they aren't usually known for their massive damage potential, either with weapons or implements.

Primal is the 4th one, but it's harder, so I'm taking a break. I might add it later if there is any interest.
 
Last edited:

Never said it was a GOOD spell. :) Your mechanical differences stem from the nature of spells themselves, rather than the spell in question. It's a fair point, but not relevant to all levels of play.

The benefits of the Rage for the barb and the Rage spell are equal, though, which is the point. Both give...whatever the heck a Barb's rage gives him, I forget. But the way you're getting access to this mechanical benefit, the flavor, is quite different!

That's basically how 4E works. The powers might be mechanically similar (they certainly read that way), but the fluff, flavor, and fun of 'em can be as deeply personal as you like to make 'em.

It's like the difference between divine spells and arcane spells in 3.5 (the only other edition I'm relatively familiar with). There's not really all that much of a difference in the spells themselves: Mechanical benefit + Fluff

But we all know there's a huge difference between Cleric and Wizard spells, because...well, there has to be, right? One's divine, one's arcane.
 

Never said it was a GOOD spell. :) Your mechanical differences stem from the nature of spells themselves, rather than the spell in question. It's a fair point, but not relevant to all levels of play.

That's the whole point since you've turned it into a spell... let's not forget casting time, components, etc. either. You asked me what the differences are in making it a spell... then turn around and say but it's the same besides everything that makes it a spell...:confused:

The benefits of the Rage for the barb and the Rage spell are equal, though, which is the point. Both give...whatever the heck a Barb's rage gives him, I forget. But the way you're getting access to this mechanical benefit, the flavor, is quite different!

No they aren't...again you're ignoring all the differences in how the two abilities work and only focusing on their similarities. The whole point is that a spell (magic) is effectively different from an ability like the Barbarian's Rage... it functions on a different paradigm because it is magic. The Barbarian's ability will function in an anti-magic room... the spell will not. Depending on the situation the benefits to having either will be different.

That's basically how 4E works. The powers might be mechanically similar (they certainly read that way), but the fluff, flavor, and fun of 'em can be as deeply personal as you like to make 'em.

Right, only your again avoiding my whole point... a spell in previous editions had mechanical and fluff differences that clearly differentiated it as magic...as opposed to a natural,extraordinary, psychic, etc. ability

It's like the difference between divine spells and arcane spells in 3.5 (the only other edition I'm relatively familiar with). There's not really all that much of a difference in the spells themselves: Mechanical benefit + Fluff

But we all know there's a huge difference between Cleric and Wizard spells, because...well, there has to be, right? One's divine, one's arcane.

Uhm let's see...first it's important to remember that even though it was seperated into divine and arcane... both were still considered magic so I don't think there was that huge of a difference since they are effectively, pre 4e, subsets of the same power source...magic. Second while not as different in how they work as say psionics and magic there were still some differences...

1. Arcane had schools, Divine had domains.
2. The accesss to your spells was restricted by your alignment and/or your deity. (This IMHO really brough home the fact that you were different from a Wizard or Sorcerer they studied, learned, stole or whatever their magic... yours is a gift bestowed upon you by a greater force.)

Edit: Arcane is based around one's intelligence or force of personality... while divine magic is based around wisdom.
 

Uhm let's see...first it's important to remember that even though it was seperated into divine and arcane... both were still considered magic so I don't think there was that huge of a difference since they are effectively, pre 4e, subsets of the same power source...magic. Second while not as different in how they work as say psionics and magic there were still some differences...

1. Arcane had schools, Divine had domains.
2. The accesss to your spells was restricted by your alignment and/or your deity. (This IMHO really brough home the fact that you were different from a Wizard or Sorcerer they studied, learned, stole or whatever their magic... yours is a gift bestowed upon you by a greater force.)

The Schools vs Domain (or alignment restricted spells) thing was really only in 3rd, and even then it was a very minor difference. Mechanically they work very much the same way.

The difference between the two comes out mostly in the theme and focus of their respective spell lists, which is also how it works in 4th edition.
 

Right, only your again avoiding my whole point... a spell in previous editions had mechanical and fluff differences that clearly differentiated it as magic...as opposed to a natural,extraordinary, psychic, etc. ability

You could easily create anti arcane/divine ect zones or similar effects in 4th edition if you were so inclined. These were taken out of the game for design reasons, but the keyword system has a lot of flexibility for this sort of thing.

Really, anti-magic zones, vsm components, spell interruption, this is mostly stuff they invented to nerf magic-users more than anything else.

A lot of things you are bringing up as well point towards 3rd edition's handling of things, which is not the same as earlier editions in many respects.
 

You make good points, Imaro. When I thought up the Rage/Spell(Rage) comparison, I had forgotten how complex the spellcasting system was in 3.5.

I've pretty much forgotten what our spirited debate is about, so let me regroup here.

It seems like we're really arguing over whether or not all classes should use a single system.

Your argument: because everyone uses the same system, there's no fundamental differences between the power sources. It might as well be named Power Source: Fun or what-not, since it's all push-pull-slide. A fundamental difference between the classes is defined by different mechanics.

My argument: because everyone uses the same system, there's only a need for a gaming group to differentiate between the sources if they see fit. WotC provides the base fluff for beginning groups to work off of, and experienced groups can (and will) take things into their own hands, describing the push-pull-slide of powers as they like.

We're edging really close to simulationism/gamism debate, which leads to madness. We might want to call it here. :)
 

RefinedBean said:
Invoking the names of Arneson and Gygax as a way of saying "This is how D&D SHOULD BE" is cheap and meaningless.
On what basis?

Is it "cheap and meaningless" to observe that lemonade is traditionally a beverage made with lemons, not persimmons? To distinguish Chess from Backgammon? To consider Robert E. Howard's depiction of Conan more proper than a bowdlerization?

"Cheap" seems to me more appropriate to fanboy2000's put-down of people as "lacking imagination" simply because their imaginations -- at least when playing D&D, as opposed to some other game -- tend toward scenes informed by classic sword-and-sorcery literature (and 35 years of D&D) rather than being derived from his preferred prototypes.
 
Last edited:

"Cheap" seems to me more appropriate to fanboy2000's put-down of people as "lacking imagination" simply because their imaginations tend toward scenes informed by classic sword-and-sorcery literature (and 35 years of D&D) rather than being derived from his preferred prototypes.

I don't have a problem with people preferring a game more closely aligned with Lieber than Loeb. I have a problem with people not recognizing Loeb, Kring, Morrison, Moore, Gaiman as influences on the design of 4e. To willfully not see those influences seems to lack imagination.

If you don't want to run a game with those influences, that's fine. I encourage you to fun a game that feels like the genre you like. I'm a fan of Lieber and Howard myself (I'm going to get my hands on some Kull stories soon) and those stories are indeed inspiring. If you dislike 4e because of the influences I've described, that's o.k. One day the new edition of D&D may not be what I want, so I'll be in your shoes then.

While I mean what I said above, that explanation is really just a cover for my annoyance at this:

Anyone who disagrees with that statement may not be wholly wrong (depending upon his criteria for disagreement), but neither is he wholly right. Thus far, within this discussion at least, no criteria for disagreement have been raised that offer more than wishful thinking and/or intentional disregard of the factors that arise from this implied portion of the 4e setting.
Emphasis mine.
 

Remove ads

Top