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

[Raven Crowking]

I'm saying that Mallus has explained a viewpoint that works for him, and others as well.

Just because you dissagree with his statement doesn't mean his explaination "failed."

No. The statement fails because it doesn't address the actual qualities of the power it attempts to explain. It works for Mallus because he ignores certain qualities of that power (or those powers). This is a valid way to play the game, and a successful way to house rule, but it is not a successful way to explain the power within the context of the actual RAW.

If, in 3.5, I said that the paladin's pokemount worked for me because its extadimensional homespace represented it wandering green fields in the material plane, this would be a valid way to play the game, and a successful way to house rule, but not a successful way to explain the power within the context of the actual RAW. Claiming that the pokemount wasn't magical on the basis of this interpretaion would be naive, at best.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Good thing I wasn't doing that, so I'd appreciate an end to the snide remarks.

Scribble, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you really don't understand an argument that says "X is magic because it has qualities 1, 2, 3, and 4" does not imply that anything with quality 4 must also be magic, then I have no words.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

What?

If a player has a power, then it resides with the player. It can be used regardless of the character.

If a character has a power, then it resides with the character. It can only be used because of the qualities of the character selected.

"Decide when my character attacks" is a player power.

"Cast sleep" is a character power, and so is CAGI.

Or is the meaningful distinction between a "player power" and a "character power" to be, rather than where the power resides, how weird it might seem that the power resides where it does? I.e., "Anything which makes no sense within the context of the game is a player power! Woot!"




RC

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I see it as a combo. The character/class is trying to perform certain deeds. The Fighter with his CaGI is trying to provoke the enemies, this is a aspect of this character and class. The player aspect is the player decides when he actually manages to perform this and thus also dictates the movement of the enemies.

 

[Mad Mac]

Can't be counterspelled, dispelled, or effected by antimagic, can't be placed on a scroll, and doesn't need components (unless you count weapon?)

No weapon needed.

If a player has a power, then it resides with the player. It can be used regardless of the character.

If a character has a power, then it resides with the character. It can only be used because of the qualities of the character selected.

CAGI is a character power. The explanation for how it works is anything that the Player/DM wants it to be. If you are unable to imagine the power working through anything but magic, then call it magic, change it, or ban it. Either way, the only thing obstructing you is your own preferences and hang-ups.

There are many ways to interpret the power. The only "correct" interpretation is that slides enemies two squares and then the fighter makes an attack. Everything else is fluff.

 

[ExploderWizard]

ExploderWizard, have you tried C&C? It is much closer to actual D&D than 4.0 and has the flavor that made D&D a worldwide phenomenon.

Yes I have and its not a bad game at all. It just doesn't give me exactly the game I want. I am currently working on that project.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I see it as a combo. The character/class is trying to perform certain deeds. The Fighter with his CaGI is trying to provoke the enemies, this is a aspect of this character and class. The player aspect is the player decides when he actually manages to perform this and thus also dictates the movement of the enemies.

Like the 3.5 wizard is constantly trying to cast sleep, and the player determines when he succeeds enough to require a save?

You can play the game that way. It is a valid way to play. It is a valid house rule. It is not the RAW.


RC

 

[RefinedBean]

If a player has a power, then it resides with the player. It can be used regardless of the character.

If a character has a power, then it resides with the character. It can only be used because of the qualities of the character selected.

"Decide when my character attacks" is a player power.

"Cast sleep" is a character power, and so is CAGI.

Or is the meaningful distinction between a "player power" and a "character power" to be, rather than where the power resides, how weird it might seem that the power resides where it does? I.e., "Anything which makes no sense within the context of the game is a player power! Woot!"




RC

Ah. I was just a little confused with you saying a player can use a power without using a character, which doesn't make sense. Thanks for the clarification!

Might want to stay away from the word "power," though, considering it's a 4E term now.

 

[Scribble]

Scribble, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you really don't understand an argument that says "X is magic because it has qualities 1, 2, 3, and 4" does not imply that anything with quality 4 must also be magic, then I have no words.


RC

Thats not what was being argued, however. You seem to be misprepresenting my argument- Perhaps you fail to understand it?

No. The statement fails because it doesn't address the actual qualities of the power it attempts to explain.

That's not what was being addressed.



As to player vrs Character power...

All powers are powers are elements players can use to interact with the game. A character is a collection of such powers bound by various rules as to how they can be collected and used.

Players might have other powers not linked to the character.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, my point was that it doesn't make sense.

CAGI is not a player power; it is a character power.


RC