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

[Imaro]

Possibly, but not intentionally. I honestly don't understand how you see a difference.

Then perhaps this discussion is hopeless because from reading your answer to the intimidate scenario I'm starting to think you aren't trying.

But the same is true for many spells. I guess that's what is confusing to me. I feel like you've given elements that make a mundane thing into a spell, but not the reverse, and I feel that's equaly important.

No I have listed common mechanics that make something magic in 3.5... now if you can't do the same in 4th edition it actually strengthens rather than weakens the argument that it's all magic.

Sure you do. You are dictating that the enemy stop being hostile.

You honestly don't see the differnce between limitations and the dictating of an exact action you must perform? Really? It's the differnce between you can't hit me (but you can do anything else you want) and ...you must hit me now and nothing else. One is influencing yet not actual control over actions... the second is actual control.

Ok I can accept that for the shaken part, and going by your points below, it's not a spell. (It doesn't go on a scroll, it can't be counterspelled, isn't effected by anitmagic, doesn't require components well I guess you could say maybe verbal and somantic...)

Yep, in 3.5 there was differentiation between magic and mundane through the actual mechanics.

Which is why I guess this way of thinking is weird for me. Because essentialy I see the same overal effect if you DID make a spell for achieving this effect, so a "spell" version wouldn't need to be handled in a different way. The same end result applies, so why do I need a second system to handle it? It just seems redundant to someone like me.

But if it isn't handled in a different way (regardless of what you do or don't prefer) then everything becomes magic or nothing becomes magic... in other words the distinction becomes meaningless complexity.

Ok so Cagi:

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?)

You realize this is for 3.5 right? CaGI doesn't exist in 3.5... just as many of these characteristics & mechanics for magic no longer exist to differentiate it in 4e. So you tell me what differentiates magic powers (not necessarily arcane) from mundane powers in 4e?

 

[Mad Mac]

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.

This is the RAW in regards to powers:

Flavor Text

The next section of a power description gives a brief explanation of what the power does, sometimes including information about what it looks or sounds like. A power's flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like. When you need to know the exact effect, look at the rules text that follows.

EG, raw is that the fluff of the power is whatever you want it to be.

This, for reference, is the flavor text for Come and Get it

You call your opponents towards you and deliver a blow they'll never forget.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If a player has a power, then the player can exercise that power regardless of the character being used.....regardless of whether or not a character is used at all.

Are you certain? Having an active character is a prerequisite for using the power? Can all powers have an effect independent of the game world?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

If you insist.

I could go back and make nested quote boxes, but perhaps it's best to simply agree with you?

That's not what was being addressed.

If you insist.

I could go back and make nested quote boxes, but perhaps it's best to simply agree with you?

After all, if you are responding to me (responding to Mallus), it should be obvious to all that I know what was being addressed that you responded to.

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.

That's a limiting definition of "character" & does nothing to make CAGI a player power.


RC

 

[RefinedBean]

RC, could you elaborate on how a "character power" is different from a "player power?" If a player utilizes one of his character's powers, doesn't it automatically become a "player power?"

Could you also elaborate on why this is important to the discussion? Are you saying that only "character powers" can be magic?

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is the RAW in regards to powers:

Flavor Text

The next section of a power description gives a brief explanation of what the power does, sometimes including information about what it looks or sounds like. A power's flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like. When you need to know the exact effect, look at the rules text that follows.

EG, raw is that the fluff of the power is whatever you want it to be.

This, for reference, is the flavor text for Come and Get it

You call your opponents towards you and deliver a blow they'll never forget.

The RAW says that you can change what the power looks like; this is not the same thing as saying that a power is mutable in its basic qualities. So you can change what "You call your opponents towards you" looks like and you can change what "deliver a blow they'll never forget" looks like, but it is still a power used by the character, and it still allows the character to control the actions of others.


RC

 

[RefinedBean]

but it is still a power used by the character, and it still allows the character to control the actions of others.

Right, but where in RAW does it say that controlling the actions of others has to be magic?

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, could you elaborate on how a "character power" is different from a "player power?" If a player utilizes one of his character's powers, doesn't it automatically become a "player power?"

Could you also elaborate on why this is important to the discussion? Are you saying that only "character powers" can be magic?

See upthread, as these questions have been answered already.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Right, but where in RAW does it say that controlling the actions of others has to be magic?

Sorry, but just to be clear, are you agreeing that when using CAGI the character controls (not influences) the actions of others?

And are you then suggesting that controlling (not influencing) the actions of others is a "naturally" occuring phenomenon within the context of the 4e implied setting?


RC

 

[Scribble]

Then perhaps this discussion is hopeless because from reading your answer to the intimidate scenario I'm starting to think you aren't trying.

Feel how you want I guess.

No I have listed common mechanics that make something magic in 3.5... now if you can't do the same in 4th edition it actually strengthens rather than weakens the argument that it's all magic.

Only if you're looking at it from the viewpoint that the rules MUST dictate the environment. I don't, and 4e works well for that.

A green ball of flame that springs forth from nothingness. A powerful force gripping your mind compelling you to do something...

Each of these might use the exact same rules as something described as mundane, but because the description of the outcome is different, at my table in my game they FEEL different.

That's the gist of it I would say. 4e works for me because it doesn't try to differentiate effects (as much) in game by using rules to do so.

If thats how YOU need a game to be set up in order to feel a difference, that's fine I'm cool with people playing however they want or looking for whatever they want in a game.

I just get irked when people say a game is poorly designed because it fails to meet THEIR specific wants in a rules system.

You honestly don't see the differnce between limitations and the dictating of an exact action you must perform? Really? It's the differnce between you can't hit me (but you can do anything else you want) and ...you must hit me now and nothing else. One is influencing yet not actual control over actions... the second is actual control.

I can say the same thing about the opposite.

You honestly see a difference here? Both are dictating actions, both are forcing control over the NPC.

Yep, in 3.5 there was differentiation between magic and mundane through the actual mechanics.

Which is fine if that's what you want.

But if it isn't handled in a different way (regardless of what you do or don't prefer) then everything becomes magic or nothing becomes magic... in other words the distinction becomes meaningless complexity.

From your side of the fence maybe. From my side, the rules difference is needless complexity.

You realize this is for 3.5 right? CaGI doesn't exist in 3.5... just as many of these characteristics & mechanics for magic no longer exist to differentiate it in 4e. So you tell me what differentiates magic powers (not necessarily arcane) from mundane powers in 4e?

Largely descriptive elements, which I feel is how it should be.

An arrow and a magic missle might use the same mechanics, but they are described differently at the table, and thus feel different.