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

[LostSoul]

Maybe that's your criteria but I never said that... I cited a specific example of a power in 4e. The real question would be have their ever been mundane examples of this type of "narrative" control in other editions of D&D that didn't involve magic?

Wandering monster tables.

They create a "Schrodinger's Dungeon", where no one can be sure what's in the dungeon until the DM makes the roll on the wandering monster table.

The implies setting of pre 4E-D&D is that all PCs are inherently magical, with the ability to create monsters out of nothing.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Well, my point was that it doesn't make sense. CAGI is not a player power; it is a character power.

How? Is there a detection device in your 4E campaigns that pings when a Player is using a power versus a Character? You say there is a line in the sand when there isn't any, because the system is vague on that point just so that in-world explanations can be crafted to meet the desires of the group instead of being judged from afar by people arguing on the internet!

My group doesn't say that the Dwarf Fighter reaches into his bag of powers and strikes the enemy with his Brute Strike paint-gun. And you can't tell me any different, either.

 

[Mad Mac]

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?

When the character uses the power, enemies who are already close to him (15') get closer, if they are able to move on their own, and there is room for them to do so. Why they choose to do so can be described in all manner of different ways by the player or the DM.

Probably dozens of interpretations of how this can work have been offered already in this very thread.

If none of those work for you, and you can't imagine the power working short of magical "mind control" then I can't help you.

I'm still bored to death with discussing CAGI, mind you. Are there no other martial powers that fill you with rage?

 

[RefinedBean]

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?

Yes, when using CaGI, the character controls the actions of others. 's how the power is written.

This control is a phenomenon of the game being played, not the setting presented. It's not setting dependent, obviously.

Also, could you answer my question? Answering questions with more questions facilitates sloppy debate, since none of us are Socrates.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Yet you are seemingly offended by the observation that "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e?!?!

Colour me confused!






RC

 

[RefinedBean]

I'm still bored to death with discussing CAGI, mind you. Are there no other martial powers that fill you with rage?

How about those Fighter powers that do automatic damage to adjacent enemies? That's gotta be magic, right? A fighter can't swing his sword without a ROLL. That implies some kind of phantom...sword...thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are there no other martial powers that fill you with rage?

No martial powers fill me with rage.

You?




RC

 

[ferratus]

Not at all. A roleplaying game is about portraying a fictional character within a given game world. Simulation/realism is a separate issue from this and isn't connected. If you are participating in a roleplaying game, then you are deciding how your character will respond to events in the game as opposed to actively telling a story during such participation. After the action takes place, a story may be made out the events.

Well that's not too far off from what I was saying, and I don't see how 4e breaks away from it based on what you are saying here.

Yes. I never claimed that D&D at its core was an implied low magic game. Please enlighten me about these contadictions. 4E has adjusted the scale of things to remove the " zero to hero" aspect of power gain that had been there before. Fledgling adventurers are virtual X-men at 1st level in 4E which is a dramatic change from prior editions.

It is hilarious how you are complaining that fledgling adventurers are no different from anyone else in the world, and here you are complaining that they are "virtual x-men superheroes".

As for the zero-to-hero aspect of D&D in prior editions, I guess you didn't notice 0-level characters or NPC classes such as the warrior, commoner, expert and adept. PC's have always been a cut above the rabble regardless of edition. However, like other editions, PC's still start out fighting kobolds and goblins, weak enough that the town guards will probably beat them, and the mages still start out with only a few weak spells. The only difference is that non-spellcasters have a few signature combat techniques themselves.

Old D&D took a semi-medieval world and overlayed a layer of the fantastic. This made the fantasy elements really stand out. If the whole world is over the top fantastical then everything seems kind of the same.

I hated the semi-medieval flavour because it absolutely ignored how arcane and cleric magic would impact the world. Besides, just because you have a mythic world, doesn't mean you can't have fantastic or exceptional heroes. Just crack open a book on pretty much any culture's mythology.

I see 4E as world where fireballs aren't blazing. Can you really kill anything but a constructed pinata monster with that thing?

Well, given that I upped the damage of fireballs to 5d6 in my own home game, I can't fault that criticism.

 

[ferratus]

Yet you are seemingly offended by the observation that "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e?!?!

Colour me confused!

I'm confused that you seem to think making saves against a spell attack vs. attacking a defense score makes it somehow more magical.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, when using CaGI, the character controls the actions of others. 's how the power is written.

XP for you. Reading is fundamental.

This control is a phenomenon of the game being played, not the setting presented. It's not setting dependent, obviously.

The setting presented is one in which a character can control the actions of others. What can occur within a game is always a phenomenon of the implied setting of the game.

Also, could you answer my question? Answering questions with more questions facilitates sloppy debate, since none of us are Socrates.

There is nothing, AFAIK, within the 4e RAW that states that the ability to control the actions of others is magical. If you are willing to claim that, within the implied setting of 4e, the inhabitants do not view this as magical I would agree -- that magical effects are considered mundane within the implied setting supports the statement that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e.

Confused about what the word "magic" means? This might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)

Magic, sometimes known as sorcery, is a conceptual system that asserts human ability to control or predict the natural world (including events, objects, people, and physical phenomena) through mystical, paranormal or supernatural means.







​