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

[D'karr]

And yet in reading the definition of Martial Power Source in the PHB, we are never told it is not magic... just not traditional magic...

And if that is the definition that brings YOU the most pleasure, knock yourself out. That is completely acceptable. My game won't suffer any ill effect for whatever you want to call a particular power in your game. As long as it does not affect your game, you can call it marshmallow.

For me there is nothing magical about a fighter calling out the enemies and then beating the crap out of them. So it works just fine. I don't look for mental blocks where there are none.

I'm sorry that it causes you such pain, but in the end it only seems to matter in your game. So if it doesn't work, change it.

Me, I'm going to continue having fun when the party's fighter brings those creatures around him and smacks the living daylights out of them.

 

[Ariosto]

Mac, you are invited to crack open, read and digest those 1st edition Advanced D&D books. Maybe someone else will stoop to "giving the answer", but I will leave it as an exercise for the earnest scholar.

 

[Imaro]

And if that is the definition that brings YOU the most pleasure, knock yourself out. That is completely acceptable. My game won't suffer any ill effect for whatever you want to call a particular power in your game. As long as it does not affect your game, you can call it marshmallow.

For me there is nothing magical about a fighter calling out the enemies and then beating the crap out of them. So it works just fine. I don't look for mental blocks where there are none.

I'm sorry that it causes you such pain, but in the end it only seems to matter in your game. So if it doesn't work, change it.

Me, I'm going to continue having fun when the party's fighter brings those creatures around him and smacks the living daylights out of them.

Uhm...ok, it's a discussion (though apparently I must've hit a nerve). Nowhere did I say I was going to ruin your fun, or make you call it magic or anything else. Also I never said people calling it not magic would ruin my fun.

So you keep having fun... really I mean it... and try not to tae these discussions so seriously man, in the end it's just a game...

 

[Raven Crowking]

If, at this point, you are unable to even acknowledge the 8,586,242 explanations given for CAGI in this exact thread, I don't know what the point of discussing anything with you is.

As has been pointed out, there is a real difference between acknowledging the (vastly overstated) number of explanations, and agreeing that even one of those explanations is satisfactory. Especially given that most of those explanations are restatements of a few very basic explanations, for which the reasons that they are not satisfactory (to those who do not find them so) have been given repeatedly.

If you do not care that some folks don't find those explanations satisfactory, then no problem. Otherwise, simply repeating the same is unlikely to gain converts....a truism on both sides of the argument! One can try to understand the opposition's point, then either answer the argument or accept it at face value.

There have been some nice answers to the argument of both sides in this thread, IMHO. While I haven't found the answers even remotely satisfactory, I do feel like I better understand why others view 4e's martial powers as "non-magical". And, sometimes, that is the best one can hope for.

A fundamental problem here is that, more often than not, those arguing that 4E is "the same as D&D has ever been" are not versed in what in fact D&D formerly was.

I would tend to agree for a whole host of arguments along this line in various threads, but I think that the topic is a little more complex in this case.

I'm always up for discussing the Complete Ninja's Handbook though. I just can't ever find any takers on that one...

One of the few 2e books I didn't manage to own!

The power is martial, the power keyword says it is so.

I think that argument is rather flimsy when taken at face value. It assumes that the word "martial" means, in 4e, what it means in common parlance. In fact, upthread, one of the big arguments against calling martial powers magical is that magical in 4e doesn't mean the same thing as it does in common parlance.

If that is so, then there is no reason to assume that martial means the same in 4e as in common parlance.

If that is not so, then through the common parlance definitions, several of these powers are magical.

Either way, this argument fails.


RC

 

[fanboy2000]

If you count that as proof that a naarative based explanation for powers ios supported and explained in the game... ok, let's just say we see things totally differently then, as shown by some of your comments below.

All I'll say on this is that if you're going to comment on a post... it's best to understand the context in which the thought/idea/etc. was posted in. There was a situation where someone posited that narrative control was the explanation for certain powers (this wasn't me)... I in turn asked for proof of this assertion which I claimed there was none.

Mallus said that the 'excuse' of narritive control is "consistent with the rules text." Your counter was that "t's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks." Well there is a basis in the rulebooks. If you think that narrative control should be given a more prominent place in the PHB with explicit references, I agree with you.

Since you agree I really don't understand your point in bringing this up.

I'm not sure what you think I agree with. My point was simply that there is passage in the rulebooks where narrative control is brought up in a positive manner. Based on that one passage, I doubt Wyatt expects people to start playing the way he described. What I do think, however, is that the rules were designed to allow that play style without any tweaking to the rules themselves.

In other words, Mallus is right, narrative control is not only consistent with the rules, but has support from the guy who wrote the book for the ones who would have to give-up some control.

Are you expecting me to argue a viewpoint I never believed in the first place?

No, you don't have to argue with me at all. You can just do what you've been doing, stating why you dissagee with me.

What I'm saying is that nowhere is narrative control stated as the reason powers work

True, but magic isn't stated as the reason martial powers work either, other reasons are given.

In order to make a martial power magic, a person has to either define magic differently than the game does, or a person has to believe that the designers consistently left off magical descriptions from the text of the rules. These are reasonable things to do, because magic isn't real, what is magic is left up a given fictional world. Since players and DMs make their own fictional worlds when they play, they are free to use whatever definition of magic they feel is appropriate.

... and again it has nothing to do with exception based design... I thnk you're trying to talk about effect-based design...where the effect is the only thing that mechanics represent but you keep using exception-based and they mean totally different things.

I think exception based design is at the heart of the disagreement because the powers are the exception to the rules.

I brought it up because you said you had played games designed around narrative control. My point is that 4e wasn't designed around narrative control, but narrative control is a possible way to use the powers (the exceptions to the general rules).

Hey look, it's Trickery of Words. I'm going to post exactly what Imaro said (there are powers that can be used as basic attacks... though they are still classified as powers instead of actual basic attacks) but use different words instead of just saying I was wrong... uhm, ok.

First, the Melee Basic Attack and the Ranged Basic Attack are powers. (PHB 287) Their defined as "a basic attack is an at-will attack power that everyone possesses, regardless of class." The basic attacks you're talking about are powers.

Second, there are tons of basic attacks in 4e besides the ones on PHB pg. 287. Monsters, in particular, typically have basic attacks that do a lot more than the ones in the PHB. The monster manual defines these powers as basic attacks and they can be used to make opportunity attacks (man, I hate that they turned that phrase around) which makes opportunity attacks much more dangerous.

 

[Imaro]

Mallus said that the 'excuse' of narritive control is "consistent with the rules text." Your counter was that "t's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks." Well there is a basis in the rulebooks. If you think that narrative control should be given a more prominent place in the PHB with explicit references, I agree with you.

there is passage in the rulebooks where narrative control is brought up in a positive manner. Based on that one passage, I doubt Wyatt expects people to start playing the way he described. What I do think, however, is that the rules were designed to allow that play style without any tweaking to the rules themselves.


In other words, Mallus is right, narrative control is not only consistent with the rules, but has support from the guy who wrote the book for the ones who would have to give-up some control.

Again, all I can say is, IMO, you are stretching in claiming a sidebar story less than a few paragraphs long in the DMG is a basis in the rulebooks for narrative control explaining the use of certain powers. iIs his son even using a power in the example? I mean in all honesty you can claim whatever you want is the reason something happens, what you can't say is that something is logically explained away by anything you claim is the reason for it (which is what many proponents of the narrative control excuse are saying)... there have already been a few of these instances brought up (the archers who come running out of cover to get slaughtered in melee... everytime the power is used on them).

No, you don't have to argue with me at all. You can just do what you've been doing, stating why you dissagee with me.

That is what constructing an argument is... isn't it?

True, but magic isn't stated as the reason martial powers work either, other reasons are given.

What other reasons are given in the rules?

In order to make a martial power magic, a person has to either define magic differently than the game does, or a person has to believe that the designers consistently left off magical descriptions from the text of the rules. These are reasonable things to do, because magic isn't real, what is magic is left up a given fictional world. Since players and DMs make their own fictional worlds when they play, they are free to use whatever definition of magic they feel is appropriate.

Or you could just accept that, as stated in the corebook martial exploits aren't traditional magic... which implies they are non-traditional magic. I mean why else would they state it in such a way.

I think exception based design is at the heart of the disagreement because the powers are the exception to the rules.

I disagree, even heavy simulationist game systems can have exception based rules... it's that they try to base their exceptions on simulating something... thus again I believe the problem is more about effect-based game systems.

I brought it up because you said you had played games designed around narrative control. My point is that 4e wasn't designed around narrative control, but narrative control is a possible way to use the powers (the exceptions to the general rules).

Totally agree it wassn't designed around narrative control... thus the part where I said you agreed with me. And claiming the powers are a non-traditional form of magic is also a possible way to use the powers (honestly it's a game you can use them any way you want). What the argument is about, from my perspective, is which definition provides the most logical, comprehensive and cohesive way of approaching the powers.


And for the record it isn't powers being exception-based that in
and of itself creates a dissonance problem for many... it's the fact that they are effect-based.

First, the Melee Basic Attack and the Ranged Basic Attack are powers. (PHB 287) Their defined as "a basic attack is an at-will attack power that everyone possesses, regardless of class." The basic attacks you're talking about are powers.

Second, there are tons of basic attacks in 4e besides the ones on PHB pg. 287. Monsters, in particular, typically have basic attacks that do a lot more than the ones in the PHB. The monster manual defines these powers as basic attacks and they can be used to make opportunity attacks (man, I hate that they turned that phrase around) which makes opportunity attacks much more dangerous.

PHB 1 pg.55... Basic attacks, racial powers, and epic destiny powers have no power source. This was my original argument, how it got twisted into whether they were powers or not was probably my fault but the fact remains that they have no power source. You can use a power with a power source as a basic attack but a basic attack does not have a power source.

 

[D'karr]

Uhm...ok, it's a discussion (though apparently I must've hit a nerve). Nowhere did I say I was going to ruin your fun, or make you call it magic or anything else. Also I never said people calling it not magic would ruin my fun.

So you keep having fun... really I mean it... and try not to tae these discussions so seriously man, in the end it's just a game...

Nope, no nerve. Thanks, I will keep having fun. I don't take anything on the internet personal. And I have no vested interest in one interpretation of the powers over another. After all I might have posted in this thread a total of 3-4 times. Like you said, it is a game, so not worrying about how other people choose to interpret things is recommended.

Unlike some of the arguments around here, if it doesn't affect my game, I'm not overly concerned. And I don't feel a compelling reason to "prove" anyone wrong. If the power says it's martial then I attempt to mold that power on a martial technique. If the power says its divine, then prayer might be a component, and if arcane, then the magic is flowing. I don't spend time arguing why it looks like X when it says it is Y. I describe it as Y and move on.

I never said that you were ruining MY fun. Or that your explanations or arguments were doing so. However, since you've been arguing against pretty reasonable explanations for several pages it did seem as if the descriptions were ruining your fun. So if that is not the case, no harm. Have fun with whatever you decide to do. Like you said it's a game, no need to be so serious.

 

[D'karr]

If that is not so, then through the common parlance definitions, several of these powers are magical.

Either way, this argument fails.


RC

Sorry, there is no argument. The power says its martial, so I describe the effect as martial. If the power says its arcane, I describe the effect as arcane. If the power says its divine, the same applies.

If you prefer your game to say it is magical, that is fine too. However, it does not change the fact that the power is described as martial.

 

[fanboy2000]

Again, all I can say is, IMO, you are stretching in claiming a sidebar story less than a few paragraphs long in the DMG is a basis in the rulebooks for narrative control explaining the use of certain powers. iIs his son even using a power in the example? I mean in all honesty you can claim whatever you want is the reason something happens, what you can't say is that something is logically explained away by anything you claim is the reason for it (which is what many proponents of the narrative control excuse are saying)... there have already been a few of these instances brought up (the archers who come running out of cover to get slaughtered in melee... everytime the power is used on them).

No, his son isn't using a power in that example. (They may not even be playing 4e.)

Of course I can say something is explained away by something I claim is the reason for it. That's how I run my D&D, I explain the effects of the game (going to your effects design argument) in fun and interesting details that fit the situation/rule/effect.

That is what constructing an argument is... isn't it?

I think of an argument as having an element of persuasion to it. Do you think you're persuading me? Trust me, I have no delusions that I'm persuading you of anything.

What other reasons are given in the rules?

Specifically, they list training.

Or you could just accept that, as stated in the corebook martial exploits aren't traditional magic... which implies they are non-traditional magic. I mean why else would they state it in such a way.

Because it's true. Martial powers aren't traditional magic. They could have just it's not magic, but they didn't. Maybe the game designers, who moonlight as fiction authors for WotC's novels, just like flowery prose.

I disagree, even heavy simulationist game systems can have exception based rules... it's that they try to base their exceptions on simulating something... thus again I believe the problem is more about effect-based game systems.

O.k.

Totally agree it wassn't designed around narrative control... thus the part where I said you agreed with me.

Ah, I see now.

And claiming the powers are a non-traditional form of magic is also a possible way to use the powers (honestly it's a game you can use them any way you want).

Hey, we agree about something else!

What the argument is about, from my perspective, is which definition provides the most logical, comprehensive and cohesive way of approaching the powers.

Dude, you're on a roll here.

And for the record it isn't powers being exception-based that in and of itself creates a dissonance problem for many... it's the fact that they are effect-based.

The choice to go essentially entirely exception based (far more so than in 3.x) is what lead to the choice, consciously or unconsciously, to go effect-based.

PHB 1 pg.55... Basic attacks, racial powers, and epic destiny powers have no power source. This was my original argument, how it got twisted into whether they were powers or not was probably my fault but the fact remains that they have no power source. You can use a power with a power source as a basic attack but a basic attack does not have a power source.

Neither do most NPC powers. I'm not sure this supports your contention that some martial powers are magic though. Which is why I pointed out that there are basic attacks with power sources.

Because the martial power source is acquired through training, it makes sense that the Basic Melee Attack and Basic Ranged Attack powers don't have power sources because no training is required to use them.

Your statement that narrative control isn't supported by the rules is, in my opinion, false because an example of narrative control is given in the rulebooks; a narrative control explanation is not contradicted by the rules; and your two examples don't demonstrate the alternative, magic, that you support is the intended and implied explanation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry, there is no argument.

"In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion."

Argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not saying that you are rabidly trying to change others' minds; I am talking about a proposition/conclusion ("X is true because of Y", "X is true, therefore Y"), and how that proposition/conclusion fares when examined logically.

Your position may be true; the reasoning that you use to support that position, however, fails the test.

RC