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

[fanboy2000]

I forgot something

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

The answer to that question is a matter of personal taste.

 

[D'karr]

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

RC

Sorry, you have failed to prove that the reasoning behind the position does not support it. Therefore, failing.

The power clearly states that it is martial. The effect can be reasonably described as a martial maneuver. The outcome can also be reasonably described as martial in nature. Therefore for the purpose of my game the power functions as a martial power. No magical component required.

I have not seen one good "argument", yet, to demonstrate that the reasoning behind it fails.

You might have a preference for seeing it as magical. IMO if it says its arcane, then I describe the effect to have that magical element. If it says it is martial then I look for a martial element.

I've seen some real life martial artists perform feats that might be described as magical. Jumping several feet to kick the rim of a basketball hoop. A 90 pound man tossing a 300+ pounds man as if he was a ragdoll. Heck, I've seen some athletes perform feats that seem impossible, though they can perform them routinely. Even though these "effects" seem magical, I'm bound to believe that since our own world does not have "magic" in effect then the description of their "powers" is not rooted in magic but in training, skill and expertise.

So if I can see that happening in the real world, I have no problem imagining a similar circumstance in a "fantasy" world.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The answer to that question is a matter of personal taste.

There is a degree to which this is true. There are an infinite number of potential logical systems, and no rational way to select between them.

However, within any given system of logic, it is possible to determine if a conclusion is logical or not. Likewise, within any given system of comprehension, it is possible to determine what system is most comprehensive.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry, you have failed to prove that the reasoning behind the position does not support it.

To the standard of evidence that you, particularly, require, this would be true. The obvious evidence of its truth is that you are not convinced. That is exactly how this works.

The difficulty in reaching consensus is, almost certainly, based upon reaching a consensus as to a reasonable standard by which to judge the relative merits of various arguements.

And, as I said earlier, sometimes just getting a better persepective on the other person's opinion is the best you can hope for from a discussion of this nature.


RC

 

[Imaro]

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.

Uhm, I didn't consider that a necessary component of an argument but ok, whatever.

Specifically, they list training.

In what, non-traditional magic, maneuvers, footwork...exactly what is this training in?

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.

Again...occam's razor.

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.

Yet in the end, it is the effect-based design (regardles of what led to effect-based design) that causes the problem.

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.

No there are not... there are powers with power sources that can be substituted or used as a basic attack.

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.

So it doesn't take training to wield a weapon effectively? Again, what type of training are we speaking of here? I guess it also doesn't take training for the different monsters and NPC's in the MM to pull off their powers... because they don't have power sources either. IMO the more you examine this the more it seems pretty flimsy reasoning.

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.

Hey I respect your opinion, though I don't believe you've argued the narrative control (a sidebar story, without a power and perhaps not even playing D&D 4e) as support for that style of play in anything close to a convincing manner... especially since while it may not be contradicted by the rules (in the same manner using foam weapons for combat isn't) this isn't the same as supporting something.

As far as alternate magic... It says it in the description it's not traditional magic...and that they allow people to do things ordinary beings can't...yet martial powers apparently work different from what we consider any other ability that would be classified as martial such as the basic attack, or a Human Bandit's Dazing Strike... or how about an Ogre Warhulk's Flail Hurricane. None of these are classified under the Martial power source. Though I would think an ability like Dazing Strike would take some training to do since I believe it's an encounter or recharge power.

So now my question is what seperates someone whose using a power that is based in martial abilities as opposed to someone who uses the martial power source?

 

[Imaro]

The answer to that question is a matter of personal taste.

Actually which one you choose to use is personal preference... what reasoning is most cohesive, logical, etc. is objetcive.

 

[Ariosto]

while it may not be contradicted by the rules (in the same manner using foam weapons for combat isn't)

... which might explain the humongous hammer in the DMG on p. 5 and p. 197.

That's perfect for the cleric who takes really literally the Church's prohibition against shedding blood!

 

[Scribble]

Actually which one you choose to use is personal preference... what reasoning is most cohesive, logical, etc. is objetcive.

Probably in that case the correct answer is they did away with the separation between mundane and extraordinary abilities, insofar as characters go, and just made them one category (Martial.)

Some of them are possibly/probably a little more extraordinary then others.

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

Pretty much sums up martial power source abilities as well. They are not "magic" they aren't disrupted by magic, they are more then the "ordinary" guy can do, and they require extensive training.

 

[fanboy2000]

In what, non-traditional magic, maneuvers, footwork...exactly what is this training in?

In addition to the class traits listed in the PHB, exceptional martial prowess.

Again...occam's razor.

I'll get to this.

Yet in the end, it is the effect-based design (regardles of what led to effect-based design) that causes the problem.

Sure.

So it doesn't take training to wield a weapon effectively?

Of course it does. That's why 4e has weapon proficiency bonuses. If you've trained in that weapon, you wield it more effectivly. The Basic Meelee Attack power allows anyone to pick-up something 4e defines as a weapon and use it. But it's almost always more effective to use something you have more training in. A fighter, for example, probably has trained with the weapon he or she is using but has trained to use that weapon in more effective maneuvers, like cleave.

Again, what type of training are we speaking of here? I guess it also doesn't take training for the different monsters and NPC's in the MM to pull off their powers... because they don't have power sources either.

NPC and monsters don't need power sources. Power source is really just a PC Class concept, so if you wanted all PC Classes to use it, not specifying the power source is a good idea.

IMO the more you examine this the more it seems pretty flimsy reasoning.

You used the lack of a power source with the Basic Melee Attack and Basic Ranged Attack as evidence that the martial power source is magic. The problem with that contention is that those powers are just there so characters can wield a weapon and attempt to hit something with it either with an opportunity attack (have I said I hate that phrasing yet?) or when you can't use some other power.

Hey I respect your opinion, though I don't believe you've argued the narrative control (a sidebar story, without a power and perhaps not even playing D&D 4e) as support for that style of play in anything close to a convincing manner... especially since while it may not be contradicted by the rules (in the same manner using foam weapons for combat isn't) this isn't the same as supporting something.

Sure it supports it. Think about it, Mallus said that narrative control consistent with the rules. You said that had no basis in the rulebooks. Those were strong words. I pointed out a basis. Sure, it's not much but it's a positive statement by a designer in a core rulebook.

As far as alternate magic... It says it in the description it's not traditional magic...and that they allow people to do things ordinary beings can't...yet martial powers apparently work different from what we consider any other ability that would be classified as martial such as the basic attack, or a Human Bandit's Dazing Strike... or how about an Ogre Warhulk's Flail Hurricane. None of these are classified under the Martial power source. Though I would think an ability like Dazing Strike would take some training to do since I believe it's an encounter or recharge power.

The problem with the wording you're quoting is that it's a negative statement. You're inferring what the martial power source is (and what the game designers intent was) from a description of what it isn't. I provided an alternative explanation, flowery prose.

Now, what's the simplest explanation: that the designers consistently failed to explicitly name magic as the source of a fighter's, rogue's, and ranger's power or that they didn't say it because they didn't intend it?

Edit: the first page of Martial Power says "All legendary warriors develop martial power to such an extent that their abilities are the equal of magical abilities." Not traditional magic, just magic. Again, what explanation is simplest: the one that requires the designers to leave off an important description, or the one that takes it at face value.

So now my question is what seperates someone whose using a power that is based in martial abilities as opposed to someone who uses the martial power source?

The ability to do something extraordinary.

 

[fanboy2000]

There is a degree to which this is true. There are an infinite number of potential logical systems, and no rational way to select between them.

However, within any given system of logic, it is possible to determine if a conclusion is logical or not. Likewise, within any given system of comprehension, it is possible to determine what system is most comprehensive.

Actually which one you choose to use is personal preference... what reasoning is most cohesive, logical, etc. is objetcive.

You guys really need to come over to the personal taste side of things. It's so much fun over here when you realize that "a great many of the truths we cling to depend on a certain point of view."

I mean, think about it. What's the most logical thing to do with a game? Have fun. When a rule is ambiguous or has room for interpretation, what's the logical thing to do? Use the interpretation that is the most fun. This could be the interpretation that is the most fair, the most challenging, the most funny, or the one that solves the most irregularities. What an individual finds fun is subjective. For example, if someone has no problem with healing in 4e, they have no need to adopt an interpretation that resolves the problem.

If I can come-up with non-magical explainations for a martial power you think is magic, I have no logical need adopt your point of view because I have my non-magical explanation. In fact, adopting your point of view may impair my ability to have fun, particularly if I try to argue it to may players. That would be illogical.

Those of us on the personal preference side of things have so much fun. It's great when you see how other people come to their version of fun.

Come, on. I know you two are wavering. Your thinking "you know, if it is all personal preference, then I can discuss things so much more easily with people." Gone are the bad feelings from mis-read posts. Gone is the weirdness from "well of course you can do it like that, if that's how you have fun, but...."

It smells like nirvana over on this side.