What is the essence of D&D

[Xenonnonex]

I disagree. That is roleplaying games in general or any game. But that's my opinion. I love Runequest. I would not call it D&D.

No other roleplaying game involves as much needlessly pointless arguing as D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

Huh? How do you figure that AD&D spells are weaker than 5e ones?

Sleep was an instant death spell for multiple targets under 4HD. No save, and HP didn't matter. 5e is nowhere near that powerful. Fireball had no upper limit - it was d6/wizard level. Most AD&D spells were far, far more powerful than their 5e versions.

AD&D spells were harder to cast, however, and you in general got fewer of them per day until high level. There was often also some risk involved - your fireball could blow back and hit you, for example, if you misjudged the available space to put it in.

 

[Lanefan]

As for the idea that the 'Primacy of Magic' is the essence of D&D: so what?

I can see it as ONE essence of D&D among others, perhaps, but not as THE essence.

 

[Zardnaar]

As for the idea that the 'Primacy of Magic' is the essence of D&D: so what?

I can see it as ONE essence of D&D among others, perhaps, but not as THE essence.

5E nerfed magic relative to 3Evane buffed some classes.

You'll never get it perfect, even 4E messed up some of their stuff.

 

[Hussar]

So you can either gut magic and see what happens, give martials non magical abilities thatvdi the same thing which is silly orvhave different jobs in the game which is what 5E tried to do.

Have an entire wizard party and see how it works out.

Maybe not entire wizard party. After all, an all fighter party would fare just as badly. But, an all caster party? That's a pretty solid party - Cleric, Bard, Wizard, Druid, Warlock, for example (assuming 5 PC party) would fare pretty darn well. They'd have very few issues that they couldn't face down.

Far better than an all non-caster party anyway.

But, again, still not proving that the essence of D&D isn't primacy of magic.

As for the idea that the 'Primacy of Magic' is the essence of D&D: so what?

I can see it as ONE essence of D&D among others, perhaps, but not as THE essence.

Well, there's the question isn't it? What else is there? What other essentially D&D thing is there other than the primacy of magic? What can we find commonly in all versions of D&D that doesn't exist in 4e, since 4e is the version of D&D that isn't D&D. 6 stats isn't really valid since what the stats meant has changed over editions and the fact that all 6 appear in 4e means that it can't be that. 9 levels of magic? Well, Basic and Expert D&D didn't have that, yet they are both considered D&D. Did OD&D have 9 levels of magic (I actually am curious on that one, I honestly don't know). So on and so forth.

No one has really put forth anything else that is so clearly delineated as the primacy of magic. It's the one very clear difference between something folks insist WASN'T D&D, and what folks insist is D&D, despite differences between editions.

 

[Zardnaar]

Maybe not entire wizard party. After all, an all fighter party would fare just as badly. But, an all caster party? That's a pretty solid party - Cleric, Bard, Wizard, Druid, Warlock, for example (assuming 5 PC party) would fare pretty darn well. They'd have very few issues that they couldn't face down.

Far better than an all non-caster party anyway.

But, again, still not proving that the essence of D&D isn't primacy of magic.



Well, there's the question isn't it? What else is there? What other essentially D&D thing is there other than the primacy of magic? What can we find commonly in all versions of D&D that doesn't exist in 4e, since 4e is the version of D&D that isn't D&D. 6 stats isn't really valid since what the stats meant has changed over editions and the fact that all 6 appear in 4e means that it can't be that. 9 levels of magic? Well, Basic and Expert D&D didn't have that, yet they are both considered D&D. Did OD&D have 9 levels of magic (I actually am curious on that one, I honestly don't know). So on and so forth.

No one has really put forth anything else that is so clearly delineated as the primacy of magic. It's the one very clear difference between something folks insist WASN'T D&D, and what folks insist is D&D, despite differences between editions.

AEDU is fine IMHO, 4Es heavy handed across the board implementation of it was the real problem.

If you did a Raven Queens Guide to Nerath and it had AEDU classes that's fine IMHO.

You could also rewrite the 5E classes but that's a lot if work. Some sort of warlord and a tweaked rogue would probably fix that.

 

[Zardnaar]

And did I not pistva warord template based on the warlock for 5E. It got more supremacy dice than the BM fighter and some other bells and whistles.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe not entire wizard party. After all, an all fighter party would fare just as badly. But, an all caster party? That's a pretty solid party - Cleric, Bard, Wizard, Druid, Warlock, for example (assuming 5 PC party) would fare pretty darn well. They'd have very few issues that they couldn't face down.

Far better than an all non-caster party anyway.

But, again, still not proving that the essence of D&D isn't primacy of magic.

An all-non-caster party could work just fine (in any edition) provided the players were willing to have things go at a much slower pace - give the sneaks and scouts time to sneak and scout, make combat the last resort instead of the first, be willing to spend lots of time resting up, and so on.

Well, there's the question isn't it? What else is there? What other essentially D&D thing is there other than the primacy of magic? What can we find commonly in all versions of D&D that doesn't exist in 4e, since 4e is the version of D&D that isn't D&D. 6 stats isn't really valid since what the stats meant has changed over editions and the fact that all 6 appear in 4e means that it can't be that. 9 levels of magic? Well, Basic and Expert D&D didn't have that, yet they are both considered D&D. Did OD&D have 9 levels of magic (I actually am curious on that one, I honestly don't know). So on and so forth.

Er...why are you trying to exclude 4e? Like it or not, it's as much D&D as the rest of 'em, and last I checked this thread's supposed to be about finding the essence of D&D...which means all D&D, not just the bits you want it to mean.

And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even like 4e...

 

[Hussar]

An all-non-caster party could work just fine (in any edition) provided the players were willing to have things go at a much slower pace - give the sneaks and scouts time to sneak and scout, make combat the last resort instead of the first, be willing to spend lots of time resting up, and so on.

Er...why are you trying to exclude 4e? Like it or not, it's as much D&D as the rest of 'em, and last I checked this thread's supposed to be about finding the essence of D&D...which means all D&D, not just the bits you want it to mean.

And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even like 4e...

Maybe it got lost in the scrum.

The basic argument, put forth by @Tony Vargas, is that 4e is the only edition where there is consistent opinion that it isn't actually D&D. That there is something about it that makes it so different from other editions that it isn't D&D anymore. It's a fairly common criticism. "It's a good game, but, it's just not D&D for me" is a fairly oft repeated refrain.

We're saying, Ok, fair enough. If 4e isn't "D&D Enough" then what is it about 4e that makes it so? Given the pretty wide changes between different editions, to point point where you have a fairly large subset of fandom refuse to talk about TETSNBN, but all are still considered "D&D", it seems that 4e did something to cause people to not call it D&D.

Which is where Tony V comes in. He's arguing that 4e is the only edition of D&D where magic isn't primary. Every other edition had magic being far more powerful and capable of doing far more things than non-magic. Raise the Dead, Fly, Teleport, Feather Fall - all things that are far beyond what someone can do unless they invoke "it's magic". Every edition, other than 4e, places magic at the forefront of capabilities. If you want to do something and you want to be absolutely sure that you succeed, you use magic. Nothing mundane can ever come close to the upper end of what magic can routinely do. Even at the lower end of what magic can do is often far beyond what non-magic can accomplish (Feather Fall being a prime example).

So, what else is essential to being D&D? See, the problem is, folks here are seeing this as an edition war adjunct. It's not. It's simply a recognition of facts. Every edition other than 4e, placed magic at the forefront. What is being termed, the Primacy of Magic. That's not a value judgement. It's not good or bad, it just is and it's just a recognition of how the game is presented.

Since 4e is often called out as "not D&D" and the biggest difference between 4e and other editions is the "Primacy of magic" it's not a really big leap to come to the conclusion that "Primacy of Magic" is the essence of D&D.

 

[Garthanos]

Trivially easy to count out in typical dungeon hallways, trickier (but still not hard) in odd-shaped rooms, and sometimes a bit of a pain in irregaular-shaped caverns.

So have you been in actual caves... I personally like caves and pyramids and utterly different shapes tubes and so on. Watching that highschool guy who knew enoughmath to hang himself wasnt funny it was dumb.... its magic for flankings sake.