What is the essence of D&D

[Garthanos]

Since you seem to hate every edition except for 4E just don't play those editions. We didn't play 4E it's no big deal.

Honestly I liked each edition better as it went along... til 5e decided intelligence was a dump stat if you didnt use magic. And besides my edition isn't D&D remember not really even a roleplaying game just some skirmishing combat engine.... I don't belong here. Goodbye.

 

[Garthanos]

Doesn't really matter what you prefer it's like 5E gave you opt in choices as well there's only 4 races and archetypes as core.

What opt in choice do I have if I want roughly analogous utility outside of combat for non-casters? They took things away (that are no where near easy to patch in).

 

[Garthanos]

No cleric changed the campaign dynamic generally. Dungeon hacks went out the window

Just removed the Dungeons from Dungeons and Dragons... all because of lack of one caster class says something to me.

 

[Maxperson]

1. Every edition of D&Dhas added more magic to the game. At least up to 5e which has actually scaled it back somewhat at least in terms of sheer number of spells. OTOH, 33 of 36 classes in the PHB can use magic as opposed to the 3 classes in Basic/Expert which could.

Just a nitpick, but there aren't 36 classes. There are 12. 12 out of 12 have magic available if the players choose the right subclass.

2. Magic has to be magical - this is repeated often enough that it is pretty commonly held.

Magic hasn't been magical since 2e. Too much makes it commonplace and blah.

3. Magic must be able to do more than non-magical things. So, a 1st level wizard casting Jump to jump 60 feet is perfectly fine but a 23rd level rogue trying to do the same thing is not.

The premise is flawed. Magic doesn't have to be able to do more than non-magical things. However, magic is an explanation for why the laws of physics can be broken, so some magic can do more than non-magical things. That magic can break those laws of physics is also why magic is limited in the amount you can do per day.

4. It is always acceptable to justify things with magic. Anything which cannot be justified in the real world MUST be justified with magic.

So what. I mean, this applies in the real world, too. Lots of things that people can't justify with a rational explanation has been chalked up to magic. People have been killed over it. Justification doesn't have anything to do with whether or not magic has primacy, though.

5. Every edition of the game is either impossible or very, very difficult to play without casters except for the one edition that many claim isn't D&D, 4e.

In no edition was it impossible or very, very difficult to play without casters. In 1e and 2e, the DM had to adjust the way the DM was supposed to, though. A DM who didn't adjust was being a jerk. In 3e it was more challenging, but not "very, very difficult." Feats, class abilities, and the ease of the game saw to that. 4e and 5e's non-magical healing make it easy to play without a caster.

6. You are expected to find more and more powerful magic items every adventure. It's an extremely rare module that doesn't have any magic items to be found.

First, modules aren't rules. The official modules are just what the DM who designed them thought should be in his game. Each DM who runs those gets to re-decide for his own game and limit or even remove them entirely. Second, there is no such expectation in 5e at all. In fact, the game explicitly doesn't include magic items in the game math just so that there can be no expectation of finding magic items. Third, magic items are found not because magic has some sort of primacy, but because they are fun.

Did I miss anything?

Yes. Everything above is based on preference of players, not primacy of magic. All of it, from number 1 to number 6, exists because magic is fun for players, not because magic has primacy over everything else.

 

[Garthanos]

The premise is flawed. Magic doesn't have to be able to do more than non-magical things. However, magic is an explanation for why the laws of physics can be broken, so some magic can do more than non-magical things. That magic can break those laws of physics is also why magic is limited in the amount you can do per day.

Lets get nit picky on this one too. with more specific example.
If I climb a wall reliably and with my normal movement speed because of magic I might be casting a gravity defying magic like movie vampires walking parallel but if I climb a wall reliably with my normal movement speed using supernal athletic ability I am not jutting out parallel to the wall but otherwise accomplishes the same goal via extraordinary skill. Mechanically games have limited structures so things (mostly for simplicity's sake) which may occur by greatly distinct methods are presented the same at the hardware level so to speak. I am not sure but I might allow that kind of ability to be an at-will utility in 4e for a high enough level character whether it was the Vampire walk for the athletes bursty reliable speed climbing

Its not necessarily because it is breaking the laws of physics that it is limited nor does breaking the laws of physics have to describe more than "how" the task is accomplished

Functional goals vs Methods ... the lion's share of mechanics largely represent those functional goals.

 

[Nagol]

<snip lots of stuff>



Yes. Everything above is based on preference of players, not primacy of magic. All of it, from number 1 to number 6, exists because magic is fun for players, not because magic has primacy over everything else.

This is a undead horse I constantly beat.

The areas where magic generally has primacy in D&D are detecting things, surviving hostile environments, and transportation. Many adventures simply can't be undertaken successfully if the group does not have access to enough power in these areas.

Different editions have approached levelling this primacy different ways:
1e the primary approach was the provision of magic accessible outside the class structure (skewed magic item tables, henchmen, expert hirelings) and prohibition on the most problematic caster type from learning everything (one chance to learn per spell and a cap on maximum learned per level).

2e reduced the provision magic accessible outside the PC (reduced access to henchmen), gave a passing nod to factional support, and reduced the prohibitions on the magic-user (one chance per level to learn a spell, relaxed cap on maximum number).

3e substantially reduced magic accessible outside the PC overtly (by seriously restricting henchmen), and indirectly (by making specialist magic items so valuable that secondary effects like divination, travel, and environmental survival were not kept) and eliminating all restrictions on how many effects a wizard can learn (all spells can be learned, no cap on number).

4e attacked the primacy a different way: by removing many of the larger convenient effects (flight, operational teleportation) and introducing "page 42" stunts which, depending on the DM, could be generously interpreted extrapolations of the PC combat abilities. It also provided a way for any class to gain access to non-combat specific magic by moving it to rituals and granting a way any interested PC could gain access It further reduced magic accessible outside the PC by weakening magic items in general and weakening henchmen again.

5e reverts many of the changes seen in 4e reinserting more powerful effects, reducing stunting, leaving access to rituals but reducing the number and value of their effects, and increasing the power of magic items while simultaneously saying they aren't necessary.

 

[Guest 6801328]

OTOH, 33 of 36 classes in the PHB can use magic as opposed to the 3 classes in Basic/Expert which could.

And every single class can swing a weapon. So I guess it's the Primacy of Martial Combat.

 

[Garthanos]

The areas where magic generally has primacy in D&D are detecting things, surviving hostile environments, and transportation.

Solving a ton of non-combat social issues in one fell swoop did you include considerations about what charm person used to do?

 

[Nagol]

Solving a ton of non-combat social issues in one fell swoop did you include considerations about what charm person used to do?

No because non-magical approaches typically exist. Social magic, especially in 1e, could be a great shortcut, but it wasn't non-magical character weren't locked out in the same way.

 

[Garthanos]

No because non-magical approaches typically exist.

I didnt think we were talking about lock out but rather. Absolute perfect functionality vs chancy functional inferiority