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

[UngainlyTitan]

As Wulf Rathbane's requested XP added and I agree with the point Mallus is making anyway.

 

[D'karr]

The campaign world doesn't need codified physics laws for everything that takes place, because there is magic. What it does need is an explanation for things that happen that the world's inhabitants can relate to, even if that means simply magic or " by the will of the gods". The imaginary people of a fantasy world need to be grounded in some form of "reality" that has meaning to them even if its very different from our own.

I agree, and most of the powers that have been discussed here show how some people are providing that "reality" to them. Some others just want to dismiss the "interpretation" of the power and say "hogwash" it must be magic because X, Y, Z, etc...

The fact that some are still able to provide a "realistic" interpretation to those powers that are not inherently magical for their campaign, seems to show that it can be done. If some refuse to see it as anything but magic is not a problem with the system, it is a problem with narrow interpretation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, why not Mr. Smartypants? Do you have a better explanation, or rationalization, as the case may be?

Your explanation does not model well what actually happens in the rules as well as the jokey explanation. The DM isn't deciding; the reaction of the creatures isn't dependent upon their nature and the situation. These two factors alone make the jokey explanation match better with actual rules/gameplay than one that adds (essentially) additional restrictions in order to make sense within the rules paradigm.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Every class has abilities that are most easily explained by saying " a wizard did it". "Narrative control" would not be an acceptable explanation to an onlooker who witnessed such a power in action.

But that's not what he would see, either.

He would see one of the various ways to "flavor" the "Come and Get It" ability:
- 2 Goblins sit on a tree. The Fighter runs forward, kicks the tree stump, the goblins fall, catching their fall with an elegant move, that brings them right where the fighter is now standing again.
- 5 Zombies surround the party. One seems to be eying for the Wizard, but the Fighter calls out: "Come here, you lifeless pieces of flesh! I will take you down, and if it's the last thing I gonna do!" The Zombie are distracted by the noise and forgets about the Wizard, but are even more determined to get this clearly living and promising thing amongst them - the fighter.
- The Archmage and his bodyguard are standing close to the Fighter. The last spell seemed to have hit him harder then expected. Certain of his victory, the Archmage moves closer. "You are pathetic. You might have had enough power to hurt my youngest students, but you are no match for a real wizard", he says, as he prepares a spell.Only through the body guards quick reaction as the Fighter moves his sword can the archmage avoid his decapitation, but both take some part of the blow. "I haven't even started yet!" screams the fighter.

If the Swordmage had a "Come and Get it" like power, it would look very different. For example, he might swing a lasso from magical energy, or create a whirlwind.

In the first scenario, the in-game-world onlooker doesn't see anything magical. The end result of whatever it sees is that a few enemies end up surrounding the Fighter and he swings at them. But the method by which they got there are entirely mundane. They stumbled into his direction, the fighter tricked them, whatever. He, of course, doesn't see "narrative control" exercised, since he is part of the narrative that is being controlled.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The fact that some are still able to provide a "realistic" interpretation to those powers that are not inherently magical for their campaign, seems to show that it can be done. If some refuse to see it as anything but magic is not a problem with the system, it is a problem with narrow interpretation.

Excepting, of course, that the other possibility is that the "realistic" interpretation to those powers is not, in fact, a realistic interpretation given the nature of the powers in question.

If Power 1 has qualities A, B, C, and D, and I can provide a realistic interpretation provided I ignore quality D, or quality C (so that I have provided a realistic interpretation of a power with qualities A, B, and C and/or for a power with qualities A, B, and D), I still have not provided a realistic interpretation for Power 1.

And that, AFAICT, is what Mallus and others have done. By selectively ignoring qualities of powers, they claim to have provided a realistic explanation of them. It is not a character flaw or a failure of imagination to note that they have not done so. It is, OTOH, wishful thinking to believe that they have done so.


RC

 

[Mallus]

The DM isn't deciding; the reaction of the creatures isn't dependent upon their nature and the situation.

This statement is exactly right. But I don't see how it contradicts my point.

Your position seems to imply there's a correct way to decide what the target creatures, one that get hashed by the use of powers like CaGI. I disagree. Also, as DM I like the challenge of having to explain, on the spot, why an NPC did something (as a result of a player 'taking control' for a moment). I get a kick out of that.

The way I look it, when a fighter uses CaGI, it becomes the target's nature to approach. That's what happens. It's then incumbent on the DM (and player) to provide whatever additional explanation/narration they deem necessary to make that event make sense (in the context of the game world).

 

[Mallus]

This is a perfect description. If I could, I'd give you more XP.

Thanks Wulf.

(on an unrelated note, when's Trailblazer coming out? My group's gearing up to finish our long-running 3.5e campaign and TB looks like it would really help. It's either that or convert everything to M&M2e/W&W)

 

[Raven Crowking]

This statement is exactly right. But I don't see how it contradicts my point.

Well....

The way I look it, when a fighter uses CaGI, it becomes the target's nature to approach. That's what happens.

So, the ability changes the nature of its target?

And, it is only usable by a select few?

And, it is not magic?




RC

 

[Aus_Snow]

Does this 'Come and get it' thing require a saving throw roll vs. a defence? Or is it automatic? Is there a duration? Do they get a saving throw every round or something?

I'm not wanting to derail the discussion about whether it's magic, at all; it's just that I um, don't know how it works.

 

[Mournblade94]

This is incorrect.

In previous editions, a fighter could taunt an opponent and the DM could decide to have the opponent close in. This is what Come and Get It does. The difference is that in 4e, using that power, the player gets to decide if the opponent closes in, albeit only once per day (or encounter, I forget...).

Say it with me... it's not magic, it's direct control over the narrative.

I have to disagree. One way balance was achieved in 4e was giving everybody spells. Label them however you want powers are spells or we can redefine previous spells as powers.

I understand what you mean by controlling the narrative, but this 'controlling the narrative' can be distilled to a type of spell effect.

Yes the flavor of the power text is clearly NOT magic. From a mechanical perspective it works no different than a spell effect that draws an opponent towards you.