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

[RefinedBean]

Like Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, whose imaginations created this hobby, eh? The fact is simply that they did not design Dungeons & Dragons to reflect the particular influences of which you are a fanboy. We're not discussing Toon, say, or Macho Women With Guns.

Things change, sometimes for the better.

Remember back when boxers would fight until their hands broke, or they passed out from exhaustion or concussions? I'm pretty sure we're all better off giving them gloves and 12-15 rounds only.

The simple fact is that there IS an edition of D&D that tried its hand at (almost) pure simulationism, and it's called D&D 3.5.

Now, it's time for something different. You can say you don't like it, that's fine! But invoking the names of Arneson and Gygax as a way of saying "This is how D&D SHOULD BE" is cheap and meaningless.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, just so we're clear, when you say "magic" do you really just mean "non-simulationist"? If not, what DO you mean when you refer to "magic"?

I mean, specifically, that martial exploits are not firmly divided from magical exploits; that saying they are "not supernatural per se" indicates that they are not supernatural in one sense but that they are in another sense. Moreover, the implementation of the design shows this to be the case.

In order to meaningfully claim that X is magical and Y is mundane, then there must be some meaningful distinction between the two. In 4e there is not. Again, the implementation of the design supports this.


RC

 

[RefinedBean]

This makes it fundamentally impossible to draw any distinction between magic, mundane and anything else when it comes to PC's in D&D 4e.

I'd argue that this makes it possible for anyone to draw a distinction between magic and mundane, depending on their preferences.

Martial powers are magic? Sure! So long as everyone at the game is cool with that.

Rituals aren't magic, but a sort of pseudo-scientific way of affecting the world? Cool! Let's play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I was getting a little worried there.

Whew.

Pleased to put your mind at ease.


RC

 

[Imaro]

You're talking game constructs, though -- temp hit points are not described absolutely as "pushing through it temporarily" and regeneration is not specifically defined as "making open wounds close." Remember, illusions can cause "psychic damage", and regen heals those, too; attacks don't always result in physical wounds, and hit points have always never meant "physical damage only."

Yes, but like I said in my earlier post... if these game constructs are all meant to represent the same thing, then why create a milion names and ways to accomplish the same thing, it just seems wasteful and inefficient (though it does seem to be the main argument point when discussing 4e with it's fans, since it's hard to come to any consensus or even have meaningful discussion when the only answer is that the game is so vague and abstract that anything can represent/be/model anything).

However, it's not the only way healing is done. I'll admit, I don't like Regen as a mechanic available to martial PCs, just like I agree come and get it probably should have some provisions against some opponents - but by the same token it isn't impossible to think of Regen as just another way to represent a martial PC fighting well past the point he should be dead (namely, out of healing surges), a point which would have anyone else on the ground bleeding out.

Nope, it's not the only way... but then we have to ask the question what do these different ways of healing mean, why are they in the game and labeled seperately if all they are meant to do is accomplish the same thing?

I mean honestly the answer to any questioning of 4e mechanics seems to be... even if the designers call it a chicken, and it has feathers and wings... you can still claim it's a crow... just squint and ignore the color, oh yeah and that it can't fly and a cluck sounds kind of like caw...What, you can't see how that's a crow... your imagination is the suxxors.

If we're talking boundless endurance, it only lasts until end of the encounter, because it's a stance (looked it up on DDI). It doesn't last all day, just five minutes, which means when the fight's done, their wellspring of last-ditch energy is done with.

Or they could use it outside of a fight and heal hella hit points in less than 5 minutes. Let's say +3 hp's per 6 seconds...that's 30hp's a minute, oh yeah and it doesn't tax his body (through healing surges) at all. Again that strikes me as beyond what most would consider mundane or natural.

 

[RefinedBean]

In order to meaningfully claim that X is magical and Y is mundane, then there must be some meaningful distinction between the two.

You honestly think this has to be elaborated on or completely spelled out for you and your group in the rules, instead of having your group decide on what's best/most fun for them?

This is a game of pretend. I don't need any meaningful distinction between X and Y written down because I create the distinction myself, in play.

 

[Imaro]

You honestly think this has to be elaborated on or completely spelled out for you and your group in the rules, instead of having your group decide on what's best/most fun for them?

This is a game of pretend. I don't need any meaningful distinction between X and Y written down because I create the distinction myself, in play.

Yeah, I don't even know why I bought a PHB... I didn't need those powers spelled out for me and my group... I shoulda created my own based on what powers my group would find most fun... in fact I should just create my own rules too, because I could just create....

Really this argument is pointless since you don't need anything to make up stuff... however I'm also not going to pay money to create everything myself.

Also... why then did the designers try to create a distinction integrated into the basic design of the game... you know power sources. The Arcana skill, etc.

 

[LostSoul]

In order to meaningfully claim that X is magical and Y is mundane, then there must be some meaningful distinction between the two. In 4e there is not. Again, the implementation of the design supports this.

Ah, I think I get it now!

Does that distinction have to come from the rules? Can the group make that distinction for themselves?

What do you see as the effect on play if players make this distinction, even if it does not exist in the rules?

 

[Fanaelialae]

You are more than likely right as I am going by memory right now.



So...because everything is an exception, there is no baseline for powers to be categorized as far as magic vs. mundane... as they will always be exceptions. This makes it fundamentally impossible to draw any distinction between magic, mundane and anything else when it comes to PC's in D&D 4e. Essentially magic was the force that allowed one to create exceptions to the game rules as well as the rules of the fantasy world one was playing in... thus if all powers now do this, they have in fact all become magic. See IMO, a martial master would be someone who works within the reality or rules of the game to achieve greatness, while a magician or magic-user is one who breaks said rules to achieve greatness. Sort of similar to the followers of Law and Chaos in many of Moorcock's stories. Now however everyone is a manipulator and breaker of reality and game rules...mages

Monks in previous editions could make more multiple unarmed attacks than anyone else. While they did possess numerous magical powers, Flurry of Blows was an explicitly Extraordinary power (aka, non-magical). Both magical and mundane effects have always introduced exceptions into the D&D rules in all editions.

The big difference was that unlike mundane abilities magic allowed exceptions to game world physics, which are often mistakenly conflated with but do not actually have to be the same thing as the rules. Neither CAGI nor Unyielding Avalanche break the laws of physics, IMO, and hence are both still within the realm of the mundane.

First I didn't use the word only in any of my posts... however if there is no difference between regeneration, temporary hit points, using a second wind, etc. why do all of these different mechaics exist? If they all model the same thing then I would have to say it is both bad and wasted design to create fifty million ways to represent what is fundamentally the exact same thing. I do not believe the designers of D&D 4e are wasteful or bad at their job, thus I must believe these mechanics actually represent fundamentally different things as opposed to the same thing with a million different names.

I realize you didn't use the word "only", however it seemed to me that you were implying that temporary hp are necessary to model "shrugging off damage". If I was mistaken in that assumption, I apologize.

There are differences between second wind, regen, etc, but these are primarily mechanical. While some may be better at modeling certain types of recovery than others (regen models a gradual but sustained recovery better than a second wind which models a sudden burst of energy) they all work towards the same end (keeping your character alive). What they do is offer mechanical variety (the spice of mechanical life)!

A second point is that there is still an amount of hit points that represent physical damage... not all but some. regeneration allows one to heal it in seconds as opposed to minutes or days.



I'm sorry but having Wolverine's mutant healing factor (even for 5 minutes) is magical IMO. We can of course agree to disagree.

Again, hp is abstract. Sure your fighter may have taken a few injuries (losing some physical endurance) but if he regenerates to full using UA he's replaced that lost endurance with an excess bounty of resolve (effectively convinced himself that the scratches he took in the last fight are inconsequential and cannot slow him down).

And yes, before someone says it, this does not necessarily perfectly model the real world. 4E is not a primarily simulationist game. It sometimes sacrifices a degree of realism for ease of play. That still doesn't make these effects magical (though they are rather cinematic).

Agreeing to disagree is fine.

 

[LostSoul]

Nope, it's not the only way... but then we have to ask the question what do these different ways of healing mean, why are they in the game and labeled seperately if all they are meant to do is accomplish the same thing?

I think it's because all the ways they interact create tactical complexity but mantain ease of play.