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

[Scribble]

Yet you are seemingly offended by the observation that "All abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e?!?!

When did I say this? You seem to be making up stuff I said left and right! Color me annoyed!

I've even said (over and over) that if that's how YOU want or need to see the rules then that's fine. But don't tell me it's how the rules are MEANT to be played (according to some predetermined D&D bible somewhere) or it's the only way someone can possibly see the rules and be correct. That's what offends me.

I see the rules as not describing the world, therefore the rules do not say anything to the implied setting. If they do for YOU that's fine, but again it's not a universal thing.

Yes, when using CaGI, the character controls the actions of others. 's how the power is written.

This control is a phenomenon of the game being played, not the setting presented. It's not setting dependent, obviously.

I would say when using CaGI the player controls the actions of an NPC. How that is "depicted" in the world is mutable.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm confused that you seem to think making saves against a spell attack vs. attacking a defense score makes it somehow more magical.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

 

[ferratus]

The setting presented is one in which a character can control the actions of others. What can occur within a game is always a phenomenon of the implied setting of the game.

No it isn't. Otherwise, people in the setting would fight by sitting down at a table and rolling 20 sided dice.

The mechanics of the table don't have to represent the mechanics of the fight, they just have to represent a means to arbitrate how a particular scene plays out.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The fighter taunts nearby opponents, seeming to drop his guard. Believing the fighter to be over-confident (and perhaps under-skilled) his foes close to melee...

Can you visualize it better now?

Just wanted to say that the cognitive dissonance I face with Cagi is that it can make the artillery say, "Righty-O, lets leave our cover, run up and batter the armoured man with our little fists rather than continue to shoot him with our bows or magic spells".

I'm fine with it working with brutes, soldiers, lurkers, skirmishers and perhaps even leaders... but artillery who never want to get into direct contact with foes - that doesn't make sense to me.

Cheers

 

[Raven Crowking]

Scribble, as pertains to this discussion, I think that you and I are finished.

I am sorry that you are annoyed with the observation that an RPG ruleset perforce implies something about the nature of the game world the ruleset describes.

However, if you cannot accept the premise that what actions are possible in a game, and the way that they are resolved, contains implications for the world in which the action in said game takes place, then we are simply not speaking the same language at all.

In general, I respect your opinion, and I will be happy to discuss other topics with you. It's not worth getting irate over.


RC

 

[ferratus]

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

Well you are making the claim that magical powers are too similar mechanically to how martial powers work right?

It isn't as if the mechanics for resolving attack spells in 3e to 4e really changed all that much. Heck, it was a much bigger change moving from 3e from 2e. Back then, a wizard player in 2e didn't even need a d20 most nights because he didn't roll attacks for his spells at all.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No it isn't. Otherwise, people in the setting would fight by sitting down at a table and rolling 20 sided dice.

The mechanics of the table don't have to represent the mechanics of the fight, they just have to represent a means to arbitrate how a particular scene plays out.

You are conflating the actions of the players with the actions that can occur within the artificial construct of the game.

"What can occur within a game is always a phenomenon of the implied setting of the game" doesn't mean that your stopping the game to get ice cream has an implication in the game setting. What occurs in the game is what occurs within the artificial construct of the game (i.e., the game setting).

Clearer? I hope?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well you are making the claim that magical powers are too similar mechanically to how martial powers work right?

No.

 

[ferratus]

I'm fine with it working with brutes, soldiers, lurkers, skirmishers and perhaps even leaders... but artillery who never want to get into direct contact with foes - that doesn't make sense to me.

That's a perfectly valid criticism. I wonder if it is still a useful power if you houserule that it doesn't work against artillery monsters, or is the ability to draw artillery monsters specifically what makes the power worth taking in the first place?

 

[RefinedBean]

There is nothing, AFAIK, within the 4e RAW that states that the ability to control the actions of others is magical. If you are willing to claim that, within the implied setting of 4e, the inhabitants do not view this as magical I would agree -- that magical effects are considered mundane within the implied setting supports the statement that "all abilities are magic, and magic is available to all" is part of the implied setting of 4e.

I'm claiming that the inhabitants of a 4E game don't view this as magical because it isn't magical. RAW doesn't say it's magical, nothing in the power says it's a magical effect.

Here's the problem: You're seeing the "pull" portion of CaGI as inherently magical. It's not. It's whatever the player wants it to be! Your wikipedia description is nice, but really has no basis in the discussion, I don't think. We'd have to fork a thread and title it "What is magic?"

As PS mentioned, there can be some disconnect here. It's up to the players (or the DM) to work past it. If it doesn't work for the group, well, that's why retraining rules exist.