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

[Mad Mac]

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".

It's a fair point, but keep in mind that the power only works if the fighter is already within spitting distance. (3 squares) At the distance that the power is effective at, the Fighter could easily be up in Mr. Artilleryman's grill and kicking him in the groin instead of using CaGI.

It also only works if the target can reach the fighter by shifting 2 squares, so pretty much any sort of difficult terrain, obstacles, pits, walls with arrow slits, ect is going to negate the power.

 

[ferratus]

Clearer? I hope?

Not one bit, because I still don't understand why a fighter saying "come and get it" like he's in a kung fu movie automatically means he has supernatural powers of mind control to force people to come fight him in melee combat.

You don't assume the kung fu master has mind controlled the villain to fight him hand to hand, you just understand that it is a more exciting scene in the movie to have that happen. Likewise for a fighter, it is a more exciting scene for the player to fight a tough enemy one on one, instead of watching him beat on the easier targets in the party.

So your thesis that fighters must have mind control powers, or that it is too much like magic for the player of a fighter to control the NPC is odd. Why can't you accept that the player of a fighter who controls the action of an NPC for one round is like an actor conferring with a director about changing the upcoming scene, where the villain attacks his character instead?

 

[ferratus]

No.

*Ahem*

Scribble wrote:
An arrow and a magic missle might use the same mechanics, but they are described differently at the table, and thus feel different.

You said:
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?!?!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here's the problem: You're seeing the "pull" portion of CaGI as inherently magical. It's not.

I suppose invisibility, creating illusions, regeneration, and granting wishes aren't magical unless specified to be so, either.


RC

 

[RefinedBean]

It's a fair point, but keep in mind that the power only works if the fighter is already within spitting distance. (3 squares) At the distance that the power is effective at, the Fighter could easily be up in Mr. Artilleryman's grill and kicking him in the groin instead of using CaGI.

Plus, there are plenty of ways to describe it other than a taunt/jeer.

 

[Scribble]

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

Hrmm... I'm not getting irate... I was just using "offended" because you used it.

That said, I can accept that YOU feel the rules contain implications about how the world works, and I am fine with that. I just do not accept that it is a universal viewpoint because I know of at least 1 person (me) that does not see it that way. Actually I know 5, because my current game group appears to agree with me.

But if you can't accept that it's not a universal viewpoint, or some sort of objective truth, then maybe we are done.

 

[RefinedBean]

I suppose invisibility, creating illusions, regeneration, and granting wishes aren't magical unless specified to be so, either.


RC

Camouflage, drugs, alternate medicine. You got me on the "granting wishes" though.

We could do this all day, RC, but the fact of the matter is, the descriptor you're giving to "magic" is YOURS, and is thus subjective.

 

[Raven Crowking]

*Ahem*

Scribble wrote:
An arrow and a magic missle might use the same mechanics, but they are described differently at the table, and thus feel different.

You said:
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?!?!

*Ahem*

Without any desire to engage Scribble again, and with apologies aforehand if I misinterpret what he intended with that quote, but I was rather focusing on the idea that an arrow and magic missile were essentially the same thing, yet the idea that mundane and magic were the same thing was (seemingly) offensive.

Something could be "magic" (as the term is generally defined) due to mechanics (if those mechanics themselves imply a supernatural source), but barring a rational explaination, some described effects (because they themselves imply the supernatural) are "magical" regardless of the mechanics used.

In the case of CAGI, the mechanics don't imply the supernatural; the effect does.

I hope that this is clearer.

 

[Kask]

i suppose invisibility, creating illusions, regeneration, and granting wishes aren't magical unless specified to be so, either.

roflmao!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Plus, there are plenty of ways to describe it other than a taunt/jeer.

Of course, it is difficult to understand how artillery boy is taunted into the lava or off the cliff.........