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

[LostSoul]

Yeah, I get the level of abstraction of HP and all that. That's just the example.

I want to talk about the effects that abstraction in 4E - hp or healing surges or skill challenges or power sources - has on player choice.

 

[Mallus]

I would also point out that in Settlers of Catan, at no point do you actually pretend to be anyone other than yourself. Isn't that what differentiates a board game from an RPG?

Only for people looking to make a sensible argument.

Or, if you really want to be like that, then it's fair to say OD&D is a layer of narration slathered on top of a wargame about medieval combat (I believe that game was called 'Chainmail' ).

 

[Raven Crowking]

The lowest level Rogue power I can find that grants invisibility is Hide in Plain Sight, which is a level 16 power.

Perhaps, but level 16 in 4e and level 15 in RCFG mean two differnt things. In RCFG, there is no level over 15. 15 is the maximum potential. It is defined as epic in terms of the game world.

Ah, now I see. They did issue errata to change it from a shift to a pull.

Bully for errata!

RC, you seem to be treading both sides of the argument.

CaGI and other powers of that nature are by definition not magical, since they're used by Martial characters. This is per RAW.

Quote it for me.

Again, you really have to stop inflicting your own sense of what "magic" is.

If a game world describes an effect as "not magic" which would be magic within the common definition, then the game world implies that there are magic things in the world (common definition) that the inhabitants do not think are magic (game definition).

Willfully obtuse interpretation aside, you can explain how a character with the ability to move moves.

(1) Some of these powers allow a character without the ability to move to move.

(2) It is not explaining "how a character with the ability to move moves" which is problematic; it is explaining how the character has a non-magical power which controls not only that they move, but their precise route as well.

Wishes can't, because they purposefully break explanations down.

Maybe we're in the Matrix. Do the rules specifically say that we are not in the Matrix? Perhaps we are in a holodeck.

The player uses Come and Get It

Please quote from RAW where it says the player uses Come and Get It. It is listed as a character power AFAICT.

It looks as if this has already been addressed, but ... Yes, I think that is the 4E view.

Indeed.

Hit points have always been magical, as Gary Gygax says on page 82 of the 1e DMG.

Yup. For example, the hit points of a wizard might represent magical protections or those of a cleric divine protections. It is even reasonable to suppose that, as characters rise in level, they all gain some form of supernatural protection.

Makes sense. A high level fighter can consistently survive falls from any height. How could he not be magic?

Indeed.

And now they are SuperJedi.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I want to talk about the effects that abstraction in 4E - hp or healing surges or skill challenges or power sources - has on player choice.

The effect on me was that it made me not want to play it.

The effect on some others is that it made them want to play it.

Six of one; half a dozen of the other.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Sigh...I foolishly hoped that 4E would be the perfect edition for me, but for all of 3E's mechanical problems it fixed there seem to be new problems that hinder suspension of disbelief.

I definitely don't want to go back to 3E, so I guess I'm gonna start working on making houserules for 4E that satisfy me. If that fails, I guess I could try RCFG.

 

[FireLance]

Come And Get It!

 

[Mallus]

Well, one big one is that the movement doesn't need to make sense for the character being moved in the situation he is being moved in.

Oh, I definitely agree that using CaGI in certain situations and/or against certain kinds of opponent --say like bowmen or mages-- strains credulity. But like I said before, I enjoy the challenge. It's a test of my DM'ing chops to find a way to narrate those situations so they approach the sensible (even if they don't quite get there).

Also, a lot of D&D combat situations strain credulity, so whats one more?

Another is that, unless I am mistaken, the power isn't limited by the target's actual movement rate. So, you can CAGI a creature which is normally immobile, paralyzed, etc.

These are corner cases, and, in general, 4e is silent on corner cases. Powers get a line or two of description then a listing of mechanical effects. No attempt is made to provide explicit rules for every possible situation/interaction. It's left up to the DM's judgment and common sense. I rather like that 4e openly puts the DM back into the equation.

I know how I'd rule if a player used CaGI on a paralyzed foe.

Indeed, I am fairly certain that you could use CAGI (or other, similar powers) to move your paralyzed friend out of harm's way.

This isn't allowed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Come And Get It!

That was funny, and I will send you XP for it when my ability to do so refreshes.

However, demonstrating that a person will probably follow a link to unknown content isn't the same as demonstrating that a cowardly unarmed person in a defensable position will always leave said position just because you tell him to, so long as you do it only once per day/encounter/whatever.

Thinking that these things are co-equal is wishful thinking, at best.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I definitely don't want to go back to 3E, so I guess I'm gonna start working on making houserules for 4E that satisfy me. If that fails, I guess I could try RCFG.

Well, RCFG is certainly cheaper!

 

[fanboy2000]

Nice attempt at obfuscation. Of course not, else merely using miniatures would constitute "not an RPG". No, it's a level of abstraction codified into the rules that is difficult to resolve with being an RPG that is boardgamesque, not the mere presence of a map.

Well, he did say it was out of curiosity.

The level of abstraction is greater, or at the very least more noticeable, in 4e because rather than have several subsystems emulating the different aspects of the game, we have a more explicit exception based rules system.

I also agree that there's a difference in the level of abstraction between a board game like Chess or Go and D&D. I think, however, it's a little to early to say that the current edition of D&D is a board game. For one thing, 4e still rewards roleplaying. Just last week my group took a duegar prisoner, shaved his beard off, and interrogated him about some slaves. So, unless I'm playing a different 4e from the one the designers intended (and so are many others), I think we can safely say 4e is still an RPG.