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

[Ariosto]

Darjr, I don't think the rules (at least in 1st ed.) actually stipulate either way. I think it is most commonly interpreted as a non-magical consequence of a fighter's training regimen, but some DMs might regard all exceptional strength beyond a certain level as supernatural. I highly doubt that many would take offense at either characterization. The cavalier class, on the other hand, may be contentious for more reasons than just ability score increases!

Now, why might one regard it as magical? That could arise from a comparison of the capabilities with those of real-world athletes. I'm not saying that the evidence would (or would not) warrant that conclusion, as I have not examined it.

Magic, the supernatural, is what breaks what we perceive to be the laws binding the natural. It is what we not only do not observe in the real world but consider practically impossible. Naturally, one cannot (for instance) simply will the movement of other beings; that does not match our knowledge of cause and effect.

 

[darjr]

One cannot gain 'exceptional strength' by any other means than magical.... except in the one instance when one becomes a fighter. It is an artifact of magical enhancement in all aspects except the one. Why? Because the rules do stipulate that it is NOT magical. That's it.

It isn't available to any other character in any other circumstance other than magical ones.

 

[fanboy2000]

This thread goes on and on, in large part, because you have failed to make your case. Your rock rolls down that hill and you, stubbornly, have at it again. You'll twist and tack but your essential argument remains unconvincing.

I don't think it's that he hasn't made his case. (i.e. I think he has made his case, I just don't agree with it) The thread keeps going on and on because we're slowly working our way through every major gaming debate ever. Those debates weren't solved then and they won't be solved now.

It's like Emacs vs. vi: it'll keep going until the last Unix users die from surgery complications from a carpel tunnel operation.

Anyways, if we can keep our cool, I suspect we'll have a rollplaying vs roleplaying debate in about another 10 pages.

 

[darjr]

Wot?

Like the 'D&D is only a wargame' one? I especially don't like that one. It is rather traditional, and dismissive. I wonder how far back it goes.

And it's vim for the win.

 

[Derren]

I wonder how far back it goes.

Probably back to the time where D&D was just a wargame, a legacy it never managed to escape from completely and one it now came to embrace again.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think you're missing my point, and it's probably my fault that I didn't go into depth with any one example (as I didn't want a singular example to become the focus of what I was stating) but let me go further...

Using armor raises AC... yet it doesn't raise Ref, Fort or Will defenses... thus we can surmise that in this hypothetical D&D world that attacks which target Ref, Will or Fort are not affected by armor, but those that target AC are... right? Now going a little further... a basic melee and ranged attack (barring magic) always target AC... thus it is implied, because of these rules, that Armor makes you harder to hit when someone wields a weapon against you...right? The fact that all basic melee and ranged attacks use Str and Dex respectively also implies that these weapons are used (again barring magic or some other extraordinary exception) better by someone with greater physical prowess...right?

And so on, what I'm saying is that the rules very much create implied things about the world by how they interact.

First off: apologies for getting back to you three pages later, but living in Ireland most posting in ENWorld seems to occur when I am in bed.

With regard to your specific example I agree with you, so on that level yeah the rules imply stuff in the imagined world.

My point is, that the narrative sleeve you hang in the skeleton of round by round dice rolls in D&D combat is mutable and subject to player interpetation. Others have made a similar point in this thread and I though your post was about that aspect. So I jumped in with both feet. Sorry about that, it was late and I just had my ass handed to me by the AI in Civ4 before catching up on the thread,

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Personally, I still use the 1-2-1 movement rules in 4E for character movement, but not for bursts and blasts. It's easier for me to hand wave the shape of an explosion than to hand wave that a character moves faster diagonally.

 

[Piratecat]

First off: apologies for getting back to you three pages later, but living in Ireland most posting in ENWorld seems to occur when I am in bed.

This is a huge problem, especially with you living somewhere so desirable, and you can make up for it by allowing us to all come visit you in Ireland.

All of us.

At once.

 

[Kask]

A human getting a second class of fighter with an 18 STR earned a roll of the percentage dice. I don't think I missed somthing, I think that's how it works. The fighter gets an almost magical boost to STR. The only other way to get such a boost is via magic. So is it magic?

To answer you Q, no.

It was deemed that only the fighter, because he didn't spend time on class abilities like spells, thieving skills, etc., had the time to build his strength to those high levels. In other words, fighters had time to physically work out where other classes spent time on their class skills...

 

[Hussar]

I think you're missing my point, and it's probably my fault that I didn't go into depth with any one example (as I didn't want a singular example to become the focus of what I was stating) but let me go further...

Using armor raises AC... yet it doesn't raise Ref, Fort or Will defenses... thus we can surmise that in this hypothetical D&D world that attacks which target Ref, Will or Fort are not affected by armor, but those that target AC are... right? Now going a little further... a basic melee and ranged attack (barring magic) always target AC... thus it is implied, because of these rules, that Armor makes you harder to hit when someone wields a weapon against you...right? The fact that all basic melee and ranged attacks use Str and Dex respectively also implies that these weapons are used (again barring magic or some other extraordinary exception) better by someone with greater physical prowess...right?

And so on, what I'm saying is that the rules very much create implied things about the world by how they interact.

The problem comes in though, where do you stop? If you actually decide that rules=physics, your world becomes so completely bizarre that it's very hard to relate to. Take even the simple example of armor making you harder to hit.

Huh? How does putting on a suit of armor make it more difficult to hit me? It makes it harder to hurt me, that's true, but touch me? Sorry, don't believe it. But, somehow, putting on full plate makes me so much faster that claws that would catch me when I was naked, suddenly miss by a mile.

Or, really, how does being stronger make you more accurate? Accuracy has very little to do with strength, but, in D&D land, Arnold Swartzenegger is going to hit you far more often than Bruce Lee. Harder I could understand, but more often?

Going back to my question about hippogriffs. If the physics of the world allow a hippogriff to fly without magic, why can't my character pick up two pieces of paper, flap his arms and fly away? It's about as aerodynmically likely as getting half a ton of critter off the ground under its own power.

So, where do you stop? At what point do you say that Rules=physics except in these cases? To me, I look at the rules as abstract constructs that allow me to adjudicate events which occur in the game and nothing more. They do not speak at all to "real" events in the world. That's what the DM is for.

Okay... I've taught 8 year olds to play and there wasn't a problem with figuring movement. So, I guess it could be a playability issue with someone who has less math skills than that... I've just never encountered it before.

Could that same 8 year old draw a 40 foot cone cast on a diagonal? How about a 30 foot spread? You can be as dismissive of people having issues with this all you like, but, I'll guarantee that in every session you play, someone miscounts a move or an area of effect or a reach situation. Watch your next session, I'll bet dollars to donuts that someone during the session makes a mistake.