ExploderWizard
Hero
I can understand a once in a lifetime shot. If it was a million to one though, then he should be able to make it 9 times out of ten.
How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition
- Thread starter Hexmage-EN
- Start date
I can understand a once in a lifetime shot. If it was a million to one though, then he should be able to make it 9 times out of ten.
Raven Crowking
First Post
I have been told that there is apparently some television series where Robin Hood does use magic?
The 70/80's UK TV version gave him a Son of Hern the Huntsman vibe. Not necessarily "using magic" as such but with definate connections to a whole load of Cletic Mythology, much of which was entirely inappropriate but still made for good television.
Or so the teenage version of me thought.
Should one judge any exploit of Conan's as magical, it is likely to be in keeping with the understanding of high-level characters in old D&D as including magic in their nature. There is quite a difference between such endurance, acknowledged as magical, and stark "impossibilities" the magic of which is strenuously denied.
Hussar
Legend
It seems to me, throughout this thread, that there are those who want to have it both ways.
For example, when I talked about hitting something, Kask told me that earlier editions of D&D had a specific meaning of "to hit" that was different from what is commonly understood. In earlier editions, a "hit" is defined as an attack that does damage. This is most certainly not how hit is defined commonly though. If I hit a tennis ball, I do no damage to it, or if I hit a steel wall with my hand, I do no damage to it (although I might hurt my hand
) yet, I am, in fact hitting it.
Yet, apparently, putting on heavy armor makes me harder to hit. Now, I totally agree that D&D has a specific definition of "hit" that is different than common usage. 100% agree. Yet, for some reason, when 4e has a specific definition that differs from common usage, that's a bad thing and leads to completely unbelievable situations that cannot possibly be justified in any other way than with "magic".
Or, going back to being stronger makes me more accurate. A barbarian (3rd edition) flies into a rage to the point where he loses a great deal of control, cannot concentrate, cannot perform complicated tasks, yet he is more accurate than the character who aims carefully and lines up the shot. This is an example where the rules of the game giving implications of the game world (what I called rules=physics although Imaro disagrees) making implications that are pretty much ludicrous. Being stronger should not make me hit more often. Yet, for some reason, the big, slow brute hits far more often than the skinny, weaker, but definitely faster, guy.
But, again, when apparently we cannot apply the same blinders to 4e that we do to earlier editions because, that's just not believable.
Or, take the example of the hippogriff. Imaro says that the hippogriff can fly, not through magic, but because of its monster type. It's a magical beast, therefore it can fly. This brings up two points. First, can any magical beast fly? If there is something about being a magical beast that allows flight, I sure missed it in the rules. Imaro has clearly added something in here that isn't in the rules, but, again, we're not allowed to do that in 4e.
But, secondly, if we are allowed to justify a creature's abilities solely on its metagame type, then why can't fighters do stuff that ordinary people can't? If a hippogriff can fly, not through magic, but solely because of its type, then why can't fighters pull people out of position, not out of magic, but solely because of the character's class? Type and Class are both metagame constructs that have no in game parallels. So, why is it ok to justify a hippogriff's flight with its type, but, not a fighter's abilities with its class?
Like I said, people want to have it both ways.
Hang on a sec. You're now claiming that all high level PC's in older editions are now magical in nature, regardless of class?
If that's true, then what the heck are you bitching about with 4e? If you consider all classes to be magical in nature in all editions of D&D, the only difference being the level at which you go from mundane to magical, then, what's your beef with 4e? Why does it bother you that you have explicit exploits for martial characters, when you already have every class being magical in nature in every other edition?
For example, when I talked about hitting something, Kask told me that earlier editions of D&D had a specific meaning of "to hit" that was different from what is commonly understood. In earlier editions, a "hit" is defined as an attack that does damage. This is most certainly not how hit is defined commonly though. If I hit a tennis ball, I do no damage to it, or if I hit a steel wall with my hand, I do no damage to it (although I might hurt my hand
) yet, I am, in fact hitting it.Yet, apparently, putting on heavy armor makes me harder to hit. Now, I totally agree that D&D has a specific definition of "hit" that is different than common usage. 100% agree. Yet, for some reason, when 4e has a specific definition that differs from common usage, that's a bad thing and leads to completely unbelievable situations that cannot possibly be justified in any other way than with "magic".
Or, going back to being stronger makes me more accurate. A barbarian (3rd edition) flies into a rage to the point where he loses a great deal of control, cannot concentrate, cannot perform complicated tasks, yet he is more accurate than the character who aims carefully and lines up the shot. This is an example where the rules of the game giving implications of the game world (what I called rules=physics although Imaro disagrees) making implications that are pretty much ludicrous. Being stronger should not make me hit more often. Yet, for some reason, the big, slow brute hits far more often than the skinny, weaker, but definitely faster, guy.
But, again, when apparently we cannot apply the same blinders to 4e that we do to earlier editions because, that's just not believable.
Or, take the example of the hippogriff. Imaro says that the hippogriff can fly, not through magic, but because of its monster type. It's a magical beast, therefore it can fly. This brings up two points. First, can any magical beast fly? If there is something about being a magical beast that allows flight, I sure missed it in the rules. Imaro has clearly added something in here that isn't in the rules, but, again, we're not allowed to do that in 4e.
But, secondly, if we are allowed to justify a creature's abilities solely on its metagame type, then why can't fighters do stuff that ordinary people can't? If a hippogriff can fly, not through magic, but solely because of its type, then why can't fighters pull people out of position, not out of magic, but solely because of the character's class? Type and Class are both metagame constructs that have no in game parallels. So, why is it ok to justify a hippogriff's flight with its type, but, not a fighter's abilities with its class?
Like I said, people want to have it both ways.
Ariosto said:
Hang on a sec. You're now claiming that all high level PC's in older editions are now magical in nature, regardless of class?
If that's true, then what the heck are you bitching about with 4e? If you consider all classes to be magical in nature in all editions of D&D, the only difference being the level at which you go from mundane to magical, then, what's your beef with 4e? Why does it bother you that you have explicit exploits for martial characters, when you already have every class being magical in nature in every other edition?
Raven Crowking
First Post
It is true that a game, like a profession, can have a specialized jargon that uses commonly understood words in unique ways. That is perfectly acceptable. One can say that X isn't magic within the confines of the definition of game system Y, while at the same time accepting that X would be considered magic in the common parlance.
Because a term can mean two things, it does not mean that the meanings are conflated, or that both cannot be discussed intelligently.
I can bear (put up with) seeing a bear (mammal) without either word suddenly meaning the same as the other, or the sentence suddenly not making sense.
RC
And they can, because that's suspension of disbelief for you. Rationally it may not make sense, but in terms of believability, a hippogriff flying is more plausible than a 4E class's "I Can't Believe It's Not Magic".
No, it's not fair, but the effect is cumulative (i.e. one hippogriff versus an entire system of handwaved implausible powers for "mundane" classes). I remember predicting this problem of making the mundane compete plausibly with magic, and how hard it would be to design without implausibility.
You also overlook the screentime of a single monster versus continually used powers of a PC class, and how much that matters.
Last edited:
MichaelSomething
Legend
I find that a certain quote from a certain Barbarian clearly states how I feel about realism in gaming.
"I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."
Of course, realism in gaming does have it's merits. Good thing there's a product out there for people who want that kind of thing.
"I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."
Of course, realism in gaming does have it's merits. Good thing there's a product out there for people who want that kind of thing.
Yes, all high-level human(oid) characters (PC or NPC) in AD&D have explicitly, "by the book", a magical component. How you manage to miss the first word in "magical beast" -- much less to consider it any more than stating what ought to be obvious in the case of a hippogriff -- is beyond me.
The difference is in the details. As musketeers were already equipped with guns, why should it matter if we depict them with machine-guns?
Game jargon is not the issue. We all recognize that in the limited game-mechanical precincts of the 4E rules set, martial powers are not "magic per se" -- just as some violations of law may not be "crimes per se".
When you take that rather eccentric usage as negating the more conventional meaning of the term, you raise a problem.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Similar Threads
