The Mysterious Mage vs. Pew Pew

[steeldragons]

Magic is only one aspect of the game that has been changed over the years by a 'more mechanics will fix everything' mentality.

I'll be honest, I don't see that at all.

I respectfully disagree, Umbran. I think that is a plain fact. The "further" editions, as I think of them (3.x and 4e and Essentials) all attempted to bring more mechanics in to handle this or that...magic was no exception.

Not saying it shoud not have been! If that was the direction the designers took, then obviously, "magic-use" would have to be a part of that. It is, afterall, an intrinsic element of D&D versus other types of games.

1e magic was arguably the most mechanically complicated part of the system.

Yes. Which I would argue was, kinda, the point. It was supposed to be played by intelligent players because the prime req. ability was Intelligence. Being creative/thinking outside the box was meant to be (to my, admittedly, limited understanding of the great forefather's purpose) the hallmark of the wizard/mage/MU character. You didn't have a lot to do "in combat" so you had to be careful and come up with other things your PC might be good at/with.

By comparison, 3e, and even more 4e, reduced the mechanics required to play with magic. In the process, the magic was simplified, and fell in line with everything else, so that it became less special (IMHO).

So, not so much "more" as "more unified" mechanics.

Agreed, but I believe the OP was questioning why this was so. Does "more unified mechanics" automatically mean a "better" game? At least in terms of "Better" treatment of magic?

The elitism... well, especially with the use of "hotkey", it sure looked like a videogame-based argument - all those new kids just want to mash buttons, and us oldsters are the ones with *real* imagination and independent thought, yadda-yadda-yadda. I'm glad that wasn't what you meant to say.

"Elitism"? I don't think anyone here is toting that.

I, quite honestly, have no idea what a "hotkey" is. (yes, I know you were responding to someone else) But I don't know or think that it's a "younger gamers" v. "older gamers" question. But...maybe it is?

Noone has "real" imagination. Everyone's imagination is there own...and equally valid. But if the mechanics are inhibiting the use of imagination...in a D&D game, then yes, I, personally, think that's a problem.

Does that make me a doting "old gamer"? I don't know. Nor do I really care, to be honest. If it does, it does. But the point of the OP was looking for an explanation of why/how the treatment of "magic" had changed through the editions. And I feel we've veered off topic somehow.

Have fun and happy magic-use.
--Steel Dragons

 

[prosfilaes]

Void Vultures has neat feature for alien tech. When studying it, you will cross 3 lines, in any order the DM likes. You will partially understand it, understand one narrow aspect, and misunderstand it. (The DM will tell you when you cross a line, but not which. There is no option to completely understand it.) If you're a player and know these rules, you know that (a) your character will never really understand the tech, and (b) if you keep poking at it, sooner or later it will blow up in your face. Nice and mysterious.

 

[Stormonu]

When I was talking about "mysterious", I wasn't so much talking about the wizard's abilities being mysterious to the players (the player knows and understands the mechanics), but that the knowledge to wield such power was a mystery to those around him. It was more an allusion to Gandalf's statement "A wizard arrives precisely when he intends to" rather than to Neo's "I know Kung Fu".

To the fighter, magic was a mysterious power they would never be able to wield - if not something to shun. While the rogue would eventually puzzle out the ability in older editions to use scrolls (and wands, if I remember right), the power would never fully be under the rogue's control. Even clerics weren't really in control of their magic; they were making supplications to deities and acting as a conduit (if magic were electricity, cleric's weren't the battery containing the power, just the wire delivering the jolt).

While some would be able to wield magic items, they could never understand the processes under which they were made and duplicate them theirselves.

As the editions rolled on, the availability of magic became more common. At the start, only dedicated wizards or elf multiclassers could access spells, and that spell use was relatively infrequent.

By 3E, "any old" fighter could pick up a level or two of wizard, if he so chose (but there was still a limit on how far along he'd get due to Intelligence). Casters likewise received more spells and magic items were more commonplace; magic items could even be created at 1st level.

In 4E anyone can pick up a wizard spell with a metamagic feat and use it, regardless of Int. The low-level abilities can be used with impunity and many of the more powerful abilities can be used with far more frequency than previously. As with 3E, magic items can be made from 1st level onward, and if I remember correctly, even by noncasters.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

By 3E, "any old" fighter could pick up a level or two of wizard, if he so chose (but there was still a limit on how far along he'd get due to Intelligence).

It's the same in 4e.

Any fighter could take a multiclassing feat, but those abilities are based on Int, so taking Magic Missile as an encounter ability isn't that great an ability. Furthermore, the GM controls all "builds" of NPCs. Fighter/mages can be as common or as rare as the GM wants.

In 4E anyone can pick up a wizard spell with a metamagic feat and use it, regardless of Int.

I assume you mean "multiclass feat". Sure, you could multiclass in 3.x as a wizard with Int 9. It's not a smart move, but you can do it. Or you could multi with cleric, if you had a decent Wisdom.

The low-level abilities can be used with impunity

Why is this a bad thing?

and many of the more powerful abilities can be used with far more frequency than previously.

I disagree. You can use more powerful abilities less often. A 10th-level wizard would get 3 daily attack spells and possibly 3 daily utility spells, adding up to six big bangs over the course of a day. A 10th-level 1e to 3e wizard would have more than that many 4th and 5th level slots.

My own group is currently 6th-level. The wizard can prep Sleep and Stinking Cloud/Bigby's Icy Grasp each day as his "big bangs". He still has to worry about not knowing what's coming up. (In one session, he wasted Bigby's on a brute with high Athletics, so it escaped every round, making grappling it a waste. The damage still counted.)

At paragon, you start trading abilities. I haven't seen a paragon character yet, but it seems to me a paragon PC only gets 4 daily abilities at higher levels (since you can/must trade out lower-level daily powers).

As with 3E, magic items can be made from 1st level onward, and if I remember correctly, even by noncasters.

You need to be at least 4th-level. Enchant Magic Item is a 4th-level ritual. Brew Potion is 5th-level. You can't do it earlier.

You need the Ritual Caster feat, which is not free for non-casters. (Classes that use supernatural powers, like paladins, aren't casters, and still have to pay for the feat.)

You need to be trained in Arcana or Religion if it's not a bonus feat for your class. (Nature is not enough; rangers don't have it easy if they want to do the magic thing.)

In 3.x, most character classes were casters, so in fact even a ranger could, with one feat, craft items like Boots of Striding. A 4e ranger would have to spend two feats to do that - Ritual Caster, and then Skill Training (Arcana/Religion) or a multiclass feat to get that skill training as part of the package.

From what I can see, the only complaint is that multiclassing became easy in 3.x/4e. (In 2e, a human couldn't multiclass, but could dual-class; this wasn't easy. A demihuman had to announce their classes at 1st-level; while you could start out a triple-classed character, you couldn't add any new classes over your career.)

 

[Stormonu]

It's the same in 4e.

Any fighter could take a multiclassing feat, but those abilities are based on Int, so taking Magic Missile as an encounter ability isn't that great an ability. Furthermore, the GM controls all "builds" of NPCs. Fighter/mages can be as common or as rare as the GM wants.

There is an additional difference in 3E. A 9 Int "wizard" cannot cast anything. A 4E multiclasser could still use magic, though there's a good chance of a miss with an attack spell.

I assume you mean "multiclass feat". Sure, you could multiclass in 3.x as a wizard with Int 9. It's not a smart move, but you can do it. Or you could multi with cleric, if you had a decent Wisdom.

Yes, I did mean multiclass feat, don't know why I put down metamagic feat.

From what I can see, the only complaint is that multiclassing became easy in 3.x/4e. (In 2e, a human couldn't multiclass, but could dual-class; this wasn't easy. A demihuman had to announce their classes at 1st-level; while you could start out a triple-classed character, you couldn't add any new classes over your career.)

It's not multiclassing that's the problem in of itself; multiclassing opens up the options for building more complex characters without having to have an explosion of classes that replicate the mix of abilities you want. What has changed is that multiclassing can now be picked up after first level - those who previously showed no magical aptitude (or warrior instict, or unusual piety, or a knack for traps) can suddenly tap into such powers midgame. This is not a bad thing, but it does clash with older mindsets (such as FR's 'magic as art' in 1E/2E and that some are born with the talents and others will never pick it up, no matter how hard they may try).

Mostly, I'm interested in folk's opinion why all this changed, and why now is the old way of handling magic badwrongfun?

 

[prosfilaes]

(such as FR's 'magic as art' in 1E/2E and that some are born with the talents and others will never pick it up, no matter how hard they may try).

I don't think it clashes with those. It all depends on how you narrate things; if you take the class, apparently you always had the talent, even if it was a little hidden.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It's not multiclassing that's the problem in of itself; multiclassing opens up the options for building more complex characters without having to have an explosion of classes that replicate the mix of abilities you want. What has changed is that multiclassing can now be picked up after first level - those who previously showed no magical aptitude (or warrior instict, or unusual piety, or a knack for traps) can suddenly tap into such powers midgame. This is not a bad thing, but it does clash with older mindsets (such as FR's 'magic as art' in 1E/2E and that some are born with the talents and others will never pick it up, no matter how hard they may try).

Mostly, I'm interested in folk's opinion why all this changed, and why now is the old way of handling magic badwrongfun?

1) I see this as an aid to RP, actually. I know in a lot of campaigns you can just say "I'm taking Student of Faith" and now you're a cleric, but IMO if a character underwent an RP experience where they came closer to a deity, multiclassing as cleric makes sense. (It's not like you're born a cleric, and they don't have maximum age requirements.) Training to become a wizard is a little "fast" but still valid, especially since a multi-classed wizard starts out weak. Taking the sorcerer feat could be rediscovering a talent you didn't know you had. A wizard taking a level of fighter decided they needed non-magical backup and found a trainer. Etc.

2) FR has a god of magic. (Well, did, and apparently is coming back.) I'm not seeing the FR setting as a good example of "how to become a mage" actually.

3) People considered the old way of doing wizards "badwrongfun" due to negative experiences. Hiding behind the fighter isn't fun for many players. It's disconcerting to hear people say that's fun, actually (people always take it hard when someone disagrees with their playstyle ), but much worse when some other poster suggests that if you didn't like old wizard play you were unimaginative. (I've seen similar comments in other threads.)

 

[D'karr]

This is not a bad thing, but it does clash with older mindsets (such as FR's 'magic as art' in 1E/2E and that some are born with the talents and others will never pick it up, no matter how hard they may try).

There are many people that are born with talents that they never get to develop. Then there are some that decide later in life to start developing them. Of those some get good at it, and some are just decent. Few of those that actually have the talent ever totally suck at it.

I have no talent for singing, even if I decided at this point to develop "singing", I would still suck at it, because I have no talent. Then there is someone like Susan Boyle who obviously has the talent but not until later in life had the opportunity to develop that talent. When she finally stepped out there and went for it, the difference is noticeable.

The same can apply to someone that started out as a rogue and then discovered that he had some "talent" for the arcane.

Mostly, I'm interested in folk's opinion why all this changed, and why now is the old way of handling magic badwrongfun?

There were many things about the "old way" that were much more restrictive. In some instances for no apparent good reason. Look at racial level limits, female ability penalties, class alignment restrictions, the bard class, dual-classing, multi-classing, etc., just to name a few. Is that badwrongfun? I don't think so.

However the "new" way of doing things is not as restrictive and it even opens up other opportunities for role-playing, for those that choose to do so. Is that badwrongfun? Obviously not. It's just a different way of approaching it.

I prefer the restrictions to come from "campaign play", instead of from the base rules. For example if I have a campaign in which elves are not present, I want that to be a campaign restriction, not a base rules restriction. The same goes for class skills. I'd like class skills to be a campaign restriction, not a core assumption of the game. So if a player wants to spend his fighter's few alloted skill points in Arcana, he can study it to his hearts content, instead of being restricted by the core assumptions of the game.

The game should provide broad base rules for every campaign, the restrictions should be limited to specific campaigns only.

Those multi-classing, dual-classing, racial level limits restrictions are fine in a specific campaign sense, but they should not be the core assumptions of the rules.

 

[pemerton]

It was supposed to be played by intelligent players because the prime req. ability was Intelligence. Being creative/thinking outside the box was meant to be (to my, admittedly, limited understanding of the great forefather's purpose) the hallmark of the wizard/mage/MU character. You didn't have a lot to do "in combat" so you had to be careful and come up with other things your PC might be good at/with.

When I reread old Dragon magazines, or Lewis Pulsipher's discussions of how to play the game in early numbers of White Dwarf, I don't get the impression that the MU doesn't have a lot to do in combat. It seems to have been taken for granted that MUs would make good use of Sleep, Fireball, Lighting Bolt, Charm/Hold Monster, Rock/Mud etc as combat abilities. Some of those spells could also be used as utility spells (eg Rock/Mud, or Fireball to burn through walls and doors), and some spells were utility only, but I think it was commonly understood that the main function of the MU was as an artillery and anti-personnel combatant.

That's not to say that intelligent play was not required. But the main thought required was in spell selection and choosing the right time/circumstances to expend a limited resource. I don't think that MUs were expected to think outside the box any more than other PCs and their players.

As the editions rolled on, the availability of magic became more common. At the start, only dedicated wizards or elf multiclassers could access spells, and that spell use was relatively infrequent.

By 3E, "any old" fighter could pick up a level or two of wizard, if he so chose (but there was still a limit on how far along he'd get due to Intelligence).

<snip>

In 4E anyone can pick up a wizard spell with a metamagic feat and use it, regardless of Int.

Multi-class feats in 4e have stat minimums.

But that's not the real issue. This is:

I don't think it clashes with those. It all depends on how you narrate things; if you take the class, apparently you always had the talent, even if it was a little hidden.

And just elaborating on this. What the rules say is that any player may multiclass his/her PC into wizard in accordance with the mechanics. And any GM may build and/or develop any NPC in whatever multi-class direction s/he desires within appropriate mechanical constraints. These are rules about what the players of the game may do. They are not rules about what the imaginary inhabitants of the gameworld may do. In the fiction, learning (or inheriting the gift of) magic may be as hard or easy, as common or uncommon, as you like. It's just that every player has the prerogative at any time to say "Oh, and by the way, my guy has the gift".

 

[Eric Tolle]

It seems that by the time of 4E, wizard players were arguing that they weren't worth anything if they weren't using magic for every little thing they did.

Makes sense to me that that sort of thing would go with the term "magic user". Shades of that old D&D picture with the mage using spells to clean up as a neighbor lady comes up the path bearing a pie.

What prompted this change? Was it something in media, was it an aspect of video games, books, anime or certain movies or just the evolving mindset of gamers? & did this "entitlement" of mundane magic come from?

Blame Micky Mouse, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". And Witch Hazel from Loony Tunes, and Vincent Price in The Raven, and Thulsa Doom, Pelias, Ged, Eliric, Chrestomanci, The Lady and the Taken, Ginney and Steven from Operation Chaos, and pretty much every other wizard from fantasy literature.

It really dates from the first time about 35 years ago when a player realized that D&D fire-and-forget magic (Which is the proper term, not "Vancian") didn't let them play anything similar to the mages from fiction.

And of course, has it helped to remove the "mystery" of magic and ruined some of the fun or has it made the game better for the players (and DMs)?

In the sense that it increased the fun of playing a magic user, then it's generally a good thing. Some applications of course, like 3.X's botched attempt at magic, it screwed up game play and niche protection.

Then again, IME "the mystery of magic" is usually GM code-speak for "let's screw over the players of magic-users", so YMMV.

One argument is that Harry Potter happened. The first book in the series was released in 1997, possibly just around the time that 3E was being developed. And the series continued gaining in popularity, possibly at it's apex right when 4E came out.

That's one of the sillier gaming theories I've heard. It betrays an ignorance of the actual history of gaming.

For your consideration

1977: Arduin Grimoire: D&D variant, introduced a mana system.

1977: Wizard, a microgame, with permanently known spells that cost points ( users had a number based on Strength) to cast spells. Eventually became a strong influence on GURPS.

1978: Real Magic introduced alternate skill-roll based magic system.

1978: Runequest, a D&D derived game uses a spell points based magic system.

1980: The Fantasy Trip consolidates Wizard with its sister game Melee.

1986: GURPS published with Fantasy Trip derived magic system.

1987: Ars Magica introduces verb-noun magic system.

1993: Mage the Ascension introduces reality warping based magic.

1995: Skills and Powers introduces new magic systems into AD&D, including spell-point and fatigue based ones.

1997 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone published.

2000: D&D 3rd edition published.

2001: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone premieres.

2005: Blue Rose, a 3.0 derived game, uses a fatigue-based magic system.

The fact is, there's always been a large contingent of gamers both inside and outside of D&D, who disliked the fire-and-forget spell system and created alternatives.

I would point to Harry Potter as the moment the zeitgeist of wizards changed from scarce powerful magic to plentiful magic. Post-Harry wizards like Butcher's Dresden tend to act more like Harry and less like Gandalf and Sparrowhawk.

I hate to say it, but you're wrong. While scarce powerful magic is one literary trope, there's been others, such as Operation Chaos, The Chrestomanci Chronicles, the Taltos series, and the Witch World series.

Professional game designers were well aware of both the literary varieties of magic, and previous attempts at creating non fire-and-forget magic systems both in and outside of D&D (well possibly except for the incompetents who designed 3rd edition). I remember there being a lot of speculation before 3rd. Edition came out that WOTC would switch to a spell-point system-the fact that WOTC retained the fire-and-forget system of previous editions I attribute to institutional inertia and a desire to appeal to conservative fans that are resistant to change.