Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5728902" data-attributes="member: 92511">I respectfully disagree, Umbran. I think that is a plain fact. The &quot;further&quot; 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, &quot;magic-use&quot; would have to be a part of that. It is, afterall, an intrinsic element of D&amp;D versus other types of games.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 &quot;in combat&quot; so you had to be careful and come up with other things your PC might be good at/with.Agreed, but I believe the OP was questioning why this was so. Does &quot;more unified mechanics&quot; automatically mean a &quot;better&quot; game? At least in terms of &quot;Better&quot; treatment of magic?&quot;Elitism&quot;? I don't think anyone here is toting that. I, quite honestly, have no idea what a &quot;hotkey&quot; is. (yes, I know you were responding to someone else) But I don't know or think that it's a &quot;younger gamers&quot; v. &quot;older gamers&quot; question. But...maybe it is?Noone has &quot;real&quot; imagination. Everyone's imagination is there own...and equally valid. But if the mechanics are inhibiting the use of imagination...in a D&amp;D game, then yes, I, personally, think that's a problem.Does that make me a doting &quot;old gamer&quot;? 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 &quot;magic&quot; had changed through the editions. And I feel we've veered off topic somehow.Have fun and happy magic-use.--Steel Dragons</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 5728902, member: 92511"] 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. 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. 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? "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 [/QUOTE]

Verification