Unintended(?) Consequence of No More X-Mas Tree?

[Gloombunny]

I think his point was writers only point out stuff that is going to develop the narrative. What you're saying about magic items can be applied to guns, laptops, toothbrushes or anything. What you are describing with your wizard example is characterization via props, an exceedingly common tool in fiction. Quentin Compson's pocket watch and Anton Chigur's compressed air gun are two examples that spring to mind immediately. Magic items aren't a special case; they're just much more obvious because by being labeled "magic," they are connotatively labeled, "important."

Yes, thank you. (Though I'm not a "him"...)

Also consider: magic items are big deals and important plot points in most fiction because in most fiction, protagonists are not mages. I suspect if you looked only at stories with sorcerous protagonists (they don't need to be the only or even the primary protagonists) you'd find that the treatment of magic items tends to be a lot more casual. Since D&D features mages as protagonists - and in 4e they're more magical than ever, thanks to the at-will abilities - that comparison is a lot more relevant, I'd think.

 

[PeterWeller]

(Though I'm not a "him"...)

Sorry.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Oh, I agree, there's plenty of ways how to make magical items less important, and still keep the characters from becoming "magical superheroes".

But considering that the chosen way to keep wizards from being scroll/wand dependant for more spells/day is to give them more powers that come "per encounter", and considering that the Book of Nine Swords has been cited as a prime influence on fighter abilities, and considering that monsters still retain quite a high power level, magically speaking (at least from what I've seen so far), I only see 4E internalizing a lot of magical power in order to make the characters independent from gadgets.

Also, and here I admit my little piece of speculation, I have the impression that "magical powers are COOL" is still a well-trodden path to attract people to play the game. I'm not talking about Wuxia, mind you, or anime-style stuff. Just the "usual" D&D crop of magical effects, only now more internalized.

All in all, I suspect (no hard proof yet, since the books aren't out) that 3E, or any older edition, will end up being a lot easier to turn into a "low-magic" game than 4E. With 3E, you don't need THAT much work to keep magic from overrunning your game...eliminate new spells/level for casters and give them out by treasure/active research only, limit magical items to "plot items", condense the monster selection to what non-magical characters can still handle (DR/magic should be really rare), and you're well on your way to something low-magic. If more class abilities are magical/supernatural in nature, that will make it a lot harder to have a low-magic game.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Also consider: magic items are big deals and important plot points in most fiction because in most fiction, protagonists are not mages. I suspect if you looked only at stories with sorcerous protagonists (they don't need to be the only or even the primary protagonists) you'd find that the treatment of magic items tends to be a lot more casual. Since D&D features mages as protagonists - and in 4e they're more magical than ever, thanks to the at-will abilities - that comparison is a lot more relevant, I'd think.

Agreed...just that, in most literature, spellcasters are not limited to "per day" effects the way wizards were in all editions of D&D so far, or even memorization. They usually have their array of spells at hand and can cast them when they need them. In stories like that, magical items either serve for more control (e.g. Harry Dresden, or Harry Potter), or for powers the wizard himself can't produce. In D&D, a magical item served (so far) as a kind of backup battery for the more important or useful spell effects. That's why, so far, magical items were a lot more important for wizards in D&D than they were in fantasy literature in general.

 

[Raven Crowking]

He strikes down the governors mansion (described as a stone building) with one strike of his tail. I would say that he is either Colossal or the governor lived in a very small house.

Did you just re-read that passage? One of the reasons that I didn't answer about statting up Smaug is that I hate to go from memory alone.

No, but in this case, aren't you modifying a monster not to create a unique individual so much as your adjusting what a dragon can and can't do under D&D? Is Smaug really an atypical dragon that has to be uniquely modeled, or are we just using Smaug as an example of what kinds of dragons one might expect in a world that's still low magic?

No....I'm modifying a monster so that it matches one from literature. Trying to match a character's or creature's abilities to a specific literary example almost always requires modifications. Aragorn may be a ranger, but he isn't a spellcaster. Smaug might be a dragon, but he isn't a D&D dragon.

Your argument is basically a "literary corner case" argument. "Sure," you say, "this system does seem like it would work as advertised....but can it do the Demons and Pixies of Eddisson without additional houserules? Aha! I thought not! Obviously, this doesn't work, then."

Sorry, but I don't find that argument rational or compelling.

YMMV.

address the point that 4E appears to require less work than 3E when you want to play in a low magic, or Sword & Sorcery style setting.

Except:

(1) That wasn't the point that I was addressing; I was addressing the idea that 3e doesn't do low fantasy easily or well. Which, as I said, is a point that I disagree with.

(2) We have no idea, really, how well 4e does low fantasy. While you might accept Mike Mearls' opinion over my own, I am unlikely to do so until that opinion is demonstrated to be superior. What we have is an unproven assertation that 4e will do low fantasy/S&S well.

(3) Whether they succeed or not, the attempt to create a system designed to do low fantasy/S&S well is one of the things that I applaud about the 4e design. So, if your only point is that 4e may do this better, we don't have an argument, and never did.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Agreed...just that, in most literature, spellcasters are not limited to "per day" effects the way wizards were in all editions of D&D so far, or even memorization. They usually have their array of spells at hand and can cast them when they need them. In stories like that, magical items either serve for more control (e.g. Harry Dresden, or Harry Potter), or for powers the wizard himself can't produce. In D&D, a magical item served (so far) as a kind of backup battery for the more important or useful spell effects. That's why, so far, magical items were a lot more important for wizards in D&D than they were in fantasy literature in general.

Actually, in stories, they have an array of spells at hand and can use them precisely when the plot calls for them to be used. Player's don't have that luxury. A wizard in a story never "wastes" a spell because he will only cast exactly what he needs to get the job done. Even if the spell he casts doesn't solve the problem, the plot will simply work itself around that.

D&D wizards and clerics unfortunately don't have a writer who will manipulate the plot so that every spell will have the best consequences. Casters frequently hoard spells and then die because they should have been casting. Or, they blast away and run out of juice.

Think of it this way. How often in a novel do you see the protagonists stopping for 24 hours because the caster doesn't memorize Water Breathing? Scrolls can mitigate this somewhat, but that's a bandaid, not a solution to the problem.

It's a mistake, IMO, to compare magic in novels to magic in the game. The function of each is just not compatible.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Actually, in stories, they have an array of spells at hand and can use them precisely when the plot calls for them to be used. Player's don't have that luxury. A wizard in a story never "wastes" a spell because he will only cast exactly what he needs to get the job done. Even if the spell he casts doesn't solve the problem, the plot will simply work itself around that.

D&D wizards and clerics unfortunately don't have a writer who will manipulate the plot so that every spell will have the best consequences. Casters frequently hoard spells and then die because they should have been casting. Or, they blast away and run out of juice.

Think of it this way. How often in a novel do you see the protagonists stopping for 24 hours because the caster doesn't memorize Water Breathing? Scrolls can mitigate this somewhat, but that's a bandaid, not a solution to the problem.

It's a mistake, IMO, to compare magic in novels to magic in the game. The function of each is just not compatible.

So...uhm...we basically agree, is that it? D&D magic =/= literary magic (where fantasy literature excludes D&D novels).

By the way, I have to correct myself a little. What I said in my post above, about 3E being relatively easy to "cut down" for a low-magic game, creates first a "rare magic" game...for low magic, it's more the power level of the magic involved that needs to be cut down (spell levels capped at 5th leve, for example). Low magic and rare magic are not the same kind of game style, before that comes up.

 

[med stud]

Did you just re-read that passage? One of the reasons that I didn't answer about statting up Smaug is that I hate to go from memory alone.

I'm positive. I have read that book many times when I was younger and Smaug's trashing of that town was one of my favourite parts.

Smaug is probably a bad example of a dragon that you can kill in a magic free D&D environment. I remember a passage from 2nd edition Fighter's handbook about magic free campaigns where it says that a dragon is practically undefeatable. In 3e I agree with them.

I think you can play 3e without magic classes or magic items and enjoy it but then many monsters will be out of the PCs' league. IMO 3.0 fighters gets much horizontal powers by feats but few vertical, so to speak. Not to mention that AC and saves will be a big problem. With the save increasing feats a fighter will max out Ref and Will saves at +8 before abilities at level 20. Unless the fighter is built in a strange way those bonuses will most likely be in the +1 to +3 range, for a total bonus of +9 to +11. Looking at CR 20 monsters that alone will be a fatal weakness. The AC will be maxed out earlier at 23 with full plate and large shield, 27 if you allow adamantine. That too is not too hot when facing high CR opponents.

In short, the offense might be OK, if subpar, at the high levels but the defense without magic is dreadful.

 

[Hussar]

Low magic and rare magic are not the same kind of game style, before that comes up.

Heh, sorry, misread you above. My bad. But, this is a very important point that gets glossed over in a LOT of discussions about low magic/low fantasy gaming. I've seen a lot of people talk about low magic as meaning few or no magic items, but, no limitations on casters. That would be very, very different than a rare magic setting where you have to limit items AND casters.

IMO, much of sword and sorcery lit is low magic. But, not much of it is rare magic. Conan features magic in almost every story I can think of - be it items (which only last for that story usually), casters or creatures.

I think it would be extremely difficult to make D&D into a rare magic game. It would take an awfully large hatchet to cut away the large swaths of the game taken up by magic stuff.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I think it would be extremely difficult to make D&D into a rare magic game. It would take an awfully large hatchet to cut away the large swaths of the game taken up by magic stuff.

I don't know...I think rare magic is easier to be done than low magic, to be honest. Rare magic would, over the course of the campaign, result in every character posessing one, maybe two significant magical items (not limited in power, though, since it's not low magic), the frequency of truly magical opponents (spellcasters, monsters with magical abilities, outsiders, etc) would be pretty low, and the outlook overall would have magic being something immensly precious and hoarded by those who can hold on to it.
Low magic, in contrast, would require taking a long look at all the monsters and decide which fit into a setting where the characters wouldn't have magic beyond (random number) 4th level or so. Still doable, though.