What is the essence of D&D

[Nagol]

At least we don't see this sort of thing too much with the later eds.

And that's one of the reasons Wizards start to get out of control in later eds. Rather than effectively being a class with a very limited semi-random selection of powerful spell lists, they became a class where spell lists can be optimised and curated even if it takes a while.

2e started it with the reroll every level until your succeed. 3e said just take the darn spell already!

I get it. Limitations and restrictions aren't fun. They can have value (and actually be fun as you try to creatively get around them).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Wait, are you saying that I am ignoring WHAT YOU ARE SAYING in order to KEEP ARTICULATING MY OWN THEORY OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Weird, huh?

You may be conflating my posts with the posts of other people.

Please don’t do that.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, is what I outlined as the Primacy of Magic lacking in 4e? Yes.

No.

It just manifests in a different way.

In 0-1-2-3e and to some extent 5e what's magic vs what's mundane is almost always fairly obvious. Anyone in the game can see or read or play through something and (with rare exceptions) say about any given element "that's magic" or "that's not magic".

4e very much blurred this distinction by adding and codifying so-called "supernatural" powers for martials, monsters, etc. These powers, to some including me, appear to be simply magical (as in non-mundane) abilities put under a different label; meaning that magic becomes if anything more pervasive - if also more subtle - through 4e than any other version of D&D.

Which means yes, the primacy of magic is a (not the, but a) core essence of D&D across all versions.

 

[Campbell]

And that's one of the reasons Wizards start to get out of control in later eds. Rather than effectively being a class with a very limited semi-random selection of powerful spell lists, they became a class where spell lists can be optimised and curated even if it takes a while.

2e started it with the reroll every level until your succeed. 3e said just take the darn spell already!

I get it. Limitations and restrictions aren't fun. They can have value (and actually be fun as you try to creatively get around them).

I largely agree.

Pathfinder 2 attacks this from a slightly different angle. Spells have a listed rarity. By default Common spells can be freely taken at level up. Uncommon and Rare spells by default must be discovered through play. Nearly every Wizard can cast Fireball, but much fewer have access to spells like Scry and Teleport.

This allows the GM to control access, but also to give out meaningful treasure to spell casters if the wish.

Something like this could definitely be implemented in 5e. It would just require curating the spell list.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Though you may not have meant it this way: that is a /ringing/ endorsement of 5e!
How'd you pull it off?

(I don't suppose you used the tactical module?)

Oh I absolutely meant it that way. 5e, AFAICT, is more than half a successful foray into applying all of the crucial parts of 4e with a presentation that makes happy those who didn’t like 4e, both those who can tell you quite clearly why and those who have trouble articulating exactly why.

In that regard (and that regard only) I’d say it’s the best edition of dnd. It can feel like playing dnd no matter what dnd you want it to feel like, as long as you go into it recognizing that your own biases play a role in how a game feels. Even without considering that factor, it’s my (very close) second favorite edition.

Hell, I’ll be a heretic here and say that 4e and 5e are the only editions that I’d consider “good games” without the aid of nostalgia to tip the scales. I enjoyed playing 2e, but I’d not call it a good game the standard of TTRPGaming right now. 5e? Good by nearly any standard.

Even by balance standards, though I know you disagree with me there.

Once again, stating your opinion as fact. I found that 4E dampened RP ... and honestly I can't really point to a single reason why. All I can tell you is that it was a very common sentiment and something I noticed in my own games. In part it was probably because after low levels combat took so long that it sucked up all the oxygen in the room, and all the time available to play.

Either we were all being mind controlled by the anti-4E illuminati or maybe there's something to it. Since I don't believe in mind control or the illuminati, the simpler solution is just that 4E didn't simply didn't work for a lot of people even if it worked for you.

In any case, it's still just an opinion.

In order to not support RP, it would have to make RP difficult even for people who enjoyed the game and dove fully into it for several years. It didn’t.

So, it had some barriers, and I suspect that these have to do with having a presentation people consciously and/or subconsciously associate with video games and wargames and other games that don’t involve RP, but the game has a ton of elements that support and encourage RP. What you’re describing is those elements not doing the job for you, which is different from the game not having those elements.

Take that back! I had the BEST seafood pizza the other night.

Seafood pizza is top notch, and I really wish I lived in a town that had literally any of it anywhere within an hour’s drive.

I gotta pass over the Sierra Nevadas to get seafood on my pizza.

But when I visit family on the coast, or go to the south, oh man it’s on.

Spicy Cajun shrimp and gator pizza is seriously out of this world amazingly good.

 

[Nagol]

I largely agree.

Pathfinder 2 attacks this from a slightly different angle. Spells have a listed rarity. By default Common spells can be freely taken at level up. Uncommon and Rare spells by default must be discovered through play. Nearly every Wizard can cast Fireball, but much fewer have access to spells like Scry and Teleport.

This allows the GM to control access, but also to give out meaningful treasure to spell casters if the wish.

Something like this could definitely be implemented in 5e. It would just require curating the spell list.

That's not a bad way to handle it. It gives the PCs yet another type of goal which is always good.

 

[Lanefan]

Once the player blows his chance, the player cannot learn that spell EVER unless it is required to fulfill the minimum number of spells (IOW, they can't learn it from a later scroll gaining a level).

PHB 10, see "Charm Person" example.

That's referring to the initial roll-through. And yes, it says there that the spell can never be learned thereafter...except that clause is directly contradicted a few paragraphs hence under "Acquisiton of previously unknown spells".

Ah, Gygax...

 

[Nagol]

That's referring to the initial roll-through. And yes, it saysthere that the spell can never be learned thereafter...except that clause is directly contradicted a few paragraphs hence under "Acquisiton of previously unknown spells".

Ah, Gygax...

Ah, but you see that spell was not heretofore unknown. It's known and unknowable to the PC. Finding a copy of Nagol's Pleasing Persona which in almost all ways acts like Charm Person, means you now have a heretofore unknown spell to check!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I have had an epiphany. The logic of the Primacy of Magic camp holds water after all; they have just made one simple error: the true essence of D&D lies in the Primacy of Burgling.

For every edition, the one absolutely necessary member of an adventuring party has been the thief/rogue. Dungeon crawling has simply not been possible without one. You could scrape by without a warrior, or a mage, or a healer, but without a rogue, locks and traps and secret doors simply become impassable. In 1E and 2E, only thieves/rogues have access to the skill system which allows them to tackle these challenges. Even in 3E, which opened up the skill system to every class, the skills for disarming traps and picking locks were capped for non-rogues -- uniquely so, that's how important this primacy is. And it clearly isn't just an arbitrary mechanical limitation. The rogue requirement naturally goes back to the very roots of the genre in Tolkien's Hobbit, in which Thorin and Company go through considerable trouble to recruit a burglar for their cause.

But then along came 4E. And Thievery became merely another skill. Now anyone could open locks, disarm traps, and even pick pockets just as well as a rogue. Were that not enough, the skill challenge system encouraged players to overcome obstacles as a party, gaining successes without using the Thievery skill at all! And, lo and behold, 4E was a highly divisive edition frequently accused of being "not D&D". Now, this connection between 4E changing burgling and 4E getting hated on is just a correlation I'm observing. I'm not saying that the Primacy of Burgling is the essence of D&D, except for the times when that's exactly what I said. And I'll acknowledge that nobody in this thread actually on the "4E is not D&D" side has made a case for the Primacy of Burgling. But, as has been frequently been asserted already, the cases they do make are factually incorrect and/or don't make any sense, so that makes Primacy of Burgling the winner by default.

Now, some of you may observe that in 5E, just as in 4E, thieves' tools proficiency is available to any character. But if you think about it the way I do, 5E handled this proficiency in a different way that preserves the Primacy of Burglary rather than blowing up my theory. You see, the only backgrounds that offer thieves' tools proficiency are Criminal and Urchin. 5E backgrounds are effectively a low-key multiclassing system, so these can be thought of as rogue "level 0s". Thus, even though you don't actually need to be in the rogue class anymore, 5E is still saying that, in essence, in order to burgle you have to be a burglar. 5E also left the skill challenge system by the wayside; clearly the developers thought that contributed to the problem as well. So the Primacy of Burgling is alive and well in 5E, and 5E is received as being "D&D" again. More correlation!

There you have it. All the evidence for the Primacy of Burglary being the essence of D&D, nothing but cold, hard facts. If you have any questions about the case I made, feel free to ask them and I will be happy to explain to you what you're really thinking and why it supports this theory too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No.
It just manifests in a different way.

Ok, that's interesting, and thank you for not pre-emptively invoking the shield of opinion...

In 0-1-2-3e and to some extent 5e what's magic vs what's mundane is almost always fairly obvious. Anyone in the game can see or read or play through something and (with rare exceptions) say about any given element "that's magic" or "that's not magic".

I can think of a couple grey areas, mostly around what's affected by anti-magic: psionics - magic or not? and which spell-effects go up against magic resistance. But, yeah, generally, it's not hard to infer. Spells are obviously explicitly magical, as are, well, 'magic items.' Some Monk might be a grey area, too, a bard's singing, etc...

4e very much blurred this distinction by adding and codifying so-called "supernatural" powers for martials, monsters, etc.

4e included keywords that very explicitly called out powers as having a specific source. Most of them - Arcane, Divine, Primal, Psionic, Shadow, Elemental - were explicitly supernatural. One, Martial, was not.

When it came to monsters, though, source keywords were often omitted. So you may have a point there, if that's what you're going to focus on...

These powers, to some including me, appear to be simply magical (as in non-mundane) abilities put under a different label

Whether you take a power labeled 'Martial' as such, and are upset that it rival a magical power of the same type/level/recharge-rate, or discount the martial label because the power 'appears magical to you,' you're objecting on the lack of a clear gap between the mundane and the magical.
In the former case, the mundane rivals the magical, erasing that gap, in the latter, the mundane, itself, is erased, removing even the possibility of a gap.

meaning that magic becomes if anything more pervasive - if also more subtle - through 4e than any other version of D&D.
Which means yes, the primacy of magic is a (not the, but a) core essence of D&D across all versions.

Magic being pervasive works /against/ the Primacy of Magic, because it becomes fungible and ordinary - mundane in the sense of everyday experience. While 4e class powers didn't do that (unless source keywords are willfully misinterpreted or ignored), 4e magic items /did/, contributing to the pervasive feeling that "magic wasn't really magical" and undercutting the Primacy of Magic.