What is the essence of D&D

[Arnwolf666]

Know/Understand, there were some spells - unless you had a 19+ int - you'd never be able to memorize.

But, depending on which contradictory/ambiguous/variant rules the DM ignored/interpreted/adopted, which spells those were might be up to you - or entirely random.

Casting faced profound limits & challenges in 1e, it made the Pimacy of Magic that much more vibrant and dramatic - and frustrating.

Every decision the MU made could be all important "If only I'd memorized lightning bolt instead of fireball, more of my henchmen would've survived."
You never hear a fighter's ghost lamenting "If only I'd brought the glaive-guisarme instead of the guisarme-volgue!"

I loved the guisarme voulge. I had a fighter specialize in it just because it was cool.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Rather than calling people liars when they report this reaction to 4E, have you considered how they could have sincerely formed this impression in spite of the powers not literally being the same? That seems like a pretty outrageous strawman, to be honest: I would be extremely surprised if anyone in the history of the edition war has actually asserted that every power is literally the same. So maybe explore the possibility that, to the players in question, they're similar enough to feel repetitive (an impression perhaps exacerbated by the fact that they're presented as page after page of identically-formatted stat blocks).

You just described what I was talking about. If reading pages of powers was all someone did, they might have their eyes glaze over and only see the basic formatting.

If they actually played a couple characters and/or payed attention to what other PCs powers did, they couldn’t possibly have the genuine impression that the powers are all the same.

And hyperbolic or not, the exact phrase “literally all the same” has been uttered in reference to 4e powers as recently as last month in a twitter argument. I curate my twitter experience, so I just muted the person. It was a common refrain back in the day.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is a undead horse I constantly beat.

The areas where magic generally has primacy in D&D are detecting things, surviving hostile environments, and transportation. Many adventures simply can't be undertaken successfully if the group does not have access to enough power in these areas.

Different editions have approached levelling this primacy different ways:
1e the primary approach was the provision of magic accessible outside the class structure (skewed magic item tables, henchmen, expert hirelings) and prohibition on the most problematic caster type from learning everything (one chance to learn per spell and a cap on maximum learned per level).

2e reduced the provision magic accessible outside the PC (reduced access to henchmen), gave a passing nod to factional support, and reduced the prohibitions on the magic-user (one chance per level to learn a spell, relaxed cap on maximum number).

3e substantially reduced magic accessible outside the PC overtly (by seriously restricting henchmen), and indirectly (by making specialist magic items so valuable that secondary effects like divination, travel, and environmental survival were not kept) and eliminating all restrictions on how many effects a wizard can learn (all spells can be learned, no cap on number).

4e attacked the primacy a different way: by removing many of the larger convenient effects (flight, operational teleportation) and introducing "page 42" stunts which, depending on the DM, could be generously interpreted extrapolations of the PC combat abilities. It also provided a way for any class to gain access to non-combat specific magic by moving it to rituals and granting a way any interested PC could gain access It further reduced magic accessible outside the PC by weakening magic items in general and weakening henchmen again.

5e reverts many of the changes seen in 4e reinserting more powerful effects, reducing stunting, leaving access to rituals but reducing the number and value of their effects, and increasing the power of magic items while simultaneously saying they aren't necessary.

4e really shoulda put page 42 in the phb, and made it more player facing.

Still, I stunt just as much in 5e, but 5e needs some sort of direct and explicit encouragement for this in the phb.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I might be willing to concede the phrase "Omnipresence of Magic" or "Dependency on Magic" or something, because, yeah, ultimately this game is about worlds that are infused with magic, and much of the wonder of it can only be explained by magic.

But that's no different than the role of technology in sci-fi or cyberpunk.

What I don't like about the phrase "Primacy of Magic" is that it comes burdened with the connotation...which I believe is intended, based on the context in which it is used...that Wizards > Fighters. And I just don't see that. I get that some people wish Fighters had more options, and in that sense I will grant that "Wizards Are More Interesting to Play Than Fighters" could be subjectively true, although clearly for a lot of people it's not true.

But I just don't agree that Wizards, or casters in general, are more important or more powerful than Fighters and Rogues and Barbarians. That hasn't been my experience in 5e. At all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

An another topic I preferred it when evil casters weren’t capable of casting healing spells. They just weren’t capable and their gods couldn’t grant the spells. Had alot more flavor.

When was that the case? I remember, in 1e, there was a confusing phrase about "not having a reversible spell both ways," and it was unclear whether that meant (obviously) that you couldn't memorize Cure Light Wounds, then use it to cast Cause Light Wounds, or if you couldn't memorize Cause Light Wounds, at all, on a day that you memorized Cure Light Wounds even once (the interpretation I ultimately went with in my campaign), or if it meant you had to decide, at chargen, if your cleric would Cause or Cure.

Rather than calling people liars ...

That a statement is objectively false does not make the person making it a liar. That requires prior knowledge that the statement will be false, /and/ intent to deceive. By the same token, pointing out the objective facts is not an accusation of lying, let alone of /being a liar/, with the connotation of lying habitually.
Someone might labor under a host of misperceptions, make misstatements and mistakes frequently, yet still be entirely honest.

And hyperbolic or not, the exact phrase “literally all the same” has been uttered

Sure, using "literally" incorrectly to mean "figuratively - but in high degree" like repeating words for emphasis/authenticity ("I don't like like him" "Oh, you totally, like, LIKE like him!"), is a scourge of pop-culture English.

4e really shoulda put page 42 in the phb, and made it more player facing.
Still, I stunt just as much in 5e, but 5e needs some sort of direct and explicit encouragement for this in the phb.

Arguably, in 5e, the Play Loop (Procedure of Play explanation near the front) lets the DM encourage stunting almost by default, by adopting the Goal & Approach mode of action declaration. Aside from spells, it means the player describes what the character /does/ and the DM decides the resolution. Taken to it's logical conclusion, players wouldn't even need to know the action types and specific rules associated with their characters non-spell abilities, and wouldn't need to know if they were taking a standard, codified action, like grappling or TWF vs using Extra Attack or making a defined skill vs ability check or "stunting" using a resolution basis improvised by the DM. It's actually rather sophisticated on the DM side, and potentially more immersive (though that's always highly subjective) on the player side.
(And, TBH, less the formalized stating of the G&A requirement, not uncommon in many prior eds & other RPGs.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really don’t want to play d&d without magic. And yes magical healing should have a big effect on the game. What’s the use to have it if it doesn’t make a big difference on the game. It should have the “wow”’effect. The person was bleeding to death and is now healed. Cool.

Sounds like The Primacy of Magic is and important part of the Essence of D&D, for you, at least.

I might be willing to concede the phrase "Omnipresence of Magic" or "Dependency on Magic" or something, because, yeah, ultimately this game is about worlds that are infused with magic, and much of the wonder of it can only be explained by magic.

It's funny, these discussions often seem to get caught up on choice of label.

"Omnipressence" would work against the concept, making magic feel mundane/fungible (like magic items in 4e).
"Magic Dependency" would work fine, it gets the idea across. But, frankly, Primacy sounds cooler than Dependency, and doesn't connote addiction.

What I don't like about the phrase "Primacy of Magic" is that it comes burdened with the connotation...which I believe is intended, based on the context in which it is used...that Wizards > Fighters.

Prettymuch, yeah, it's worth recognizing that. Magic is more critical to the accomplishment of goals, even to survival, than non-magical contributions, which are fungible. You could use a shield golem or a series of conjured monsters or, at very low level, a well-trained attack dog, in place of a fighter a lot of the time. Wouldn't be /as/ good, might even get you killed once in a blue moon, but generally, the fighter's contribution is less unique, less critical, more fungible.

"Magic Dependency" would include the same information - success doesn't /Depend/ on the Fighter's contribution - but with the connotation of D&D being 'on magic' like it was a drug.

::

PYL

I get that some people wish Fighters had more options, and in that sense I will grant that "Wizards Are More Interesting to Play Than Fighters" could be subjectively true

It'd be hard to picture a "really D&D" implementation of the game in which the players of casters choices weren't more and/or more important than those made by the players of non-casters. Subjective opinions about the desirability of more and/or more important choices notwithstanding.

(That is, one could feel that fewer choices is simpler, less important choices is liberating, that his fighter or barbarian could charge heedlessly into combat, pick a weapon for cool factor instead of dpr, and generally do what he wants, how he wants it, without everyone screaming that he's not doing exactly the right thing at exactly the right time.)

I just don't agree that Wizards, or casters in general, are more important or more powerful than Fighters and Rogues and Barbarians. That hasn't been my experience in 5e. At all.

Your experience is one thing (which is fine - someone has claimed exactly that experience in every edition, even 3.5 regardless of Wizards being Tier 1 & Fighters Tier 5), the implementations of the various classes in the books are another, which, is subject to examination an analysis.

Fighters, in 5e, were designed to be simpler than casters, this was explicitly stated in the playtest (with BMs designed to be a bit more complex for the sake of complexity). That design intent did not fail: at chargen & level up, in each adventuring day, and on every round, the wizard has more choices to make than the fighter. Since a lot of those choices are about whether & hot to expend daily resources that could have encounter-swinging impact in any pillar, while the fighter's are mostly about which enemies to attack in what order (punctuated by whether to Second Wind or Action Surge this encounter or save it in case there's another before the next short rest), or what mundane task to lend his stat bonuses to out of combat, it's not unfair to say the wizard's choices are more difficult, and more significant, as well, even though it's possible, depending on circumstances, that it might turn out that attacking the red monster before the green one saved the party, while casting fireball, instead of moving & casting lightning bolt, to kill both of them at once made no difference at all.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I might be willing to concede the phrase "Omnipresence of Magic" or "Dependency on Magic" or something, because, yeah, ultimately this game is about worlds that are infused with magic, and much of the wonder of it can only be explained by magic.

But that's no different than the role of technology in sci-fi or cyberpunk.

What I don't like about the phrase "Primacy of Magic" is that it comes burdened with the connotation...which I believe is intended, based on the context in which it is used...that Wizards > Fighters. And I just don't see that. I get that some people wish Fighters had more options, and in that sense I will grant that "Wizards Are More Interesting to Play Than Fighters" could be subjectively true, although clearly for a lot of people it's not true.

But I just don't agree that Wizards, or casters in general, are more important or more powerful than Fighters and Rogues and Barbarians. That hasn't been my experience in 5e. At all.

I don’t see how casters are more important than fighters under any edition of d&d.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Sounds like The Primacy of Magic is and important part of the Essence of D&D, for you, at least.

It's funny, these discussions often seem to get caught up on choice of label.

"Omnipressence" would work against the concept, making magic feel mundane/fungible (like magic items in 4e).
"Magic Dependency" would work fine, it gets the idea across. But, frankly, Primacy sounds cooler than Dependency, and doesn't connote addiction.

Prettymuch, yeah, it's worth recognizing that. Magic is more critical to the accomplishment of goals, even to survival, than non-magical contributions, which are fungible. You could use a shield golem or a series of conjured monsters or, at very low level, a well-trained attack dog, in place of a fighter a lot of the time. Wouldn't be /as/ good, might even get you killed once in a blue moon, but generally, the fighter's contribution is less unique, less critical, more fungible.

"Magic Dependency" would include the same information - success doesn't /Depend/ on the Fighter's contribution - but with the connotation of D&D being 'on magic' like it was a drug.

::

PYL

It'd be hard to picture a "really D&D" implementation of the game in which the players of casters choices weren't more and/or more important than those made by the players of non-casters. Subjective opinions about the desirability of more and/or more important choices notwithstanding.

(That is, one could feel that fewer choices is simpler, less important choices is liberating, that his fighter or barbarian could charge heedlessly into combat, pick a weapon for cool factor instead of dpr, and generally do what he wants, how he wants it, without everyone screaming that he's not doing exactly the right thing at exactly the right time.)

Your experience is one thing (which is fine - someone has claimed exactly that experience in every edition, even 3.5 regardless of Wizards being Tier 1 & Fighters Tier 5), the implementations of the various classes in the books are another, which, is subject to examination an analysis.

Fighters, in 5e, were designed to be simpler than casters, this was explicitly stated in the playtest (with BMs designed to be a bit more complex for the sake of complexity). That design intent did not fail: at chargen & level up, in each adventuring day, and on every round, the wizard has more choices to make than the fighter. Since a lot of those choices are about whether & hot to expend daily resources that could have encounter-swinging impact in any pillar, while the fighter's are mostly about which enemies to attack in what order (punctuated by whether to Second Wind or Action Surge this encounter or save it in case there's another before the next short rest), or what mundane task to lend his stat bonuses to out of combat, it's not unfair to say the wizard's choices are more difficult, and more significant, as well, even though it's possible, depending on circumstances, that it might turn out that attacking the red monster before the green one saved the party, while casting fireball, instead of moving & casting lightning bolt, to kill both of them at once made no difference at all.

Well. I see wizards die fast when the fighters are gone. So I guess that’s primacy of martial.

 

[Arnwolf666]

If we are calling primacy of magic where magic is helpful, beneficial, and changes the way the game is played then yes I like primacy of magic. If we want a game without magic there are plenty out there.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I think you are describing a game that would play the same rather it is 4 wizards or 4 fighters. I don’t think that is possible or desirable. I like different classes having different roles and being good at different things that completely change the way encounters are approached. Now that’s just my opinion.