As Editions Pass...

Wiggles

While reading the "Race/Class restriction" thread (and forcibly withdrawing myself from giving my opinion) it dawned on me the whole 'setting' of D&D changes with every edition. It appears that with each new edition, the medieval fantasy setting that started decades ago seems to be going more and more into high fantasy as editions pass. This isn't necessarily a nostalgia thread, (since I've only played 2nd edition once and I was 13 back in 2003) but a recognition that magicial worlds, events, and people appear to be more frequent as time goes on.

I'll try to use an example without butchering it. Bare with me now as 3.5 edition is basically the only edition I've played.
-------
A mage in 2nd edition could specialize in a school of magic while being a certain race and removing a specific school of magic to be a specialist.

A wizard in 3rd edition could specialize in a school of magic while being any race and removing *any* (1 or 2) school(s) of magic to be a specialist.

A wizard in 4th edition could cast Magic Missile at will for 1d6 and it could miss.
-------
I've never played 4th edition, but a friend of mine told me about the Magic Missle example, so it could be wrong.

I'm afraid I already know the answer to this question since the age demographic here is a little on the *cough* *cough* older side, but what do you think of this 'higher frequency' of magic and fantasy and the less 'appearance' of medieval setting as editions pass?

ShapiroKeatsDarkMage

And before the 3rd and 4th edition bashing begins....

Wiggles

If that's the case than this thread should be deleted as that's not the intent.

ajwz

I have always considered most of the D&D popular settings to be on the high fantasy end of the spectrum, regardless of edition.

Even in high fantasy settings, I don't favour treating magic as mundane though. In general, I wish settings would more carefully consider the consequences that magic would have on a society.

Fantasy series where magic doesn't seem to follow any rules often mean that the author can introduce some new magic into the story any time they wish as a kind of deus ex machina, and for me, this totally breaks the immersion.
(Which is why I couldn't get into Steve Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series)

Magic when badly done is bad, and when well done is good. Not the sort of answer you were looking for I guess, but that's how I feel about it.
All things being equal, I don't particularly favour low magic or high magic over the other.

[Deleted User]

Wiggles said:

I'm afraid I already know the answer to this question since the age demographic here is a little on the *cough* *cough* older side, but what do you think of this 'higher frequency' of magic and fantasy and the less 'appearance' of medieval setting as editions pass?

I think the "higher frequency" of magic depends more on the fantasy setting you are trying to evoke than the edition of rules you are using. I mean, look at BG: it's using the 2e rules, but spell scrolls and wands (some of which anyone can use) practically rain from the heavens, because the Forgotten Realms is a very high fantasy, high magic setting.

Kaltzor

Wiggles said:

A wizard in 4th edition could cast Magic Missile at will for 1d6 and it could miss.
-------
I've never played 4th edition, but a friend of mine told me about the Magic Missle example, so it could be wrong.

4e Magic Missile as far as I know, just deals pretty much int modifier as damage. No attack rolls or anything.

FinneousPJ

I haven't had the chance to familiarize myself with 4e but I thought the 3.5e in NWN2 was the best DnD system I've used.

Coriander

Kaltzor said:

4e Magic Missile as far as I know, just deals pretty much int modifier as damage. No attack rolls or anything.

Yeah, and you can do it in addition to your regular attack and movement. There's a lot of damage dealing in 4e.

ajwz said:

(Which is why I couldn't get into Steve Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series)

You take that back! I mean it's got a really consistent magic system. Depending on culture and era and universe...

Kaltzor

Coriander said:

Yeah, and you can do it in addition to your regular attack and movement. There's a lot of damage dealing in 4e.

Lots of damage dealing maybe, but damage seems kind of limited in general...

ZanathKariashi

The settings haven't really changed much...except for 4th which has tried it's best to take a $%#^ on everything that came before and start with a blank slate.


The main difference between 2nd and 3rd is that 2nd is more focused on roleplaying before anything else, while 3rd is more about combat and number-crunching, with less emphasis on roleplaying (but it does still exist).

2nd runs on a much lower level of power (aside from spell casting which is pretty much the same between editions, jsut with divine getting a little bit buffed) so your stats really don't matter so much. Where as in 3rd, enemies and encounters scale based on the party level, and bad early decisions can come back and bite you hard later.


In 2nd, everything about your character is based on your initial dice rolls for stats, and then you work with what you've been given and develop a character and their role in the group from there.

In 3rd, you decide what you want to do first, and then build the character around it.


One interesting differience is that 3rd edition completely falls apart quickly after level 20, where as 2nd remains pretty much the same, since the level of power isn't a huge jump like 3rd tends to be but feels more like a natural progression, because there are no super feats or crap like that that suddenly become available. (something BG did a HORRIBLE job of trying to implement).

Hell, most HLA actually come between 10-20 in 2nd edition, and feel right in place with development. (they bare little to no resemblance to the HLA currently in BG).

(a true fighter's ability to go beyond specialization is actually supposed to be a high level ability, since Mastery (***) is supposed to require a minimum of level 9, HM 12, and GM 15, to make up for them lacking any other special innate perks like other warriors and fighter kits gain as part of normal leveling/kit benefits).

rexreg

4th ed. Magic Missile initially had a 'to hit', but was errata'd into an auto-damage spell, as it was in the earlier 3 editions...

Michail

From what others here said it appears that what you label as a "medieval to high fantasy" shift, is actually the shift in magic rules that occured to make playing a mage easier and satisfy those that liked dealing damage with magic (the sorcerer class was not enough).

Ed Greenwood himself has repeatedly stated that the memorization rules of spell casting were originally intended to prevent mages from being too powerful and being used as artillery. They deliberately chose the so called "Vancian" spellcasting system (inspired by the way magic works in Jack Vance's "Dying Earth"). 4th edition, on the other hand, uses the "event based" system, which results in exactly that. Mages being artillery, similar to the old sorcerer class.

It appears that D&D NEXT (also known as 5th edition) will go back to the old system by restoring the "weave" that, for storytelling purposes, collapsed when Mystra dissapeared and caused the Spellplague (4th edition magic appearing as a result).

For info on magic systems in fantasy see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(gaming)

EDIT: The link above is malfunctioning and i don't know how to fix it. The parenthesis is part of the url but it is not being recognised as such. Instead of clicking you might have to copy/paste the whole thing.

[Deleted User]

The thing is, even with a Vancian system, it's only "low magic" until the spellcasters are high enough level to have a pile of prepared spells, at which point they can start tossing them around like candy. One of the low level adventures that came with one of my 2e Forgotten Realms boxes and Elminster randomly show up to heal the party midway through because why not? One of the Drizzt books sees two mages try to one up each other by killing more of an army of zombies with an array of high level spells. And that's without getting into the Seven Sisters, Khelben Blackstaff, or all of those Red Wizards of Thay.

Whereas Dark Sun remains low magic even in 4e because of all the narrative reasons why being a mage in that world makes you a psychopath, a target, or both.

smeagolheart

Earlier editions of D&D were more conservative in terms of setting and magic in general. Later editions have become more liberal in their use of magic. I blame Obama.

Haha, amirite? Get it? Political humor! Too soon? *crickets*

AendaeronBluescale

Michail said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(gaming)

fixed it for ya.
Source:

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(gaming)>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(gaming) 
</a>

Michail

@AendaeronBluescale

I see... The value of the href atribute is the actual url. The text that follows is what will be shown by the browser instead of the url, which may or may not be the same, right? This way the browser knows what the link is and shows the right text. Cool.

AendaeronBluescale

@Michail yes, that is correct. Although it's off-topic.

Michail

@AendaeronBluescale
Well, we are allready in the off topic category anyhow...

Michail

Kaigen said:

One of the Drizzt books sees two mages try to one up each other by killing more of an army of zombies with an array of high level spells.

Robillard and Harkle Harper... :-)

EDIT: HARPELL! Not Harper... sorry...

Schneidend

The game has always been rife with magic. You can literally BE a wizard/spellcaster/cleric/whatever, a person with magical spells at their disposal. If you're a Paladin, you are literally infused with a magical blessing that makes you better at resisting spells and other effects from level one or level two, depending on edition.

Michail

Schneidend said:

The game has always been rife with magic. You can literally BE a wizard/spellcaster/cleric/whatever, a person with magical spells at their disposal. If you're a Paladin, you are literally infused with a magical blessing that makes you better at resisting spells and other effects from level one or level two, depending on edition.

True. What is different is the way it affects plot and gameplay. Extremely powerfull magic, without strict rules, is a storybreaker. There's no point in getting into a difficult situation if magic can solve it like the literary Deus ex machina.

Older dnd editions were story and roleplay oriented (cooperative storytelling?), and so it made sense to keep a mage weak untill later in the game, at which point successfull spellcasting became indeed easier but was still a matter of clever use of repertoire. As things progressed magic became more prominent in gamepley and lower level spellcasters of all classes gained in power.

[Deleted User]

Michail said:

True. What is different is the way it affects plot and gameplay. Extremely powerfull magic, without strict rules, is a storybreaker. There's no point in getting into a difficult situation if magic can solve it like the literary Deus ex machina.

Which is particularly a problem in 2e and 3e, as both systems allow higher level spellcasters access to a variety of effects with broad applicability, giving them deus ex machina capability. Contrary to your statement, spellcasters actually lost quite a bit of power in 4e, even as they got the ability to use their magic more often, because their spells became more tightly defined and focused. While they were more powerful at low levels, their ability to break the story at higher levels was more or less eliminated.

Schneidend

Michail said:

True. What is different is the way it affects plot and gameplay. Extremely powerfull magic, without strict rules, is a storybreaker. There's no point in getting into a difficult situation if magic can solve it like the literary Deus ex machina.

Older dnd editions were story and roleplay oriented (cooperative storytelling?), and so it made sense to keep a mage weak untill later in the game, at which point successfull spellcasting became indeed easier but was still a matter of clever use of repertoire. As things progressed magic became more prominent in gamepley and lower level spellcasters of all classes gained in power.

Uh, what? A high level Wizard in 2E can FREEZE TIME. How is not that the most Deus Ex-y spell there is?

Michail

Let me explain.

In 2nd edition, you can indeed wield extremely powerful magic. But a clever DM can nullify your advantage by providing monsters with specific immunities you cannot counter, have you expend your spells and then not allow you to rest, or simply have that damn drow mage cast silence on you in his first action. Being a successful mage still required some deeper knowledge of the game and good judgement. I cannot stress that enough (in my experience, btw, the mage was usually the most experienced player in the group, capable of DMing in his own right). So you can't break the story unless the DM lets you get away with it. And what about computer games? Well, think of all the times you got beat by any baddie in BG, reloaded, memorised different spells and tried again, untill you got it right.

In 4th edition, magic users are balanced so as to contribute almost equally to any fight, regardless of level, cannot expend their repertoire, do not need to be clever, cannot be stripped of their magic etc...
Which was the reason magic in 4th edition was indeed made LESS powerful, lest it unbalances gameplay. Plotwise, this means that mage doesn't have to care that much about situational advantages from certain spells and immunities, and could very well carry a wand instead. Think of all the times you didn't puzzle over which spells to prepare for the big final encounter in a 4th ed. game.

EDIT: This thread was about the way magic is implemented in games, and how people perceive it. Not about the best ruleset. Which would vary, depending on preference.

[Deleted User]

I think it's just a complicated comparison to make without a clear idea of what constitutes "high fantasy" vs. "medieval." 4e spellcasters can use magic more often, which might make things feel more fantasy-esque. 2e and 3e spellcasters can potentially alter the course of a battle or the plot in general with a single spell, such that DM's have to take into account what is in a player's spell repertoire and what they might prepare to ensure that the entire adventure doesn't get bypassed.

All of that is mainly about how the game feels when you're playing it at the table, though. How the world setting feels depends much more on how many magic-using NPCs are running around, how powerful they are, and how frequently they are encountered taking care of business. Basically, the atmosphere that is struck depends much more heavily on the DM and the chosen setting than the edition itself. Hell, you could probably make the Forgotten Realms feels low magic if you just kept the party away from those dozens of high level spellcasters and were careful with the treasure rewards.

Schneidend

Michail said:

In 4th edition, magic users are balanced so as to contribute almost equally to any fight, regardless of level, cannot expend their repertoire, do not need to be clever, cannot be stripped of their magic etc...
Which was the reason magic in 4th edition was indeed made LESS powerful, lest it unbalances gameplay. Plotwise, this means that mage doesn't have to care that much about situational advantages from certain spells and immunities, and could very well carry a wand instead. Think of all the times you didn't puzzle over which spells to prepare for the big final encounter in a 4th ed. game.

EDIT: This thread was about the way magic is implemented in games, and how people perceive it. Not about the best ruleset. Which would vary, depending on preference.

My 4E players do clever things all the time, regardless of edition, like maneuvering enemies into water (or creating their own water) to make cold or lightning spells more effective, lighting the tiefling Bard on fire to make him more intimidating, or surfing on a door through a hallway covered with grease.

Michail

@Schneidend
What does that have to do with my argument about 2nd edition forcing mages, to care a bit more about situational advantages, having to be abit more knowledgable etc? Try to see it in relation to other classes. Mages were dethroned, and are now just a class like any other. They used to be special... (turns away and wipes a tear from his eye).

Schneidend

Mages in 4e still need to be aware of the battlefield situation because a lot of their powers are either AoE, crowd control and less about damage, and affect the terrain. It is to their advantage to be more knowledgable to avoid having enemies resist their damage or be resitant/immune to a secondary effect. Arguably, the secondary effects of Wizard powers are much more important than dealing big damage. With the expanded content Wizards easily have the most powers in the entire game, they're the only class that has powers that specifically make use of their familiars, and have the most sub-classes and variant class features. They're also the only class that innately gets to substitute one power for another at the beginning of the day via their spellbook. Wizards get rituals innately without variant feature decisions, a privilege they share only with the Cleric and Bard. The Wizard is definitely still the kings of power versatility and utility.

Michail

@Schneidend
Oh dear, my inner geek can't resist the temptation to do this. It's a matter of scale.

Correct me if i am wrong. Mages get more powers than other classes, but at level 10 it is still 2 at wills, 3 encounters, 3 dailys and 3 utilities. 11 spellslots, or rather the equivalent of 2 wands with infinite charges and 9 spellslots. Or roughly something like that. Ok it's plenty, but, lets, say in BG, it would be 15 slots, and 18 at level 11. It is only 17 in 4th ed. at level 30, when it used to be 44. The new repertoire is about 60 spells, i think, it used to be more than 150 (a total of more than a thousand arcane spells in 3.5 - not a joke). And other classes get their own powers etc, instead of the older simple "Fighter hits with sword" action. Also, the casting systems facilitates constant use (think at wills), while that could only be previously accomplished with rare and expensive wands and staffs.

So yes, magic is still the most versatile course, but not as much as it used to be. The whole idea was to balance things out. And they succeeded. Which in effect brought magic "almost" on level with the rest, and made it ordinary. Ergo the thread initiator's feeling that it is high fantasy.

EDIT: Thinking outside combat, rituals make choosing spells less important.
No need to memorize knock if i can do a ritual. Again, magic more prominent but less complicated. Nough said.

Schneidend

They still differentiated magic pretty well. There are some effects that only magical characters can achieve. No Fighter can create a wall, difficult terrain, or summon a fire elemental. There's a 10th level Wizard Daily Utility that instantly digs a twenty foot tunnel through earth or even stone.