D&D 5E Are there too darn many spellcasters?
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
The proportion of PC classes in the PHB is not an indicator of the prevalence of those classes in the setting. The fact that there is both a Fighter class and a Paladin class does not imply that in FR, or any other setting, that there are as many Paladins as Fighters running around.
And so with spellcasters. PC-classed people are already rare in most settings, and generally the majority of those will not be spellcasters. Fighters and Rogues are probably the most common, most of which have no spell capability.
PC parties are unusual: they are often composed of unique or unusual people. There might only be 3 paladins on the continent, but unless the DM vetoes the class, a player can play one of those Paladins.
Likewise parties often face opponents that the majority of NPCs can't deal with via the usual military/guards/peasant mob with pitchforks and torches options. This often means that they meet and oppose a disproportionately high number of spellcasters.
And so with spellcasters. PC-classed people are already rare in most settings, and generally the majority of those will not be spellcasters. Fighters and Rogues are probably the most common, most of which have no spell capability.
PC parties are unusual: they are often composed of unique or unusual people. There might only be 3 paladins on the continent, but unless the DM vetoes the class, a player can play one of those Paladins.
Likewise parties often face opponents that the majority of NPCs can't deal with via the usual military/guards/peasant mob with pitchforks and torches options. This often means that they meet and oppose a disproportionately high number of spellcasters.
I'm not being passive agressive at all. I'm flat out blaming WotC for going hog-wild on spells and making nearly every class a caster, and giving EVERY class a caster option.
Flat out. Total blame. Right on WotC.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
JacktheRabbit
Explorer
I see the problem, you are creating the campaign and then telling players what they can and cannot do which results potentially in players wanting to play things that do not fit your world. I quit a game a month ago that did the same, the DM invited me, suggested I play a support class as everyone else was covering the melee. I said sure and created a Bard. It turns out everyone else was playing melee because the DM thought magic was OP and had arbitrarily nerfed dozens of spells in the PHB to "fit his world and ideas". I found it less than appealing to play a nerfed character that the DM had suggested and politely said goodbye.
When I DM I talk with my players and get an idea of what they want to play so we do something that in as inclusive as possible to everyone's happiness. That way you do not create a low magic setting and have a player show up with a spell hungry wizard, two others show up with sorcerers, and the last one with his favoite min/max Warlock build.
Designing a campaign for everyone and not just the DM's goal makes everyone happy and results in a longer fuller campaign.
Warmaster Horus
Explorer
Blame WotC for listening to intensive polling and play testing, then. They're giving people what they want, apparently.
Sacrosanct
Legend
I actually didn't count it at all towards fighting (I did include the thief) because I was talking about Basic D&D and not just OD&D. So really, I should have said 4 1/2 to 2 1/2
You're doing that by your ratio, so don't blame someone else for how you are classifying them. I certainly don't agree with that premis, but even if I use your set of standards, it's still not a convincing argument, because...
BECMI wasn't the first to have race as class officially. I know it was also in B/X, and I don't have the Holmes version in front of me to see if it was there too.
Your statement was that D&D was never not about high magic and used OD&D's class ratio as a way to illustrate that. But you ignored the longest running and best selling version of D&D that had more non magical classes than magical ones. IMO, if you're gonna say D&D has never been low magic and use class ratios as a reason, then it's a pretty weak argument since the longest running and best selling version of D&D ever had more non magical classes than magical ones. You're gonna need some other form of supporting data for that particular argument. Because I can (and did) basically just say, "I see your OD&D, and raise you one Basic D&D that proves the opposite and is the most popular and longest running edition of the game."
Bacon Bits
Hero
I'd say there's just a lot of *magic* in D&D. I, too, often find that a bit distasteful, but in order to keep the game both simple and deep it's difficult to create interesting mechanics that still feel like D&D. That said, I've still never seen anybody play a Sorcerer more than 1 session because the spell selection is so bad (known and list), and weapon attack characters have always dominated every table I've been at.
That said, I've found Adventures in Middle Earth to be a fantastic alternate setting that does a good job of scratching that low-magic itch. There's essentially no spells in that setting. You can take feats to learn a few, but they're fairly weak.
That said, I've found Adventures in Middle Earth to be a fantastic alternate setting that does a good job of scratching that low-magic itch. There's essentially no spells in that setting. You can take feats to learn a few, but they're fairly weak.
JacktheRabbit
Explorer
See I have found the opposite. I find people playing sorcerers all the time using min maxed lists of spells taken from places like EN World.
And the reason why the DM didn't tell you about all his nerfed spells before you made a character was why? Frankly, I don't blame you for leaving in this case, because any DM that crafts his or her game but doesn't tell the players what those changes are until after the fact should have the players get up and leave. But that's on that DM. It's not on you, and it's not on Wizards of the Coast.
But that doesn't mean a DM does not have the right or responsibility to craft the campaign to his or her specifications, if there's a particular style or emphasis they want the game to have. It's just that once they determine what that style or emphasis is... they let their players know all the adjustments so that the players can decide "Is this a game I wish to play?", and also create a character that fits the game.
If you don't wish to do that as a DM, that's absolutely fine. There's no rule that says you have to adjust your game with variant rules or allow/disallow certain things. If you want to run a game using all the default rules in the PHB, that's your right and your choice. But just don't expect WotC to curtail their writing and design decisions so that the book only ends up having those things in it you personally want to see and have. Because that's ridiculous.
