D&D 5E Are there too darn many spellcasters?

[DEFCON 1]

The answer to your question in your thread title is:

No.

There are only as many spellcasters in your game as you allow to be played. If you have too many spellcasting classes running around in your game, it's because you did not do your job as a DM to create your campaign setting to your specifications. You have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I can do a version of all of those concepts in 5E with existing rules, although they could be rewritten into something new. It just isn't needed.

You can also do a version of sorcerer, warlock, druid, and bard concepts; by using the wizard, cleric, and rogue classes.

Why do spellcasters warrant mechanical differentiation, where non-spellcasters do not? Why do we need both a druid and a nature cleric, if archer and fencer are both supposed to fit into the fighter class? Especially if fighters and rogues are more popular than wizards and clerics, why don't we have more mechanical differentiation between non-spellcasters and less mechanical differentiation between spellcasters?

 

[Sacrosanct]

The answer to your question in your thread title is:

No.

There are only as many spellcasters in your game as you allow to be played. If you have too many spellcasting classes running around in your game, it's because you did not do your job as a DM to create your campaign setting to your specifications. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Well, there are a lot of people who play AL....

So the DM can hardly be blamed. In fact, why do we like to rush to blame someone anyway? How about an opinion on the topic that doesn't blame anyone?

 

[cbwjm]

It's pretty much always been like this though, the spell casters in each edition tend to outnumber those without spell casting ability.

 

[Arilyn]

You can also do a version of sorcerer, warlock, druid, and bard concepts; by using the wizard, cleric, and rogue classes.

Why do spellcasters warrant mechanical differentiation, where non-spellcasters do not? Why do we need both a druid and a nature cleric, if archer and fencer are both supposed to fit into the fighter class? Especially if fighters and rogues are more popular than wizards and clerics, why don't we have more mechanical differentiation between non-spellcasters and less mechanical differentiation between spellcasters?

Yes, exactly. Look at us agreeing for a change
We could have archers, fencers, scouts, guards, spies, investigators, rat catchers(okay, I threw that in cause of Warhammer..), commanders, merchants, sailors...

 

[Krachek]

In DnD magic is rare, mysterious and everywhere!

 

[cbwjm]

Yes, exactly. Look at us agreeing for a change
We could have archers, fencers, scouts, guards, spies, investigators, rat catchers(okay, I threw that in cause of Warhammer..), commanders, merchants, sailors...

We do have those though. Some are backgrounds (commander (soldier background), spy (alternate criminal background), merchant, sailor), others are subclasses (scout, swashbuckler (for fencer), inquisitive (for investigator)), others have many applications (fighter or ranger with the archery fighting style, a shortbow using rogue, even a kensei monk can be an archer). Guard could be someone with the city watch background or maybe someone with the protection fighting style.

I don't know what a ratcatcher is in Warhammer. I'm assuming they don't just catch rats but then again, maybe they do.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, it depends on your definition of "low magic," or, um, "box," or "has."

The shift from magic being generated from magic items to characters has been profound and noticeable.

The shift from magic being uncommon and powerful to ubiquitous and less powerful (think cantrips) is also noticeable.

Finally, the shift to giving almost every class spells and spell equivalents (to build the classes) is also quite evident.

Putting aside OSR and BECMI, which would be easy to show, let's look at 1e v. 5e (core rules)-

1e-
10 classes.
4 Casters.
6 non-casters.
(Okay, so Paladins and Rangers can cast at name level, with low-level spells ... but still, no one ever said that they want to be a Paladin because at NINTH LEVEL they can cast a first level cleric spell. No, they want to be a Paladin because they have a deep void inside of them that will never be filled)

5e-
12 classes.
6/12 are full casters (that's half).
2/12 are half casters (Paladin, Ranger)

That means that 2/3 of the classes are casters.
That leaves 4 (3!) classes. Monk, Barbarian, Rogue, and Fighter. Rogue and Fighter both have 1/2 casting archetypes. Monk has ki-powered spellcasting archetypes. Even the Barbarian, arguably, can "cast spells."

And then contrast the frequency of spellcasting. You needed meatshields badly in AD&D. So your one magic user might get his single magic missile off, each day, at first level. Meanwhile, over in 5e, it's likely that almost every person in the party can, and likely will spam cantrips.

But another way, the majority of 1e combats could go by without a single spell. I have a hard time envisioning a single combat round in 5e without a spell.

So it's not really comparable.

Please note I am not saying it's better or worse, but it's definitely different.

There's certainly more magic in 5e, but I firmly believe that D&D has never been low magic. Sure, the paladin didn't get spellcasting until 9th level, but he gained a bevy of magical abilities starting at 1st level. Not low magic IMO.

Heck, look at OD&D. IIRC, you had the fighting man, the magic user, and the cleric (thieves weren't a thing until later). 2/3rds of the classes were spellcasters!

Of course, even then you had the option to play a party of no magic characters, just as you do in 5e. Options are optional.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In DnD magic is rare, mysterious and everywhere!

That's simply from a player perspective. From the standpoint of setting, magic may be so rare that it is virtually unheard of. All depends on the setting.

To a soldier, real grenades are likely nothing unusual. But how many civilians can say they've seen a real grenade, much less held one? I certainly haven't.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I guess the question is:

If magic exists, and can be used simply through training (see elves, feats, many class descriptions)... why would anybody not use it? Complaining that most classes use magic in D&D is like complaining that most professions in our world use modern technology.

Sure, there are some professions that don't need plastics, electricity, telephones, printing etc etc, and some individuals who specifically abstain from them, but on the whole you're hard pressed to find a profession that can't be done better with them.