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

[DEFCON 1]

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.

And I'm sure they're broken up about it.

 

[LapBandit]

I'm fine with the number of spell casters and how they're designed in 5E. They scale quite well.

Some of the martial characters also scale well and get awesome features, there is no question the fighter is the odd man out.

5E would have been perfect if most cantrips didn't scale.

 

[Monayuris]

I agree that it's in the eye of the beholder, although IMO there has been no low magic edition of D&D. Which isn't to say that you couldn't play that way; it's simply that the class design has never done much to this end.

IMO, Iron Heroes would be an example of low magic class design. There was only one magic using class (which I think was explicitly optional), and IIRC spellcasting was risky, discouraging casual use.

One thing not mentioned yet that gives older versions more of a low magic feel is the greater opportunity cost to casting spells. In B/X casting a spell in combat is a full round action and if you lose initiative and take damage or fail a save, your spell is disrupted - the spell doesn't go off and you lose the spell per day.

This alone makes spell casting risky in combat. In a typical combat, there is a consideration of "do I try to get fireball off?". In 5E, you have casting a spell as an action along with being able to split up movement. This turns the B/X situation on its head where you can have Wizards jumping out of cover to snipe with Fireball and then jumping back.

Combat in 5E features spell slinging like modern warfare.

This makes spell casting a very appealing option. What fighter wouldn't want to take Eldritch Knight if it means they can add spell casting, with little risk, to their arsenal. In my game, every player took a spell casting option of some kind.

 

[Arilyn]

If your story involves only a little bit of magic, then yes. You are absolutely correct. You only allow the players to select the options you want to have in this particular game.

If you've made a campaign that is only meant to have a little bit of magic but you then let your players choose anything and everything to use for their characters... is that supposed to be WotC's fault? They put too many classes, subclasses, multiclassing, and magic feats in the game so now you can't have your campaign the way you want it? Because you weren't willing to restrict your players? Sorry... that's not how it works. It's not WotC's job to police their design policies based on how a couple players want the book to be.

They produce what they want to produce... and you either use it, or you don't. Your choice. Always your choice.

The problem is that it is hard to limit magic in DnD without reducing player choice too much. I'm not even talking about low magic gritty campaigns, as an argument could be made that DnD is not meant for this. Spells are everywhere. Having casters and non-casters be more equal would enhance the game design, and give both GMs and players more room to manoeuver.

This is actually similar to the problem I have with wizard spell lists. Some schools are drastically under represented. Yes, wizards aren't restricted, but many abilities require slots from a particular school. It can also be frustrating to be in a school and not be able to take your favoured spells at some levels.

I am digressing. My point is that there are "choice" imbalances in the game that are not being addressed, and they should be.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

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.

The DM sent me a digital copy of the PHB that he said included the errata notes and his world building notes. He was not very clear that he felt magic was OP and as I looked at spells (I did not read spell descriptions initially as I know what they do) I found that 3/4 or more of the spells I had selected for by bard had their damage nerfed, AOE nerfed, or extra benefits to savings throws. Further as I read on I found that a very large portion of the spells I was going to take were also nerfed. Add that to him starting me a level below everyone else killed it.

There is no wrong answer. A collaborative approach will bring everyone in and reduce sticker shock as people find the world doesnt mesh well with the character they want to run/build. On the other hand a DM created world has more mystery at the basic level and if you get into it can have more wonder and awe.

I guess the first method works better for a new group of players getting together and the second works better when you have a group of players that trust the DM to create something fun and awesome.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm fine with the number of spell casters and how they're designed in 5E. They scale quite well.

Some of the martial characters also scale well and get awesome features, there is no question the fighter is the odd man out.

5E would have been perfect if most cantrips didn't scale.

Fighters seem to me to be the "create your own" combat guy.
Generic extra attacks as features
Generic bonus ASI/feats as features

those basically feed into more or less a gradual gain that allows some customization or magnifies the customization you have done.

 

[IronTippedQuill]

Fighters seem to me to be the "create your own" combat guy.
Generic extra attacks as features
Generic bonus ASI/feats as features

those basically feed into more or less a gradual gain that allows some customization or magnifies the customization you have done.

I wish someone would find a way to adapt some of the maneuvers and stances from the ToB. Warblade or Swordsage would make great fighter archetypes.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

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.

This what I do when I need a low-magic world, even when not necessarily playing in Middle-Earth. I often allow the warlock as a spellcaster, with the revised spell list from the Loremaster guide for non-obvious magic. I just modify their lore and patron choice to fit the game. For exemple, in a LotR game, Patrons are replaced by the corrupted place the character explored to gain the secret of dark magic (Mirkwood = Fey pact, Dol Guldur = Undying and Mordor = Fiend, maybe add Hexblade for Anghmar/Fornost) and Burden replaces the Pact (Tome, Blade stays the same, Chain gains you a Golum-like miserable creatures bound to the power of you corrupted place). Those powers are balanced by the Corruption points mechanic. In a DragonLance game, I'd create 3 patrons for the 3 Moons (like choosing your order) and change the Pact for your Gauntlet's Reward: Tome, Staff (blade but with a magic staff) or Robe (magic effect resistance).

In setting where magic comes at a price/is rare, I think the warlock makes for a good class. You dont gather 1000 scrolls and get to research in arcane faculties to find more and you dont exude magic from every pore because of your ancestry; you want magic, you sacrifice for it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The problem is that it is hard to limit magic in DnD without reducing player choice too much.

And that's your decision point, isn't it? Run something you're happy with versus running something your players will be happy with. Or somewhere in between. Congratulations, you're officially a DM. Is it hard? Of course. Dungeon Mastering *is* hard. Especially if you want to try and create a game that both you and your players will be happy with (for the most part.) You have to take out magic you don't want, or add magic you do... find or create classes without magic you want to add... it's all hard. It's all part of being a DM and having specific tastes.

But if you aren't willing to do that the work for yourself... why the heck should it be WotC's responsibility instead?

 

[Arilyn]

And that's your decision point, isn't it? Run something you're happy with versus running something your players will be happy with. Or somewhere in between. Congratulations, you're officially a DM. Is it hard? Of course. Dungeon Mastering *is* hard. Especially if you want to try and create a game that both you and your players will be happy with (for the most part.) You have to take out magic you don't want, or add magic you do... find or create classes without magic you want to add... it's all hard. It's all part of being a DM and having specific tastes.

But if you aren't willing to do that the work for yourself... why the heck should it be WotC's responsibility instead?

Your point would be valid if, for example, I decided to do a streampunk campaign. In this case, of course, I would not expect WOTC to create airship pilots and clockwork engineers for me.

But 5e right now, is more Spellslingers and Sorcerers than it should be. I don't think it's too much to ask that the paid designers of the game balance out the choices more evenly. It's a strange design decision on their part, and I believe not deliberate. I think they kind of fell into it accidentally. On the other hand, there seems to be little effort into fixing things, so maybe I'm wrong?

Some things are subjective and lots of GMs make house rules. My criticism is that in a game that is not bound to a particular world, I wouldn't expect it to rely so heavily on spells as a design tool. It's not a huge pet peeve for me, but standing back and eying the classes objectively, it's a very odd choice. One, I think could be mitigated with less magical options. Is magic super heroes really what DnD should be about?