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

[Rod Staffwand]

Yes, far too much spellcasting and magic in 5e for my taste. It seriously hampers my interest in the system--and has ever since I read the atrocious 'Wonders of Magic' section in the introduction of the PH: "With magic of their own, in the form of spells and magic items, the adventurers might prevail!" The primacy of magic is so enshrined in 5e one might think they were angling for the Harry Potter RPG license.

Obviously a large percentage of players love spells as a mechanic. They offer customization (yay!) and versatility (yay!) by employing discrete, understandable DM-proof effects (yay!!). A player can feel confident in their abilities far more than a non-spell user can: "Can I use feather fall to reach the bottom of the pit safely? Of course, you can" as opposed to "Can I use acrobatics to reach the bottom of the put safely? Maybe, roll a 20+ or you take 5d6 damage on a fail".

Designers love them because they're relatively easy to write and balance, as opposed to other systems. There's a reason the most common splats are new spells. Spells to do anything and everything. What ever you can think of, let's write a spell for it. This spell does damage with a debuff--that spell does the same damage with a slightly different debuff. Do we need both? Of course! Versatility and customization are awesome and it's not hurting anyone.

Hey, how about some new battlemaster maneuvers, please? No! Absolutely not! Those original 16 are all you will ever need. If you don't like it, play a caster!

Or how about a fighter with a different array of abilities to play with? No, the champion (and the champion alone) covers that design space. No other options needed.

My most successful 5e campaign used a modified Basic, expanded with some full content (some Barbarian and Ranger stuff). I'm mulling over a Sword & Sorcery, low-magic rule-set with vastly fleshed-out skill and combat rules. But I still have no use for the sorcerer, the bard is too magical, and I don't understand how the warlock is suppose to work, being pledged to Cthulhu or Demogorgon or whoever.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Is magic super heroes really what DnD should be about?

Considering the game includes the word 'Dragons' in their name and assumes the participants are meant to deal with said dragons... yes, I think magical super heroes are EXACTLY what the game is meant to be about.

 

[Krachek]

Better rename the game Castels & Knights

 

[Raunalyn]

Too many spellcasters?

"Blasphemy! You're lucky I don't cast you out, or smite you, or something." -Q

 

[Arilyn]

Considering the game includes the word 'Dragons' in their name and assumes the participants are meant to deal with said dragons... yes, I think magical super heroes are EXACTLY what the game is meant to be about.

Over the top heroes doing amazing feats, sure! Not super heroes blasting and casting their way through the world. It's just kind of odd...

 

[Warmaster Horus]

... Is magic super heroes really what DnD should be about?

It's been about that for as long as I've played the game. If your PC's not a caster then they've got a magic gizmo. The sheer number of magic goodies that I remember parties in my (middle school, pre-1980) games was staggering. We had a fighter with a ring that conjured a horse when put on and made same horse explode when it was taken off. While that fighter made hundreds of sword strokes, it's the exploding horse gag we all remember. Everyone had magic armor, weapons and fantastic items. My favorite PC in AD&D was a Thief-Acrobat that piloted an intelligent flying carpet while wielding a Whip of Paralysis.

Those were heady days of discovering the fantastic worlds of D&D we were all creating and participating in. No such thing as balance other than DM Fiat and maybe the occasional clarification in Dragon magazine (which we mostly ignored).

 

[Arilyn]

It's been about that for as long as I've played the game. If your PC's not a caster then they've got a magic gizmo. The sheer number of magic goodies that I remember parties in my (middle school, pre-1980) games was staggering. We had a fighter with a ring that conjured a horse when put on and made same horse explode when it was taken off. While that fighter made hundreds of sword strokes, it's the exploding horse gag we all remember. Everyone had magic armor, weapons and fantastic items. My favorite PC in AD&D was a Thief-Acrobat that piloted an intelligent flying carpet while wielding a Whip of Paralysis.

Those were heady days of discovering the fantastic worlds of D&D we were all creating and participating in. No such thing as balance other than DM Fiat and maybe the occasional clarification in Dragon magazine (which we mostly ignored).

Well true.
But, Mearls told us magic would be mysterious and rare in 5e, and its even stated in core books, yet it's used everywhere. This is a disconnect between mechanics and fluff. I'm not arguing for low magic worlds, but having a more equitable balance between casting and non-casting classes would be better for the game. Tables who want to lessen the impact of magic, would have more choice. The game is really skewed toward spell use. My super hero comment was in regards to players constantly having spells at their finger tips. It replaces skills and class abilities at too high a rate. DnD worlds are usually strange, but 5e is truly bizarre. As I said, not a huge pet peeve, but what I believe is a valid criticism of the choices made in the design of the game. Shouldn't there be more cool non-magic classes, sub-classes, and abilities? Wouldn't this just make the game feel better?

 

[steeldragons]

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

I would imagine so.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

TBH, I think the blame does go to WoTC.

But the blame is there because of the way they chose to design the classes.

Which is what I think some people on the thread are missing, when they keep attempting to equate, say, 1e abilities with 5e spells.

The class design of 5e is predicated on spell use. Even "abilities" like smite use up spell slots. The design has advantages (in simplicity, making it easier to design classes that are roughly equivalent) and versatility (BUILD UR OWN RANGER!), but is also the reason that people who are more used to older editions notice the vast increase in spell use.

Even in AD&D, a lot of class abilities were implemented as spells, just because it was easy. Instead of giving the ranger an explicit ability to detect poison, or talk to squirrels, they just made spells for those and then turned the ranger into a spellcaster. A lot of paladin spells could also have been implemented as class abilities rather than spells. There was just no reason to, since the spell slot limitation served to keep those abilities from overrunning the game, and the designers didn't feel obligated to fill empty levels (since 3E-style multi-classing wasn't an option).

Nowadays, those classes have special abilities in addition to spells, and a lot more spell slots with which to use those spells.

 

[Krachek]

It is easier for a DM to restrict magic usage but a much heavier task to add or upgrade a magic system.
I think that limiting full caster to level 4 spell and half caster to level 2 spell can make a nice low magic experience.