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

[Tallifer]

I like all kinds of classes and variety. Purely martial classes are interesting, but so are classes that mix in some magic.

This thread however gives me an interesting thought: how about an Arcane class with no spell-casting ability? Like a Westerosi Maester?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I like all kinds of classes and variety. Purely martial classes are interesting, but so are classes that mix in some magic.

This thread however gives me an interesting thought: how about an Arcane class with no spell-casting ability? Like a Westerosi Maester?

Any current class can be intelligent, knowledgeable, and proficient in the Arcane skill.

What do Maesters actually do that is outside that?

 

[steeldragons]

I would add, that the whole thing that makes a person an "Arcane" class is their capacity to use Arcane magic.

Someone who knows about it but doesn't use it...would be an "Expert" skill-based class which I suppose, oddly, would place it under the Rogue suite of classes/sub-classes. A "Sage" or "Scribe" or some such...that possesses all the relevant skills...maybe some class feature giving advantage to Knowledge/Lore -of any kind- checks...not sure what else they could use/get...Deciphering/Translating Languages, I suppose...

Strikes me as more useful as a light framework for an NPC class than anything players would adventure with.

 

[delericho]

I'm not at all bothered that members of any class (or indeed all classes) have the option of becoming spellcasters. After all, the player could equally just multiclass, or even just play a different class, if he wanted that option - and, anyway, there's no need for them to take up that option.

However, there probably are too many spellcasting classes in 5e, if for no other reason than that are too many classes full stop (in the PHB). As noted elsewhere, the ideal number for most people is somewhere between 5 and 9 nicely distinct options, so the 12 in the PHB is too many - especially with the distinctions between Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks not being immediately obvious.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Any current class can be intelligent, knowledgeable, and proficient in the Arcane skill.

What do Maesters actually do that is outside that?

A Maester would just be some sort of Loremaster and/or alchemist and not that useful as an adventurer.

 

[Li Shenron]

WotC designers were practically forced into providing a lot of magical options because the gamers wanted them, but if a gaming group has too much magic or too many spellcasters, they can only blame themselves. Because they are options and nobody is forced to choose them. Looking at how many classes cast spells gives a distorted view, because the amount of Sorcerers or Warlocks at large is not the same as the amount of Fighters (according to last year statistics, the most popular class in DnDBeyond). Most of the times, gaming groups still look for a balanced party, and so there is going to be either a Wizard or a Sorcerer or a Warlock or a Bard. Sometimes the Rogue is substituted with a Ranger or Bard, and the Fighter can be a Paladin, so eventually a group with 4 spellcasting characters is more probable than one with 4 non-spellcasters, but my guess is that most groups end up with 2-3 spellcasters and 1-2 non-spellcasters.

The biggest point for me is how prevalent they’ve made magic. Virtually every round of every combat will see at least one spell and probably more.

I think it's your group who wants to have such situation. In our games we have a Fighter and a Rogue with zero magic, and then a Cleric and a Druid without combat cantrips. We're still only level 3, so spell slot scarcity eventually will disappear, but so far we have lots of rounds without spells being cast. In fact we also have encounters without a single spell being cast. The big spam for us is cure wounds.

And then out of combat spells become the go to solution for everything as well.

Yes, but again this is all gamer's fault, who wanted to have spells in the game to bypass challenges, and then play the game as if they have to choose those spells or feel stupid for not doing so.

I would like at least the option of playing a lower magic game.

You have it. You are just not using it. If you don't want to play the same game the conservative majority of gamers do, don't make those choices. And if your DM makes it impossible for you to play the game without those choices (although I am somewhat skeptic that it can truly happen), blame your DM, because it's also up to the DM to create the conditions to play the game the players want.

In other words, I think the problem here is that most of us assume that the game must be played in a certain way. They assume they need spells or they cannot win. They assume they need specific spells for each situation otherwise they can't do it. They also assume they need to kill everything they fight against, they assume they need to pick up each coin they find, they assume they need to spend all the treasure in something that increases their power, they assume they need to have high stats. And they assume their DM won't let them play differently. So it becomes pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

WotC designers were practically forced into providing a lot of magical options because the gamers wanted them, but if a gaming group has too much magic or too many spellcasters, they can only blame themselves. Because they are options and nobody is forced to choose them. Looking at how many classes cast spells gives a distorted view, because the amount of Sorcerers or Warlocks at large is not the same as the amount of Fighters (according to last year statistics, the most popular class in DnDBeyond). Most of the times, gaming groups still look for a balanced party, and so there is going to be either a Wizard or a Sorcerer or a Warlock or a Bard. Sometimes the Rogue is substituted with a Ranger or Bard, and the Fighter can be a Paladin, so eventually a group with 4 spellcasting characters is more probable than one with 4 non-spellcasters, but my guess is that most groups end up with 2-3 spellcasters and 1-2 non-spellcasters.



I think it's your group who wants to have such situation. In our games we have a Fighter and a Rogue with zero magic, and then a Cleric and a Druid without combat cantrips. We're still only level 3, so spell slot scarcity eventually will disappear, but so far we have lots of rounds without spells being cast. In fact we also have encounters without a single spell being cast. The big spam for us is cure wounds.



Yes, but again this is all gamer's fault, who wanted to have spells in the game to bypass challenges, and then play the game as if they have to choose those spells or feel stupid for not doing so.



You have it. You are just not using it. If you don't want to play the same game the conservative majority of gamers do, don't make those choices. And if your DM makes it impossible for you to play the game without those choices (although I am somewhat skeptic that it can truly happen), blame your DM, because it's also up to the DM to create the conditions to play the game the players want.

In other words, I think the problem here is that most of us assume that the game must be played in a certain way. They assume they need spells or they cannot win. They assume they need specific spells for each situation otherwise they can't do it. They also assume they need to kill everything they fight against, they assume they need to pick up each coin they find, they assume they need to spend all the treasure in something that increases their power, they assume they need to have high stats. And they assume their DM won't let them play differently. So it becomes pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sure, you can certainly do this, but once you take out the majority of magic you're left with about 15% of the game. It's pretty thin, and that's the problem some of us have.

I have no problem restricting content when running a campaign or a problem creating new content (classes, feats, options). But if I have to go through the trouble of doing a total conversion mod on the rules, I begin to wonder why I'm playing 5e in the first place when I can play something more suitable. WotC has emphasized gonzo high-powered fantasy superheroes to the detriment of other types of fantasy worlds and stories (low magic, sword and sorcery, hearth fantasy, and so on) that used to be better supported or easier to adapt the rules to.

So, yes, added non-spellcasting/non-magic content would be greatly appreciated for some of us to bolster the available options. A Complete Muggle Handbook or some such to expand warriors and rogues (fighting options and skill options) would be fantastic and far more useful than more hyper-specific caster content.

 

[LapBandit]

My solution (homebrew) to this problem is to let the players know at the beginning of a new campaign that the more magical they are inherently the less likely I am to tailor magic items in the adventure to them. For example, my 17th level campaign wrapping up soon has seen six magical weapons between the two martial characters and six magic items usable by anyone and only one caster-specific magic item, and that was to a pacifist druid.

I can't speak for your tables, but at mine, it works well.

 

[Nutation]

Oh, and I really want a martial artist that isn't a monk.

4E had options for a weaponless fighter. Not much damage, but lots of grabbing and dragging. Would that be an example?

 

[Arilyn]

WotC designers were practically forced into providing a lot of magical options because the gamers wanted them, but if a gaming group has too much magic or too many spellcasters, they can only blame themselves. Because they are options and nobody is forced to choose them. Looking at how many classes cast spells gives a distorted view, because the amount of Sorcerers or Warlocks at large is not the same as the amount of Fighters (according to last year statistics, the most popular class in DnDBeyond). Most of the times, gaming groups still look for a balanced party, and so there is going to be either a Wizard or a Sorcerer or a Warlock or a Bard. Sometimes the Rogue is substituted with a Ranger or Bard, and the Fighter can be a Paladin, so eventually a group with 4 spellcasting characters is more probable than one with 4 non-spellcasters, but my guess is that most groups end up with 2-3 spellcasters and 1-2 non-spellcasters.



I think it's your group who wants to have such situation. In our games we have a Fighter and a Rogue with zero magic, and then a Cleric and a Druid without combat cantrips. We're still only level 3, so spell slot scarcity eventually will disappear, but so far we have lots of rounds without spells being cast. In fact we also have encounters without a single spell being cast. The big spam for us is cure wounds.



Yes, but again this is all gamer's fault, who wanted to have spells in the game to bypass challenges, and then play the game as if they have to choose those spells or feel stupid for not doing so.



You have it. You are just not using it. If you don't want to play the same game the conservative majority of gamers do, don't make those choices. And if your DM makes it impossible for you to play the game without those choices (although I am somewhat skeptic that it can truly happen), blame your DM, because it's also up to the DM to create the conditions to play the game the players want.

In other words, I think the problem here is that most of us assume that the game must be played in a certain way. They assume they need spells or they cannot win. They assume they need specific spells for each situation otherwise they can't do it. They also assume they need to kill everything they fight against, they assume they need to pick up each coin they find, they assume they need to spend all the treasure in something that increases their power, they assume they need to have high stats. And they assume their DM won't let them play differently. So it becomes pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't recall an overwhelming number of players during the playtest demanding more and more magic. Rather the opposite really, which fits your comment about fighters and rogues being the the most commonly played classes. The bottom line is that players sitting down to make a magicy class have way more options at their fingertips than players wanting a class with no magic at all. This imbalance of choice is not getting rectified, and the more you play the more frustrating it becomes. I also believe that if WOTC focusses more on non-magic, it would force them to flex some design muscles which are starting to atrophy a little.

I think WOTC needs to examine their whole game, in a big picture kind of way, in order to see where there are gaps. Right now the continuing design of the game feels erratic and piecemeal. Sure, people are having fun and the game is doing really really well, but it could be better. Balancing choice is an easy fix, and often the first thing game designers address in supplements. It would be a good move for WOTC, as well.