D&D 5E Why Has D&D, and 5e in Particular, Gone Down the Road of Ubiquitous Magic?

[BryonD]

But that's not to say 4E didn't have a similar layer of homogeneity, and in that respect, I find this whole thread funny. In terms of systems, 4E was MUCH more homogeneous than 5E, given that everyone used the AEDU system and that everyone was limited to roughly equal numbers of AEDU abilities. But people complained this system was too homogeneous, so they went back to the system that was less homogeneous.

So really I think it's funny. Just shows consumerism is alive and well in even the RPG market: people get what they want and still aren't happy.

I think you take this too far. The OP may be unhappy. But I think the great majority of players are quite happy. Yes, this issues exists. But there are multiple solutions available and the best solution depends on a groups preference in playstyle.

You can be interested in how to improve a situation or cover an imperfection and still be very happy.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Take 1e as a counterpoint. Clerics, Druids, Magic Users, and Illusionists could cast spells. Period. And there were no cantrips, and you used a full Vancian system. Magic was a choice. Admittedly, Paladins and Rangers would get spells - but very limited, and at higher levels (the Paladin and the Ranger could cast a single 1st level spell per day, starting at 9th and 8th level, respectively ... so, yeah, not spellcasters).

The feel, therefore, is very different. Magic, in 1e (to use an example) was almost always a big deal. Magic, in 5e, is a given.

In fairness, while they weren't spellcasters at low levels, both the 1e Paladin and Monk had plenty of magical abilities so they should be considered magical classes in my opinion. That only leaves the fighter, low-level ranger, thief, and assassin as non-magical options. As such, 1e had more magic using classes than non-magical (3:2).

I don't think it's all that different for reasons of proliferation. I think that some might dislike it because magic has been brought down a few pegs over the course of editions. Sleep, the low-level "I win" button of 1e and 2e now grants a saving throw. Polymorphing an enemy into a toad isn't an invitation to a beatdown, since it will break on the first serious injury. I appreciate the nod to balance. Magic doesn't have to be "I win" to be magical in my book. Granted, anyone who expects it to be so may be disappointed.

 

[Arilyn]

The one thing related to this problem in 5e, is the idea that magic should be rare and special. Magic items should not be important to a character's strength. It is stated in the PHB that most people go their whole lives never seeing a single spell cast. It is hard to imagine this, when most players have magic at their fingertips. Yes, adventurers are uncommon, but the feel of the world's level of magic is coming through in the player creation, and ubiquitous magic is the feeling I'm left with. This to me is unfortunate. I think classes could have lots of cool and interesting abilities without falling back on giving them spells. Is magic important in most D&D worlds? Yes, usually. It shouldn't be everywhere, however, as this leaves magic without much flavour. It also makes it impossible to run a low or no magic campaign.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't agree with this. The AD&D PHB has its problems, but gluttishness isn't one of them. It just gives us clerics and druids as melee combatants.

Eh, I think 5E has too few options and I think some previous editions have too many. I don't think any edition of D&D I've played has the "right" amount of choices.

On this, I can't speak for [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].

Personally I find 4e less homogeneous: at the abstract metagame level the mechanics are similar (AEDU), but in the detail there is a wide range of flavours and a wide range of effects. For me, 5e has increased the homogeneity by closing the metagame/detail gap - via its casting rules - and by reducing the range of effects - by using common spells to fit the casters' spell lists. So while the metagame of resource suites is more varied, the actual flavour and detail of what is going on is reduced.

No doubt others have different responses - aesthetics is obviously a pretty subjective thing!

I actually agree. Though I dislike the sheer volume of material, being forced to pick say, 5/20 things allows for more variety than say, being able to pick 10/20 things. So by lowering the available options and increasing the number of them you can have, it increases homogeneity by limiting the number of possible combinations. I still say 4E as a system was much more homogeneous, but IMO, felt less so due to the imposed limitations.

Of course IMO 4E also had too much material.

 

[BryonD]

Personally I find 4e less homogeneous: at the abstract metagame level the mechanics are similar (AEDU), but in the detail there is a wide range of flavours and a wide range of effects. For me, 5e has increased the homogeneity by closing the metagame/detail gap - via its casting rules - and by reducing the range of effects - by using common spells to fit the casters' spell lists. So while the metagame of resource suites is more varied, the actual flavour and detail of what is going on is reduced.

This is certainly true. But if you look at having one page as the key to driving the mechanical optimum for every situation, it is much less diverse.
That doesn't challenge your point that the published options for flavor and detail are vastly more varied in 4E.

Of course, it is very easy to add new flavor.

No doubt others have different responses - aesthetics is obviously a pretty subjective thing!

I don't think it is at subjective that one system is more homogeneous by a certain measure and the other is more homogeneous by another standard.
It is, of course, hugely subjective which standard matters to an individual.

 

[Salamandyr]

To throw a tangent on this; even if we were to eliminate PC spellcasting, I don't think that would really make magic in D&D special.

Because spellcasting isn't all the magic. Consider a typical party of WOTC recommended makeup...two dwarves, a fairy princess, a dragon, and a girl whose grandfather was the king of Hell. Even if every one of those characters was a nonspell using class, how exactly would they fell "nonmagical"? They're not exactly the Black Company.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Prevalence in play seems to be more of a player and table issue. Don't want casters? Limit them. Some people like martial classes (I do). Some don't. Find players who like non-casters.

It's not quite that simple, since a party needs contributions that come primarily from spellcasters. Non-casters, all 5 of 'em in the PH, all contribute DPR well enough, 3 are tough, 2 have particularly good skill checks. That's about it.

But I do also agree that everyone casting the same spells the same way is a problem, but it is probably superior to having a half-dozen different casting systems.

Radically different casting systems can be problematic, yes. The other alternative is for each class to have an entirely unique spell list. That requires a lot more design work and eats up column inches.

That, to me, is the key. As has been pointed out, and as is my experience, it is exceptionally difficult to build a non-magic using class in 5e. Which is pretty much the opposite of, say, 1e.

5e re-uses a lot of spells when it creates a new caster, sure, that makes it easier. Same trick worked in 3e. In 2e spells grouped in spheres gave you lots of 'different' clerics very easily. 1e had many classes sharing spells, as well.

Let's be specific.
In 5e, the only main class that has no subclasses (that I am aware of) that doesn't have spellcasting options is the Barbarian.

The totem barbarian can use some spells as rituals.

You have primary spellcasters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard). You have the secondary spellcasters (Paladin, Ranger). That leaves four (4!) classes. Of those, three (fighter, monk, and rogue) all have spellcasting (or, in the case of monk, pseudo-spellcasting based on ki) options. And, of course, you can always cast spells with the feats. And this is before considering multi-classing.

In short, it's the exception to have a character that cannot cast spells.

Take 1e as a counterpoint. Clerics, Druids, Magic Users, and Illusionists could cast spells. Period.

And Paladins and Rangers at high enough level. And the bard in his appendix in the back of the book. And the very-common-at-low-level multi-classed non/demi-humans.
So, strict non-casters: Fighter, Thief, Assassin, Monk. 1e w/UA: add Thief-Acrobat, Barbarian, Cavalier.
5e, strict non-casters: Champion, Battlemaster, Thief, Assassin, Berserker.

And there were no cantrips,

They were added pretty quickly, though, even if they weren't at will.

The feel, therefore, is very different. Magic, in 1e (to use an example) was almost always a big deal. Magic, in 5e, is a given.

Magic in 1e was obligatory. Couldn't get by without that Band-Aid Cleric. ;P

 

[jmoolaman]

It's hard to be cool and magical, when magic isn't cool anymore because it's so commonplace. At-will magic would have been incredibly impressive in AD&D, in the context of powerful spellcasters who could only prepare a handful of spells each day. At-will magic isn't impressive at all in the context of 4E or 5E, where every wizard can cast all day, and each spell is strictly less impressive than an equally-accomplished swordsperson just wailing on a guy. Even though modern wizards look super powerful at first glance, the change in context means they really aren't so much.

(A similar issue occurred with healing. One of the goals of 4E was to kill the heal-bot archetype, which was widely considered to be unpopular but mandatory. A healer in 4E was supposed to be more versatile, because basic healing was a swift action and everyone had healing surges to pick up the slack. Unfortunately, due to the change in context, the actual healing spells stopped being impressive at all - the basic implementation was only allowed the potency of a swift action, and the actual spend-an-action Cure spells couldn't fix anything that wouldn't heal naturally overnight anyway.)

It's all because players thought they knew what they wanted, but failed to account for the required changes to context that would bring them about. And so we're stuck with at-will magic that hits roughly as hard as punching someone in the nose. And that's unlikely to change anytime soon, because most players lack the foresight to understand that limiting their magic would allow it to be more impressive - you would never be able to sell them on going back to X spells per day, because they would understand the loss of at-will magic but wouldn't understand how much more magical those spells would seem.

I think the hundreds of thousands of playtester's would disagree with you.

 

[Hussar]

yeah, it's just a problem for those who refuse to select "sub optimal" options for the sake of min/maxing.

That's a bit glib though.

In 1e the longsword was king. So lots of people chose longswords. In 3e, a longsword wasn't really better than a battle axe or a pole arm. And in 3e I saw lots of all three.

When mechanics make choice A better than choice B, I don't blame plays for choosing A.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Yes, adventurers are uncommon, but the feel of the world's level of magic is coming through in the player creation, and ubiquitous magic is the feeling I'm left with. This to me is unfortunate. I think classes could have lots of cool and interesting abilities without falling back on giving them spells.

Pretty much this. 2nd level isn't all that far away, so even the few people that do dare to go down the adventuring path, don't need to very far before they themselves become magicals.