D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[sunshadow21]

No, it really, really isn't. Magic being that powerful was largely a 3e artefact. Basic through 2e, wizards were so limited on the number of spells per day, learning new spells was not automatic, and there just weren't that many spells to be had. Basic/Expert has exactly 12 wizard spells of each level. That's it. Twelve spells. No one ever bitches about wizards or clerics stealing the show. Even AD&D 1e only had a handful of spells.

Funny, I've heard just as many, if not more, stories, about casters stealing the show in pre 3rd edition groups as I have in 3rd edition groups. The root cause in all editions is basically the same. Magic and spells are designed to be flashy and cool and kickass and really noticeable and memorable, and the reasons that many people play D&D is to have characters that are flashy, cool, kickass, and have lots of really cool and memorable stories. Accomplishing the latter in D&D that doesn't somehow involve magic as the final step is really, really, really, really tough unless the entire table is onboard with it, which means that all it takes is one person to screw that goal up. DMs that successfully control that one person almost never any noticeable issues until really high levels, which most people don't play at anyway. This is true of every single edition of D&D, past, current, and almost certainly future. 3E stands out not because it created the problem, but because it highlighted it so brightly that it absolutely could not be ignored while also not providing any solutions in the system itself. 5E may have put a few more masks back in the game, but the problem has existed in every edition. Even 4E only got around it by accepting it for what it was, and making everyone that powerful starting at level 1. Whether people think this is a good thing or a bad thing is a completely different conversation, and different people will be comfortable with different solutions of how to deal with it, but anyone who tries to argue magic has ever been anything but one of the core tenets of D&D is ignoring a lot of well proven and well known evidence out there.

Other systems don't have the same problems because most other systems don't focus quite so heavily on the magic system, making it easier for the DM to manage expectations. This amplifies the impact that the magic system has in D&D that much more, making it that much more visible.

 

[Hussar]

People who crab about specific examples being "campaign dependent" risk looking like they're arguing just to be difficult. All specific examples are situational. That's what makes it an example and not a paradigm.

Bottom line is that if you're making a trap, you need to consider what your goals are. "Inflict moderate HP damage on whoever triggered it" is a good goal for sadistically punishing casual thieves and impudent servants prying into your private stuff; it's not a great goal for hardening yourself against a minor military expedition like a party of PCs.

The problem is, and this was the problem I had in 3e too, is that the prevalence of casters means that it becomes an arms race. It makes it harder and harder to have a moderately low magic campaign when every chest is Warded or otherwise magically protected. I don't think 5e is as bad as 3e in this regard to be honest. For one, again, there are just a lot fewer spells out there that have this impact.

What I don't want to see is the paradigm shifting spells come back. Every higher level adventure presumes teleportation and fly. Very high level adventures presume Plane Shift and Gate. That sort of thing. I don't have to rewrite my campaign setting for the fighters or the thieves. I'd rather not have to do it for the casters.

 

[sunshadow21]

The problem is, and this was the problem I had in 3e too, is that the prevalence of casters means that it becomes an arms race. It makes it harder and harder to have a moderately low magic campaign when every chest is Warded or otherwise magically protected. I don't think 5e is as bad as 3e in this regard to be honest. For one, again, there are just a lot fewer spells out there that have this impact.

What I don't want to see is the paradigm shifting spells come back. Every higher level adventure presumes teleportation and fly. Very high level adventures presume Plane Shift and Gate. That sort of thing. I don't have to rewrite my campaign setting for the fighters or the thieves. I'd rather not have to do it for the casters.

The real difficulty with 3rd edition is that it made the problem obvious at lower levels and provided no clear in system solutions for it. From what I've heard, 5E's solutions are a mixed bag, and so don't automatically impress my anymore than any of the attempts in earlier editions. Magic is still reasonably powerful, but it runs the risk of ending up like the 3rd edition cleric; a very powerful thing that most nonpower gamers or secret military strategists aren't going to really find all that interesting. Having a go to spell is nice, but when a single spell (in this case sleep from what I've read) becomes a must have for any wizard of any kind, I don't see a removal of the problem, just a shift in its manifestation.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The problem is, and this was the problem I had in 3e too, is that the prevalence of casters means that it becomes an arms race. It makes it harder and harder to have a moderately low magic campaign when every chest is Warded or otherwise magically protected. I don't think 5e is as bad as 3e in this regard to be honest. For one, again, there are just a lot fewer spells out there that have this impact.

In a low-magic campaign, why would every owner of a chest be magically hardening the chest against anything more complicated than burglars? If the campaign is low-magic, I'd expect to see more of the other techniques I listed, like alarm bells to alert guards or (in an extreme case) a mechanical trap whose effect is e.g. to open the basilisk's cage. (Yes, I said, "E.g." Choose a monster that works in context.) It's the nature of a low-magic campaign that magic is rare and unexpected, which means that magic-wielding PCs will have the advantage of surprise in most situations; that's inherent in the choice of setting, and it's one reason why low-magic settings are enjoyable.

 

[Hussar]

In a low-magic campaign, why would every owner of a chest be magically hardening the chest against anything more complicated than burglars? If the campaign is low-magic, I'd expect to see more of the other techniques I listed, like alarm bells to alert guards or (in an extreme case) a mechanical trap whose effect is e.g. to open the basilisk's cage. (Yes, I said, "E.g." Choose a monster that works in context.) It's the nature of a low-magic campaign that magic is rare and unexpected, which means that magic-wielding PCs will have the advantage of surprise in most situations; that's inherent in the choice of setting, and it's one reason why low-magic settings are enjoyable.

Yup. Totally agree.

Now comes the PC party, with a cleric and a wizard in it. And they have all sorts of utility spells that you aren't "hardening" your chests against. All those traps and bombing in a Rakshasa don't work if the setting is a moderately low magic setting where you don't have explosive runes all over the place and you don't have incredibly magical extra planar beings around every corner.

Sure, maybe Zone of Truth doesn't work that one time. But, it does work the other 99% of the time, so, it's still far better than actually role playing anything. I'd prefer if casters were much, much more limited in 5e than they are. Personally, I'm starting to lean towards the idea of ejecting the cleric, wizard and sorcerer completely and only having bards and warlocks in the game. Would make things a lot more fun for me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think what CAN tend to happen though is that magic gets trotted out for the big deal of the day. The thief scouts around, but when you find where the BBEG is and you want to get a guy in close to pull something, you toss an invisibility spell on him because its just that much better, and one level 2 spell slot is worth it when the stakes are high.

So the magic may not get used more than even 30% of the time or less, but its plot impact and its effect on the game world can be disproportionately large.

Sounds like you've got a bad case of Older Edition Itis - presuming that something works in 5e like it worked before 5e.

You could invis the thief, but you'd probably be wasting a spell slot. Invis doesn't do a hell of a lot for stealth. It gives you the opportunity to stealth (makes you unseen), but it doesn't actually make them any better on their Dexterity (Stealth) roll. In any situation where you're not sneaking up on a creature with 360-degree vision in a featureless room, invis is kind of bupkiss, since "being unseen" is also handled by rocks, low hills, corners, sneaking up behind someone, etc. If you've got invis prepared, it's better to use it after the thief makes its first sneak attack, to protect the lil' guy until the rest of the party bursts out from around the corner.

Another competitor for "stealing the thunder from skills" at 2nd level is Levitate, and there you also have the basic formula of "the spell doesn't make the skill any better" - anyone who wants to do anything other than float straight up (and perhaps come crashing down) had better have a halfway-decent Athletics roll.

Knock is more useful - it bypasses the skill roll - but it comes with one HELL of a down-side, and it doesn't even open the door, so everything else gets a chance to react before you do.

Spider Climb is probably the most useful exploration spell at that level - bypass the skill check and no significant downside - but the fact that it only works on one critter at a time means you can blow every 2nd level slot in your arsenal on it and still someone has to make an Athletics check to climb (and it's none too great for long climbs...or for getting back down...). It's useful, but it's pretty limited. It can help the scout out.

And then hooray, you helped someone else be awesome for one encounter. And there's five left...it's gonna be a long day.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Now comes the PC party, with a cleric and a wizard in it. And they have all sorts of utility spells that you aren't "hardening" your chests against. All those traps and bombing in a Rakshasa don't work if the setting is a moderately low magic setting where you don't have explosive runes all over the place and you don't have incredibly magical extra planar beings around every corner.

The corollary is that the PCs won't be ready for magical countermeasures either. Maybe they think they've gotten away clean but they tripped an Alarm spell in the process. Or maybe this time there really is a double-Goristro-summoning rune on this chest (utilizing pre-summoned Planar Bound Goristros already in the vicinity). If the Goristros somehow fail to murder the whole party, the PCs will be like, "Where did this thing come from? What's so special about it? Who put the rune there and how do we stop them from murdering us all when they found out we took the chest?!?" Of such things are movie plots made.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Spider Climb is probably the most useful exploration spell at that level - bypass the skill check and no significant downside - but the fact that it only works on one critter at a time means you can blow every 2nd level slot in your arsenal on it and still someone has to make an Athletics check to climb

It's Concentration (1 Hour) so you can't even really blow multiple 2nd level slots on it, unless you meant sequentially. At best you could get one guy up to the top and have him throw down a rope for everyone else. It's not terrible but it's not fantastic compared plain old Athletics.

 

[Hussar]

I have a good example of what I'm talking about. In our 4e Darksun game, we spent several levels on survival. It's Darksun so that makes sense. Travel is difficult and dangerous. Cool.

Then we got the Phantom Steed ritual. On its own not a big deal. But one of the pc's had a ridiculously high Arcana check. Suddenly we could reliably get flying mounts every day. We went from traveling miles per day to over a hundred miles per day and we could avoid nearly all encounters and hazards.

It totally changed the feel of the campaign. One single ritual and a very large part of the campaign was lost.

That's what I don't want to see. Campaign changing magic.

 

[sunshadow21]

Yup. Totally agree.

Now comes the PC party, with a cleric and a wizard in it. And they have all sorts of utility spells that you aren't "hardening" your chests against. All those traps and bombing in a Rakshasa don't work if the setting is a moderately low magic setting where you don't have explosive runes all over the place and you don't have incredibly magical extra planar beings around every corner.

Sure, maybe Zone of Truth doesn't work that one time. But, it does work the other 99% of the time, so, it's still far better than actually role playing anything. I'd prefer if casters were much, much more limited in 5e than they are. Personally, I'm starting to lean towards the idea of ejecting the cleric, wizard and sorcerer completely and only having bards and warlocks in the game. Would make things a lot more fun for me.

This is why my personal world treats different levels of magic different ways. It solves both of these problems with remarkably little effort on my part, and without ejecting whole parts of the official game. Low level magic and even mid level magic is common enough that it's known and about, but that also means that counters, both magical and nonmagical, are also known and about. Because of this, the actual success rate of the Zone of Truth without a decent amount of prep work in advance is closer to 50% on average, and probably lower on the people that would be most likely to be it's intended targets, given that their tendencies to lie and be sneaky, both things that would make it harder to use it on them, are probably what drew the attention of the PCs in the first place. It's also not overwhelming more common than what we recognize as basic technology. It's more obviously useful than something like steam power, so it's far more likely to be seen on a day to day basis, but it's not like things like steam power or gunpowder are unknown, and magic users are not the only ones presenting shortcuts or power to those that really want either. Magic is still a neat and useful trick, and relatively easy to use, so it's still the main choice for most things, but it's far from the virtually guaranteed success that so many forum users seem to assume magic will be.

In my world, magic is a tool just like anything else; the higher level of magic you use, the more immediate effect it has, but it comes with a higher risk of consequences (both known and unknown), often requires more effort to properly setup and control the aftermath of, and more people are watching out for it and/or are prepared for it. Sure, the zone of truth may perfectly solve the immediate problem, but it could create three others, all of which the authorities expect the party to handle since they were the ones who created it. And the really high end stuff isn't readily available to just anyone; it's controlled very carefully by authorities and organizations that guard its use carefully for a wide range of reasons and usually knowing about it comes with a fair number of responsibilities to powerful NPCs. A rare lone wizard may have wish, but he isn't going to be doing anything more with it than anyone else because of the headache he'll have afterward dealing with everyone asking him about it.

I've found this to be the best compromise between the concept that everyone seems to have that magic should be this rare and powerful thing and the reality that true low magic adventures/campaigns have been few and bar between since the very beginning of the system. In some ways, I actually prefer 3rd precisely because it highlights the problems well enough that a DM that is paying attention to it from the very start should be able to mostly avoid most nasty surprises without too much difficulty. From what little I've seen of 2nd, and 5th will likely have the same issue, it's not a problem until it's a big problem, at which its probably too late to easily fix.