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

[ExploderWizard]

A single person *with magical training* ought to be rather more impressive than a small mercenary force, no? I mean, is this somehow surprising?

There is no doubt that they ARE in fact more impressive, even at 1st level, and even without expending any of their finite power reserves. That was kind of the point.

 

[Umbran]

Now suppose Joe cantrip arrived in town with 8 or 9 buddies? No suspicious gear or anything and BAM! The burninating of the thatched roof cottages!!!

And Joe Cantrip and his buddies are apt ot charge a great deal more for their burnination services...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I guess if you're REALLY into the "flavor" of being a "wizardly wizard" you might choose the former, but give me the the choice of a character with the ability to do exactly ONE interesting thing, versus the ability to do nine interesting things, and I'll take "nine interesting things" every time.

D&D is not being written for you alone. The problem is that your preference, if applied to the wizard core class, crowds out those who want a "wizardly wizard". But if the wizard core class is a "wizardly wizard", then you can still get what you want through multiclassing and hybrid classes. (And really, the first clue that the "wizard" should be "wizardly" is in the name.)

 

[Kite474]

You know its always interesting to read these opinions. Especially concerning the idea of "What MY Wizard SHOULD be". Especially because it becomes more a question about background.

For example I played Final Fantasy long before I was even aware of lord of the rings so my image of a wizard is much more align what a D&D wizard is. Compared to say those who had Gandalf as their first wizard.

Hell the funniest thing for me coming to D&D were clerics. As before D&D there were nothing really like them to me. For most religious characters I've seen in fiction they just had miracles be granted at important points and not a daily kind of thing.

As I once said to my DM "So....White Mages?" He actually had a good laugh at that one

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For example I played Final Fantasy long before I was even aware of lord of the rings so my image of a wizard is much more align what a D&D wizard is. Compared to say those who had Gandalf as their first wizard.

So you, at least, should be perfectly happy with the concept of hoarding all of your spells and flailing around with a staff or dagger until you reach that one moment when it's time to cut loose and justify your place in the party.

 

[Kite474]

So you, at least, should be perfectly happy with the concept of hoarding all of your spells and flailing around with a staff or dagger until you reach that one moment when it's time to cut loose and justify your place in the party.

Yes and no. D&D use a fundamentally system than FF. So a Black Mage in FF will be slinging spells generally the entire time. His/Her weapons being for stat enhancements.

I like the way 5e has done cantrips as it's a little closer to that. That and it's also a mind thing. It may be not that different stat wise. But casting fire-bolt certainly FEELs a lot better than a simple crossbow.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes and no. D&D use a fundamentally system than FF. So a Black Mage in FF will be slinging spells generally the entire time. His/Her weapons being for stat enhancements.

That doesn't sound like the Final Fantasy I remember. Like, at all.

Final Fantasy uses the same system as D&D, down to the nine spell levels and cold spells being higher level than fire or lightning spells. If you tried casting a spell in every combat, you would be out of spells before you ever got to the next dungeon, let alone anywhere near the end of it. By the time you were high enough level that you could afford to waste low-level spell slots in every fight, the damage from those spells was trivial compared to a fighter or monk making half a dozen attacks per round.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You probably also don't think, "Flying and invisible, while dropping meteors on people."

....which is why 5e felt it was cool if wizard couldn't do that. It's not key to the concept of "being a wizard."

A wizard in D&D has never been a great example of any classic fantasy archetype. A wizard in D&D is a wizard in D&D, and that's down to the edition to define what that means exactly.

For most people, they hear "wizard" and think "Gandalf" - and as the foremost paragon of fantasy wizardry, he wants to avoid using any sort of (useful) magic unless it's absolutely necessary. It shouldn't seem weird to get on board with that.

When thinking about game design, I find it's often useful to think about verbs. What did Gandalf do that was different, that none of the other members of the Fellowship could do?

He used magic.

What do the students of Hogwarts do to fight their villain?

They use magic.

What did Merlin do that was exceptional among the Arthurian heroes?

He used magic.

When someone wants to play with that archetype, they often want to use magic. That's what those characters do that's different.

Then the question comes up: okay, how often do you need to do that to feel like you're participating in the archetype?

Like, in terms of real-world time, how often? Every minute? Every five minutes? Once an hour? Once a session? Once a month? Once a year?

There's probably different thresholds for different genre expectations. How many spells per minute are in the LotR movie trilogy? The Harry Potter movies? How often (again, in real-world-time units) can wizards in WoW cast spells? What about wizards in a game like Pillars of Eternity? How many scenes with involve spells in the Harry Potter books or how many scenes with Gandalf involve them in the LotR books?

D&D is a game of imagination where a bunch of people sit around a table and talk in funny voices at each other and roll weird dice. How many times per hour do you need to pretend to cast a spell to forget that you're a dork at the dork table being dorky and imagine that you're a wizard in a magical land of dragons and knights? What if it's your first time playing D&D? How many minutes pass between your turns?

Would be 0% surprised if these metrics, in combination, lead to and encouraged at-will spellcasting.

That's just where the design ended up for the core books, though, and it doesn't limit what you can do with the game. "Doesn't have at-will spellcasting" isn't on my list of dealbreakers.

But...."DM thinks at-will spellcasting ruins D&D" is a ping of concern, if only because ideology driving your D&D game can be a recipe for disaster.

 

[Kite474]

That doesn't sound like the Final Fantasy I remember. Like, at all.

Final Fantasy uses the same system as D&D, down to the nine spell levels and cold spells being higher level than fire or lightning spells. If you tried casting a spell in every combat, you would be out of spells before you ever got to the next dungeon, let alone anywhere near the end of it.

Ah it seems their is a bit of a disconnect there, my apologizes. That was true.... For the first FF. As for the FF I was speaking of I was talking about the later games in context (My first game was Tactics). Later games they used the classic MP system.... Which probably explains why I enjoy Psionics so much. Same system when you get down to the nity grity!

 

[Tony Vargas]

When thinking about game design, I find it's often useful to think about verbs. What did Gandalf do that was different, that none of the other members of the Fellowship could do?

Gandalf provided exposition. Tons of stultifying exposition, especially in the first book. Even when he defeated the Balrog, he did it 'off-screen' and then provided exposition about it later.

A rogue Charlatan with expertise in History and Deceive could do a pretty fair imitation of Gandalf. He'd need some fireworks, and a flashlight. Oh, and a wheelbarrow, of course, never forget the wheelbarrow.

Like, in terms of real-world time, how often? Every minute? Every five minutes? Once an hour? Once a session? Once a month? Once a year?

That's the thing: stories don't flow in real-world time, they flow in scenes and plot points and important events and character development and even flashbacks.

Would be 0% surprised if these metrics, in combination, lead to and encouraged at-will spellcasting.

It makes plenty of sense. Whenever you want/need to establish the character can use magic, you pop off with a cantrip, even if it's just prestidigitation or something, though, with the combat focus of traditional D&D, a combat-useable attack cantrip is a good idea.
You should also be able to do something much more dramatic, some of the time, or you're just part of the scenery. By the same token, you can't be doing that 'some of the time' thing too frequently or systematically, or it could undermine the story/setting.

The same considerations make just as much sense for any character-establishing trait, magical or otherwise.