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

[prosfilaes]

Not all fights are against your equals, though. When you're fighting something that's weak enough for you to not want to spend resources on, why can't that be the point where you get to show off your cool staff-fighting skills? Why do you need magic, even when it's not a life-or-death situation?

For one, games don't tend to have a bunch of challenges that are that weak. A level 12 party versus 30 kobolds is going to take an hour to resolve, and most players don't want to waste an hour resolving a battle with no risk or resource use. It's not fun for most people.

For another, if I were playing GURPS and I put a bunch of points in staff fighting, fine, I probably want to show off my cool staff fighting at some point. But in D&D, just because the numbers on the character sheet say I'm a good staff fighter--that it's part of the rules that a 12th level Wizard is a pretty good staff fighter--doesn't mean that it's part of my character concept. When I play a wizard, the reason why I travel with fighters is they can deal with this . Don't confuse him with the guy over there who enjoys getting physical and has a cool collection of scars to show off. If I were building them in a GURPS-like system with limited magic, they might well have high points in ranged weapons, but would have points in Run Away and Escape Artist instead of Hitting. You can't use the fact that the rules system forces me to be semi-skilled in something to force me to make it part of my character. There's other archetypes I could play, but I'd probably go some sort of gish if I actually wanted to fight hand-to-hand at some point.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For one, games don't tend to have a bunch of challenges that are that weak. A level 12 party versus 30 kobolds is going to take an hour to resolve, and most players don't want to waste an hour resolving a battle with no risk or resource use. It's not fun for most people.

That's bounded accuracy for you. The fights don't usually take an hour, though, in my experience.

For another, if I were playing GURPS and I put a bunch of points in staff fighting, fine, I probably want to show off my cool staff fighting at some point. But in D&D, just because the numbers on the character sheet say I'm a good staff fighter--that it's part of the rules that a 12th level Wizard is a pretty good staff fighter--doesn't mean that it's part of my character concept.

Welcome to Class-Based Systems: 101. In a class-based system, all characters hew closely to one of several pre-designated archetypes. There are plenty of things that you just can't do in a class-based system, and a character who can't fight is something that you can't make in D&D.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wizards have traditionally been, and still are in 5e, at the lowest end of the totem pole of martial competence.

Suppose Bounded Accuracy makes it a shorter totem pole in some senses. A wizard fighting with a weapon he's proficient with has the same 'skill' component to his competence as a fighter, +2 at first level, going up to +6 at higher level. That's a far cry from 1/2 BAB. The difference comes in stats and features. The Wizard's cantrip will hit better than his staff, because it uses INT. The fighter's arrow will hit even better because he has Archery style. But we're not talking a difference of +20 vs +10 at any level.

For one, games don't tend to have a bunch of challenges that are that weak. A level 12 party versus 30 kobolds is going to take an hour to resolve, and most players don't want to waste an hour resolving a battle with no risk or resource use. It's not fun for most people.

Kobolds staying a legitimate, if 'weak' threat vs a higher level party is kinda the point of Bounded Accuracy, and 5e combats go fast.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Suppose Bounded Accuracy makes it a shorter totem pole in some senses. A wizard fighting with a weapon he's proficient with has the same 'skill' component to his competence as a fighter, +2 at first level, going up to +6 at higher level. That's a far cry from 1/2 BAB. The difference comes in stats and features. The Wizard's cantrip will hit better than his staff, because it uses INT. The fighter's arrow will hit even better because he has Archery style. But we're not talking a difference of +20 vs +10 at any level.

Saelorn was using 3.x as an example, so I went with same. It's true, the gap is probably the narrowest it's ever been in 5e.

That said, a 5e wizard is still a far cry from a competent melee combatant. Likely his best melee weapon is a dagger, since putting a decent amount of points into Strength is not a worthwhile expenditure compared to Dexterity (which also gives him AC that will be crucial in melee). At level 12, he has a 1d4 attack versus the fighter's three or more 1d8+ attacks (six attacks with Action Surge). The fighter's AC is also probably better, and his hit points are likely to be significantly better (because he can easily make his second highest ability score Constitution).

The wizard is still the worst melee class in the game, not counting subclasses specialized for melee like the Bladesinger or potentially Abjurer. "Not as bad but still the worst" isn't much of an endorsement in my book. I'm not saying that wizard players shouldn't melee. That's their choice. However, in any serious fight I think a wizard who chooses melee over wizardry is liable to require Raise Dead.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That said, a 5e wizard is still a far cry from a competent melee combatant.

Didn't mean to suggest otherwise, though, obviously, there are cases, like the Bladesinger, where it takes a stab(npi) at it. And Bounded Accuracy does make the gap between best and worst combatants narrower.

 

[Fanaelialae]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] You could probably accomplish what you want with a Kit. I realize that, technically speaking, 5e doesn't have Kits but this is functionally equivalent. Here's my stab at a rough draft (please pardon the joke name, I couldn't come up with anything better):

Whack-A-Mage
Wizard Kit
-Light (possibly Medium) armor proficiency
-One Martial weapon of choice
-No cantrips
-Extra attack at Wizard level 11

If that feels too weak, maybe throw in more weapon proficiencies or +1 hp per level. If you like the idea of staff wielding wizards, you could grant them the ability to make attacks with the staff using Dexterity, in lieu of the martial weapon proficiency.

 

[prosfilaes]

Welcome to Class-Based Systems: 101. In a class-based system, all characters hew closely to one of several pre-designated archetypes. There are plenty of things that you just can't do in a class-based system, and a character who can't fight is something that you can't make in D&D.

Welcome to Game Theory 101. In a game, if you offer players a clearly sub-optimal choice, it's likely they'll just ignore it. It's virtually never that it's the right decision for a mage to engage in melee combat from a purely tactical standpoint, so why shouldn't we make our characters so they ignore that option?

Not only that, it seems weird to ask why are D&D maintainers are sending D&D down the road of ubiquitous magic, and when people respond that it's because it fits how we play our characters, to tell us that we're playing D&D wrong.

Kobolds staying a legitimate, if 'weak' threat vs a higher level party is kinda the point of Bounded Accuracy, and 5e combats go fast.

Yeah. With that example, I was really thinking about 3E/PF. Then again, if they're a legitimate threat, my wizards are still not wanting to go within dagger-length of them.

 

[Hussar]

Welcome to Game Theory 101. In a game, if you offer players a clearly sub-optimal choice, it's likely they'll just ignore it. It's virtually never that it's the right decision for a mage to engage in melee combat from a purely tactical standpoint, so why shouldn't we make our characters so they ignore that option?

Not only that, it seems weird to ask why are D&D maintainers are sending D&D down the road of ubiquitous magic, and when people respond that it's because it fits how we play our characters, to tell us that we're playing D&D wrong.



Yeah. With that example, I was really thinking about 3E/PF. Then again, if they're a legitimate threat, my wizards are still not wanting to go within dagger-length of them.

There's a danger here though of focusing only on one class. Ok, we don't want the wizard (and the sorcerer really) standing on the front line. Fair enough, that's not a wizard's niche. Never has been. I can totally get behind that.

But, what about the cleric and the druid? A cleric on the front line fits pretty darn well with its niche. It's SUPPOSED to be there. That's why it has the best AC in the game, almost the best HP and almost the best weapons. It's not as good as the fighter, true, but, it's no slouch either. But, with the shared spell lists and the fact that at wills replace attacks, other than a war priest, there's virtually no reason to stand on the front line. Max out your Wis score, dump stat Str and away you go. That's pretty far from what clerics used to be.

Clerics never used to be blasters. But, again that changed in 3e. Clerics got all sorts of area effect attack spells at pretty much every level. Granted, in 3e, the best option was still likely to buff the crap out of the cleric and go to town with your mace, so, at least the cleric was kinda close to his roots. But a 5e cleric? Pew pew away with Sacred Flame, Light Domain and I've got Burning Hands and Scorching Ray and Fireball. Tempest Domain and I've got Thunderwave and Call Lightning. I'm sure there's more.

There's no particular reason for my cleric to ever get into melee combat. ((Again, excepting War Domain clerics obviously)) And that's ignoring Domain powers, that's just spells.

Once upon a time, a lot of effects were siloed into specific classes. If you wanted an area of effect damaging spell, you needed a wizard (or a very high level druid or cleric). If you wanted to fly, teleport, or summon monsters, you needed a wizard. Now, druids are summoners, and clerics can make you fly.

I brought up summon monsters for a reason actually. I LOVE summoners. Always have. Played them all the way back to 2e and probably in 1e as well. I loved how you could call up a small army of minions to do your bidding. Tons of fun for me. Now, the only way i can actually play a summoner is play a Druid? Since when are druids summoners? But, I suppose that's a separate issue. But, what that has meant is that my druid is pretty much a conjurer in all but name. Virtually all the effects he uses, if they were in 3e, would be conjuration effects. By and large, with a couple of exceptions (invisibility being a big one ).

By making most of the spell lists very similar - everyone has area effects, everyone has mobility effects, everyone has effects that are similar to each other - and then opening up other classes spell lists to differing classes, 5e has made every caster pretty much the same thing. To me, this is the problem with ubiquitous magic. It's made all the classes play very similarly to each other.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Welcome to Game Theory 101. In a game, if you offer players a clearly sub-optimal choice, it's likely they'll just ignore it. It's virtually never that it's the right decision for a mage to engage in melee combat from a purely tactical standpoint, so why shouldn't we make our characters so they ignore that option?

Optimal with respect to what?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

There's a danger here though of focusing only on one class. Ok, we don't want the wizard (and the sorcerer really) standing on the front line. Fair enough, that's not a wizard's niche. Never has been. I can totally get behind that.

No, the wizard is getting behind you.