D&D 5E D&D Magic: Does it Feel Magical to You?

[Azurewraith]

To me not really my standpoint is that magic should come from somewhere and put strain on that source be it your inner reserves in which case you should be gaining exhaustion or losing HP and not spell slots(or maybe have spell slots and every 25% used gain a level of exhaustion?) Or some finite magical well in which case that use of predesignation(spelling?) To clean your cloths better be worth it you just killed the planet

 

[Krachek]

I think it is getting better in 5th.
In 5 the bound accuray have leveled pc with mundane npc. Even at leve 10 you can still have 17 ac and +1 on your will save.
It makes magic more special.
But of course you need to want to see magic. If you keep only an eye in dpr and damage done you will never see magic.

 

[Hussar]

Part of the issue as well, for me anyway, is the sanitisation of magic. I touched on this earlier with the idea of pixelated fireballs. Casting a fireball is now a reason to get out the ruler and protractor and that's not really very magical to me. Watching the caster player spend a few minutes placing that spell just so, so he can maximise its effects pretty much robs any sense of it being magical. At least for me.

It's too... I'm looking for the word... technical I guess would be the best way of describing it. "Oh, oh, if I rotate this square effect 16 degrees, I can catch one more orc" just leaves the whole thing feeling very flat.

 

[MechaPilot]

Part of the issue as well, for me anyway, is the sanitisation of magic. I touched on this earlier with the idea of pixelated fireballs. Casting a fireball is now a reason to get out the ruler and protractor and that's not really very magical to me. Watching the caster player spend a few minutes placing that spell just so, so he can maximise its effects pretty much robs any sense of it being magical. At least for me.

It's too... I'm looking for the word... technical I guess would be the best way of describing it. "Oh, oh, if I rotate this square effect 16 degrees, I can catch one more orc" just leaves the whole thing feeling very flat.

Well, you could always not let them break out the ruler. I certainly don't allow that. The player has to eyeball the effect just as the caster who's wrapped up in combat must.

Also, the pixellated fireball is really a matter of determining who is in the AoE. It's just a matter of "if the fireball fills at least half the space the target is in, then the target is in the AoE." If it didn't have that rule to help you figure it out, you'd still have to come up with your own rule to apply.

 

[Sunseeker]

Part of the issue as well, for me anyway, is the sanitisation of magic. I touched on this earlier with the idea of pixelated fireballs. Casting a fireball is now a reason to get out the ruler and protractor and that's not really very magical to me. Watching the caster player spend a few minutes placing that spell just so, so he can maximise its effects pretty much robs any sense of it being magical. At least for me.

It's too... I'm looking for the word... technical I guess would be the best way of describing it. "Oh, oh, if I rotate this square effect 16 degrees, I can catch one more orc" just leaves the whole thing feeling very flat.

Possibly, but it's not unreasonable to say a tactically-minded character couldn't attempt to achieve the same effect. But it's certainly different looking at the situation from the ground than from an aerial view. (aerial ie spelled with an ae? really!?). I think there are simple fixes. Sand-timers for actions (whatever your table feels appropriate). Simply not allowing people to use rulers and protractors, forcing them to make their "best guess".

----

Anyway, no D&D magic doesn't feel very magical to me. I'm not sure why. Part of me wants to say it's vancian casting. I think some spells being "more powerful" by default makes sense from one perspective, but I tend to lean more toward the "spellpower depends on the power of the caster. I wouldn't be opposed to letting a level 1 player cast wish...and get level 1-appropriate results. Further, a lot of the spells are "more powerful" without any substantial rhyme or reason. Fireball does 5d6...couldn't it do 1? 3? Why d6's? Why fire damage? That part of me wants to say that D&D magic doesn't feel magical because it feels uncreative. Every Wizard casts the same fireball. Every Druid casts the same entangling roots. Every Bard sings about the same things. I feel like a lot of paper is wasted on very specific "sacred cow" spells that aren't very interesting and several could be replaced with one simple spell that left room for player customization. Even the books talk about how magic-users have to write down spells in their own way....but that's just meaningless fluff, because the game doesn't provide you any methods to get creative with your spells.

So I guess I don't find D&D magic very magical because it is all very codified, predictable and 'samey'.

 

[Azurewraith]

Further, a lot of the spells are "more powerful" without any substantial rhyme or reason. Fireball does 5d6...couldn't it do 1? 3? Why d6's? Why fire damage?

I think the reason some are more powerful is to reflect the growing power of the caster as think of fire ball as an extension to firebolt.

As for why fire good point I think it would be more fun to have casters choose when they took the spell the energy type.

 

[S'mon]

4e Ritual system & Arcana checks to manipulate magical forces felt a lot more magical than prior editions, so I carry that over into 5e.

 

[Sunseeker]

Could just create alternate versions, well not create so much as just say that the player can cast ball lightning, or death orb, or something. If they later decide they want the tradition fireball then they may have to hunt for that spell separately.

Right I just don't want a whole book filled with variant spells. I'd rather have a shorter spell list to choose from and just straight-up tell players that when they take the spell they get to put their own stylings on it, provided it doesn't change the math.

 

[procproc]

Part of the issue as well, for me anyway, is the sanitisation of magic. I touched on this earlier with the idea of pixelated fireballs. Casting a fireball is now a reason to get out the ruler and protractor and that's not really very magical to me. Watching the caster player spend a few minutes placing that spell just so, so he can maximise its effects pretty much robs any sense of it being magical. At least for me.

It's too... I'm looking for the word... technical I guess would be the best way of describing it. "Oh, oh, if I rotate this square effect 16 degrees, I can catch one more orc" just leaves the whole thing feeling very flat.

Not that I'm disagreeing with the distaste for this, but... did you play 1e AD&D? Because it was even more pronounced there. Instead of just hitting a simple sphere, Fireball filled a volume, so if you cast it into a small room (say) it could overflow and hit you with the backdraft. As a result, there was a lot of number crunching with Fireball to make sure it only hit what you wanted it to.

Lightning Bolt had similar tactical issues. I don't remember whether it was true of other spells as well, but those definitely stood out, and I think 5e's simplicity is a vast improvement for most people.

 

[procproc]

But, as far as magic goes, when no one has a schtick, then, it becomes commonplace and humdrum. Fighter walks up, Action Surges and burns a couple of Superiority Dice and everyone knows that that's a Battlemaster. Character walks up and drops Fireball, he could be a cleric, druid, warlock, sorcerer or wizard. There's nothing special there.

I've been pondering just what it means for something to feel magical, and I think this is a lot of it. My first experience with D&D was in the early/mid 80's, and let me tell you, having Bargle cast a Magic Missile and kill my cleric friend definitely felt like there was magic going on. That was literally more than 30 years ago (when did I get so old?!) and while I don't think the implementation is worse, the "magic" is somewhat gone for me because I know the tropes and have developed a pretty substantial amount of system mastery/familiarity with D&D overall. Fireball doesn't feel like magic to me anymore, it feels like a game mechanic -- but that's not really a complaint nor a criticism of 5e magic.

I think a lot of the feeling of "magic" has to do with uniqueness of abilities, like Hussar said, but I think that that uniqueness can be implemented either mechanically or thematically. For example, in the game I'm currently playing in, we have a gnome wizard who walks around throwing fireballs. He doesn't feel particularly magical to me; he feels more like a walking artillery piece. On the other hand, my character (a Ftr 1/Warlock 5) is conceptually a non-magical warrior who had demons channeled into him unwillingly during a ritual. He can control the demons to an extent, resulting in demonic energy bursting out from him (i.e., casting warlock spells) but mostly is a melee warrior-type. Even though the mechanics of "Ftr 1/Warlock 5" don't feel particularly magical, in play, my character does feel pretty magical.

What I've found in 5e, somewhat paradoxically, is that the primary casters don't feel very magical to me, but gish-types do. 5e paladins channeling spell slots into smites feels much more magical to me than the 3e/PF implementation of smiting, however much the end result is the same. Eldritch knights, valor bards, bladelocks? Yep, all of them. I think it's because (barring 4e, which I didn't really play) being a gish has never been super-well supported in the core rules. In a world where magic is a tool, it makes sense that some number of fighter-types would have figured out specialized magical tricks to use in combat, and 5e feels like it may showcase that better than any previous edition. Meanwhile, wizards and clerics are kind of old hat -- regardless of how much they focus on spellcasting, they don't feel unique and magical anymore.