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

[CapnZapp]

So once again, we fall into "D&D is making me play in a way I don't want to" territory. And it's still a BS excuse. It's the 4E Weapon Expertise feat complaint all over again.

No one is forcing ANYONE to play characters in a way they don't want to. The game especially isn't. The only people who are being forced to play in a way they don't want are those that are forcing THEMSELVES to do so, because they are afraid of other people looking at them funny and saying "Why aren't you playing correctly?"

If you don't want Clerics or Druids to be blaster characters... don't select those spells. Just because the rules in the book allow you to prepare any spell from the Cleric or Druid list, doesn't mean you HAVE to. You can effectively go through the book and create your own "spell list" for your character that only has certain spells in it. Just like if you're a Cleric and don't ever want to be a healer... you just tell your fellow players that you do not and will not ever prepare Healing Word or Cure Wounds as spells, and effectively cross those spells off your own personal Cleric spell list. And the same holds true for players who don't want Clerics and Druids to be blasters. Wipe those spells off your character's Cleric or Druid spell list. There! You're all set! You get what you want.

Or if you happen to be the DM, as part of preparing your campaign... you can easily create your own amended spell lists for every class so that they fit into whatever theme or schtick you are looking for in your personal campaign world. You're allowed to. No one's going to stop you. If it gives the world a more precise vision, then that's awesome!

But again... that's on you to do that. That's your job as a DM when making your campaign, or your job as a player when making your character. You decide what you will and won't do, what you will and won't use, and most importantly STAND UP for yourself and your right to play the game in that way. And if anyone complains you are "nerfing" yourself by doing so... you tell that person to F-off. Grow the wherewithall to play how you want to play.

But don't get mad that WotC is making you HAVE to stand up for your choices like that because didn't write the books in exactly the way you want to play. It's not their job to write the book so that you never have to make that personal choice.

Oh step off your high horse.

Of course many players feel only effective options are fun to play.

And if your game is anything like mine, the purpose of the game if boiled down to the core is: to have fun while defeating monsters. (if I want combat to play a secondary role I'll play another rpg than dnd thank you very much)

This means that cool kooky options are fun. If and only if they don't seriously compromise my character's ability to meaningfully contribute to the party's success.

Which can be shortened to "damage".

That's why people complain, and legitimately so, if their selected build forces them to sacrifice oomph for kookiness.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not really. In the AD&D PHB the druid has a 2nd level spell "Produce Flame" which when hurled can ignite flammable objects, but it has not damage listed. I guess a generous GM might allow it to do damage as a torch on a successful hit (in B/X this was 1d4; I don't think AD&D ever had an official damage range for a torch).

My copy of the 2E PHB gives the damage as 1d4+1, with additional damage if the target catches on fire, and a single casting will let the druid hurl a number of flames equal to their level (at a rate of one per round).

I didn't know that the druid even existed in 1E. The formatting of the class in 2E made it seem like it was a radical variant that was entirely new for that edition.

 

[TwoSix]

I didn't know that the druid even existed in 1E. The formatting of the class in 2E made it seem like it was a radical variant that was entirely new for that edition.

http://tribality.com/2015/02/12/the-druid-class-part-two/

 

[pemerton]

I don't recall the druid having access to charm and hold person

Yup, they did.

In 1st ed AD&D druids had Charm Person or Mammal (which is Charm Person but also usable vs animals) but not Hold Person, only Hold Animal and Hold Plant.

 

[pemerton]

I didn't know that the druid even existed in 1E. The formatting of the class in 2E made it seem like it was a radical variant that was entirely new for that edition.

Quite the opposite - 2nd ed attempts to shoehorn the druid into its class grouping system, distorting both the cleric and druid spell lists in the process.

The druid was first published in Eldritch Wizardry, I think. Consistent with AD&D being a clean-up of OD&D + supplements, the druid in the AD&D PHB is pretty similar to that original one.

 

[pemerton]

I still feel like this is less of a game issue and more of a setting issue.

<snip>

So if magic use is "too prevalent" for your (hypothetical your) tastes, just say it's rare in the world. Poof, now it is!

<snip>

The Game(TM) is just a set of rules. Without a setting to determine prevalence the fact that all 10 classes can use magic in some way is meaningless.

I think this misses [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point. As I read him, Hussar is not primarily concerned with the prevalence of magic in the gameworld. He is concerned with the prevalence and homogeneity of magic in play. ANd that very much is a consequence of the fact that so many classes use magic in the same way (neo-Vancian casting) choosing spells from the same list.

 

[BryonD]

I think this misses [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point. As I read him, Hussar is not primarily concerned with the prevalence of magic in the gameworld. He is concerned with the prevalence and homogeneity of magic in play. ANd that very much is a consequence of the fact that so many classes use magic in the same way (neo-Vancian casting) choosing spells from the same list.

I think the prevalence and homogeneity are only mildly related. Mostly the homogeneity makes the prevalence stand out.

For the prevalence, I don't think it is really that much more than even the 1E days. The big difference obviously being at wills. But, as I stated earlier, I think that low level 1e was perceived not as the time when magic was rare, but as the time when low level casters sucked so they could be cool later. (No dispute with great games by specific groups)
People (at large) want that moment of "I'm a wizard!". They don't want to be a wizard trying decide which mundane option to use. The commonplace at-wills have been heavily around since at last mid3E era and it gives the fanbase what they want.

I don't think the surrounding world feels that magic is necessarily prevalent. It is just that the PCs are a wandering sphere of magic.

But when that prevalence which has been around runs into the homogeneity issue, both bits draw attention to each other. If you have three different characters throw 18 Fire Bolts between them over the course of a 10 round fight, that starts to lose the "magic" of the experience.

I think 5E suffers from the combination of 2 key components. One is that WotC wants the game to be reliably predictive for character performance as it was in 4E. Thus there is an element of homogeneity right there. I certainly had this on my list of 4E complaints. I think 5E did away with the everyone is pretty good at everything portion of that issue. But the 1st level wizard, fighter, and ranger are all +5 to hit at the same AC and the scaling stays with them. That doesn't play directly to magic, but the spell effects do fall into this same constraint. Again, I think it much better and very much acceptable in this format, but it does add some clear homogeneity.

Now add the sparse content onto that. They do recycle a lot of the same spells. Between WotC wanting the RAW game to have a low entry point for both players and the DMs and WotC being loathe to produce a lot of low ROI follow up, the game as published starts to feel as you have described.

I'm not holding my breathe on this, but I'd love to see a strong publisher rebuild full games based on 5E. I think games that hold more true to "old school" and to 4E could be built right onto the 5E foundation.
For a 3E "rebuild" I'd love to see a game with a lot more feats, clerics picking two domains from a long list of options, etc....
That itself does not speak directly to the homogeneity issue. But I think that a robust diversity of options would retain the "same +5 to hit" mechanic and wrap it into a huge range of options (both flavor and mechanical) that would stop feeling like "Fire Bolt" is the go-to option for three different characters. And the exact same prevalence we have now would stop being so readily apparent.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think this misses [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point. As I read him, Hussar is not primarily concerned with the prevalence of magic in the gameworld. He is concerned with the prevalence and homogeneity of magic in play. ANd that very much is a consequence of the fact that so many classes use magic in the same way (neo-Vancian casting) choosing spells from the same list.

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. But As I said in my original post way back, magic's rule-bending nature is attractive. Especially when many DMs will restrict martial classes beyond the rules because of some idea or another about "verisimilitude" and how "a fighter couldn't do that" even when there's no rule in the book imposing such a limit.

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.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Finally done with 22 pages of reading...... and already forgot most of the people i wanted to quote or give XP...... as well as the half a dozen points i was willing to address

But, alas..... i'll gave to try and make a coherent block of text from the start....

The way i see it, the OP's predicament can be seen from two separate points of view. The first one is the nature and role of the major spell caster (AKA the wizard) and second, the "magification" of the classes.

The first point is highly arbitrary. As pointed out by several posters already, the main archetypes that we draw inspiration (or used to back when we were kids) from, namely Merlin and Gandalf, aren't really all that well suited to be PC in a RPG. And not just those two. Nearly every witch, sorcerer, warlock or what have you from any Grimm tale or general European mythology will fall into this case. All those "mages" from the past did little or no actual "casting" of spells in "real time" or while under direct conflict. Even when actually doing it in "combat" it was usually and exclusively to stop or counter other "mages" or supernatural beings (if LOTR is taken as an example, then think of Gandalf VS the Balrog, the Ring Wraiths or Saruman). Most of he casting in legend and story would probably fall under what 5E would consider ritual casting (the poisoning of the apple by Snow White's stepmother, the curse of the spinning wheel, even Gandalf's wards on the gate). But can and/or should casting of rituals by used as a primary defining trait of a RPG class? And do note, that despite their casting abilities these fictional characters where not in any way restricted of doing anything any other character in the story would..... so they could load a catapult, swing a sword or wash the dishes.....

The second point, the magification of the classes is what bothers me more though. Yes, i know there are people that consider the paladins and the rangers "magicals" because they used to gain some magical powers/spells at high levels (8-9+). But consider the level of magic they used to get back then and compare it with what they get now..... and you can't help but notice the magical prowess of a high level 1E ranger is now matched by a lvl 5-6 ranger. And my the class' mid levels, they are already half casters. While i can swallow the paladin's use of casting slots for smite attacks (even though i still thing there are more elegant solutions to the mechanics), there is nothing in the ranger's repertoire to justify all those casting slots except for the "we want it to be magical". Now, i may be an old and inflexible nay sayer, but to me paladins and ranger never were or were supposed to be casters. Yes, sure, by choice of spells and imaginative role playing i can pretend their abilities are not magic but acquired skills....... but that pretend verb will always stick like a thorn in my brain....... especially when someone decides to dispel my "skills" with a dispel magic. I am yet to roll a druid or cleric, but if half the stuff i just read here is true, then if rangers and paladins when 1/2 casters, then these people went from 1/2 casters to at least 3/4 casters if not more. Suddenly, the entire edition roster seams "magified". Yeah, there is no need to play those classes, sure..... but then again, what's the point of putting them in in the first place, especially if they are word for word substitutes for the existing classes of the previous editions?