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

[DEFCON 1]

I still stand by my words. I would give up some (belay that, most) casting for a defining feature.

Well, as soon as you figure out what that defining feature is, be sure to tell WotC because they've been searching for it for years now and every time they offer one most of the Ranger fans go "No, not that!".

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You are right. Magic is everywhere in a typical D&D campaign. The designers and many players, however, state that magic is rare and special. There is a push to lower the frequency of magic items. Your analogy with tech is a good one. But in a 5e campaign, as recommended, there are lots of engineers and very few gadgets! I think there is a disconnect here. Either magic should be everywhere, for example an Arabian Nights kind of story, or if it is rare, we shouldn't have so many magic casting classes. As written in the PHB, 5e is trying to do both. With more support material coming out from other publishers, hopefully this will change, and we will all have enough material to design specific worlds.

The makeup of a PC party is not reflective of the makeup of the campaign setting. Adventuring classes, as pointed out earlier, are extremely rare, and magic-using ones even more so.

For most people in most settings, magic is not the equivalent of normal tech. Even in Eberron, which probably has more low-end utilised magic than any other setting, most priests can't cast spells, and there are probably several hundred people with NPC classes for every person with a PC class.

Despite there being more magic-using options than non-magic-using options in the PHB, the majority of NPCs with class levels are probably not magic-users. Non-EK Fighters are likely far more common than Warlocks, Wizards, Sorcerors and EK fighters put together.

Magic is rare and special. So are PCs.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Nothing a Druid can't do on that list other than hunters mark(why is this a spell and not a feature?)

Spells are a class feature for a class that casts them.

 

[TwoSix]

Spells are a class feature for a class that casts them.

I think you've zoomed in on the split of opinion in the discussion.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

BINGO! I saw someone else say that the 1e Monk was a spellcaster because he had a lot of cool abilities. That is completely not the point, or if it is the point, that shows a failure to meaningfully communicate (cue Cool hand Luke).

Yea, I think for a lot of people, spells are something external to the character, and class features should all be internal. Spells are ultimately tools. Being able to cast spells is a feature, having access to fireball isn't. Just like being able to use martial weapons is a class feature, but starting with a greatsword isn't.

 

[Azurewraith]

Spells are a class feature for a class that casts them.

I was more meaning in the way it won't hog a slot/learned spell or concentration not only that but some people miss it with it being an optional spell as opposed to an given feature. Without hunters mark I find rangers fall behind on damage real quick to the point of liability.

 

[innerdude]

How is it impossible to run a low or no magic campaign? All you need to do is restrict classes. If you restrict it so that you only have barbarian, fighter, and rogue then suddenly it is a low/no magic campaign. That includes disallowing the fighter and rogue subclasses that grant spells which leaves you 6 distinct subclasses, assuming my counting is correct, or more if you include the options in SCAG. I sometimes wonder if people feel that they cannot have a low/no magic campaign because they feel like they are forced to have the spellcasting classes in the game.

You could probably even add in the open hand monk as that subclass is fairly low-magic.

While your point is certainly correct, from a design standpoint it begs the question, if you're having to toss out a zillion things from D&D 5e to get the kind of campaign you want, why are you playing D&D at all? For me the entire appeal of D&D as a system is that it has high fantasy / high magic availability / commonly used magic as its default. It's one of the system's strengths.

If I'm considering playing/running D&D, it's because I'm expecting from the get go to have that kind of "classic" D&D experience. If I'm going to play D&D, I'm going to play D&D. Showing up for a "D&D" campaign, only to be told, "Yeah, we're tossing out all core casting classes, and massively restricting sub-classes because we want to run a low-magic campaign" would be a tough sell for me. I'm coming to D&D because I want all of that.

If I want a "low magic" campaign, while still giving fighters and mundane types fun tactical and character options, Savage Worlds is infinitely, infinitely better at it right out of the box than D&D.

Savage Worlds + the Beasts and Barbarians campaign setting sounds freaking AWESOME to me. D&D - pretty much all magic sounds decidedly "meh" at best.

It's becoming more and more my opinion that most problems with D&D can be solved simply by looking outside D&D for the solution.

 

[TwoSix]

While your point is certainly correct, from a design standpoint it begs the question, if you're having to toss out a zillion things from D&D 5e to get the kind of campaign you want, why are you playing D&D at all? For me the entire appeal of D&D as a system is that it has high fantasy / high magic availability / commonly used magic as its default. It's one of the system's strengths.

If I'm considering playing/running D&D, it's because I'm expecting from the get go to have that kind of "classic" D&D experience. If I'm going to play D&D, I'm going to play D&D. Showing up for a "D&D" campaign, only to be told, "Yeah, we're tossing out all core casting classes, and massively restricting sub-classes because we want to run a low-magic campaign" would be a tough sell for me. I'm coming to D&D because I want all of that.

If I want a "low magic" campaign, while still giving fighters and mundane types fun tactical and character options, Savage Worlds is infinitely, infinitely better at it right out of the box than D&D.

Savage Worlds + the Beasts and Barbarians campaign setting sounds freaking AWESOME to me. D&D - pretty much all magic sounds decidedly "meh" at best.

It's becoming more and more my opinion that most problems with D&D can be solved simply by looking outside D&D for the solution.

Not that there's anything wrong with trying out new systems, but I can think of a few reasons.

1) Everyone is already familiar with the basic processes and mechanics of D&D. That's still true even if I only use a few classes, or tack on a few new subclasses.

2) Linked to 1, people often have no desire to learn new rules systems/buy new material.

3) There's a metric ton of material already available specifically for D&D to be able to mold the campaign in the desired direction.

 

[Arilyn]

The makeup of a PC party is not reflective of the makeup of the campaign setting. Adventuring classes, as pointed out earlier, are extremely rare, and magic-using ones even more so.

For most people in most settings, magic is not the equivalent of normal tech. Even in Eberron, which probably has more low-end utilised magic than any other setting, most priests can't cast spells, and there are probably several hundred people with NPC classes for every person with a PC class.

Despite there being more magic-using options than non-magic-using options in the PHB, the majority of NPCs with class levels are probably not magic-users. Non-EK Fighters are likely far more common than Warlocks, Wizards, Sorcerors and EK fighters put together.

Magic is rare and special. So are PCs.

If you have most classes using magic, it makes your world feel highly magical. Games that go for a low magic world have magic using classes or options rare or non-existent. D&D being a generic system should be able to at least handle low magic without too much trouble, and it currently doesn't. It has been able to do it in the past. I think spells have become a crutch for filling in class features.