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

[Tony Vargas]

My issue is that magic becomes mundane and humdrum for the players. When you're seeing three or four spells being caster every single round of every single encounter, it's pretty hard not to see magic as mundane and humdrum.

Encounters shouldn't be mundane and humdrum, even if everyone in them is just beating eachother with sticks. It's meant to be a life-and-death struggle, no?

Where magic starts looking everyday is, well, when it gets used every day. Systematically casting Continual Light for a town so they don't need streetlights. Cool & imaginative the first time (c1975), keep it up and it turns you from mysterious Magic-user to Rural Electrification Bureau. That's been an issue with D&D since the get-go.

Well, see, there's the trick isn't it? Which D&D are you talking about?

'Magic' in D&D has two quite distinct senses. Magic items, and magic using characters (spellcasting PCs, mainly). And it being 'ubiquitous' also seems to have two distinct senses. Use by PCs, vs use in the setting. A world where every PC cast spells in every combat and every non-combat 'scene' might be said to have 'ubiquitous' (w/in the PCs' storyline) magic, even if no one else in the world can use magic, making it a very low-magic setting. A world in which magic is used to clean & light the streets of every town, potions can be bought at the corner store, and flying ships are standard transport, could be said to have ubiquitous magic, even if the PCs are a gang of penniless rogues, barbarians & fighters who can't afford to avail themselves of any of that magic.

1e where magic really was pretty rare to see at the table, unless the DM started handing out a lot of magic items?

So the notorious High Elf fighter/magic-user was rare? Not anywhere I ever played 1e, sorry to say. And, wasn't 1e the edition during which "Monty Haul" was coined? And "Killer DM?" Or was that 0e?

Or 3e where magic was more common

Casters had more spells/day, you had make/buy for magic items, sure.

or 4e

Caters had far-fewer slots, but also at-wills, you still had make/buy but items were far lower-impact, all-non-caster parties were viable. Kinda mixed, really.

5e where you see spells being cast every single round?

Casters back to more spell slots, /plus/ at-wills, and every class can cast, but items aren't assumed to be as common. Again, mixed, depending on how you squint and look at "magic."

D&D has encompassed a range of magic level through it's history. Let's not forget that 5e has also made it very easy to cast in combat now. There are no AOO's for casting in combat anymore. There's no penalty for casting in combat at all.

Sure. Then again, there's not as much pre-casting as in 3.x, when you could have just layers of spells on everyone. Thanks to the one mechanic that got slightly harder on caster in 5e: concentration.

D&D isn't a generic fantasy system. I totally agree. But, it was a somewhat more flexible system previously. 5e suffers some of the same problems that 4e did - it's very, very hard to adjust the baseline.

Baseline? You mean like treadmill & bounded accuracy assumptions? Or as in amount of magic (items? casters?) in the party/campaign?

 

[MoonSong]

And it's also kind of depressing, on a philosophical level, if magic-using people forget that they're still people like the rest of us Muggles, and they never have to rely on mundane methods for anything. But again, that's just a matter of taste.

This is why I just can't play wizards, specially not under more and more recent editions. Wizards are just too focused on stopping being part of the world.

I don't think it's strange at all if the most "wizardly wizard" you can think of is the Walt Disney Corporation's take on Merlin. The House of Mouse has been selling us distilled, iconic archetypal characters for over eighty years. That's kind of proving my point for me.

The Disney take on Merlin also spoiled wizards for me.

So far, everyone has focused on the wizard, but, that's only one (or two if you count sorcerer) of the several full caster classes in the game.

What ubiquitous magic has done is turn every full caster into a wizard - i.e. a character who exists to bang out spells every round of every encounter. I mean, I'm currently playing a Land Druid at 6th level. He's carrying a magic weapon that he hasn't actually used in two levels. In fact, I'm not sure if he's actually made a non-spell attack in 6 levels. If he has, it's certainly not been many.

And that's my point. Why bother letting druids use weapons and armour? It's not like they're actually going to use them. Unless you're playing a War Domain cleric, clerics are in the same boat. Constant spell casting. Druids and clerics in earlier editions were generally front line or at least second line fighters (not the class, just the position) whose spell use was secondary to the class. That's WHY clerics got the best armour and almost the best weapons. A cleric wasn't supposed to be blasting away with spells every single round. A Druid wasn't supposed to be an artillery caster.

I mean, even in 4e, clerics weren't controllers. Clerics were leaders for a reason. It was recognised that clerics weren't primary spell casters like a wizard. But, 5e has basically taken all 4 of the neo-Vancian classes - Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer and Wizard and made them more or less the same. My Circle of Land Druid is a wizard with nature oriented spells. He does EXACTLY the same things that the actual wizard in the group does. He might be casting different spells, but, most of the time, it's still area of effect blasting and battlefield control spells.

There's more to this than just wizards.

And, again, how often does a class have to do it's schtick to feel magical? Fighters, sure, get their extra attack, but, their sub class is coming into effect far, far less than a full caster is casting his or her memorised spells. Again, 6th level Druid has 11 spells per day. Assume 6-8 encounters per adventuring day, he's still using a full spell every combat, plus out of combat, plus rituals. By higher level, he should be using memorized spells virtually every round. Shorten the adventuring day, which, I believe, many people do, and there's no reason for a memorisation caster to hold back - blast away with memorised spells every round and why not? You aren't going to run out.

The idea that the system works because of opportunity costs presumes an awful lot about individual tables.

I really feel this has some merit. What I said about sorcerers and psions -sorry mystics- feeling too much like wizards, could actually be said about all other casters.

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.

Well, 3e sorcerers had a place in the frontlines (with about three class variants made for melee combat), and 4e sorcerers were not stranger to it (lots of close attacks and the weapliments) But 5e's design has really made them better off away from it.

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?"

I think you underestimate the power of peer pressure. More and more I see this idea that everybody should carry/pull their own way. I loathe it, but two players on the table feleing that way is enough for you to feel forced to conform and contribute. More so as chances to get a game are rarer every day.

And in this case... the problem of "There's too much magic in my D&D" has the very simple solution of 'Well, then don't put so much magic *into* your D&D then."

And again, this is only possible from the DM's perspective, what if YOU as a player feel that there's too much magic in the game?

Of course IMO 4E also had too much material.

And at the same time too little, while wizards were completely bloated and with redundant choices, other classes were barely supported...

Put yourself in the shoes of the player of a Wizard or Sorceror or similar. What would you want to be doing on your turn when you're not burning spell slots:

Nothing; you have to miss this round because you're "building power" for a later spell?

Using a low-power spell or 'cantrip' to contribute a little to the party?

Getting out a mundane weapon like a crossbow or staff and attacking with it?

As a sorcerer player, I really miss the spears and doing crazy things with sickles.

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.

Quoted for Truth.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think spells have become a crutch for filling in class features.

I think that magic does make it much easier to design classes, but I don't think it's a crutch.

Take two 5th level wizards, for example. The first is a standard 5e wizard. The second has a fixed array of supernatural abilities (let's say, the equivalent of Magic Missile four times per day, Scorching Ray three times per day, and Fireball twice per day). In this second example there are no spells in the game so each of these abilities is an effect unique to this type of wizard. I'm simply using the spell names as they are a common frame of reference.

While some might prefer the feel of the second wizard, in my opinion the first example has far greater replay value. In one campaign I might play the equivalent of the second wizard using the first. In the next campaign, simply by changing my spell selection, I can create a wizard that plays and feels completely different.

Some people have a very strong dislike for 4e, and might have a similar distaste for the ranger if it had hunter's mark as a class feature. By moving it to a spell, they gave each individual player the choice to either take it or not.

I don't think spells are a crutch. It's a system with a lot of variability and replay value, so leveraging that is only logical.

Because you could do it before. You decide there are no gods, or that arcane magic is forgotten but psionics widely practiced, or choose only martial classes, and you could still have a playble campaign without the things you excluded. In squeezing so many classes into it's PH (more than ever in a PH1 before), 5e dipped into the spellcasting well repeatedly to re-use features - with the result that if you decide to go 'no casters,' you don't have a viable selection left. Which is too bad, because that supports fewer play styles, when the edition was meant to support more.

You can still do that. The 1e PHB only had three classes with no magical abilities, the fighter, rogue, and assassin. The 5e PHB also has only three classes with no magical abilities, but also has 5 subclasses to add a little variety. The number is the same. If you could do it then, you ought to be able to do the same now. Thanks to Hit Dice and feats like Healer, it should be even easier since you don't need a work-around for the lack of clerics as much. I'd say the only version of D&D that did no-magic better than 5e is 4e.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

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).

The 1e Monk gained abilities (self-healing, speak with plants, immunity to poison, etc.) as they advanced in level. Not spellcasting. This is a major divide. Again, this is neither good nor bad (depending on how you look at it), but if I had my druthers, I would have created more classes (and subclasses) in 5e that had meaningful abilities, rather than "access to spellcasting" as a feature.

Pretty much so. One of the critics on the spell casting as a feature is that i "blends" the classes. Like the paladin/cleric ranger/druid dichotomy. But also, as you say, some of us prefer class defining abilities to universal spell casting.

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!".

Oh i .... or better yet we, have. In the old WoTC forums as well. Who could say if they listened or not, but the ranger variants as mentioned are a step in an interesting direction. If i may write in a completely honest way, there is really nothing wrong the ranger and paladin features as they are now. In fact, if there is one thing about those classes... it is their class features. But the casting? To me it feels so.... so..... "attached" to them, that i almost feel like someone got lazy half way through the design and instead of filling the blanks with more features, he/she just added spell slots and decided to be done with it. Or maybe i'm completely wrong, and it was the design goal from the start to make most classes at least half magical. The irony is, i actually preferred the last play test to the final version of these classes........

You can still do that. The 1e PHB only had three classes with no magical abilities, the fighter, rogue, and assassin. The 5e PHB also has only three classes with no magical abilities, but also has 5 subclasses to add a little variety. The number is the same. If you could do it then, you ought to be able to do the same now. Thanks to Hit Dice and feats like Healer, it should be even easier since you don't need a work-around for the lack of clerics as much. I'd say the only version of D&D that did no-magic better than 5e is 4e.

I think we should distinct between a class having "magical" abilities and that same class being half defined by it. Did the paladins and ranger have some high tier spell casing in 1E? They sure did. Was it this that defined their class (especially the way it was played)? Considering how little of it they had, i think not even at higher levels, no.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

While some might prefer the feel of the second wizard, in my opinion the first example has far greater replay value. In one campaign I might play the equivalent of the second wizard using the first. In the next campaign, simply by changing my spell selection, I can create a wizard that plays and feels completely different.

Except you're a wizard, which means you can learn all of the spells. You can decide to be the second guy when you complete your next long rest, and then be a third guy (with powers like the second one, but different effects on the next day. If you have one class which can cast all of the spells, then that class replaces all of the other classes that can each only cast some of the spells. And once you've played one wizard, you've played them all.

To contrast, if you had twelve distinct wizard classes and they each had their own spell lists, then you could play twelve different characters before things started getting repetitive.

 

[Sunseeker]

And at the same time too little, while wizards were completely bloated and with redundant choices, other classes were barely supported...

Seems to be a common trend across editions. Some classes just don't get support. Dunno if the devs hearts just weren't in it or if it was a hindsight realization. Even some classes that were added much later (again, across editions) got more support than classes that came with the core material.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think you underestimate the power of peer pressure. More and more I see this idea that everybody should carry/pull their own way. I loathe it, but two players on the table feleing that way is enough for you to feel forced to conform and contribute. More so as chances to get a game are rarer every day.

A good DM can always work in additional chances for an underperforming character contribute, or slip in the right magic item to give them a boost.

And at the same time too little, while wizards were completely bloated and with redundant choices, other classes were barely supported...

That was an oddity of the way material was designed starting with Essentials. In HotFL, the fighter, rogue, cleric & wizard all got new sub-classes, but only the wizard's sub-classes included new powers (spells) that were not linked to some other feature and gained at the usual levels, meaning the other sub-classes couldn't use many existing powers, nor could existing characters of the same classes use theirs, while wizards, pre- and post- essentials, could chose from among all the wizard powers ever published. That pattern continued with everything published after HotFK, all the Heroes of... books had a Wizard sub-class introducing compatible powers that every wizard could use, while most other classes got one or no sub-classes at all and/or had sub-classes with incompatible powers. Right before Essentials, the Fighter had more powers than any other class. By the end of the run, the Wizard had surpassed it.

The shift in direction also abandoned newly-introduced classes like the Seeker and Rune Priest, of course. And, essentially(npi) all those non-wizard/mage sub-classes.

I'd say the only version of D&D that did no-magic better than 5e is 4e.

Arguably the only edition that made no-magic a practical option, at all, so far. 5e just needs some more varied and flexible non-magical PC choices, though, and it could get there. It's already OK with relatively few magic items. HD, Second Wind, and sub-classes like the BM and Mastermind establish the sort of mechanics that could do that, it just needs a lot more on a more flexible class chassis....

You can still do that. The 1e PHB only had three classes with no magical abilities, the fighter, rogue, and assassin.

And the Monk. But you couldn't really play with just those classes: the need for healing and other spellcasting resources was just too great.

The 5e PHB also has only three classes with no magical abilities

Actually /zero/ classes.

but also has 5 subclasses to add a little variety.

Variety consisting of Tanky DPRx3, DPR&skills x2. That's a very little variety. While you can get some between-combat healing from HD, lessening the need for the traditional 'Band-aid' Cleric, you still need in-combat healing and the many other contributions that only casters can make. 5e's very open about that with it's blurb on magic, early on - but it has room to grow into supporting such playstyles.

And again, this is only possible from the DM's perspective, what if YOU as a player feel that there's too much magic in the game?

5e is all about that DM Empowerment. So, yeah, as a player, what you can do is find the right DM.

 

[rooneg]

most priests can't cast spells

You know, WotC may say that in the rulebooks, but I'm calling BS. Every time I play one of their adventures I sure seem to have zero trouble finding someone to cast Cure Wounds or Lesser Restoration or whatever on my character for a small donation at the local temple.

 

[GSHamster]

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).

The 1e Monk gained abilities (self-healing, speak with plants, immunity to poison, etc.) as they advanced in level. Not spellcasting. This is a major divide. Again, this is neither good nor bad (depending on how you look at it), but if I had my druthers, I would have created more classes (and subclasses) in 5e that had meaningful abilities, rather than "access to spellcasting" as a feature.

But spellcasting is just a mechanism to deliver meaningful abilities.

Let's say you make a new class. To be able to say, "the class has several abilities. You can use any combination of these abilities up to X times a day. As you level up, you can use your abiliities more often" is a great mechanic. It gives the player flexibility, gives them a variety of abilities, and allows you to give them more options later while not excessively overpowering them.

But that's the spellcasting mechanic. The spellcasting mechanic even allows you to group abilities of different power levels together and balance them separately from others.

Now maybe WotC should have cloned spellcasting and called the new mechanic an "ability pool" or some such. They could have specified that abilities in the ability pool are non-magical. But that seems excessive when you could just use the spellcasting mechanic directly.

 

[pemerton]

Take two 5th level wizards, for example. The first is a standard 5e wizard. The second has a fixed array of supernatural abilities (let's say, the equivalent of Magic Missile four times per day, Scorching Ray three times per day, and Fireball twice per day). In this second example there are no spells in the game so each of these abilities is an effect unique to this type of wizard.

<snip>

While some might prefer the feel of the second wizard, in my opinion the first example has far greater replay value

<snip>

Some people have a very strong dislike for 4e, and might have a similar distaste for the ranger if it had hunter's mark as a class feature. By moving it to a spell, they gave each individual player the choice to either take it or not.

<snip>

The 1e PHB only had three classes with no magical abilities, the fighter, rogue, and assassin. The 5e PHB also has only three classes with no magical abilities <snippage> If you could do it then, you ought to be able to do the same now.

Which D&D are you talking about? 1e where magic really was pretty rare to see at the table, unless the DM started handing out a lot of magic items?

I don't think that magic was especially rare in AD&D. But its use was more differentiated: clerics and druids generally used it less in combat than did wizards; illusionists didn't have access to direct damage (until Chromatic Orb in UA); paladins were clearly magical/supernatural (with their aura of protection, LoH etc) but in combat fought using steel and sinew.

Differences in spell list, and in distribution of spell functions, help achieve this.

In 4e there is the combination of different power lists (though less distribution of function than in AD&D, I would say) and greater limitation on re-training (once per level rather than after every long rest). So any given two PCs are perhaps likely to feel more different.

I don't have enough of a sense of 5e class design to know which (if any) of these approaches might be the way to try and reduce a sense of ubiquity/homogeneity.