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

[NotActuallyTim]

That's a fairly high-level spell, but it's actually quite indicative of my point. It is magical, but it maintains plausible deniability - maybe those sticks were always snakes, and you just didn't notice. Maybe that guy who died from an arrow wound yesterday actually wasn't quite dead yet. Maybe that big lightning storm formed naturally, and it was just a coincidence that it struck down all of those orcs.

You didn't see the video with the flashing lights did you?

Quite frankly, it's less plausible that someone would carry around a bunch of secret trained snakes (they don't attack the summoner or the summoners friends!) that pick themselves up immediately after being thrown into the ground and attack enemies than say, it is for magic to happen in a world that already has quite clear indications of magic happening throughout history. And I mean that in an in-universe way: throwable trained attack snakes are magic, because no matter what explanation a person can come up for their existence, they will always be an impossibility.

'He carried the snakes around in his chainmail underwear and fed them tiny mice he keeps in his helmet!'
'It was magic man, give it up.'

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Quite frankly, it's less plausible that someone would carry around a bunch of secret trained snakes (they don't attack the summoner or the summoners friends!) that pick themselves up immediately after being thrown into the ground and attack enemies than say, it is for magic to happen in a world that already has quite clear indications of magic happening throughout history.

Okay, so the spell in the actual game is a better example of divine subtlety than the spell in the video game. You're supposed to cast it on sticks that were already lying on the ground, rather than ones which you produce from your trousers.

And depending on the setting, there's no reason to believe that your enemy has ever seen magic before. Spellcasters are supposed to be rare -- at least rare enough that the world still looks vaguely like pseudo-medieval Europe rather than like Eberron.

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough. No one is saying that all cleric and druid spells are subtle. I mean, good grief, they did get Earthquake, Flame Strike and Chariot's of Sustarre. These aren't exactly subtle.

The point though is that the majority of cleric and druid spells were subtle. Druids and clerics weren't dropping Flame Strikes until 9th level. By that point, subtly is pretty much out the window anyway. But, most of the effects either could do were quiet, and frequently out of combat. Neither one was particularly expected to be a wizard - dropping spells as often as possible. Both had perfectly viable options - druids could shape change and eat their enemies. Great, fantastic. It's certainly a niche that isn't stepping on anyone's toes. The cleric was more or less a fighter/caster, instead of now when a cleric is a CASTER/fighter. Same goes with bards.

 

[The Human Target]

1) D&D has a tradition that if you want interesting robust mechanics, it must be magic. So classes have gotten more magic.

2) Give people the option of having magic in a magical fantasy game, they'll be inclined to take it. In real life you can be a good fighter, or a good thief. You can't be a druid. It's the same reason one of my players refuses to be human in the game- why would he want to be something he already is?

 

[Sunseeker]

1) D&D has a tradition that if you want interesting robust mechanics, it must be magic. So classes have gotten more magic.

2) Give people the option of having magic in a magical fantasy game, they'll be inclined to take it. In real life you can be a good fighter, or a good thief. You can't be a druid. It's the same reason one of my players refuses to be human in the game- why would he want to be something he already is?

I considered rolling my IRL myself in a game once, but my DM said Debt Collectors were a monster race only.

 

[MechaPilot]

I considered rolling my IRL myself in a game once, but my DM said Debt Collectors were a monster race only.

That's okay. I'm a tax accountant. Maybe we'll both end up in the Broke Adventurer's Guide to Fiscal Fiends (a.k.a. the MM2).

 

[Hussar]

I actually like that clerics can focus on being casters without having to engage in melee, they still can engage in melee and as they level up, many will get divine strike and can do quite well by using their spells to support them. Even a a life cleric can focus on melee and do decent damage. At 8th level sacred flame deals 2d8 damage or they can wade into melee with a mace and deal 1d6+1d8+2 (I'm assuming a 14 strength minimum). Divine strike does top out at +2d8 at 14th so it might be slightly better to cast sacred flame once it goes up to 4d8 at level 17 assuming the cleric doesn't have a magic weapon and a higher strength by that point, but until then, clerics can actually function perfectly well in melee unless a caster type domain is chosen. I'm away from my books at the moment, but I believe that 6 of the 9 domains gain divine strike and some of those provide additional powers usable in melee (I'm thinking of war primarily, but I think tempest also has some good melee abilities, I would have to have a better read of them).

All in all, I do feel that the claim that clerics are terrible in melee isn't a strong one. The majority of domains ensure that a cleric does deal similar damage in melee as they would with sacred flame which is going to be the go to spell for many clerics as that is the only damaging at-will most of them have.

But, that's my point. d6+d8+2 isn't any better than 2d8. It's actually pretty close to exactly the same. So, why bother with the mace? Sacred flame is just as good, and, it's ranged, so, it's actually a touch better. Never minding the 3d8 at 11th level (IIRC).

If the attack spells are just as good as attacks, then why bother with attacks? That's not a really meaningful choice is it? Do the same damage regardless of what you choose, but, one way you don't have to go down the route of MAD.

Again, it's a case of clerics going from caster/fighters to CASTER/fighters.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But, that's my point. d6+d8+2 isn't any better than 2d8. It's actually pretty close to exactly the same. So, why bother with the mace? Sacred flame is just as good, and, it's ranged, so, it's actually a touch better. Never minding the 3d8 at 11th level (IIRC).

Except it isn't d6+d8+2, because the choice to go melee instead of spell means that you want high Strength and don't care nearly as much about Wisdom, so you're going to be at +4 or +5 within short order. This also means you can benefit from magic weapons.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Also a lot of the best cleric spells are built for melee. Why give a Dex save with Sacred Flame when I can wade in with heavy armor and drop Spiritual Guardians around me? That awesome spell does absolutely nothing if u stand back 60 feet and cast Sacred Flame. The reason clerics only have the one ranged cantrip option is because they are expected to melee.

I play a tempest cleric and they have lots of abilities, including a class ability, designed to work on the front line.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Also true. However having spell casting as a feature means you take the entire baggage with it. Again, as mentioned, dispel, anti magic, spell components.....

Many of which don't come up that often. If you want to play a wilderness-oriented character without the nature magic, there are other classes that could be customised with backgrounds. Why pick a class that has nature magic?

You don't even have to pick the abilities that let you blast out cones of arrows. A lot of Ranger magic is subtle. Muttering a prayer to predator spirits to give you insight into your prey. Asking the Land to smooth your path and speed your steps, or to hide your passing. Speaking a few words in a sacred tongue to calm an animal or enlist its aid through shared emotions. etc.

Alas, i would not turn this thread into what i think the ranger should be, there already have been plenty of those. If you would like to know more of my opinion on the subject i would gladly take it to the PM and discuss my current concept there. Just in few words? It's HEAVILY inspired on 1E. As for the variant rangers..... i love them! But my DM wouldn't have them. I made a custom class by merging the battle master and hunter and he still wouldn't have it. He is keeping this campaign RAW. So, i doubt he'll take my spells as skills and features rewrite as well. As mentioned, re-fluffing often requires a cooperative table and DM.

Ah. Sorry to hear that. So what is it about the Ranger Class that you definitely want to play one rather than just a wilderness oriented Fighter or Rogue and calling yourself a ranger in-character? (Does your DM allow multiclassing?)

Was i hyperbolic? Perhaps. But then again, maybe not. It will surely depend on the way the DM is running the campaign/adventure and the amount of rests per day available, but at level 10 our ranger now has 9 casting slots. That "can" translate to 3 casts per short rest. Consider what other features and/or the ranger has at this level. Yes, i agree, our ranger will still attack and roll for skills, but IMO roughly half his combat and exploration "value" will come from spell use. Will he cast all the time or depend on spells alone? Surely not, but then again, that is why full casters are for (in this edition druids, clerics, mages, sorcerers...)

I really haven't found that. Ranger spells are generally subtle and useful as expediters rather than outright powers. They help the Ranger and/or his party do things rather than doing things themselves. If you didn't have them, you could generally achieve the same things, just harder and slower.

Perhaps. If we were to express ranger's capabilities through the current spell progression then yes, definitely. But, i am not against the current ranger exclusive spell list as it is. I would just not make the class as dependent on casting. Or, alternatively, as in my ranger concept proposal to my DM, i would both delay and decrease the casting progression in exchange for a 2-3 extra features and/or ASI's.
EDIT: this might go as an extra sub class, along with the spell less ranger. Even in the old WoTC forums we called it the martial ranger.

Sounds like multiclassing with a martial type class to delay and/or reduce your magical progression could be the best way to go about this if your DM allows it.