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

[Tony Vargas]

To my thinking, the biggest system problem with 4e was the fact that _everything_ scaled with level - certainly the usuals, like HP, attack bonuses, saves, skills. But then (as a consequence of saves = defenses) even AC scaled with level.

Yep, the infamous treadmill. It was a great feature as far as providing PCs with a sense of advancement, keeping classes balanced, and making encounter-building functional at all levels. It was even elegant when viewed from some angles - from others it looked like travesty of a mockery of a sham...

Once again, the DM had to place geometrically stronger challenges against the party.

Sorta the point of advancement, really, to face increasingly difficult challenges. Arguably one of the reasons most other editions of the game didn't work so well at higher levels was that advancement was too un-even whether across classes, levels, or what was needed to provide a challenge (or all the above).

Skills scaled so rapidly that one had to increase skill DCs with party level - so walking a tightrope becomes routine for a high enough level character - which to my thinking is ridiculous. It should become routine for a 2nd-storey burglar, and stay impossible for a fighting cleric.

Walking a tight-rope should be almost routine for the 2nd-storey man at 1st level - good DEX, training, +2 for a balance pole, perhaps, maybe a background or racial bonus - you're looking at +12. When will the fighting cleric get there? With no investment in DEX, no training or other bonuses, and heavy armor: level 26 (+13 for level & +1 for DEX 12, inevitable at epic unless you dumped an 8 in it, and -2 for that +6 Dawn Warrior Spiritmail or whatever).

I mean, we are talking about larger-than-life heroes who have gone from fighting kobolds to fighting in an abandoned mine to fighting devils in hell, from climbing a rope to get to the next level of a dungeon, to climbing a Pillar of Creation to reach another plane of existence. It's not so ridiculous that the virtual (or actual, it was an Epic Destiny in the PH1) demi-god can manage to cross a tightrope 9 times out of 10. It's maybe a tad ridiculous that he'd have a need to when he can probably fly or 'port to the other side, anyway (there's that ubiquitous magic, again!), and would take trivial damage from the fall if he did fail.

And, really, isn't it a little more ridiculous that he'd have gone through so much in his adventures without his balance /ever/ improving?

On the other hand, the things that the masses revolted against were just fine in my view. Healing surge was an excellent mechanic. The notion of Clerics not having to choose between helping the party and getting in on the action was a great advancement. I really liked the Warlord class.

'The masses' kept playing D&D without even noticing the edition war. But, yes, the edition war was probably harder on the things 4e did well, than the ones that had actual issues (like the initial skill challenge rules, or the aesthetics of the treadmill).

Mu. oD&D and AD&D have a soft-level-cap at about level 10. The change in the HP progression and XP progression are deliberate design decisions that pair with the wizard getting a tower and the fighter getting an army to enter the endgame rather than continue adventuring forever. Why the endgame got lost along the way is something else to discuss in another thread.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. OTOH, magic-users kept getting new spell levels through 18th, Druids & Assassins hard-level-capped at 14th (Monks at 17th), and multi-class characters only started to hit their more significant level caps around that time, finally giving humans their day in the sun. So it sure seems like the game was meant to be played into the double-digit levels...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Sorta the point of advancement, really, to face increasingly difficult challenges.

Personally, my favorite part of advancement was showing how much more easily you could handle things that used to be dangerous. Like, you start out with ogres being super scary, but you fight enough of them, and eventually you can fight groups of them without breaking a sweat.

It's a different way of looking at advancement, but it's one that resonates more with me than a life where you're constantly struggling, albeit against greater and greater challenges. It's also something that 4E wasn't really set up for - a level one orc had enough HP, even at first level, to withstand a decent number of attacks from high-level PCs. You couldn't quickly trounce your old foes unless they were specifically set up to be easy to defeat (with the minion rules), which doesn't exactly feel like much of an accomplishment when you know that's what's going on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Personally, my favorite part of advancement was showing how much more easily you could handle things that used to be dangerous. Like, you start out with ogres being super scary, but you fight enough of them, and eventually you can fight groups of them without breaking a sweat.

Nod. Ogres, specifically happened with our old 3.0 group. An ogre took us apart at 2nd level (after we'd been whittled down fighting some orcs), but around 6th or 7th, we faced several of them, and my fighter took one down in one round flat using an orcish great-axe*, we were like, 'yeah, we've arrived.' In 4e that happened time and again, the more memorable examples being hobgoblins, we washed up against a hobgoblin shield-wall, I think it was all the way back in KotSf, and it was brutal - 4 levels later we were taking them apart. Face a monster 'before you're ready,' then, again, when it's 'beneath you' and you really notice the difference. My current campaign, they're noticing it again with Githyanki, they were stretching to take them on at 12th, now at 18th they've run afoul of them again, but the Gith are having to use guerilla tactics just to make themselves a nuisance to the party.

It's a different way of looking at advancement, but it's one that resonates more with me than a life where you're constantly struggling, albeit against greater and greater challenges.

Nod. The DM can easily tune a game either way, to really highlight advancement, or to provide constant challenge, or even to have the party feel increasingly in-over-their-head as they advance. Dependable encounter-building guidelines help, but I find that I can usually get where I want by 'feel' as well.

I guess in 5e the 'advancement' effect is a bit muted by Bounded Accuracy, at least when it comes to attack rolls, but AE spells'll be auto-killing monsters that were giving you a tough fight only a few levels previously, so it's just a matter of emphasis and where you want to shine the spotlight. You do want to be careful with outnumbering the party, though, even with monsters that should be getting a lot easier...






*that was another thing about that party, we were so far behind the expected wealth/level curve it was funny. I liked fighting certain monsters because I'd scavenge their javelins - very handy weapons for an otherwise melee-reach-oriented fighter with quickdraw - after the battle. In a few scenarios, I picked out specific javelins to use in an ambush to throw the blame to the corresponding humanoids... But, yeah, that ordinary great-axe I scavenged off a dead orc went on to kill ogres and even a purple worm.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's an interesting way of looking at it. OTOH, magic-users kept getting new spell levels through 18th, Druids & Assassins hard-level-capped at 14th (Monks at 17th), and multi-class characters only started to hit their more significant level caps around that time, finally giving humans their day in the sun. So it sure seems like the game was meant to be played into the double-digit levels...

Not really - the highest level PC in Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at IIRC level 13. Sure they had advancement beyond that - but that was mostly intended for NPCs or even legendary magic items. The enemies normally have to at least look bigger than the PCs - and Acecerak was, I think, a higher level caster than any PC.

Personally, my favorite part of advancement was showing how much more easily you could handle things that used to be dangerous. Like, you start out with ogres being super scary, but you fight enough of them, and eventually you can fight groups of them without breaking a sweat.

It's a different way of looking at advancement, but it's one that resonates more with me than a life where you're constantly struggling, albeit against greater and greater challenges. It's also something that 4E wasn't really set up for - a level one orc had enough HP, even at first level, to withstand a decent number of attacks from high-level PCs. You couldn't quickly trounce your old foes unless they were specifically set up to be easy to defeat (with the minion rules), which doesn't exactly feel like much of an accomplishment when you know that's what's going on.

You could certainly total a kobold with an encounter power from mid heroic. And a decently built striker could one-shot one from early paragon.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not really - the highest level PC in Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at IIRC level 13. Sure they had advancement beyond that - but that was mostly intended for NPCs or even legendary magic items.

It's not like Greyhawk was required to play the game. The 1e PH had level charts going into the 20s, if that doesn't imply to a player reading the PH that the game can go that high....

You could certainly total a kobold with an encounter power from mid heroic. And a decently built striker could one-shot one from early paragon.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's not like Greyhawk was required to play the game. The 1e PH had level charts going into the 20s, if that doesn't imply to a player reading the PH that the game can go that high....

1e was far from the earliest edition - it was a scam to stop paying Arneson royalties. And you could go that high - but it was meant to be tedious to the point no

 

[Tony Vargas]

1e was far from the earliest edition - it was a scam to stop paying Arneson royalties. And you could go that high - but it was meant to be tedious to the point no

Ookay. I thought 1e was the ed we were talking about, but these things drift. ::shrug::

I guess that's a third option in the whole chicken/egg thing. Was high level not played much because people weren't interested therefor it wasn't very well executed, or was it not very well executed therefor people didn't play it much, or was it intentionally designed to be tedious to prevent people from playing it?

That really drives home to me what a moot point it is, as none of those paint a very positive picture in the end. ;(

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's not like Greyhawk was required to play the game. The 1e PH had level charts going into the 20s, if that doesn't imply to a player reading the PH that the game can go that high....

Ookay. I thought 1e was the ed we were talking about, but these things drift. ::shrug::

I guess that's a third option in the whole chicken/egg thing. Was high level not played much because people weren't interested therefor it wasn't very well executed, or was it not very well executed therefor people didn't play it much, or was it intentionally designed to be tedious to prevent people from playing it?

That really drives home to me what a moot point it is, as none of those paint a very positive picture in the end. ;(

We're talking about oD&D here - 1e was never so much a separate game as Gygax claiming some optional rules he'd thought up made up one so he could stop paying Arneson royalties.

But it's option C. Going back to one of my favourite old computer games, Civilization 2 - Civ 2 has a tech tree which you can research each step in. When you've finished the tech tree the game is basically over, but you can keep researching. After the tech tree is finished you can research Future Tech 1 then Future Tech 2 then Future Tech 3 and so on and so on. You don't get any benefit from researching them except kudos and points onto your civilisation score (i.e. kudos). Levels 12+ were basically FutureTech 2+ - there mostly for the kudos and if anyone really wanted rather than being part of the core gameplay.

 

[MoonSong]

To my thinking, the biggest system problem with 4e was the fact that _everything_ scaled with level - certainly the usuals, like HP, attack bonuses, saves, skills. But then (as a consequence of saves = defenses) even AC scaled with level. Once again, the DM had to place geometrically stronger challenges against the party.

Skills scaled so rapidly that one had to increase skill DCs with party level - so walking a tightrope becomes routine for a high enough level character - which to my thinking is ridiculous. It should become routine for a 2nd-storey burglar, and stay impossible for a fighting cleric. On the other hand, the things that the masses revolted against were just fine in my view. Healing surge was an excellent mechanic. The notion of Clerics not having to choose between helping the party and getting in on the action was a great advancement. I really liked the Warlord class.

I really don't like this part (I fell it really undersells the value of healbots, it feels less meaningful and less important. The only memorable healing I remember from 4e is the one time I got healed to death, but nothing really exciting when I played the healer. By making it so easy, it killed the spotlight and the satisfaction) But warlords? super fun, the reduce difference between skills kind aof killed the skillmonkey too, but the party dynamics were good and the Defenses thing was clever if a little unpolished.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Of all the editions published so far, 5E is the closest to my own personal "ideal D&D" (BECMI being the next in line). The only things I would really change is the way some special attacks work, and maybe a bit more exploration focus baked into the core mechanics.

But I certainly see the appeal of a lower-magic style. Beyond it fitting better with a Conan or LOTR or Game of Thrones style world, more limited magic tends to inspire a different sort of strategy/tactics focused more about how to best exploit a limited set of tools. But not everyone wants to bother with that.

5e had a lot of playtesters, and playtesting went on for a long time. There was a great deal of opportunity for people to give feedback. I'm going to guess that if they'd gotten a ton of feedback that magic was too common, and didn't feel special any more, they'd have dialed it back. They didn't.

So, the primary answer to the original question is likely, "Because a lot of people like it, or are at least not put off by it, the way it is." It may simply be that lower-magic desires are a smaller portion of the market, and so maybe aren't strongly catered to by the largest game in the market.

Probably so.

I think it's a matter of focus and identity.

In Game of Thrones, mages are exciting because the scene only has to focus on them at those rare times when they are casting big, flashy spells. Their identity as mages is clear.

In D&D, you're playing your mage all the time. The scene doesn't cut to another character for all those rounds and hours and days when your mage isn't casting spells. So in order to feel like you're playing a mage, you've got to be casting spells all the time. D&D (and other fantasy games) are just getting better at recognizing this distinction between what they do and what books and movies do.

Probably that, too.