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

[pemerton]

I don't take issue with healers deciding where healing is most needed.

The other player is explicitly the one in the party whose role is to determine the distribution of healing in order to ensure the success and long life of everyone in the party.

This seems to be subject to table variation. In my 4e game, the player of the cleric will generally ask who needs healing, and then the players will discuss who is at what sort of hp table and who most needs the healing. There is no assumption that the player of the cleric will decide this unilaterally.

Healing Surges did put a (very high) cap on healing per day. In my experience I found that it was actually the melee Strikers like the Rogue or Ranger that tended to run out first followed by the melee Healers and squishy Controllers while the Defenders never ever ran out.

Another matter subject to table variation.

We don't have melee strikers in our game, but the defenders quite often run out of healing surges. It is the ranged strikers who are good at hanging onto them.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's probably more the case that magic doesn't affect gameplay more in 5E than in 2E, but in terms of setting, at-will cantrips make a world of difference. (Although, to be fair, most of the damage was done with the introduction of limited-slotless cantrips in late 2E or early 3E or whenever.)

Once you have magic that you can use without massively compromising your own survivability, it means you can show it off in towns, and it slowly becomes a world where a lot of people will have seen magic. And in 5E, all it takes is a single level 1 spellcaster to share that magic with everyone they come across. It does a lot to erode the mistrust and fear of the unknown that you would otherwise find among the muggle populace.

Not necessarily. I mean, that's certainly one way it could go, and it would be appropriate in something like Eberron, but not the only way.

Let's assume that your level 1 spellcaster, who I'll call Fennel, sets out with dreams of his Magic for the Masses program. He goes from village to village educating the commoners that magic is a tool, and like any tool it isn't something to be feared in itself. Unfortunately, three towns into his journey he's strung up. The guards warned Fennel that there was no magic use within the town limits, he probably should have listened. After all, they don't know the difference between Prestidigitation and summoning a horrible demon.

Presumably, 1st level spellcasters aren't lining up to continue Fennel's work. After all, it's dangerous work with little in the way of return. Besides, one assumes that spellcasters in this setting are something of a rarity. If even 1% of your population can cast spells, then you're looking at the same issue even without cantrips. After all, if one in a hundred people can cast spells, then even moderate sized villages will have a hedge mage or priest of some sort, and at that point the masses will be at least passably acquainted with magic.

In any case, the people of that world remain in the dark ages as a result.

By no means does the existence of cantrips equate to a general populace that cannot be suspicious and fearful of magic. It's certainly one viable option, but the other options you've always had are just as viable.

 

[Shasarak]

Another matter subject to table variation.

We don't have melee strikers in our game, but the defenders quite often run out of healing surges. It is the ranged strikers who are good at hanging onto them.

Of course if you only have one guy at the front getting whaled on then he is going to be the one to run out first.

That is not table variation, it is just common sense.

 

[pemerton]

Of course if you only have one guy at the front getting whaled on then he is going to be the one to run out first.

That is not table variation, it is just common sense.

Who said anything about "one guy"? I even used the plural - "defenders".

I also think the contrast between controllers - whom you mentioned - and ranged strikers is interesting, because controllers are also ranged, and may well have better range than the strikers.

 

[Shasarak]

Who said anything about "one guy"? I even used the plural - "defenders".

I also think the contrast between controllers - whom you mentioned - and ranged strikers is interesting, because controllers are also ranged, and may well have better range than the strikers.

It is just maths. Defenders have a combination of Good AC, High Hit Points and High numbers of Surges compared to Controllers who have Poor AC, Low Hit Points and Low numbers of Surges.

The other real difference is the number of attacks that they get targeted with.

 

[pemerton]

It is just maths. Defenders have a combination of Good AC, High Hit Points and High numbers of Surges compared to Controllers who have Poor AC, Low Hit Points and Low numbers of Surges.

But by this logic, ranged strikers would also be vulnerable to surge loss. At my table, however, that tends not to be the case.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

By no means does the existence of cantrips equate to a general populace that cannot be suspicious and fearful of magic. It's certainly one viable option, but the other options you've always had are just as viable.

Your example seems weird to me. Why would the guards warn against performing magic, if magic wasn't already a known quantity? If nobody in the town had ever seen magic before, then why would there be laws against it? My baseline expectation, as a player, is that nobody in the town has ever seen magic before, so they'll probably react negatively if they do see it. Everyone's heard stories, so they could probably recognize it when it happens, but there would be no reason to warn anyone since it's unlikely to ever come up.

So in that scenario, which I consider much more likely, Fennel is chased out of town and/or killed without getting a warning first. (And the DM would have confirmed with the player, before the campaign started, that this is something to keep in mind.)

I wouldn't assume that magic was a 1% thing, but more like a .01% thing - most villages wouldn't have a hedge mage or spellcasting priest, because if they did, then everyone would already have some exposure to magic. At that point, Fennel's task would have been unnecessary, since that baseline fear of the unknown is already gone.

And much of the difference between at-will magic and slot-only magic has to do with the status quo. An at-will wizard is always going to have clean robes, probably doesn't know how to start a fire with flint and tinder, and uses magic as their first-and-only resort in combat. A slot-only wizard can't afford to clean their robes magically unless it's very important, can probably use flint and tinder since that sort of thing isn't worth wasting magic on, and is somewhat comfortable with using a staff or crossbow or something. The modern wizard hasn't been instilled with the very first and most important rule of wizardry, which is that you never use magic unless you absolutely need to.

The at-will wizard hasn't learned to not use magic, and the DM could still create a world that behaved the same way as before, but at this point you're asking the player to give up a lot of their class perks in order to facilitate that. Asking a slot-only wizard to avoid using magic in town is not asking for much, since they were probably going to do that anyway; asking an at-will wizard to avoid using magic in town is actually asking for a fairly significant restriction on their actions.

 

[Shasarak]

But by this logic, ranged strikers would also be vulnerable to surge loss. At my table, however, that tends not to be the case.

I can see the confusion because you are just using half of the formula and forgetting to take into account the number of attacks that they are targeted with.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think if even every town did have a hedge mage then the villagers could still be suspicious and fearful, it's a common trope that the a village is fearful of that strange old man/woman on the outside of town that is said to have strange powers. A spellcasting priest would likely be different, as part of the local temple they are likely involved in blessing fields, curing the sick (with or without magic, they may be trained in medicine), and performing ceremonies for the villagers.

I'm really not so sure about that. Once the mysterious stranger can say that their magic is no different from what your local priest or hedge mage does, you have a lot more room for people being open-minded about magic (unless you start casting obviously evil spells).

While I'm sure that modern casters will make frivolous use of cantrips, they will still be more cautious about freely using their more powerful magic (As a 4th level wizard who burnt through his 2nd level spell slots trying get a hold person off that was constantly saved against, I know how quickly those slots can disappear).

Which was my original point - that at-will cantrips have a larger impact on the setting as a whole than they have on the PCs or in dungeons.

Of course, it isn't like casters in previous editions haven't been able to make casual use of cantrips, 3e easily allowed for a wizard to keep his robes clean and to easily start a campfire. Even in 2e and basic, there were multiple articles in dragon that allowed for the same. Showing up in Dragon meant the rules were clearly optional but it shows that, even back then, people were still thinking about casters having access to multiple cantrips*. I think even 1e had provision for casters using cantrips and orisons.

Third edition had a limit, and it was fairly generous, but players still had to ration their cantrips over the course of the day - you couldn't necessarily afford to always clean the blood from your robes, after every combat; you might need to start a fire later, and you wouldn't want to run out of cantrips before then.

All of those options in Dragon or various supplements point in the same direction - that creating a world where magic was common and accepted (as in Forgotten Realms) was much easier in a world where wizards (even low-level ones) had more cantrips. It's harder to maintain a rare-magic in the face of at-will cantrips. But they tell us that this was an intentional choice, and that they wanted magic to be more common, which is why we are where we are now.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Your example seems weird to me. Why would the guards warn against performing magic, if magic wasn't already a known quantity? If nobody in the town had ever seen magic before, then why would there be laws against it? My baseline expectation, as a player, is that nobody in the town has ever seen magic before, so they'll probably react negatively if they do see it. Everyone's heard stories, so they could probably recognize it when it happens, but there would be no reason to warn anyone since it's unlikely to ever come up.

So in that scenario, which I consider much more likely, Fennel is chased out of town and/or killed without getting a warning first. (And the DM would have confirmed with the player, before the campaign started, that this is something to keep in mind.)

Sure, that works too. I was assuming that Fennel lives in a world where people know that magic and magic-users exist, they just probably don't know much in the way of details. So when they see someone who looks like he might be a magic-user from the stories, they let him know the rules.

Besides, since it's D&D we're talking about here, it's generally bad form (IMO) for the DM to pull something like that without the player's knowledge. There's a fairly big difference between "people in this world are suspicious of magic" and "magic-users are kill on sight in many civilized areas". Presumably a magic-user would have a general sense of how he might be received in an area, assuming the third town isn't abnormal.

I wouldn't assume that magic was a 1% thing, but more like a .01% thing - most villages wouldn't have a hedge mage or spellcasting priest, because if they did, then everyone would already have some exposure to magic. At that point, Fennel's task would have been unnecessary, since that baseline fear of the unknown is already gone.

Right. So if Fennel the Idealist's Magic for the Masses program doesn't work out (because he's no longer among the living), it's safe to say that it's unlikely that anyone is going to take his place anytime soon. Hence, a world of cantrip using casters filled with magic-distrustful common-folk.

And much of the difference between at-will magic and slot-only magic has to do with the status quo. An at-will wizard is always going to have clean robes, probably doesn't know how to start a fire with flint and tinder, and uses magic as their first-and-only resort in combat. A slot-only wizard can't afford to clean their robes magically unless it's very important, can probably use flint and tinder since that sort of thing isn't worth wasting magic on, and is somewhat comfortable with using a staff or crossbow or something. The modern wizard hasn't been instilled with the very first and most important rule of wizardry, which is that you never use magic unless you absolutely need to.

That seriously depends on what cantrips the caster has at his disposal. It isn't as though you have all cantrips in 5e. A 1st level wizard only has 3 cantrips. Sure, he might take Fire Bolt, Shocking Grasp and Prestidigitation. In that case you might be right. On the other hand, he might take Chill Touch, Light and Mage Hand. In that case he'd have dirty robes, need to know how to use flint and steel, and might want to keep a staff or dagger handy in case he is unable to withdraw from melee.

IMO, D&D magic has never followed your first and most important rule of wizardry outside of perhaps when the PCs are on a mission. Even in 2nd edition I can recall spellcasters using magic to pull pranks while in town, such as the gnome mage who used shocking grasp to zap a fellow party member who happened to be leaning against a metal banister. There are systems out there which do follow your rule. In Mage, for example, you risk paradox most times that you use magic. In D&D, the biggest penalty for casting most spells is not having the slot available again until the next day.

Disregarding the above for the moment, there are plenty of scenarios where you might never want to use magic unless you need to. Take Dark Sun for instance. Using magic willy-nilly in that setting is a great way to end up dead. You don't even need as extreme a setting as Dark Sun per se. Simply make magic use taboo.

The at-will wizard hasn't learned to not use magic, and the DM could still create a world that behaved the same way as before, but at this point you're asking the player to give up a lot of their class perks in order to facilitate that. Asking a slot-only wizard to avoid using magic in town is not asking for much, since they were probably going to do that anyway; asking an at-will wizard to avoid using magic in town is actually asking for a fairly significant restriction on their actions.

So? It's not as though in their very first 1e/2e game the wizard player magically knew the most efficient use of spell slots. It was learned behavior. There's zero reason that a cantrip using wizard player can't learn the same thing, assuming they don't simply intuit it, since it is not rocket science. It's like saying that the fighter player will suddenly not know how to play his character if the guards confiscate his weapons as the gates. I've played a 5e wizard, and I certainly didn't rely on magic to solve every problem.

The types of players who are okay with that sort of thing will roll with it, and those who aren't will complain. I saw those types of complaints back in 2e. It is hardly a new phenomenon. IME, it has everything to do with the player's attitude, and absolutely nothing to do with the rules.