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

[Tony Vargas]

they don't have spell slots and aren't able to throw spells around at will which is one of the main issues which has been brought up about ubiquitous magic.

In contrast, the hand-wringing over at-will cantrips I find a very weak argument for magic being 'ubiquitous.' So what if a character who can use magic can use very minor magic every round, that's nothing compared to the ability to cast much more significant spells every day, and it's still hypothetically one character.

That you can't, for instance, ban magic from a game by banning all classes who can use magic (because you'd have no classes left), drives the point home much harder. You have to ban sub-classes - or, more practically, 'white list' the handful of genuinely non-magical sub-classes, because there are no entirely non-magical classes.

But, even that fails to illustrate that magic is ubiquitous in the setting...

 

[Mark CMG]

A lot of these arguments arise because of the conflation of low-magic with magic-rare games and settings. The D&D system can be used fairly well for low-magic campaigns (where only low-level magic effects are available but might be available to everyone and only PCs might rise to higher level casting, as might key NPCs/villains) while it is less well-suited to a magic-rare setting without a major class-ectomy. Prince Valiant is a fairly good system for a magic-rare game/setting. Middle-earth in the age of LotR is fairly magic-rare rather than low-magic. The tales just focus on places where the rare personages happen to be.

 

[Hussar]

So in that particular group of players, you have more than one person who wanted to play a spellcaster-type character concept? Someone who is able to throw magic around against her enemies.

And the game has let them do so. I'm not really seeing an issue.

Presumable if the DM didn't want this, they would be setting some sort of quota. "Only one offensive caster allowed in this game. If you want to play one you can rock-paper-scissors to decide who gets to play the character they want."

There are also tables that don't have anyone throwing offensive magic around. Its just the nature of statistical variation. The PC population in D&D might average out at only one offensive caster in four or similar, but every table will vary.

It would be extremely difficult to have a group with no offensive casters considering how ubiquitous offensive magic is for so many classes.

Good grief. 5e has monks dropping burning hands.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It would be extremely difficult to have a group with no offensive casters considering how ubiquitous offensive magic is for so many classes.

Not hard. Y'all play Champions. Done.

They can even all be distinct concepts. Elven Archer Outlander... Halfing TWFing Criminal... Human zwiehander Noble... Dwarven S&B Soldier... er.. Tiefling Duelist ..ah Accolyte, sure, why not, he's a young 'student of divinity' & duelist, like in Flashing Blades.
And, they're all totally different.

Good grief. 5e has monks dropping burning hands.

It seems the Barbarian is the only class with no access to offensive spells. Clearly, if you're at all civilized, offensive magic is an option. Must be why Barbarians are so angry. Then again, the description of the class implies that the Totem Barbarian's Rage could be magical, too, and it's pretty offensive.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It would be extremely difficult to have a group with no offensive casters considering how ubiquitous offensive magic is for so many classes.

Good grief. 5e has monks dropping burning hands.

Wow... my group must be awesome, because we've managed to pull off this extremely difficult task with three different parties (without even trying)!

 

[Hussar]

Wow... my group must be awesome, because we've managed to pull off this extremely difficult task with three different parties (without even trying)!

Three groups without a single character capable of casting a single offensive spell? That is impressive. How did it go? So all casters took nothing but information gathering and skill buff spells?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Three groups without a single character capable of casting a single offensive spell? That is impressive. How did it go? So all casters took nothing but information gathering and skill buff spells?

I apologize, it's technically two groups. I'd forgotten about the wizard in the third party because he's missed about half the sessions.

That said, the first party consisted of a Totem Barbarian, a Vengeance Paladin, and a pair of warrior NPC henchmen. (There was technically also a Thief Rogue, but he was only there for a handful of sessions.) The party went from level 3 to somewhere around 8th level. While my paladin did use smite, it was the vanilla class-ability variety, so I don't consider him an offensive caster. Aside from that, he mostly used the occasional healing spell when needed. This party did quite well, faring better against smaller groups of powerful creatures than against large groups of weak creatures. The Paladin died when we ran afoul of a pack of gnolls. We realized early on that we weren't likely to win, so the paladin held them back while the rest of the party escaped. To replace him I brought in a wizard, at which point the party ceased to lack caster offense.

The second party consisted of a Battlemaster Fighter, a Shadow Monk, a pair of warrior-type henchmen, and an NPC rogue. They ran from around 9th level to level 19, although around 18th level an NPC cleric joined the party at which point they ceased to completely lack for offensive magic. This was actually one of the best campaigns I've ever run. They often had to come up with really creative solutions to problems because neither of them wanted to carry a ranged weapon. One time that they were fighting an Efreeti boss the monk ran up the side of the wall and stunned him while the fighter lassoed the boss and tried to drag him down. They comported themselves quite well, taking on threats well above double deadly.

The third party, which only counts about half the time, is an Underdark campaign that started out with a largely evil party. Thanks to a Deck of Many Things and the unlikely draw of the Balance card by multiple players, we're now a good party. This is a really big party, but suffice it to say that when the wizard is not around the most potent spellcaster in the party is my Arcane Trickster. Since I focus on defensive and utility magic, I am not in any way an offensive caster. For the sake of transparency, I should mention that I do have the Chill Touch cantrip, but I'm 99% sure I haven't actually used it since the start of the campaign. I can also cast a few druid spells due to a run-in with a lake of quicksilver sent from the heavens, but thanks to my whopping 10 Wisdom I assiduously avoid any spells that are even remotely offensive. We started at 3rd level and I'm currently 9th. Again, we do quite well. We've won at least one fight that I'm fairly certain was over 400% deadly.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Saying things like, "Fighters, Rogues and Monks have access to arcane magic," is a bit disingenuous, AFAIC. That's only true if the player of that class locks in the choice to do so, by taking one of three subclasses available, at the expense of the others. It's not like someone who is playing a Champion Fighter can just decide to have access to arcane magic at 7th level.

Anecdotally, given my ~2 years experience playing 5e with a plethora of people, in groups both private and public, I can say with certainty that EK, AT and WotFE are -- by far -- the least common choice taken for each class, respectively. So, IMX, not even 1/3 of each represented class is accessing arcane magic in practical play. For what it's worth.

 

[Hussar]

Considering a shadow monk of those levels has at will teleportation how is that not ubiquitous magic? Note the idea of blasting is just one issue. The bigger issue in my mind is that groups are using spells every round. Doesn't really matter if it's blasting or not. The proliferation of combat magic just lends itself to homogenizing casters.

 

[Mark CMG]

It would be extremely difficult to have a group with no offensive casters considering how ubiquitous offensive magic is for so many classes.

Good grief. 5e has monks dropping burning hands.

Three groups without a single character capable of casting a single offensive spell? That is impressive. How did it go? So all casters took nothing but information gathering and skill buff spells?

Considering a shadow monk of those levels has at will teleportation how is that not ubiquitous magic? Note the idea of blasting is just one issue. The bigger issue in my mind is that groups are using spells every round. Doesn't really matter if it's blasting or not. The proliferation of combat magic just lends itself to homogenizing casters.

Your mind seems made up.