D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

For the most part I can agree conceptually what you are stating here and for you and probably others it works. But I'll say this for me personally... because all classes in 4E were on the AEDU format and all powers encompassed the exact same suite of grid tactics (adjacent damage, blast damage, burst damage, pushing, pulling, marking, knocking prone etc. etc.)... any so-called "non-magical" classes in the Martial power source did almost the exact same kinds of grid tactic actions that the so-called "magical" classes did.

Which means that at least for me I never felt any real difference between magical and non-magical powers other than the Martial power source not having ranged burst (AoE) attacks. Everything was just 'Move here, attack this/these creatures here, move those creatures over there, shift here' and so forth. None of it felt really different, even though we were supposed to identify certain ones as "maneuvers" and others as "prayers" or "spells". "Low-magic" campaigns and "High magic" campaigns did not exist as separate things, because for me the tactical board game felt the same both ways at the same time.

I do not doubt that other people did indeed conceive all of these powers differently and actually felt like maneuvers were different from prayers were different from spells. But unfortunately some of the rest of us did not. And that's possibly one of the reason why 4E maybe ended up being more divisive in certain circles than I bet anyone thought it originally was going to be and perhaps trying to recapture some of that 4E essence in 5E wouldn't actually solve the problems that people might think it would? (And not suggesting that's what I think you are saying, because I know you're not making that case.)

I'm not saying I don't see some simularities and that there was some differentiation coming from fluff (as in any edition actually), but there were a lot more mechanical "permissions" than just ranged burst AOE. Arcane, Divine, and Primal still had broader permissions than Martial. Martial powers rarely had elemental or other damage types, no teleport, no summons, no shapechange, no creation of objects like walls, no ability to petrify, etc.

What 4e didn't do was gate most status effects to magic only and made the "combat magic" play within the same resolution rubrik as martial -- attack rolls, HP attrition, most status effects available to everyone, etc. So there was a certain "sameness" there (although even in this level playing field magic did more).

And of course, a lot of the "high magic" was moved to rituals, an unfortunately neglected subsystem. I suspect a low magic game in 4e would remove rituals, wheras a high magic game would make them easier to find and use. By the end of 4e almost all the classic spells were in the game as rituals. If 4e had started with all these rituals in the game, gave a few free rituals per day to the classic full casters as they leveled up, and put their "rituals per day" as a classic spell chart then perhaps things would have been different...

I think the sameness feel for some comes from the fact that combat magic played on the same resolution rubric. Yes, you can teleport but you can no longer teleport everyone out of the encounter. Yes, you can shapechange but it gives you set stats that are within limits -- you can no longer scan all the monster manuals for something that is well outside any limits. You have to play inside the encounter box for the most part.

We've seen the version where everyone plays on the same enounter based resolution system, and I'd definitely be curious to see the version where every class (even martials) plays on the traditional magic resolution system -- where some of your abililities operate on the traditional resolution mechanics but some just bypass them (just work, bypass action economy, bypass skill rolls, etc.). And no, this would not have to involve giving spells to martials.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I disagree that it is a massive nerf in many cases. My experience is that the “nerfed” classes have so many abilities that half are just ignored anyway.

So you are saying that the existing classes you're changing are OP as it stands.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I disagree that it is a massive nerf in many cases. My experience is that the “nerfed” classes have so many abilities that half are just ignored anyway.

Or forgotten about...

 

[FrozenNorth]

Just pure mechanics with no narrative explanation?

Extra radiant damage just mechanically happens and there is no narrative explanation for why a vampire stops regenerating?

What’s the narrative explanation for the rogue? They’re just that good. What’s the narrative explanation for the fighter (no one else can get three attacks, let alone 8)? They’re just that good? Same thing for paladins.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So you are saying that the existing classes you're changing are OP as it stands.

Some classes are being slightly nerfed. Others are being nerfed full stop. Others are simply being changed.

 

[Mort]

• Wizards have fewer spell slots, but recover low level slots each short rest

An observation: this will only nerf wizards IF the party doesn't get to dictate the pace of play.

If the wizards can still do what they do, doing it less often (between rests) won't matter if the group can dictate when they rest.

End result can be that everyone else feels nerfed but the wizard rides right above the pack.

 

[Voadam]

What’s the narrative explanation for the rogue? They’re just that good.

There is a little more than that.

PH page 94: "When it comes to combat, rogues prioritize cunning over brute strength. A rogue would rather make one precise strike, placing it exactly where the attack will hurt the target most, than wear an opponent down with a barrage of attacks."

Page 96:

"SNEAK ATTACK
Beginning at 1 st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction."

What’s the narrative explanation for the fighter (no one else can get three attacks, let alone 8)? They’re just that good?

PH page 70: "as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and staring it defiantly in the face."

Same thing for paladins.

I have no problem conceiving of reskinning slot expended magical extra damage into a non-magical limited resource combat exertion to do extra damage. But smiting in 5e is more than just extra damage. Being just that non-magically martially good does not seem a sufficient explanation for the mechanics of radiant damage in 5e D&D.

Are you going to strip out the mechanical radiant damage type and say they are simply a different non-magical martial? Or do you have a non-magical explanation for the radiant effects? Such as say specialized anti-undead fighting techniques (hitting zombies in the head for kill shots, etc.)?

 

[gorice]

So you are saying that the existing classes you're changing are OP as it stands.

I won't speak for others, but IMO, bards and paladins are both ridiculous. Bards are almost-wizards that also have amazing skills, and can be made into passable fighters; they are good at everything. Paladins have access to almost the same toolset as a standard fighter, have spells and spell-like abilities that almost equal a full caster's, and can dump huge amounts of damage on command using smite, which refreshes every long rest (i.e. between most fights, in practice).

Bards aren't outright broken in combat because of opportunity costs, but they are massive spotlight hoggers (alongside druids). Paladins blow conventional martials out of the water in combat, in addition to having powerful utility magic.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I don't really mind current D&D being superheroics, more than that high-level play is hard to make fun and challenging. A solution to the latter would be great, but keeping D&D a magic fueled power fantasy is fine by me.

Mostly because there are gazillions of lower-power fantasy games out there, it's not like anyone is forced to play 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Some classes are being slightly nerfed. Others are being nerfed full stop. Others are simply being changed.

What classes are being changed? Everyone you change seems to be losing something. What are they getting in return, and how are your players taking it? Do they all play fighters and rogues?

I'm sorry, what you're doing is entirely out of my experience, and I want to know how you talked your players into allowing themselves to be so weakened.