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

[Lanefan]

I don't think anyone's contesting a powerful ability should have limits. It's the type of limits that's in question.

You could have different limitations that are more based in myth.

Let's use polymorph as an example. We can use Medea as the mythological spellcaster of this effect in our example.

So you might have a spell that when you cast it, you enchant a piece of food such that when it is consumed, the consumer must make a save or be transformed into a pig (or similar animal).

This places new limitations on the spell. It's still powerful, but not in the fire-and-forget way of the existing version. The caster needs to figure out ways to deliver the food to the intended target. This might be as simple as tossing an apple into the gullet of an on rushing land shark, or as difficult as convincing a suspicious guardsman to accept your "gift".

OK, I could get behind something like this. But you'll get howls of protest from those who want to use Polymorph as a combat spell.

That said, in 1e there used to be two different polymorph spells: Polymorph Self and Polymorph Other. Poly Other was baneful and carried massive risks to the target - you would never even think of casting it on an ally. Poly Self was safe but had serious limits on what you could turn yourself into, and only worked on the caster. These were decent limits.

Somewhere along the editions these two spells got combined, and all the risks were taken out; which broke it.

 

[Lanefan]

Personally I preferred the 3e method with NPC classes. The levied freeman and the called knight being the same class doesn't feel right.

There should be a NPC class for every PC classes. PC classes for combat heavy adventurers. NPC classes for combat light homebodies.

You can do it using the same classes. The trick is to have the stay-at-homes advance extremely slowly in level compared to the field adventurers, such that someone who, for example, spends her entire adult life as a stay-at-home temple Cleric might make 5th or 6th level by the time she dies of old age.

 

[Minigiant]

Of those, the only thing I remove is the gunpowder. Science, pseudoscience, diplomacy, war strategy/tactics, and athletics are all present in my game. Which means magic spellcasting largely becomes an overlay on top of all what's already there, forcing me to keep a close eye on it lest it get completely out of hand.

Samebut my setting have gunpowder. It's the main thing to spend gold on. An accurate reliable musket, a pack of train bred war-canines, vials of acids and reagents in secure cases, and bag of holding with a seige weapon in them with all the experts to use, ready, or realign them costs a lot of gold.

And a traveling physician eats at the wallet.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't remember them from the Craig ones, but haven't seen them all and its been a while for the ones I did see.

Christmas Jones was from The World Is Not Enough, one of the Brosnan ones.

 

[Minigiant]

You can do it using the same classes. The trick is to have the stay-at-homes advance extremely slowly in level compared to the field adventurers, such that someone who, for example, spends her entire adult life as a stay-at-home temple Cleric might make 5th or 6th level by the time she dies of old age.

Doesn't work as some class features are higher level than their tier to prevent frontloading.

Famously the skill ones Reliable Talent, HIPS, Evasion, Feral Instinct, Bonus Speed.

An Expert can get Reliable talent at level 3 because it doesn't get Sneak Attack. A Cobbler doesn't need Sneak Attack. A Runner doesn't need Martial Arts.

 

[Lanefan]

Samebut my setting have gunpowder. It's the main thing to spend gold on. An accurate reliable musket, a pack of train bred war-canines, vials of acids and reagents in secure cases, and bag of holding with a seige weapon in them with all the experts to use, ready, or realign them costs a lot of gold.

And a traveling physician eats at the wallet.

The main reason I don't want gunpowder is that its existence very quickly makes various other large siege weapons obsolete, and I like the atmosphere they provide. I mean, face it, trebuchets and catapults have way more character than cannons!

But that too leaves me stuck, because I would like to be able to run age-of-sail naval battles using cannons; and I can't think of a not-ridiculous rule that says gunpowder only works if used when there is salt water beneath it. So, large ships shoot at each other using mounted ballistae, as that's the best I can come up with.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In my view both giants and dragons need there to be magic in the setting in order to exist at all, as does anything else 'fantastic'.

The lack of magic is why those things don't exist here on Earth.

So an antimagic field simply dissolves all matter in D&D world.

I mean, this is a world where fantastic metals like mithral and adamantine would exist as trace minerals, whatever is in various plants and animals that cause them to be alchemical ingredients would be part of it too. And let's not forget otherwise normal animals like griffins.

Assuming magic is necessary for the fantastic is severely limiting to the fantastic.

And let's not ignore the kind of stuff people assume is fantastic that exists here on earth just because they don't know about it or can't imagine it to be a thing like people who are really strong, like Jack Lalane.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The main reason I don't want gunpowder is that its existence very quickly makes various other large siege weapons obsolete, and I like the atmosphere they provide. I mean, face it, trebuchets and catapults have way more character than cannons!

trebuchets and catapults lobbing exploding kegs. Best of both worlds.

 

[Garthanos]

Personally my desire for larger than life Martial instead of say gish is what has grown over the years.

 

[Maxperson]

Players don't like that. Players have repeatedly refused to play that way, as a major and sustained pattern. Designers have refused to make rules that actually enforce the impediments, and what impediments they do use are really annoying and not enriching the game experience at all. Like, there are ways to design game limitations that are fun and interesting. "Your spell fizzles!" is not one of those ways. And, finally, DMs have repeatedly and continuously, across basically the entire run of the game, refused to actually enforce the limits that are supposed to be present.

I disagree. I've always enjoyed rolling for spells as a player. You talk in absolutes there, but players also like it. Players also played with it all the time. Players found it to be an enriching experience, because it meant that wizards weren't clones of one another with all the same spells. "Your spell fizzles!" is one of those ways as I also found anti-magic zones enriching, even as a wizard caught in one. DM have repeatedly and continuously, across basically the entire run of the game, enforced the limits of anti-magic.

In fact, I never played with a DM in 1e or 2e that didn't have us roll for spells or use anti-magic zones. And nobody playing in those games complained about those things or wanted them gone.