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

[James Gasik]

I think that's simply reflective of how the spells are balanced. If (for example) Haste was so powerful that it averaged a similar impact on encounters as Hypnotic Pattern, then I think it would see far more regular use. Haste doesn't allow a save, so it would actually be the better option in many cases.

On the other hand, hypnotic pattern hits a lot of enemies, and if you're facing a group, they're weaker individually than you are and might not have a great save against the spell.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That was a flaw with how 3e worked.

Skill ranks were capped by level. And Feats only gave you a+2 or +3 bonus. So the only way to get +10 to baking was to give you 7 HD.

This is a flaw with D&D in general.

way back in 97 maybe 98 I knew guys who took the 2e D&D thieves skills and made them work like call of Cthulhu skills and made more and let all classes have some. Then the more skilled you got depended on using the skills not gaining levels

 

[James Gasik]

This is a flaw with D&D in general.

way back in 97 maybe 98 I knew guys who took the 2e D&D thieves skills and made them work like call of Cthulhu skills and made more and let all classes have some. Then the more skilled you got depended on using the skills not gaining levels

I know a guy who constantly gripes that he hates level based systems, because, to his way of thinking, you should be able to improve what you want to improve instead of having to wait for some arbitrary level.

Of course, every time he runs a non-level based system, he complains that his players all end up cripplingly overspecialized, because they can't tell what a "good" number is, and just keep improving their primary abilities, lol.

 

[Voadam]

I mean, if you ask me, AD&D multiclassing was more heinous than 3e. Get all your class abilities at first level, continue to advance both classes, for the low low cost of being what, a level, level and a half behind everyone else in the party?

The difference of course, was that classes didn't work well together- you can't wear armor and cast wizard spells, you can't wear more than leather armor and use thieving abilities without penalty (and no helmet if you want to detect noise!), you can't use good weapons as a cleric, you can't wear more than studded leather and use ranger abilities, and multiclassed druids were about the worst of all worlds.

So sure, you could be a Fighter 9 or a Cleric 8/Fighter 8, but can't use anything better than a heavy mace (or morningstar? can't remember if those shed blood or not).

3e didn't get rid of these issues, but they made them easier to overcome, like variant armor materials and wands of mage armor being available.

That's mostly a 2e thing. 1e Multiclassed elven magic users can cast in armor, etc. Thieves still have armor issues for their skills in 1e, but clerics can explicitly wield edged weapons of their other class.

 

[Minigiant]

This is a flaw with D&D in general.

way back in 97 maybe 98 I knew guys who took the 2e D&D thieves skills and made them work like call of Cthulhu skills and made more and let all classes have some. Then the more skilled you got depended on using the skills not gaining levels

5e almost got it right.

+0 for the nonproficient
+2 to +6 for the proficient
+4 to +12 for the expert
+4 to +12 with a minimum roll of 10 for the master

The problem is 5e only gave 2 classes Expertise and 1 class "Mastery".

 

[Fanaelialae]

On the other hand, hypnotic pattern hits a lot of enemies, and if you're facing a group, they're weaker individually than you are and might not have a great save against the spell.

Sure, but we can imagine some really OP version of Haste that would generally be preferred by most players over Hypnotic Pattern, right?

IMO, the reason Hypnotic Pattern sees a lot of use while Haste doesn't is because the former is a broadly useful combat spell that often makes a heavy impact, while the latter isn't (except maybe when fighting a solo enemy, which is uncommon IME). Even when you're fighting only two enemies, hypnotizing one so you can focus fire on each enemy in serial is a tremendous advantage. One extra attack per round and some minor additional buffs simply can't (typically) compete.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You'd have to define what level of spells you consider to not be problematic- for example, say you're fine with 3rd level spells. So any caster can use up to level 3 spells without issue (including upcasted versions). But using a level 4 or higher spell has an increased chance (say, I don't know, 5% for 4th, 10% for 5th, 15% for 5th, 20% for 6th, 25% for 7th, 30% for 8th, and 35% for 9th) of spell failure or mishap, depending on circumstance.

Going back to my memories of 2e, though, I'm pretty sure the result would be very few high level spells would be cast, if ever, based on how often I saw people willing to risk even a 5% loss of a spell due to magic resistance.

I just meant that risk increases with spell level. If that doesn’t work because some Nth level spells seem like they should be more/less risky than other Nth level spells, that’s a sign that the spells themselves are either poorly designed or should be a different level.

Is there some reason why a 5th level evocation spell should be more/less dangerous to cast than should a 5th level divination or transmutation spell? I don’t think so.

 

[James Gasik]

Sure, but we can imagine some really OP version of Haste that would generally be preferred by most players over Hypnotic Pattern, right?

IMO, the reason Hypnotic Pattern sees a lot of use while Haste doesn't is because the former is a broadly useful combat spell that often makes a heavy impact, while the latter isn't (except maybe when fighting a solo enemy, which is uncommon IME). Even when you're fighting only two enemies, hypnotizing one so you can focus fire on each enemy in serial is a tremendous advantage. One extra attack per round and some minor additional buffs simply can't (typically) compete.

Oh sure, like 3.5/PF1's version of haste, with one target per level.

 

[Garthanos]

The problem is 5e only gave 2 classes Expertise and 1 class "Mastery".

hmmm give Fighters expertise in Athletics/Acrobatics and Wizards Arcana and so on and everyone gets "Mastery" in a skill they have expertise in at level 11.

 

[James Gasik]

I just meant that risk increases with spell level. If that doesn’t work because some Nth level spells seem like they should be more/less risky than other Nth level spells, that’s a sign that the spells themselves are either poorly designed or should be a different level.

Oh I see, so you're saying since higher CR enemies are more dangerous, that spellcasters reaching higher level shouldn't make them any stronger than their foes.

Well I think the way 5e calculates save DC's is the problem here. In 3e, you used higher level spells not just because they had greater effect, but because they had higher save DC's.

So even though, say, Stinking Cloud was a fine spell, you might not be able to use it reliably against higher level foes, and be forced to switch it out.

Now that all of your spells have the same DC, you can get a lot of mileage out of your lower level spell slots- which rather nicely lines up with the fact that you don't get many high level spell slots to begin with.

But as I previously mentioned, the real problem isn't spells that deal damage, or buff allies, or even disable enemies. It's the utility spells that let you do things that effect the world in fantastic ways, which don't line up well with Challenge Rating.

I mean, the ability to turn an old keep into a difficult to invade fortress with one casting of Guards and Wards, or arm a village with a single casting of Fabricate can't be compared to concepts like xp budgets and relative monster strength.

Sure, some monsters don't care about such things, due to special abilities, but you find flying, incorporeal, and burrowing creatures (as examples) at just about every CR.