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

[FrozenNorth]

We never get a lot of freeform idea on make areas that are fun and wonderous to explore, just a bunch of suggestions on busy work to make it more 'challenging'.

Truth! And this is precisely what I would expect from the DMG, instead of 25 pages on planar travel and pages and pages of random tables.

One of the most frustrating things about the DMG is that most of it doesn’t seem to have been written for beginner DMs at all.

 

[DND_Reborn]

the DMG is that most of it doesn’t seem to have been written for beginner DMs at all.

What "beginner"? It doesn't seem to have been written for DMs at all!

 

[Bill Zebub]

But when my arrows are counted and the weight of my food slows my character down, the eldritch-blasting warlock and the goodberry-druid that doesn't need to commit a precious spell slot for that particular spell are out of place. That's why in my experience, players looking for attrition games are also the players looking for a game with reduced magic. That's where the Venn diagram meets.

Oh, I see. Yes, in D&D players who like tracking resources will probably also be drawn to low-magic settings because magic de-emphasizes/trivializes that aspect of the game. But that doesn’t mean those players seek low magic in general, just that D&D 5e forces that trade off. I misunderstood the claim.

 

[Laurefindel]

Oh, I see. Yes, in D&D players who like tracking resources will probably also be drawn to low-magic settings because magic de-emphasizes/trivializes that aspect of the game. But that doesn’t mean those players seek low magic in general, just that D&D 5e forces that trade off. I misunderstood the claim.

I think the claim wasn’t clear. And you’re right, this shouldn’t be a generalization.
[edit] French took over and removed negation…

 

[James Gasik]

I need to preface this post, I realized. I'm not against people who like to play games a certain way. If you and your group have fun, that's great. However, when it comes to the complaints I hear, well....

What surprises me is how some people who prefer older versions of D&D act like people wanting less restrictions on casters is a new thing. I mean, looking in my 1e DMG, I see Rings of Wizardry that double spell slots of a given level, Boccob's Blessed Books that can contain a whole spell library that fits in your backpack, and powerful Wands and Staves that can only be used by Wizards.

By 2e, the Tome of Magic (1991), we have spells that conjure spell components and lower magic resistance of enemies.

And as far as resource management goes, well, Murlynd's Spoons, Quivers of Ehlonna, Daern's Instant Fortress, Rods of Splendor, Bags of Holding, Portable Holes, Heward's Handy Haversack, etc., etc., have been in the game for a very long time as well.

Now I know, someone might say "well the DM decides if these things enter the game", but that's never really changed. It seems obvious to me that this "problem" (if you think it is one) has never really been one for D&D. You were always meant to be able to find ways to progress beyond worrying about starving in the wilderness, being picked apart by wolves, and finding a place to take a nap.

Characters were meant to have a means to become more magical, and grow beyond the limits of their class and race. This is part of what makes D&D, well, D&D!

What people are waxing nostalgic for isn't some lost ancient D&D, but the "low level experience".

A friend of mine, Tom, once said he wanted to run a 1e game the way the game was "meant to be played". When I asked him about this, he brought up how the game is the most fun at levels 1-7, and that he wanted to institute the training cost rules- ie, that you had to pay X amount of cash to gain levels on top of xp, and that this would keep characters poor and eventually they'd need so much gold to hit higher levels that it wouldn't be worth it.

"But Tom", I said, "don't you get experience points for finding gold in the first place? I mean, you don't get very much from fighting monsters anyways. So by the time even a Thief is looking at 8th level, shouldn't he have earned something like 40 thousand gold pieces in treasure?"

We quibbled about the exact amount of xp would come from treasure, but eventually he mumbled something about "guild dues". "So basically, the only way this works is if, on top of training costs, you artificially keep characters poor."

"Well, that's the way we played", was his response.

"And this was fun?"

"...sometimes?"

"I see. Well if you're going to run, I'm in, but I got to say, it feels like you're fighting the system to get the experience you want."

That game never did materialize, because by the next time we spoke, he'd dusted off his Runemaster books, lol.

When I think of gaming along these lines, I'm reminded of old PC games like Ultima, Wizardry, Bard's Tale, or Might & Magic, which often had you worry about carrying around torches and food. But interestingly, most of those games also eventually let spellcasters create light, conjure food, or teleport out of dungeons, as even the creators of those games knew that as the game progressed, these things would become tedious to the player.

So it's not a surprise to me why D&D has continued this trend of phasing out these sorts of things, since they've been doing it since the early days of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, in all the 5e I've played, that's generally what happens. The enemies and the melee rush towards each other, and just swing until someone falls down. DM's seem terrified of giving anyone a free hit on their monsters, and melee characters generally do more damage anyways, while ranged characters just plink away.

Interesting. In my group I will give free swings on monsters if it's to the monster's advantage to be elsewhere, and the players will give me free swings(especially casters in melee) in order to get away from a bad situation.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I need to preface this post, I realized. I'm not against people who like to play games a certain way. If you and your group have fun, that's great. However, when it comes to the complaints I hear, well....

I'll preface my response by saying everyone's experiences will vary, of course, so I am only addressing mine as the OP (inspired by your post in the other thread LOL).

What surprises me is how some people who prefer older versions of D&D act like people wanting less restrictions on casters is a new thing. I mean, looking in my 1e DMG, I see Rings of Wizardry that double spell slots of a given level, Boccob's Blessed Books that can contain a whole spell library that fits in your backpack, and powerful Wands and Staves that can only be used by Wizards.

It is a new thing. Rings of Wizardry were incredibly rare (less than 1 in 2220 by the DMG when rolling randomly), as were the powerful RSW that Wizards (and others) could use. Of course in 1E, you wanted those items, since casting in combat was incredibly risky (any hit or failed save ruined your spell and lost the slot). You couldn't move if there were somatic components (most of the better spells), so no DEX to AC or saves, etc. The DMG actually suggests casters resort to such items if at all possible due to this.

By 2e, the Tome of Magic (1991), we have spells that conjure spell components and lower magic resistance of enemies.

Sure, but then you are using a spell to conjure components for other spells--a higher "magic tax" if you will.

And as far as resource management goes, well, Murlynd's Spoons, Quivers of Ehlonna, Daern's Instant Fortress, Rods of Splendor, Bags of Holding, Portable Holes, Heward's Handy Haversack, etc., etc., have been in the game for a very long time as well.

Sure, they have, but again are rare in most cases! The Girdle of Many Pouches was my favorite magic item for this very reason!

But, in AD&D, if you failed your save, your then made saves for all your equipment. Do you know what the save is for leather against a fireball? 13 or higher. So, if I failed my save against an opponent's fireball (assuming I lived, since with lower HP was in question...), I had a 60% chance my GoMP would be destroyed!

Now I know, someone might say "well the DM decides if these things enter the game", but that's never really changed. It seems obvious to me that this "problem" (if you think it is one) has never really been one for D&D. You were always meant to be able to find ways to progress beyond worrying about starving in the wilderness, being picked apart by wolves, and finding a place to take a nap.

Yes, the DM can make that decision--just as they could in 5E. But this was most definitely a problem in AD&D without the DM removing such items unless your DM ran a Monty Hall type game--in which case magic items were everywhere LOL!

IME (anyway) you weren't meant to find ways around these problems, but you were always on the look out for them since they made the game easier for your character. A Bag of Holding was great to have, until you lost it (destroyed or stolen), at which time you lost everything in it.

Characters were meant to have a means to become more magical, and grow beyond the limits of their class and race. This is part of what makes D&D, well, D&D!

I agree to a point, but in AD&D you either became more magical via magic items or spells, but only casters through spells, and then often temporary boosts until spells wore off (sure there were exceptions for really high level play).

What people are waxing nostalgic for isn't some lost ancient D&D, but the "low level experience".

Yes and no. I've discussed this at length now with current and former players after posting the OP. As I said there I never had issues with spells like Tiny Hut, Goodberry, or Teleport in AD&D. But in reviewing the two systems (and those spells) I've realized a big part of it is the automatic and "easy" nature of magic in 5E, as well as its prevalence in numerous non-caster classes.

Magic has become more powerful in many ways as well. Yes, I believe some of this was for a desire to simplify some elements, but I really don't know why. It wasn't complicated IMO and was a factor towards balancing casters with other classes (along with requiring more XP and lower HP for magic-users).

In 5E, there are too many magical races, classes, and subclass for me. Spells are too easy, too accommodating, etc.

A friend of mine, Tom, once said he wanted to run a 1e game the way the game was "meant to be played". When I asked him about this, he brought up how the game is the most fun at levels 1-7, and that he wanted to institute the training cost rules- ie, that you had to pay X amount of cash to gain levels on top of xp, and that this would keep characters poor and eventually they'd need so much gold to hit higher levels that it wouldn't be worth it.

"But Tom", I said, "don't you get experience points for finding gold in the first place? I mean, you don't get very much from fighting monsters anyways. So by the time even a Thief is looking at 8th level, shouldn't he have earned something like 40 thousand gold pieces in treasure?"

We quibbled about the exact amount of xp would come from treasure, but eventually he mumbled something about "guild dues". "So basically, the only way this works is if, on top of training costs, you artificially keep characters poor."

"Well, that's the way we played", was his response.

"And this was fun?"

"...sometimes?"

"I see. Well if you're going to run, I'm in, but I got to say, it feels like you're fighting the system to get the experience you want."

That game never did materialize, because by the next time we spoke, he'd dusted off his Runemaster books, lol.

I always used training costs, but it wasn't to keep PCs "poor". XP for gold was usually low (1 XP / 5 gp) unless the battle was hard (then it could be as high as 1 XP / 1 gp).

Really, lower levels were more about surviving to reach higher levels, at which point you might have a magic item which made managing most resources a non-factor.

When I think of gaming along these lines, I'm reminded of old PC games like Ultima, Wizardry, Bard's Tale, or Might & Magic, which often had you worry about carrying around torches and food. But interestingly, most of those games also eventually let spellcasters create light, conjure food, or teleport out of dungeons, as even the creators of those games knew that as the game progressed, these things would become tedious to the player.

I don't think it was because such things were tedious (at least I know they weren't to me). Proper resource management and preparation for the adventure was a "mini-game" in some ways. If the game style had a lot of times when you were trekking into unknown reaches where food, water, etc. was hard to come by, spell slots had to be devoted to these things, and if anything happened to that spellcaster, the party could be in serious trouble!

So it's not a surprise to me why D&D has continued this trend of phasing out these sorts of things, since they've been doing it since the early days of the game.

Again, they haven't been doing it since the beginning in the fashion you describe IME. A lot of tables did choose to ignore such things because it wasn't important to them--their concern was more about combat or story points. To others it eventually became an after thought which would only occasionally become an issue ("Ok, you had three weeks of rations and food in your backpack, but it was all destroyed in that fireball so now your PC has no food or water...what will you do?"). And to some it remained a point of challenge on a more regular basis.

 

[James Gasik]

Interesting. In my group I will give free swings on monsters if it's to the monster's advantage to be elsewhere, and the players will give me free swings(especially casters in melee) in order to get away from a bad situation.

I'm not entirely certain what causes the change in playstyles. What I think is occurring (and it's just a guess) is that some DM's feel that if a fight ends too quickly, it wasn't "challenging enough". So if you let the melee guys dish out extra damage, killing monsters faster, then you run out of monsters more quickly.

On the flipside, a DM who takes the long view and remembers they have more encounters that day, will happily sacrifice their pawns to give some pressure to ranged characters and casters.

The number of encounters per adventuring day probably factors into this as well- I've yet to play a 5e game with more than 3-4 encounters per diem. In AL, this is the standard, after all, and even in a home game, I've noticed 1 session is roughly 1 adventuring day, even though there's no real reason for this to be the case, outside of maybe not wanting to track resource expenditures from session to session?

Just theorizing. When I run, intelligent foes will make threat assessments and move accordingly, but generally, moving away to ignore someone waving a sword in your face is something I think is a bad move, so enemies tend only to do that if the person they are in battle with has too high AC or too little damage.

I had a guy who played a Cleric "tank" in an AL game once. He used a shield and his tactic was to cast Shield of Faith, run up to the monsters, and take the Dodge action.

He was incredibly annoyed when I had a monster just walk away from him, saying that wasn't "fair".

"Look, unless you have some ability to keep the guy around, he's not exactly terrified of someone who isn't attacking, is impossible to hit, and is going to do, what, d8+3 with his little hammer, when there's a guy throwing fireballs around."

He apparently went and complained to all the other AL DM's about me, and when it got back to me, I had a good laugh about it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I had a guy who played a Cleric "tank" in an AL game once. He used a shield and his tactic was to cast Shield of Faith, run up to the monsters, and take the Dodge action.

He was incredibly annoyed when I had a monster just walk away from him, saying that wasn't "fair".

"Look, unless you have some ability to keep the guy around, he's not exactly terrified of someone who isn't attacking, is impossible to hit, and is going to do, what, d8+3 with his little hammer, when there's a guy throwing fireballs around."

He apparently went and complained to all the other AL DM's about me, and when it got back to me, I had a good laugh about it.

Did they disengage from him, or did he get in an OA?

Because if they disengage, he served his purpose since they didn't get to attack, either.

If he got an OA against the first one (especially if he hit), then he did attack, so why did the others leave?

My point is there is an issue with running monsters due to metagame knowledge. For example, five guys were around him, he only gets one OA, so the other four know they can walk away without using the disengage action--that is kind of cheesy IMO.

And how do they know he is "impossible to hit"?

Don't get me wrong, targeting the "wizard-looking-PC-in-robes-waving-his-hands-around-and-chanting-mumbo-jumbo" is a great idea (few enemies like fireballs after all...), but depending on how this scene played out I could see he might (maybe, mind you) have a valid point.

 

[James Gasik]

I'll preface my response by saying everyone's experiences will vary, of course, so I am only addressing mine as the OP (inspired by your post in the other thread LOL).


It is a new thing. Rings of Wizardry were incredibly rare (less than 1 in 2220 by the DMG when rolling randomly), as were the powerful RSW that Wizards (and others) could use. Of course in 1E, you wanted those items, since casting in combat was incredibly risky (any hit or failed save ruined your spell and lost the slot). You couldn't move if there were somatic components (most of the better spells), so no DEX to AC or saves, etc. The DMG actually suggests casters resort to such items if at all possible due to this.


Sure, but then you are using a spell to conjure components for other spells--a higher "magic tax" if you will.


Sure, they have, but again are rare in most cases! The Girdle of Many Pouches was my favorite magic item for this very reason!

But, in AD&D, if you failed your save, your then made saves for all your equipment. Do you know what the save is for leather against a fireball? 13 or higher. So, if I failed my save against an opponent's fireball (assuming I lived, since with lower HP was in question...), I had a 60% chance my GoMP would be destroyed!



Yes, the DM can make that decision--just as they could in 5E. But this was most definitely a problem in AD&D without the DM removing such items unless your DM ran a Monty Hall type game--in which case magic items were everywhere LOL!

IME (anyway) you weren't meant to find ways around these problems, but you were always on the look out for them since they made the game easier for your character. A Bag of Holding was great to have, until you lost it (destroyed or stolen), at which time you lost everything in it.


I agree to a point, but in AD&D you either became more magical via magic items or spells, but only casters through spells, and then often temporary boosts until spells wore off (sure there were exceptions for really high level play).


Yes and no. I've discussed this at length now with current and former players after posting the OP. As I said there I never had issues with spells like Tiny Hut, Goodberry, or Teleport in AD&D. But in reviewing the two systems (and those spells) I've realized a big part of it is the automatic and "easy" nature of magic in 5E, as well as its prevalence in numerous non-caster classes.

Magic has become more powerful in many ways as well. Yes, I believe some of this was for a desire to simplify some elements, but I really don't know why. It wasn't complicated IMO and was a factor towards balancing casters with other classes (along with requiring more XP and lower HP for magic-users).

In 5E, there are too many magical races, classes, and subclass for me. Spells are too easy, too accommodating, etc.


I always used training costs, but it wasn't to keep PCs "poor". XP for gold was usually low (1 XP / 5 gp) unless the battle was hard (then it could be as high as 1 XP / 1 gp).

Really, lower levels were more about surviving to reach higher levels, at which point you might have a magic item which made managing most resources a non-factor.


I don't think it was because such things were tedious (at least I know they weren't to me). Proper resource management and preparation for the adventure was a "mini-game" in some ways. If the game style had a lot of times when you were trekking into unknown reaches where food, water, etc. was hard to come by, spell slots had to be devoted to these things, and if anything happened to that spellcaster, the party could be in serious trouble!


Again, they haven't been doing it since the beginning in the fashion you describe IME. A lot of tables did choose to ignore such things because it wasn't important to them--their concern was more about combat or story points. To others it eventually became an after thought which would only occasionally become an issue ("Ok, you had three weeks of rations and food in your backpack, but it was all destroyed in that fireball so now your PC has no food or water...what will you do?"). And to some it remained a point of challenge on a more regular basis.

I will admit that (edit: a large) part of my experience with regards to the scarcity of magic items (or lack thereof) is personal, so I really can't say how often players get their hands on such- it depends on quite a few factors- even assuming a neutral DM, you're left with random tables in monster lairs, what monsters are chosen for your adventure, and whether or not you use (often treasure rich) published adventures.

I used to run a lot of published adventures for my groups, especially out of Dungeon magazine, and, as a result, my players were never hurting for gear.

I do have a one of my old character record sheet booklets laying around though, and I have a Wizard 7 with Bracers of Defense (AC 9), a Knife +2, a Brooch of Shielding (77 hp remaining), 2 Potions of Water Breathing, a Wand of Lightning, a Wand of Wonder, and a Wand of Fire, a Scroll of Lightning Bolt, a Scroll of Chain Lightning, and a Ring that gives me the benefits of the Shield spell constantly (all that remains of The Sentinel after the mutual destruction of it and The Gauntlet), and I would say this is a typical amount of treasure in my experience.