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

[GMforPowergamers]

OK thank you. However, that is worded just the same as the mummy and basilisk effects. They give an example, they do not limit you from finding other options.

or similar magic is my issue... discounting nonmagic answers, and similar meaning you aren't getting a lower level one most times either...

 

[Garthanos]

In this case yes. A basilisk is clearly a magical creature and therefor can be interpreted to have magical blood.

Oh can it? the D&D examples all seem to be character abilities and spells. (some of the latter like ranger abilities in 5e do not seem like they even should be spells)

This is nothing against the rules with this ruling.

That is not the point remaking casters to all be encounter powers is not "against the rules" because dms can do whatever they want.

(I would bet that 15 out of 16 DMs do not even think of a solution outside of spells when the spells are explicitly listed and the ones that do seen the solution from an earlier edition)

I think its just another something increasing the brain burden on the DM.

I find it sad not giving non-casters an option is evidence that counts as the game not really supporting non-casters... in fact they explicitly REMOVED the mention of that which you restored.

 

[dave2008]

Nope. I mean that the classes all felt the same mechanically. The all had at-will, encounter, and daily powers. The differences mainly hit at the role level: defender, controller, etc. That just filled a mechanical niche. 4e was great for uniform experience. It forced a average playing and GM experience and smoothed the poor or great experience. I think it did have an effect of protecting players from poor and terrible GMs by creating a lane for the game.

I am not attempting to edition war. I was, admittedly, not a fan of 4e and my impression of the classes was that it forced a style of gaming. It was a tactical skirmish game. That is fine but 3.5, 4e, and Pathfinder burned me out to the point where I never want to see a grid or mini again.

You can, and we did, play 4e without a grid or minis. It worked really well TotM. You also seem to be completely disregarding essentials classes which did not all use the AEDU structure.

I just didn't personally experience that 4e forced us to play a particular way. We played 4e like we played 1e, like we play 5e.

 

[dave2008]

or similar magic is my issue... discounting nonmagic answers, and similar meaning you aren't getting a lower level one most times either...

I can see where people interpret that as it has to be magical, but it doesn't say those are the only options. Also, what is magic is up for interpretation.

But I understand your issue now - thank you.

 

[dave2008]

Oh can it?

Absolutely.

the D&D examples all seem to be character abilities and spells. (some of the latter like ranger abilities in 5e do not seem like they even should be spells)

It specifically says "other magic," not spells. And I can interpret that as examples and even justify non-magic options if I want.

I think its just another something increasing the brain burden on the DM.

This is what makes D&D sing to me. As a DM I want that creative avenue. Please don't give me all the answers. I understand others want something different.

I find it sad not giving non-casters an option is evidence that counts as the game not really supporting non-casters... in fact they explicitly REMOVED the mention of that which you restored.

Non casters do have an option. I just explained how. IME, there is always another option when your playing D&D.

PS As far as I remember it is the same option martials had to get rid of petrified in 4e as well. At least that is how we played.

 

[Garthanos]

I can see where people interpret that as it has to be magical, but it doesn't say those are the only options.

The examples definitely seem to be all be teaching DMs to not consider non magic

Also, what is magic is up for interpretation.

Is that really the case in 5e? because if all the examples ever mentioned are explicitly created magic items and spells the more flexible thinking is being discouraged. I could be misremembering something though.

 

[Garthanos]

Absolutely.

It specifically says "other magic," not spells. And I can interpret that as examples and even justify non-magic options if I want.

Only you would consider that an example.

Yes we gave an open ended one about magic so a magic item can do the trick or a monster with magical abilities could do it but some how Dave considers it an example that opens up non-magic

 

[Garthanos]

Non casters do have an option.

We called that DM may I as an option in 1e land and the DM is being taught to answer no since the system removed the non-caster method explicitly defined in 4e and maybe 3e.

This is what makes D&D sing to me. As a DM I want that creative avenue.

yeh but how do you encourage that by never mentioning non-caster/non-magic options?

Please don't give me all the answers. I understand others want something different.

They gave the caster explicit options... just fine and somehow that did not remove your creativity
(and casters can use your non-magic option just fine and I bet at most tables have a higher chance of knowing it too)
I want the game providing non-casters the same privilege of having the game explicitly supporting them.

Magic item dependency is also the other foot of the issue ... technically the blood of that beast in your story (and mine) is also a magic item. For me what makes it acceptable is that if you know it then its high situational need is offset by its accessibility.

 

[dave2008]

The examples definitely seem to be all be teaching DMs to not consider non magic

Is that really the case in 5e? because if all the examples ever mentioned are explicitly created magic items and spells the more flexible thinking is being discouraged. I could be misremembering something though.

I am not here to try and defend 5e. I am just explaining there is another way. One we use and it accomplishes the task some people are looking for. This is just how we play and how we have played since 1e.

Only you would consider that an example.

Yes we gave an open ended one about magic so a magic item can do the trick or a monster with magical abilities could do it but some how Dave considers it an example that opens up non-magic

I doubt I am so creative to unique in this ability. It is rather a common troupe that magic creatures have magic body parts. The idea of magical blood goes back even further (Greek and Norse mythology at least). Seems many people with knowledge of these sources would come to a similar idea. And that is in fact what happens at our table. It is not me that comes up with these ideas, it is my players. So, no I am not the only one who comes up with these ideas, my players do all the time!

We called that DM may I as an option in 1e land and the DM is being taught to answer no since the system removed the non-caster method explicitly defined in 4e and maybe 3e.

4e is may favorite edition of D&D, but I don't remember it handling this situation any different. I know we definitely played it the same way in 4e that we do in 5e. Can you remind me how 4e handled this differently?

yeh but how do you encourage that by never mentioning non-caster/non-magic options?

It is a DM book, the players don't know what is being encouraged. They are they are the one's coming up with the ideas on how to handle these situations.

They gave the caster explicit options... just fine and somehow that did not remove your creativity
(and casters can use your non-magic option just fine and I bet at most tables have a higher chance of knowing it too)
I want the game providing non-casters the same privilege of having the game explicitly supporting them.

I am sorry you feel 5e doesn't do that for you, but I thought 4e was the edition you played anyway? It this just a rant to relieve stress?

I guess, IMO, the paucity of the example actively encourages finding another answer or excepting harsh realities. My current group (2 fighters, a rogue, and a wizard) doesn't have anyone that can cast greater restoration or another spell that necessarily makes sense (at least that I can think of) or any magic item. They have 2 options:

1. Except their fate and be petrified.
2. Find a creative solution

My players almost always chose option #2. IMO the game, and by game I mean D&D (any edition) and RPGs in general, encourages creativity. That is the whole point of playing the game for us, to be creative and imaginative.

However, I understand your point that explicitly providing options is helpful to some and likely wouldn't negatively affect my group. So I hope you can enjoy an edition or game that more fits your taste or 1D&D changes more to your liking. I don't see any good in getting stressed by a game that is about having fun.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It is a DM book, the players don't know what is being encouraged. They are they are the one's coming up with the ideas on how to handle these situations.

I think the point is that as a DM book it is influencing and telling DMs what to be inclined to accept, the description of ‘greater restoration or equivalent magic’ is not suggesting they accept any sort of mundane solutions, I’ve missed if cockatrice blood as a petrification solution was from the book or someone here’s own initiative but on my own judgement that blood is not ‘an equivalent magic to greater restoration’ nor would be the medicine skill or healers/herbalism kits, those mundane solutions are not implied by the book as an equivalent alternative to a 5th(?) level spell to the DM, who therefore if adhering to the RAW, would not accept those mundane alternatives as valid solutions.