D&D 3E/3.5 5e: Is it really lower magic/less gonzo than 3e?

[Zardnaar]

Interestingly, a significant majority of your examples are non-core. That could be indicative of magic creep, with the game starting out less magical and becoming more magical over time.

The overall point of the post is correct. There is a lot more magic in 5E with magical fighters and thieves now.

 

[Ancalagon]

Just a quick off topic quibble. Not sure where the above statement comes from.

Cantrips, they get Toll the Dead, ranged d8 or d12 damage with a will save.

1st Level they get inflict wounds, 3d10 damage, requires a hit but no save.

1st level also gets guiding bolt : decent range 4d6 damage AND gives advantage to the next hit.

2nd level gives spiritual weapon which, while it does less damage, is in every other way objectively better than the wizards 7th level spell mordenkainen's sword.

At least at low levels, they seem to do OK at damage dealing spells.

And let's not forget Spirit Guardians, a 3rd level spell which last for rounds doing 3d8 damage in a 15 foot radius... that spell is incredible.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The overall point of the post is correct. There is a lot more magic in 5E with magical fighters and thieves now.

Would it be fair to say that 5E has broader access to magic, but that the magical effects are less overwhelming on the high end? Like the whole game is more Eberron-y?

 

[Ancalagon]

On "Gonzo"

One thing I will note is that some of the items are more gozo in 5e than 3e. The 3e items were very "rational". You had gauntlets of ogre power that gave you +2 strength, and belts of giant strength that gave +4 or +6 to strength.

In 5e, if you wear a belt of giant strength... you have *giant strength*.

Now you can't use dozens of items because of atunement, but some of those items are doozies.

 

[Zardnaar]

Would it be fair to say that 5E has broader access to magic, but that the magical effects are less overwhelming on the high end? Like the whole game is more Eberron-y?

Yes I think that is a very accurate description.

My personal preference is less powerful magic even by 5E standards and less magic overall. I would be fine with no cantrips at all for example except maybe on a dedicated class.

 

[Ancalagon]

The overall point of the post is correct. There is a lot more magic in 5E with magical fighters and thieves now.

You are correct, but because the reader is not familiar with the rules:

Each class will chose a sub-class (this happens at level 1 to 3, it depends on the class). Both the rogue and the fighter have a subclass that can use a bit of magic (a "1/3 caster" essentially). But if you want to play a fighter or a rogue with no magic, you just choose another subclass!

This results in more spellcasters, but less multi-class character I've noticed.

 

[Mort]

Would it be fair to say that 5E has broader access to magic, but that the magical effects are less overwhelming on the high end? Like the whole game is more Eberron-y?

I was just about to make the Eberron comparison.

Though as pointed out in a later post, some items break that mold. 5e doesn't shy away from high magic high bonus stuff.

I'll agree with many prior posters. 5e isn't less magic heavy per se, and in many ways it has more magic. Every class has serious magic options, for example, and rituals are a lot more prevalent even than 4e.

But 5e has both lessened (almost eliminated) the massive stacking of 3e (pretty hard to be the flying invisible wizard that was pervasive in 3e) and took away much of the high level spamming that 3e had in abundance.

 

[Ashrym]

Does vanilla 5e produce a more grounded swords-and-sorcery game than 3e?

Or does it preserve the high fantasy power level of previous games?

Or (worse, for what I want) does it ramp the power level up above what 3e provided?

1) By default, no. Rituals, cantrips, and optional subclasses give a very magical feel regardless of cuts to spellcasters and magic item possessions.

Things like epic feats don't fit into the typical categories unless a DM scales them in so that aspect is a bit more grounded, imo, and it's easy to play a much more grounded game by not allowing spellcasters as PC's.

The concept of bounded accuracy also ties into this as it keeps weaker monsters relevant longer.

2) High fantasy , yes, but I find power is higher at low levels than 3e and lower at high levels.

3) Again, at lower levels yes and at higher levels not even close.

 

[Azgulor]

Thanks to everyone who has responded thus far. Great information!

The explanations about lower high-end magic but same/slightly higher magic frequency makes sense and this is likely where my misconception that 5e was 3e equivalent or higher on the magic scale originated. Overall, I'll take it as a positive since D&D has never been low magic but knowing that higher-level magic has been reigned in, even somewhat is music to my ears.

And just for clarification, I understand that D&D in any edition isn't swords-n-sorcery in the Howard or Leiber sense. But any move closer to that from the magic prevalence of 3e, even if slight, is a positive one for me.

 

[Zardnaar]

I was just about to make the Eberron comparison.

Though as pointed out in a later post, some items break that mold. 5e doesn't shy away from high magic high bonus stuff.

I'll agree with many prior posters. 5e isn't less magic heavy per se, and in many ways it has more magic. Every class has serious magic options, for example, and rituals are a lot more prevalent even than 4e.

But 5e has both lessened (almost eliminated) the massive stacking of 3e (pretty hard to be the flying invisible wizard that was pervasive in 3e) and took away much of the high level spamming that 3e had in abundance.

We had that combo in AD&D, but AD&D lacked the serious buff spells 3E had, bless and prayer (+1 to hit, saves etc) were about as good as it got. Magic Weapon was a 4th level spell that granted +1 to hit and damage.