Rod Staffwand
aka Ermlaspur Flormbator
Yes, far too much spellcasting and magic in 5e for my taste. It seriously hampers my interest in the system--and has ever since I read the atrocious 'Wonders of Magic' section in the introduction of the PH: "With magic of their own, in the form of spells and magic items, the adventurers might prevail!" The primacy of magic is so enshrined in 5e one might think they were angling for the Harry Potter RPG license.
Obviously a large percentage of players love spells as a mechanic. They offer customization (yay!) and versatility (yay!) by employing discrete, understandable DM-proof effects (yay!!). A player can feel confident in their abilities far more than a non-spell user can: "Can I use feather fall to reach the bottom of the pit safely? Of course, you can" as opposed to "Can I use acrobatics to reach the bottom of the put safely? Maybe, roll a 20+ or you take 5d6 damage on a fail".
Designers love them because they're relatively easy to write and balance, as opposed to other systems. There's a reason the most common splats are new spells. Spells to do anything and everything. What ever you can think of, let's write a spell for it. This spell does damage with a debuff--that spell does the same damage with a slightly different debuff. Do we need both? Of course! Versatility and customization are awesome and it's not hurting anyone.
Hey, how about some new battlemaster maneuvers, please? No! Absolutely not! Those original 16 are all you will ever need. If you don't like it, play a caster!
Or how about a fighter with a different array of abilities to play with? No, the champion (and the champion alone) covers that design space. No other options needed.
My most successful 5e campaign used a modified Basic, expanded with some full content (some Barbarian and Ranger stuff). I'm mulling over a Sword & Sorcery, low-magic rule-set with vastly fleshed-out skill and combat rules. But I still have no use for the sorcerer, the bard is too magical, and I don't understand how the warlock is suppose to work, being pledged to Cthulhu or Demogorgon or whoever.
Obviously a large percentage of players love spells as a mechanic. They offer customization (yay!) and versatility (yay!) by employing discrete, understandable DM-proof effects (yay!!). A player can feel confident in their abilities far more than a non-spell user can: "Can I use feather fall to reach the bottom of the pit safely? Of course, you can" as opposed to "Can I use acrobatics to reach the bottom of the put safely? Maybe, roll a 20+ or you take 5d6 damage on a fail".
Designers love them because they're relatively easy to write and balance, as opposed to other systems. There's a reason the most common splats are new spells. Spells to do anything and everything. What ever you can think of, let's write a spell for it. This spell does damage with a debuff--that spell does the same damage with a slightly different debuff. Do we need both? Of course! Versatility and customization are awesome and it's not hurting anyone.
Hey, how about some new battlemaster maneuvers, please? No! Absolutely not! Those original 16 are all you will ever need. If you don't like it, play a caster!
Or how about a fighter with a different array of abilities to play with? No, the champion (and the champion alone) covers that design space. No other options needed.
My most successful 5e campaign used a modified Basic, expanded with some full content (some Barbarian and Ranger stuff). I'm mulling over a Sword & Sorcery, low-magic rule-set with vastly fleshed-out skill and combat rules. But I still have no use for the sorcerer, the bard is too magical, and I don't understand how the warlock is suppose to work, being pledged to Cthulhu or Demogorgon or whoever.