D&D 5E How to De-Magic 5e

[Umbran]

Then again perhaps I have never talked to any of my players before, and this topic has never come up before.

So, dude... I know you have an image to maintain, but the snark isn't constructive.

Instead, you could have said, "Well, Umbran, I did ask my group if they thought simply making magic less common among the PCs would make that magic more interesting, and they said yes. And here's why they think that..."

Which would have given us some insight into your players, so we could help serve them better.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Quartz]

It's that I want to de-Magic 5e.

One of the things you can do is not so much de-magic D&D as diminish the visibility of magic. So you drop everything that's flashy. No Firebolt, no Fireball, no Mirror Image, no Meteor Swarm. Revivify becomes a defibrilator. Dimension Door becomes, "How the blazes did you get there?" "I have my means." No Teleport. Ask, "Does Eric the Cleric's story end here?" more often. No blazing swords. Magic is mysterious and subtle.

 

[Yaarel]

It wasn't even clear how Half-elves could be bards.
I mean it specifically says they can but once you try and work out how it works you run into trouble.

Edit: Yeah here it is.

Spoiler

"Bards begin play as Fighters and they must remain exclusively fighters until they have achieved at least the 5th level of experience." Then it says they must change their class to thieves before they hit 8th level. Then they have to change to druid (but are also bards).

So, even though it says Half-elves can be bards it seems to imply that bards can only be achieved by dual classing which is exclusively the province of humans.

Of course dual classing requires higher stats - 17 in the class you are changing into. So you'd need two 17s and 2 15s and a 12 and 10.

But of course Half-Elves can't dual class - so perhaps we don't use the rules for dual classing here - perhaps there is a special rule here that applies under the vague intention of someday being a bard. (I don't know what happens if you change your mind).

And of course the rest of the party has to drag you along while you're doing the whole dual class thing of now using your higher level abilities - multiple times.

It often seemed, with a lot of AD&D rules material, that the designers were so used to their own house rules that they'd frequently seem to forget how the published rules were actually supposed to work.

And this is why D&D 1e gamers make up their own rules!

It is an oral tradition, not a textual tradition.

 

[Yaarel]

3. Wizards, Clerics, Druids remain relatively unchanged (other than loss of cantrips).

So. You want a HIGH MAGIC campaign.

As long as the CoDzillaW classes are sufficiently hazed at low levels?

As long as non-CoDzillaW classes cannot compete magically at high levels?

 

[DND_Reborn]

It wasn't even clear how Half-elves could be bards.
I mean it specifically says they can but once you try and work out how it works you run into trouble.

Edit: Yeah here it is.

Spoiler

"Bards begin play as Fighters and they must remain exclusively fighters until they have achieved at least the 5th level of experience." Then it says they must change their class to thieves before they hit 8th level. Then they have to change to druid (but are also bards).

So, even though it says Half-elves can be bards it seems to imply that bards can only be achieved by dual classing which is exclusively the province of humans.

Of course dual classing requires higher stats - 17 in the class you are changing into. So you'd need two 17s and 2 15s and a 12 and 10.

But of course Half-Elves can't dual class - so perhaps we don't use the rules for dual classing here - perhaps there is a special rule here that applies under the vague intention of someday being a bard. (I don't know what happens if you change your mind).

And of course the rest of the party has to drag you along while you're doing the whole dual class thing of now using your higher level abilities - multiple times.

It often seemed, with a lot of AD&D rules material, that the designers were so used to their own house rules that they'd frequently seem to forget how the published rules were actually supposed to work.

Here it is:

In the first paragraph we have:
1. it is often not allowed by DMs.
2. is greatly modified from the original bard character class
3. is offered as supplemental to the system

This is all the 1E equivalent of the 5E specific beating general. The Bard class was not dual classing which is why it was supplemental. It did not require the same level of ability scores (close though) and allowed half-elves. Also, while you had to remain a fighter to begin with (and only be a fighter), once you began your thieving career you could still use all your fighter abilities, saves, etc. (very different from dual classing). The thief was not "exclusive" like the fighter was. This was built in. And you didn't have to wait for them to advance their thief because in the time it took to gain one level for everyone else, the thief was likely gaining all the 5+ levels they wanted and could begin their life as a Bard.

The groups I played with never saw any confusion in this, with one exception (below). I was in three different games where bards were played, the highest reaching 13th or 14th level in Bard IIRC. Seeing it in action, I understand why it was supplemental--it was a very powerful combination.

I will agree the only issue (as we saw it) was what happened if you changed to thief and then decided you didn't want to be a bard. Myself and the other DMs I played with basically ruled it, you have no choice. You started as a "bard" in name, even if not in class. Was it ideal? Hardly. But like others we had to make those rulings as we saw fit.

And this is why D&D 1e gamers make up their own rules!

It is an oral tradition, not a textual tradition.

LOL true enough, but also (looking around this web site), so do all the other editions of D&D.

Gygax himself easily admitted D&D and AD&D were basically a collection of house-rules they agreed upon. Even the AD&D bard presented was "not the original bard". I would have loved to see the original as I am not fond at all of 5E's version.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is about removing cantrips (at will magic) and fixing the spell-equivalency system.

Really, it seems as much about re-magicking as de-magicking. That is, magic is ubiquitous (through a day) via cantrips and (across classes) through spellcasting (which every class has) and spell-equivalency (which the remaining sub-classes are all designed around to some extent). Ubiquitous magic doesn't feel special anymore - familiarity breeds contempt and all that - you lose that senseofwonda that's emblematic to the broader fantasy genre.

Do I understand the problem?

In short, this post comes closest to what I've been thinking:
1. Remove cantrips.

Check.

3. Wizards, Clerics, Druids remain relatively unchanged (other than loss of cantrips).

So we're not 'replacing' cantrips with Extra Attack, weapon proficiencies, or a few more spell slots or scaling spell damage or anything?

2. Fighters, Monks, Barbarians, Rogues are restricted to non-spellcasting subclasses. Any incidental uses of spells or cantrips are removed or re-written as class abilities.

Re-writing something as a class ability still leaves it a spell-equivalent. And Ki, Rage, CS dice/maneuvers, Action Surge & Second Wind are surely all calibrated as spell-equivalents, as well.

It seems to me that once you've re-established the defining sense of magic as a limited (within a given day), resource with correspondingly greater power/versatility/importance, the only way to truly de-magic something else is to make it unlimited on the same time scale, and of correspondingly lesser power/versatility/importance.

In another thread I pointed out the early-Next-playtest MDD mechanic. As it's a limited resource only within the timescale of a given round - essentially 'at will' compared to real magic - it could be a way of adding a little management/interest/differentiation among fighter, rogue & monk sub-classes.

4. Sorcerer (to a lesser extent) and Warlock (to a greater extent) ... I don't know. Not sure how easy that they would be.

The Warlock has more of it's DPR-balance in it's amped-up Eldritch Blast, and it is on a short-rest schedule, which is also a more-available, thus less-special take on magic, so just doing away with it might be an acceptable answer. The Warlock concept, could be folded into the Sorcerer. Sorcerers from 1st level on have innate magic, McSorcerers who gain power later must get it from a patron?

5. Paladins, Bards, and Rangers re-done to remove casting. For obvious reasons, as you point out, bard would be tough.

The Ranger's already gone spell-less twice, now, though the 5e attempt didn't go over well, and was still spell-equivalancey. The Bard could lose spells and spell-equivalent bardic inspiration, and bring back Bardic Music (which needn't be literal, might even be (pi) literary) like in 3e & earlier, including inspire __ (courage, competence, defiance, etc) as more or less at-will (maybe requiring concentration or something?) bonus actions it could do whilst fighting or otherwise contributing, and maybe counter-harmony to dispel charms & magic and the like (or suppress it while the music continues?).

Actually, that sounds like it'd be fairly easy, Bardic Music could give a +1d bonus to allies hearing it, the size of the die could start at +1d4, and go up a little at higher levels.

Inspire competence: +1d4 to skill checks
Inspire courage: +1d4 to melee attacks
Inspire ferocity: +1d4 to damage with melee attacks
Inspire defiance: +1d4 to saving throws

etc...

And Paladins could just be removed.
I'm thinking this would be a good start.

Isn't it always?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*