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

[GMforPowergamers]

I think the issue is when magic is the only way to overcome specific challenges.

One terrible example of this is the Mummy’s rotting touch. Sure, your character may have spent resources to become skilled in Medicine, they may also have Expertise and a relevant background feature, and have spent money on a healer’s kit and vials of antidote. However, you are SoL since Mummy Rot is only curable by magical means.

But why?

not just magic, but spell slot magic.
No apothecary or alchemist who used mystic ingredients can do anything for you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I am totally cool with this. You CHOSE to play the class and in my games we prefer not mess than up or nerf enemies just because casters can "do it better".

If you are not cool with it though then don't play with Golems or other such monsters or play homebrew versions of the game where fighters get "powers" that aren't "magic" but deny the laws of physics just the same (just don't call it magic) or better yet, pick a different class.

As for me I have no problem with magic being the only way to fix something because it is .... well magic .... and this is a fantasy game.

the game works fine... as long as you don't mind when it doesn't. or if you take the parts out that don't...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's because the DM is in part to be a referee; and a referee's job is to police the players, and the game.

nope. the DM is a player that referee's the rules not the other players... at least in my experience, every time a DM or GM or Storyteller tried to police the players they found themselves with less players.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In practice, it doesn’t work that way. The classes that can remove disease either get it as part of their loadout and can’t change it (Paladins), or there is essentially no cost for them to do so (Clerics and Druids prepare spells, so it costs them a single prepared slot).

Meanwhile, a character that devotes resources to solve this precise issue (some combination of skills, expertise, features or magic) can’t.

For both Mummy Rot and Clay Golems, @Lanefan and @Micah Sweet say that the challenge is the point. But if that is the case, let me make a modest proposal.

For Mummy Rot, it is resistant to normal and magical healing. You require Expertise in Medicine and advanced medical tools (so not capable in the brush) to fix it. Until then, a DC 20 Medicine check can stave off the effects for 1 day (or simply give advantage on the roll).

For the Clay Golem, the cause of the max hp reduction is unclear. Say it is from wounds that din’t heal. Use the same principle as for Mummy Rot. You need Expertise in Medicine to fix it permanently , in the meantime, a difficult trained Medicine check can stave off the effects temporarily.

In both cases, a “challenge” DM can tweak the difficulty as wanted.

The only way in which the existing rules are superior is that they preserve the supremacy of magic. Why is that a consideration?

in my non magic campaigns I often just make some people trained in surgery and need time to do it (again not in field) and let them teach players like it is a boon/magic item from DMG.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In some descriptions, it's noted as getting clay in the wounds, preventing them from healing.

then shoudn't a medicine check to clean the wound help?

 

[Undrave]

Greater Restoration is a 5th level spell. You can and in my opinion should face clay golem before it becomes available to PCs. Also, obviously no guarantee there's a cleric in the party.

So what? you just get stuck with the condition until the party levels up enough or someone rolls up a Cleric? Because if the DM decided there were no high level cleric out in the world then you can't do squat. That's basically 'DM may I' taken to the extreme. That, to me, feels like a violation of player agency, that there is literally nothing you can choose to do. It's no different than 'Rock falls, everybody dies', just slower.

As a DM it meant a lot of monsters that were common in modules and encounter charts (particularly non mindless undead) were actually very swingy and unexpectedly potentially killer or crippling while others were fun hp hack and slash ones.

The swingingness between party is particularly grating. If it's meant to be difficult to deal with, make it difficult for EVERYBODY regardless of party composition.

 

[Undrave]

then shoudn't a medicine check to clean the wound help?

You'd think that yeah.

From what I heard, the whole Clay Golem power comes from a misunderstanding of the Clay Golem not being able to be healed by magic (as its a construct) in like the early 80s and for 40 years it became their signature ability and a minor sacred cow. it had no explanation so they had to eventually retcon one in.

Dunno about you, but sometimes I get really tired of being burdened by design mistakes made by amateurs four decades ago...

 

[Voadam]

The swingingness between party is particularly grating. If it's meant to be difficult to deal with, make it difficult for EVERYBODY regardless of party composition.

I agree. In AD&D at one point I was journeying as a mid-level fighter switched to wizard with a fellow fighter PC. I can remember resting for weeks in a cave after a single fight with gargoyles to regain something like 20 hp. It was much different than journeying with a cleric in the party.

 

[Voadam]

You'd think that yeah.

From what I heard, the whole Clay Golem power comes from a misunderstanding of the Clay Golem not being able to be healed by magic (as its a construct) in like the early 80s and for 40 years it became their signature ability and a minor sacred cow. it had no explanation so they had to eventually retcon one in.

Dunno about you, but sometimes I get really tired of being burdened by design mistakes made by amateurs four decades ago...

Clay golems were introduced in 1975 in The Strategic Review #4. You may be right about the damage healing being a mistake in translation from the original D&D implementation, though it is also possible it was a deliberate change to make them more unique for D&D.

1975 OD&D:

THE CLAY GOLEM
Lawful clerics of the 15th level or above are able to fashion these creatures.
Once sculpted (in-man-like form) the cleric must use a Raise Dead, Animate Object and Commune Spells to bring it into being as a golem. The costs of vestments of the cleric preparing the clay golem will be 12,000 plus 5,000 to 50,000 additional gold pieces. It can be commanded only by the Lawful cleric who created the golem, and it functions in all respects as a 12-dice earth elemental unless otherwise stated. Damage done to the golem is permanent, and cannot be restored in any fashion. There is additionally a 1% chance for each turn it is commanded to action that it will become chaotic and begin attacking any and all life forms it meets, moving towards the nearest and progressing on from there until destroyed.
Type
Clay
Defensive Capability
Affected only by blunt +1 magic weapons, and spells have no effect except for Move Earth which will drive the golem back 12”, and Disintegrate which will prevent all movement by the golem for 1 turn.
Offensive Capability
Attacks as a 12-dice earth elemental, but- the golem is able to Haste itself for a maximum of 3 melee rounds after the first round of combat.
Hit Points
50
Movement
7”

1979 Monster Manual:

"Damage inflicted upon living matter by a clay golem is only repairable by means of a healing spell from a cleric of 17th or greater level."

I prefer the OD&D version.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Why wouldn't it be?

Well, I’ve given several reasons:
1. Not gating the resolution of certain challenges behind magic encourages non-standard party composition;
2. Rewarding player choices: a character taking Expertise in Medicine tends to be sub-optimal. Having the occasional situation where it is clutch rewards player choices.
3. World-building: if the party retreats to their original village for healing, the aged village healer might have Expertise in healing (or might not). The aged village healer being a 9th level cleric strains verisimilitude.
4. Class balance: One of the main defenses for casters’ power level is that they trade power for versatility. A caster isn’t supposed to be as good at certain tasks as a specialist, but is more flexible at a variety of tasks. That isn’t the case for either Mummy Rot or the Clay Golem’s Slam. The caster is simply better than the specialist.
5. Expertise should feel special: Rogues get 4 Expertise slots, bards 2. Everyone else needs to trade a valuable feat for it. Unless you take Expertise in a skill with a combat application, it often doesn’t feel very special. Hence, challenges that require someone to be an expert in their field to even attempt.
6. Challenge: the justification for Mummy Rot or the Clay Golem’s Slam is supposed to be to challenge the players. But it’s not really a challenge, is it? It’s a luck-based mission: did you fail the saving throw (set deliberately low because of the deadliness of the effect)? Do you have the correct party composition to turn the encounter into a speed bump?
7. @DND_Reborn ’s premise was that he was feeling somewhat burnt out by high levels of magic.

Do you think there should be nothing in the world that can only be accomplished via magic?

I’ll accept that there are certain challenges that can be overcome only with magic, but the onus is on you to make the case in favour of it.

“Why wouldn’t it be?” isn’t an argument; and “because it’s magic!” is a tautology.