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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

You go back to town to get it fixed, or you suck it up. If the DM provides zero way to fix the issue via NPC, that's being a bad DM. But I'm in favor of having bad things happen to the PCs that can't just be fixed in the field.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.


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.

"Why would it be?" Isn't an argument either. There is no onus; it's just a matter of personal preference, and you and I disagree.

 

[Undrave]

You go back to town to get it fixed, or you suck it up. If the DM provides zero way to fix the issue via NPC, that's being a bad DM. But I'm in favor of having bad things happen to the PCs that can't just be fixed in the field.

"Hey guys, I'm taking away some of your HP until you get Greater Restoration. No there's no 9th level Cleric in this country. Guess the Paladin's gotta go to level 17 to learn it. Just suck it up, it's just 11 levels."

Things that 'can't be fixed in the field' are perfectly fine. Clay Golem Slam, however, CAN be fixed in the field... if you're a specific caster. Very easily even. The component cost is a joke.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"Hey guys, I'm taking away some of your HP until you get Greater Restoration. No there's no 9th level Cleric in this country. Guess the Paladin's gotta go to level 17 to learn it. Just suck it up, it's just 11 levels."

Things that 'can't be fixed in the field' are perfectly fine. Clay Golem Slam, however, CAN be fixed in the field... if you're a specific caster. Very easily even. The component cost is a joke.

and it's easy to say "thats a bad DM" but it's a mistake a good one or new one can make easy.

"this looks cool" followed by "oh that's in the CR range" mixed with already telling everyone the highest level cleric in the 3 towns they have been to is 5th level... and the 6th level party WOULD be more powerful but they don't have a cleric, they have a bard a fighter a rogue and a wizard... now the melee combatants have what might as well be a foreever debuff unless the DM brings in a deus ex machina high level cleric

 

[Andvari]

In practice, it doesn’t work that way.

It looks like it works exactly that way in practice, though.

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.

What makes a skill any class can take on the side more costly than needing to take 5* cleric levels and spend a precious spell slot? Also, mummy rot is not the only ailment in the game.

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

Do you have a source saying preservation of the supremacy of magic was a consideration for mummy rot? Personally, I suspect it's, referencing the superstitions of the mummy's curse* that supposedly strikes those who disturb Egyptian mummies. In which case we're talking thematic/dramatic/story-telling considerations.

* Looking up the mummy on roll20, (I only have the 5E PHB), mummy's rot appears to literally be a curse, requiring remove curse (3) to get rid of. And if it were a disease, having to take 3 levels in a class that can cast lesser restoration is still quite a lot of effort, even ignoring the spell slot.

 

[Undrave]

and it's easy to say "thats a bad DM" but it's a mistake a good one or new one can make easy.

"this looks cool" followed by "oh that's in the CR range" mixed with already telling everyone the highest level cleric in the 3 towns they have been to is 5th level... and the 6th level party WOULD be more powerful but they don't have a cleric, they have a bard a fighter a rogue and a wizard... now the melee combatants have what might as well be a foreever debuff unless the DM brings in a deus ex machina high level cleric

Even the Celestial Sorcerer can't learn Greater Restoration...

 

[Andvari]

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.

That's a DM problem with the DM, though. Not the condition.

 

[Undrave]

and it's easy to say "thats a bad DM" but it's a mistake a good one or new one can make easy.

"this looks cool" followed by "oh that's in the CR range" mixed with already telling everyone the highest level cleric in the 3 towns they have been to is 5th level... and the 6th level party WOULD be more powerful but they don't have a cleric, they have a bard a fighter a rogue and a wizard... now the melee combatants have what might as well be a foreever debuff unless the DM brings in a deus ex machina high level cleric

That's a DM problem with the DM, though. Not the condition.

See GM's post above.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Hey guys, I'm taking away some of your HP until you get Greater Restoration. No there's no 9th level Cleric in this country. Guess the Paladin's gotta go to level 17 to learn it. Just suck it up, it's just 11 levels."

Things that 'can't be fixed in the field' are perfectly fine. Clay Golem Slam, however, CAN be fixed in the field... if you're a specific caster. Very easily even. The component cost is a joke.

I'm assuming the party is below 9th level themselves. And I said that an NPC caster should be available back in civilization, or that's bad DMing. Did you actually read my post?

 

[Micah Sweet]

and it's easy to say "thats a bad DM" but it's a mistake a good one or new one can make easy.

"this looks cool" followed by "oh that's in the CR range" mixed with already telling everyone the highest level cleric in the 3 towns they have been to is 5th level... and the 6th level party WOULD be more powerful but they don't have a cleric, they have a bard a fighter a rogue and a wizard... now the melee combatants have what might as well be a foreever debuff unless the DM brings in a deus ex machina high level cleric

You make a mistake like that, you change the setting a bit to include the relevant NPC:

"Actually, you remember hearing about an legendary healer in the nearby forest who might be powerful enough to heal your friends dreadful wounds..."

No harm, no foul. I really don't see the problem here.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I really don't see the problem here.

you may not but others do

 

[Andvari]

You make a mistake like that, you change the setting a bit to include the relevant NPC:

"Actually, you remember hearing about an legendary healer in the nearby forest who might be powerful enough to heal your friends dreadful wounds..."

No harm, no foul. I really don't see the problem here.

Or just change it so it can be removed without those NPCs

 

[Micah Sweet]

you may not but others do

Then explain it to me. What's the issue here?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or just change it so it can be removed without those NPCs

Not my preference. PCs have it too easy as it is, IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

But that there is one single spell that a caster can just pop out their butt the next morning is kinda insulting and unfun. Might as well make it fixable by a long rest at this point and save ink by cutting Greater Restoration.

Except keep in mind that a majority of play (maybe even a big majority) of play occurs at levels lower than would see a party able to cast Greater Restoration in the field, meaning the fix often isn't as easy as you here make it sound.

Maybe the answer is to jump Greater Restoration up a few levels?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except keep in mind that a majority of play (maybe even a big majority) of play occurs at levels lower than would see a party able to cast Greater Restoration in the field, meaning the fix often isn't as easy as you here make it sound.

Maybe the answer is to jump Greater Restoration up a few levels?

I would love to see Greater Restoration at 7th or 8th level.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Then explain it to me. What's the issue here?

we have... there is a 'rock paper siciors' where you NEED magic to undo somethings. We want this to be limited. We want NON magic answers (they don't have to be 'anyone can' but something like an expert in healers kit and/or medicine should be able to do SOMETHING)

 

[Lanefan]

I found the number of conditions that required magic in older D&D or inflicted permanent detriments quite frustrating from a narrative and play experience perspective. Monster defenses requiring magic weapons or spells to get through to them. Healing hp. Monster attacks that can only be fixed by spells (energy drain, mummy rot, clay golem) or not at all (ghost aging). This continued into 3e with things like ability drain solely being cured by greater restoration.

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.

Very swingy is good. Modern D&D needs more swingy.

Spectres with their incorporeality and energy drain in older D&D look like they are designed to be specific Ravenloft villains on the level of Nazgul where you hear about a cursed dead lord who haunts an area with numerous victims, you hear about how deadly it is but through investigations you find out their weakness and how to keep them at bay and put them to rest.

But no, there are generally three unnamed spectres in a catacombs or deep dungeon room you come upon who take away levels when they hit in combat and who have a lot of HD and you need magic to fight them. Having a cleric means you can restore the levels lost when they attack, if not you are out of luck.

Er...Restoration in 1e is a 7th-level spell; meaning its caster has to be 16th (!) level. Not many parties have one of those in their lineup.

Level loss in 1e is nasty - and that's the point. Yes, the odds are you can get it (partly) fixed once back in town, but in the field you're out of luck.

This drove things like having clerics in a party being fairly mandatory to deal with normal D&D situations instead of just an option.

No different than needing a mage to deal with other typical situations, a fighter or two to deal with other typical situations, and a thief to deal with yet others.

A party with holes in its lineup shouldn't expect to have the same capabilities as a well-rounded group.

I much preferred the promise of the equipment lists having things like stakes and mirrors and garlic and holy symbols to deal with vampires, silver daggers and arrows to deal with wights, and belladona to deal with werewolves. Magic weapons and clerics were great against most of those, but a non-magical person had options and there was lore about stuff that you could search out and exploit.

Same here, but IMO the lore and the magic can work alongside each other just fine.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

One would think a DM who is using effects that require x-elements to fix is going to somehow make sure those x-elements are somewhere out there in the setting.

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.

I can see the rationale for having some things just not be fixable; that, say, a character who gets hit hard by a clay golem has little choice but to retire from adventuring at the next opportunity. In that way it's no different than having a character permanently die off, except the character is in fact still out there and can still be useful in other stay-at-home ways e.g. looking after the party's home base, providing expertise and ideas, acting as a communications link, and so forth.

It's a very gritty style of play, but I get it.

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.

Where I don't mind the concept where sometimes a party's line-up makes a cakewalk out of an encounter that might be hella difficult if not impossible for a party of a different lineup.

The downside of setting up encounters designed to let a particular class or species have its moment in the spotlight - which is something I see recommended now and then as good adventure design - is that a party lacking said class or species is in tough. I'm fine with this.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Where I prefer the 1979 version, as this feature is what makes the clay golem both unique and scary. If memory serves, no other monster has this feature. Maybe more should.