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

[Micah Sweet]

I disagree. I've always enjoyed rolling for spells as a player. You talk in absolutes there, but players also like it. Players also played with it all the time. Players found it to be an enriching experience, because it meant that wizards weren't clones of one another with all the same spells. "Your spell fizzles!" is one of those ways as I also found anti-magic zones enriching, even as a wizard caught in one. DM have repeatedly and continuously, across basically the entire run of the game, enforced the limits of anti-magic.

In fact, I never played with a DM in 1e or 2e that didn't have us roll for spells or use anti-magic zones. And nobody playing in those games complained about those things or wanted them gone.

This. I appreciate the challenge of working with restrictions and limitations, and honestly have a hard time understanding players who just to do whatever they feel like all the time. That experience feels meaningless and boring to me. Consequences are what choices matter.

 

[Maxperson]

This. I appreciate the challenge of working with restrictions and limitations, and honestly have a hard time understanding players who just to do whatever they feel like all the time. That experience feels meaningless and boring to me. Consequences are what choices matter.

I don't. People like different things. A lot of people like watermelon. And then there are sane people like me who can't stand it. I can understand that people like things to happen differently.

That's why I hate when people talk in absolutes about things like that. Just because they and some others hate anti-magic and rolling for spells, doesn't mean that I and some others don't enjoy them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't. People like different things. A lot of people like watermelon. And then there are sane people like me who can't stand it. I can understand that people like things to happen differently.

That's why I hate when people talk in absolutes about things like that. Just because they and some others hate anti-magic and rolling for spells, doesn't mean that I and some others don't enjoy them.

I understand people like different things. I just don't understand certain playstyles. They're still welcome to them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I disagree. I've always enjoyed rolling for spells as a player. You talk in absolutes there, but players also like it. Players also played with it all the time. Players found it to be an enriching experience, because it meant that wizards weren't clones of one another with all the same spells. "Your spell fizzles!" is one of those ways as I also found anti-magic zones enriching, even as a wizard caught in one. DM have repeatedly and continuously, across basically the entire run of the game, enforced the limits of anti-magic.

In fact, I never played with a DM in 1e or 2e that didn't have us roll for spells or use anti-magic zones. And nobody playing in those games complained about those things or wanted them gone.

I'm not talking in absolutes. I'm talking in statistics.

Statistically, people don't conform to these rules. If they did, there wouldn't be so many complaints about them...and more importantly, they wouldn't get removed so much. They would have stuck around.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not talking in absolutes. I'm talking in statistics.

Statistically, people don't conform to these rules. If they did, there wouldn't be so many complaints about them...and more importantly, they wouldn't get removed so much. They would have stuck around.

Of course there would be. We have 50 million D&D players. If even 1% come and complain, that's 500,000 complaints that you will see, and complainers are MUCH more vocal about it than those that are happy with the situation. The fact is, you don't know the statistics, so you are just taking a wild guess and claiming it as fact.

As for being removed, they got removed in 3e, before anyone was really consulted. It was just a change WotC made in the early days. And anti-magic fields and similar effects(like anti-magic zones in the world) are present to this day. The one mechanic out of the two that was actually removed, wasn't removed over being disliked, because WotC didn't know. They weren't doing the big time surveys that they currently undertake. The removal isn't proof of some kind of massive hatred among players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course there would be. We have 50 million D&D players. If even 1% come and complain, that's 500,000 complaints that you will see, and complainers are MUCH more vocal about it than those that are happy with the situation. The fact is, you don't know the statistics, so you are just taking a wild guess and claiming it as fact.

As for being removed, they got removed in 3e, before anyone was really consulted. It was just a change WotC made in the early days. And anti-magic fields and similar effects(like anti-magic zones in the world) are present to this day. The one mechanic out of the two that was actually removed, wasn't removed over being disliked, because WotC didn't know. They weren't doing the big time surveys that they currently undertake. The removal isn't proof of some kind of massive hatred among players.

They've been being removed since 2e, at the absolute latest.

The limits were hard, pervasive, and strong in OD&D. They got lessened in 1e. They got further lessened in 2e, before being dropped almost entirely in 3e, after which, they've never come back.

Why, if so may people are so happy with this, didn't the D&D Next playtest reveal that? Why was it never even considered?

Because the designers don't want it--and they have sufficient data to back up not doing it. It's that simple. You saw how quick they were to drop the playtest Sorcerer and Warlock, despite those now being pretty well recognized as great ideas. If the "silent majority" wanted to jump through hoops to get their spells, you can bet your britches the designers would have known. So either they--for some unknown reason--defied player expectations and desires on this one issue, despite otherwise bending over backwards, or this supposed majority that loves this stuff doesn't exist.

 

[Hussar]

Strongly agree. Back in 1e and 2e, practically every NPC that had a name and a half-way plausible reason had a few levels of a character class (often fighter or thief). I miss seeing that, as now PCs are weird aliens with no real ties to the world they ostensibly grew up in.

Really?

In the Monster Manual, zero monsters had class levels. The first time I saw an NPC with actual class levels was in Village of Homlett and it was like one NPC. The only NPC's that had levels were humans and demi-humans. Otherwise, they never had class levels.

 

[Maxperson]

They've been being removed since 2e, at the absolute latest.

Both anti-magic and rolling to learn spells/max spells per level were in 2e. Anti/no magic zones were as well and all over the place.

Why, if so may people are so happy with this, didn't the D&D Next playtest reveal that? Why was it never even considered?

Antimagic is in 5e right now, so I'm not sure what you mean by "why was it never even considered?"

 

[Hussar]

The whole issue with magic is that no one will allow a non-magic character to do anything that a 3rd level caster can't do better.

A 20th level Assassin cannot instantly kill an opponent (assuming it has enough HP to survive the hit of course). Meanwhile, the casters have 15 different ways to instantly kill that same opponent. Good grief, a non-magical character can't even choke something.

Let that sink in for a moment. It is literally impossible for my non-magical character to choke something. Never minding stunning it. A 3rd level wizard with Tasha's Hideous Laughter can incapacitate anything in the game (granted, the chances are pretty low for bigger critters, but, still not zero) for 1 minute. A dragon can be incapacitated by a 3rd level caster (again, ignoring things like auto-saves and whatnot - stay with me on this). Granted, again, the chances are very small, but, again, not zero.

Your 20th level fighter cannot do this. Full stop. As in literally cannot hit something on the head and stun it for a minute. It is impossible to KO an opponent without getting through all its HP.

When people talk about wanting a lower magic D&D, at least to me, THIS is what we're talking about. I don't want a fighter that can fly or blow up a house or anything like that. I just want a fighter that can do stuff that a 5th level caster can do. Hell, I'd be happy if a fighter (or non-magic type) could do what a THIRD level caster could do.

It cannot possibly be a balance thing. If Tasha's Hideous Laughter is perfectly fine for a 3rd level caster, then giving that same sort of effect - 1 minute of stun, save every round - to a 12th level fighter cannot possibly be broken. If Thunder Wave can push back opponents 10 feet from a 1st level caster, surely a 9th level Monk should be able to do the same thing?

I just don't get the push back here. What is the problem with granting non-magical characters plausible effects that are similar in nature to what VERY low level casters get?

 

[Andvari]

When I was a teenager, I was really into low magic settings, and thought magic was sometimes too prevalent in D&D. Perhaps because I was very inspired by The Lord of the Rings, reading the MERP rules and the Dragonlance novels where magic felt more dangerous and rare. The BECMI/AD&D stuff was a little too magic intensive for my tastes back then.

But since I've grown to favor D&D levels of magic (and thinking just having 1 spell at level 1 like in BECMI is too little), though I think more modern systems such as 3E, 5E and Pathfinder have too much magic with stuff like cantrips for example. Particularly the unlimited variety. But I do like a relatively steady flow of magic items as part of the reward system.