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

[Hussar]

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 earlier D&D levels of magic, though I think current 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.

To be perfectly honest, I seem to go through the same pattern every edition.

Start the edition being very conservative with magic, trying to keep the power levels down, strict with character creation choices and the like. Over time become less restrictive until fully embracing the edition and just going with the flow because it makes play SOOOO much easier.

That describes pretty much every edition I've played from 2e going forward. In 5e now? I don't even bother vetting character sheets anymore. You want to play a flumph bard with a home-brew sub-class? Go right ahead. (and this actually describes the newest character in my Candlekeep campaign).

Sometimes the path of least resistance is just a lot easier and more fun than trying to constantly swim upstream. The notion that I'd need a hundred pages of house rules written down to play just sounds SO exhausting.

 

[Minigiant]

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?

Tiers

Overall, the community cannot agree on what any non-full-spellcaster should look like past level 10.

Thaat's why there are some many Wizard and Fighter threads and videos here and all over the internet.

There are solutions to this. However WOTC's "Thou Shall NOT Rewrite The PHB" policy prevents this and they are lucky most groups collapse before level 11.

 

[Hussar]

Tiers

Overall, the community cannot agree on what any non-full-spellcaster should look like past level 10.

Thaat's why there are some many Wizard and Fighter threads and videos here and all over the internet.

There are solutions to this. However WOTC's "Thou Shall NOT Rewrite The PHB" policy prevents this and they are lucky most groups collapse before level 11.

I can't really argue with this.

Since most play centers around the "sweet spot" between 3rd or 4th and 11th, most groups just don't care about this stuff. Who cares what an epic level fighter can do if no one ever plays an epic level fighter. And, in ten years, this is the first time I've ever played in double digit levels too, so, yeah, I can see the point.

Then again, I think it's telling that every group I played in, or DM'd, almost without exception, had virtually all either half or full casters. I think I'm about the only one out of a fairly large number of players (20+ or so over the years) that ever played a straight up fighter, and, even that turned into a half caster by the tail end of the campaign.

Considering any evidence we've seen of various classes being played shows a pretty even distribution between the classes, it would make sense that most groups are pretty high magic.

 

[Fanaelialae]

OK, I could get behind something like this. But you'll get howls of protest from those who want to use Polymorph as a combat spell.

That said, in 1e there used to be two different polymorph spells: Polymorph Self and Polymorph Other. Poly Other was baneful and carried massive risks to the target - you would never even think of casting it on an ally. Poly Self was safe but had serious limits on what you could turn yourself into, and only worked on the caster. These were decent limits.

Somewhere along the editions these two spells got combined, and all the risks were taken out; which broke it.

Yeah, I remember PS and PO.

PS was an absurdly good utility spell. You could literally change forms every round, and you weren't limited to animals. You only got locomotive abilities, but this was broadly defined (EGG uses the example of turning into a black pudding to squeeze under a door). In this respect, the 5e version is significantly nerfed.

IMO, the way EGG tried to balance PO, in particular, was pretty bad. Sure, it was something that you didn't generally want to cast on an ally due to the System Shock check to avoid instant death. It could permanently turn them into basically anything, however, so note how EGG had to include a sentence into the spell description saying that creatures prefer their own forms and don't want to be polymorphed. My guess is because some evil wizard player tried to polymorph their henchmen into an army of dragons. I guess that "restriction" doesn't apply to a wizard who casts PS on himself? A spell description that tries to tell me what a character wants or doesn't want is... questionable at best.

Moreover, while the system shock vs death and the check to maintain your mind made it definitely risky to use against allies, it made it significantly stronger than it otherwise would have been against enemies. Not only did the BBEG have to make a save or suck, it came with the risk of death and losing their ability to think like an intelligent creature!

I think that 5e Polymorph is one of the less-well balanced spells in the edition, but IMO it's still leagues ahead of 1e PS and PO in terms of quality of design.

 

[Cadence]

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?

What would be the in world reason the fighter can only push people back a couple times a day, or choke them a couple times a day? For Wizards right now it's the memorization mechanic and something about room in their brain.

An exertion cost for the great fighter abilities (like A5e) feels like a way to go for me. And no reason for it to be just fighters if there is some other mechanic that is being spammed it could be used there too.

 

[Minigiant]

I can't really argue with this.

Since most play centers around the "sweet spot" between 3rd or 4th and 11th, most groups just don't care about this stuff. Who cares what an epic level fighter can do if no one ever plays an epic level fighter. And, in ten years, this is the first time I've ever played in double digit levels too, so, yeah, I can see the point.

Then again, I think it's telling that every group I played in, or DM'd, almost without exception, had virtually all either half or full casters. I think I'm about the only one out of a fairly large number of players (20+ or so over the years) that ever played a straight up fighter, and, even that turned into a half caster by the tail end of the campaign.

Considering any evidence we've seen of various classes being played shows a pretty even distribution between the classes, it would make sense that most groups are pretty high magic.

The nonspellcasters tend to be good and influential at the sweet spot.

It's at the end of the sweet spot, level 9 or so, when casters and spell appear all over both sides of the screen and people start getting sick of It. But people want to play past level 10 and roll up PCs for it.

People also tend to play casters because designers tend to stretch nonspell class features out over many levels to prevent frontloading. So it takes all the way until tier 3 to get everything.

Whereas 90% of spells are designed separated from class, have legacy placements, and are not placed by tier. All those very powerful low level spells should be higher tier. Why is Tiny Hut castable before level 13?. But legacy

 

[reelo]

People also tend to play casters because designers tend to stretch nonspell class features out over many levels to prevent frontloading.

I actually like frontloading class abilities, and the lack of frontloading is, in a way, my main gripe with modern iterations of D&D.

 

[Art Waring]

And in Shadowrun, doing anything fun (using magic or hacking stuff etc) usually means somebody can detect you and find you, it's kinda a pain sometimes.

With hacking, yes absolutely. But with magic its not always the case. Fighting street punks and doing street runs isn't the same as doing a run on a major corp or a syndicate outfit with the resources to deal with mages.

But the "doing anything fun" comment sounds just a bit off to me, as I have played shadowrun since 2e (not playing SR currently tho, doing 5e stuff), and have had years of fun, playing street sammy's, mages, and once a hacker (I don't like the hacking system, since it becomes a solo show, no fun for the table). I think there is a lot of potential for fun, just my opinion.

Back to the subject, magic with risks can be a lot of fun for the right table. YMMV.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I actually like frontloading class abilities, and the lack of frontloading is, in a way, my main gripe with modern iterations of D&D.

When I have designed classes, the most interesting/compelling/fun abilities seem necessary for the feel of the class. Sure, you can hold off for one, two, three levels. But anything stuck into those 10+ slots will almost never get used.

One solution is to front-load, then sprinkle improvements throughout the upper tiers. But…it’s also nice to get new toys, not just improved ones.

It’s tricky.

 

[Cadence]

When I have designed classes, the most interesting/compelling/fun abilities seem necessary for the feel of the class. Sure, you can hold off for one, two, three levels. But anything stuck into those 10+ slots will almost never get used.

One solution is to front-load, then sprinkle improvements throughout the upper tiers. But…it’s also nice to get new toys, not just improved ones.

It’s tricky.

Is front-loading a lot less trouble without multi-classing being a thing?

I've wondered about how it would work if there were one or two "apprentice levels" below 1st level that someone would take if multi-classing (maybe you need one of them if in a similar class and two if in a very different class?). Would that would be great for a more realistic skill training system but be so harsh mechanics wise that lots of people wouldn't play them? And then I wonder if that would be an ok thing if you already had lots of classes filling the in-between roles (like Magus and the hybrid classes in PF1e) and lots of archetypes? (I'm assuming those that like finding the most powerful 1 or 2 level dips would really disagree).