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

[tetrasodium]

Whereas I would say magic has gone from "technically optional but practically required" to "technically avoidable but practically everywhere," and that it is very specifically the second half of the first statement which inevitably led to the second statement coming about.

The fact that 5e specifically chose to avoid including a popular, it controversial, non-magical class certainly didn't help matters...nor the fact that it enforced outright spellcasting on classes that had actually had their spellcasting reduced or eliminated in the previous edition!

When "fire lots of arrows" has been turned into a spell rather than a thing a mundane person can just do with training, it's not just "magic has taken over." It is also "even mundane things are being treated as if they were magical."

Magic has become both more widespread and more watered down.

I'd say this happened to the degree that eberron of all things lacked room to add its own flair to a meaningful degree. Rising is a great book for the setting but it's still basically stock 5e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There are two different issues from my perspective. There's the cool long lasting effects that have pretty much been nerfed to ground so magic has no real permanence to it. Then there are the lame nope buttons that obviate stuff with no real chance of failure. The first we should embrace and not lose. The no you don't buttons should be shot into outer space.

In general we make the wrong choices on this stuff. By nerfing wizards instead of making fighters more awesome we create a stale game environment where players don't get any access to setting altering stuff.

I'm not sure we made all the wrong choices. A number of those "change the world" things really were too much. But I can grant that because people couldn't let non-spellcasters have nice things, we've had to move away from some of the phenomenal cosmic power.

I'd say this happened to the degree that eberron of all things lacked room to add its own flair to a meaningful degree. Rising is a great book for the setting but it's still basically stock 5e.

Yep, I can totally see that. Eberron worked in 3e and 4e. I'm not sure it works in 5e.

 

[FireLance]

I think my main issues with 5E magic arise from a number of spells that I find problematic, either because they seem overpowered, even if it is under specific circumstances or against specific targets, such as heat metal, because their effectiveness varies too much based on what individual DMs deem to be reasonable, such as suggestion, or because they can be used for cheesy (in my opinion) exploits, such as simulacrum. Hopefully, the upcoming revision will tone down, clarify or otherwise revise these spels.

I would prefer it if spellcasters had access to a smaller number of spell slots at a time (say, one spell slot per level of spell they can cast) and had to take short rests to replenish expended spell slots, but I doubt this is a common preference because it seems to me that players of long rest spellcasters love the ability to go nova.

 

[MGibster]

And I don't know WHY I have felt this way...

Maybe because you're getting older? I'm not joking. As I've grown older, I find that I don't like the over-the-top super powered version of things. I just finished watching Cyberpunk: Edgerunners on Netflix, and while I enjoyed the story well enough, the abilities of those with a lot of cybernetics was more akin to what I'd expect from a Marvel movie than cyberpunk. And I'm like that for fantasy as well. In D&D terms, Lord of the Rings is low magic. Gandalf never throws any fireballs that I can recall. But there are some more concrete problems with the magic level in D&D.

I wonder if a lot of options are avoided simply because a lot of tables go for simplicity over complexity?

Bingo. It's why I don't bother asking everyone to keep track of their spell components. I just don't want the hassle.

 

[Hussar]

So, this post by @James Gasik really hit home and got me thinking about something...


For some reason (I really cannot tell you why!) the last few years I've been playing 5E I've desired a "low-magic" style setting/game. I have been all of keeping it more mundane, heroic but not "superheroic", keeping magic and magical items rare, making the game gritty with easier death and harder recovery.

And I don't know WHY I have felt this way...

I began decades ago with B/X and AD&D and I was perfectly happy up to 3rd edition with flying wizards, teleportation, and similar magic mention in the quote above. I never had any problem with mighty magic weapons and regions of mystical mysteries lost for ages, where strange and unusual were common occurrences.

But, for some unknown reason, in 5E I don't seem to want it anymore, while it is part of the game (as James says...) and has been for years.

So, I am not seeking answers, but if anyone has thoughts or wants to discuss it, please let me know. It would be nice if I could find a reason why...

I've only read the first page of responses, but, here's my 2cp.

@Lanefan nails it pretty much on the head right off. 5e has made magic so common that it's not really interesting, plus, most of the magic is pretty much the same as every other magic. Back in the day, your cleric did not have ANY direct damage spells until quite high level. Now, it makes more sense for your cleric to be lobbing Sacred Flame every single round instead of attacking with a mace. And the only thing that really differentiates that cleric casting Sacred Flame to the Wizard casting Firebolt to that Druid casting Produce flame is the damage die. Whoopee.

Clerics and druids in earlier editions would be far more likely to be mixing it up in melee than lobbing spells every single round. Add to that the fact that pretty much every class has spells and we've gone from encounters where you might see a couple of spells to having spells absolutely dominating play every single round of combat and quite often being used outside of combat as well.

Low magic setting unplayable in 5ed?

Depending on how you define low magic, I'd say yes, it very much is. My version of a low magic game means that in any given encounter, you might only see one or two spells. Not multiple spells being cast every single round.

 

[Hussar]

Really all that's needed to make it grittier and lower magic is a different set of classes. None of the rules or monsters have to change.

Now this I agree with. It's always been something of a disappointment to me that while caster (full and half) classes have gotten tons of support, the non-caster classes don't get that many subclasses (since you only really have a few chassis to build on) and many times those new subclasses are every bit as magical as a caster - Barbarian I'm looking at you.

Yeah, I know that this is the constant drum beat, but, if we could get a non-magical healer class cough*warlord*cough and a few more low magic subclasses for other classes (a cleric subclass that trades higher than 2nd level spell slots for something that isn't spells for example) we could actually get a proper low magic setting off the ground.

 

[payn]

One thing no edition has done well is explain exactly what levels mean, and how magic is supposed to work/feel, etc.. Part of that is folks not reading the DMG (sometimes even the PHB) and just sticking to the way they always did it. For example, in 3E I had too many to count GMs that thought magic items were strictly rewards they decided if the PCs got or not. According to the rules, you need those magic items to keep up with the math and so running around with masterwork gear at level 8 isn't going to work even if it did in your '82 days.

Imma sound like a broken record here but I really wish the modularity idea had more legs from NEXT. Folks don't seem to like the idea of running zero levels or starting at 3rd etc.. to adjust the game the way they think it ought to play. Some folks want magic items rare and cool, others want them plentiful and routine. Why cant there be a base system with bounded accuracy and another magic item dial up that accounts for the added math and gives tools to both players and GMs to do so? Probably because its more trouble than its worth. 5E is hugely popular so why bother making it work for everyone especially when it would require so much supplement.

The other huge issue is the lack of interest in anything not current D&D. Many games provide exactly what folks want, but they are hard to populate with folks to get going. Internets has made it easier than ever, but still folks like to stick to F2F and their friends and so its got limits. So, here we are arguing, yet again, about how we want D&D to work thanks to another edition churn.

 

[ECMO3]

----

I wonder if a lot of options are avoided simply because a lot of tables go for simplicity over complexity?

I don't think so because almost every table accepts more complexity with feats. Feats are far more complex than any one of the DMG options I mentioned except facing.

 

[ECMO3]

I think my main issues with 5E magic arise from a number of spells that I find problematic, either because they seem overpowered, even if it is under specific circumstances or against specific targets, such as heat metal, because their effectiveness varies too much based on what individual DMs deem to be reasonable, such as suggestion, or because they can be used for cheesy (in my opinion) exploits, such as simulacrum. Hopefully, the upcoming revision will tone down, clarify or otherwise revise these spels.

I doubt you will see any toning down. If they change magic at all it will almost certainly be to make it more powerful and/or more prevalent.

You might get more options for non-casters to get high level magic through a feat or something. So a 17th level Barbarian who can get a simulacrum spell with a feat for example, that way the cheese is not limited to wizards.

I doubt this is a common preference because it seems to me that players of long rest spellcasters love the ability to go nova.

It is pretty awesome.

 

[billd91]

Does it make you enjoy 5e more to not only constantly disparage and complain about it, but to always assume the most cynical of reasons for WotC to make the design decisions they do (which you then pass off as established fact)?

There's really a lot of that going around.