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

[Bill Zebub]

It's just the default. When my friend ran his desert campaign (which was survival oriented), he went through and removed spells that didn't fit his campaign (goodberry, create water, etc). And we played a fun campaign that went at least to 13th level, maybe higher (although the survival aspect was a bit tedious at times).

You have to have some kind of a default after all. While I realize that old-school gamers would likely prefer a more old-school default, IMO this was the better design choice WRT the game's popularity.

I think the problem with that approach is that there’s no official guidance to back up DM fiat here. If you remove those spells you look like a mean DM. In my group that would be ok; I think reactions would range from “that sounds like fun” to private grumbling. But the impression I get on this forum is that at many tables that would lead to arguments and resentment.

If there were official guidance on what classes/subclasses/spells/rules to include or exclude based on setting, the DM could say, “We are going to play (setting type); use the standard list to see what options are allowed”. I for one would find that useful.

 

[John R Davis]

They are using extraordinary abilities, but so are barbarians, fighters and rogues. That doesn’t make them magic-users.

Its quasi-magic or as close to magic as you can get without calling it that.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't feel like that's the case for me, and I've been playing for 40+ years. For me, magic seems less special because in 5e everyone can cast some type of spell - between class/subclass/feat/race/background, etc. Everyone has magic, unless you decide specifically not to (i.e. Champion, and even then, they could Feat into it, or get a cantrip by being an elf, albeit, likely suboptimally).

I think the ubiquitous multi-classing does not help on that score either.

4e started with as many martial classes as casting ones including the ranger without magic. ... Pure martial further received a ton of support in a very short time in books like Martial Power I and II. Although you very much could invest them with magic via a background or feats and later a theme, however it felt a lot less easy

 

[Laurefindel]

It's just the default. When my friend ran his desert campaign (which was survival oriented), he went through and removed spells that didn't fit his campaign (goodberry, create water, etc). And we played a fun campaign that went at least to 13th level, maybe higher (although the survival aspect was a bit tedious at times).

You have to have some kind of a default after all. While I realize that old-school gamers would likely prefer a more old-school default, IMO this was the better design choice WRT the game's popularity.

This

D&D (apparently) aims to offer a complete array of propositions with a multitude of options making all kinds of different campaigns possible. All mixed together, it leads to a kitchen-sink world where all options are possible at once, but I do not think this is how it has to be. An immense step toward a low-magic or a more grounded setting can be achieved by selecting which options, out of all things proposed by D&D, will be used in the game.

As with all things this is an all-player decision, otherwise you get into the « how dare you BAN things that D&D allows me to do by RIGHT! »

 

[Garthanos]

If there were official guidance on what classes/subclasses/spells/rules to include or exclude based on setting, the DM could say, “We are going to play (setting type); use the standard list to see what options are allowed”. I for one would find that useful.

Then when the DM said we are going to use my custom setting that is sort of like that one its not a huge jump... I kind of like that idea

 

[Garthanos]

A wizard who focuses on abjuration spells and is a powerhouse with those, but weak with other magic makes a great story. Most of the wizards I see pull their spells from the most recent “10 most overpowered spells” video.

Oh so having balanced spell lists has a value....

 

[Micah Sweet]

I get your point, but I still disagree. I consider myself a story DM, and oftentimes, these innovations do not serve the story.

LTH? A ranger relying on their woodcraft to select a safe spot to sleep and camouflaging it serves the story. The wizard not even spending a spell slot to pop up an indestructible tent does not.

Darkvision? The dwarf accustomed to dark passageways, snorting at his colleagues whose eyes do not adjust as his do, that’s a pretty good story. So is having the dwarf go first instead of the rogue because his darkvision makes him more likely to see traps. A party where everyone except the dragonborn can see in the dark is just not as interesting.

A wizard who focuses on abjuration spells and is a powerhouse with those, but weak with other magic makes a great story. Most of the wizards I see pull their spells from the most recent “10 most overpowered spells” video.

On more story-oriented games, high magic both tends to be a story breaker and distort how NPCs react. The king being assassinated is not a big deal when the court cleric can just cast an auto-success Revivify!

That's not the story they're trying to encourage. What it seems people want is, "the PCs run around kicking increasingly dangerous-looking butt".

 

[Cadence]

Oh so having balanced spell lists has a value....

Actually thinking about spell lists and how they impact play seems like a thing.

I remember trying to balance things some back in 2e when I made a suite of custom clerics for a campaign. Later, PF 1e had separate lists for all kinds of classes too, right? (Say for the Magus or others that we're limited by theme).

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think the problem with that approach is that there’s no official guidance to back up DM fiat here. If you remove those spells you look like a mean DM. In my group that would be ok; I think reactions would range from “that sounds like fun” to private grumbling. But the impression I get on this forum is that at many tables that would lead to arguments and resentment.

If there were official guidance on what classes/subclasses/spells/rules to include or exclude based on setting, the DM could say, “We are going to play (setting type); use the standard list to see what options are allowed”. I for one would find that useful.

I would say that this is more about a disconnect between what the DM thinks would be fun vs what the players think would be fun, than anything inherent to the system.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be opposed to such advice. But I think the DMs having trouble selling their players on their survival house rules would have just as much trouble selling their players on the official survival mode option. (Assuming that they're mechanically alike.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would say that this is more about a disconnect between what the DM thinks would be fun vs what the players think would be fun, than anything inherent to the system.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be opposed to such advice. But I think the DMs having trouble selling their players on their survival house rules would have just as much trouble selling their players on the official survival mode option. (Assuming that they're mechanically alike.)

It does seem like there are just not enough players out there who find limits of any kind fun, and so the issue will continue to snowball.