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

[EzekielRaiden]

Everyone was a caster in 4e.

No, they weren't.

The classes worked identically.

No, they didn't.

They all had "powers."

All 5e classes have class features. Clearly perfectly identical!

The system was designed to be uniform.

The system was designed to have a common framework. Next thing, you'll be saying every poet who ever wrote in English is exactly the same because they used the same language! Or that every game ever written in Unity is "uniform" solely because they use the same programming language.

"Powers" are literally just...things you do. Claiming they're all spells is absolutely false. Claiming they're all "uniform" simply because they have a standard format is ludicrous.

 

[Undrave]

Everyone was a caster in 4e. The classes worked identically. They all had "powers." The system was designed to be uniform.

Don't start...

 

[dave2008]

Yes making up and adding your own rules counts as making up rules ...house rules
because washing with blood isnt magic.... and only magic can undo magic is the 5e presented method.

The blood is magic.

In effect that kind of thing is part of having to remake the monster manual because it does not suit my narative.

That is the kind of thing TSR or WotC as never provided in any book. It is something I have always brought as a DM to any edition I've played.

Because in 5e land not using magic is supposed to make the game 10 times harder the players handbook says so.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. 5e, IME works great with little to no magic.

 

[Voadam]

Concentration is not really a big deal IME. Most casters easily get by with a single concentration spell and it hardly ever gets broken due to the lowish DC (except on critical hits maybe). Also, IIRC less than half (about 45%) of the spells require concentration.

I felt concentration was a great check on a number of aspects of 3e style caster dominance.

It prevents stacking multiple buffs from one caster so CoDzilla is less of a thing.

It means generally having one big ongoing thing instead of one ongoing thing per round.

It means choice of spell in a round has immediate opportunity costs for that combat.

The PCs in my 6th level fantasy grounds game where the check is automated have lost their concentration spells due to damage plenty of times.

There are a few 5e ongoing spells without it that I think should have it though.

I like it as a rule enough I was considering trying to adopt it as a house rule when considering running a Pathfinder 1e game. (I have a ton more great d20/Pathfinder material but I like the 5e rules a bit better).

 

[Lanefan]

These two statements are orthogonal--or even opposed.

"X supports Y" implies you can use X to do Y without heavy lifting. "The GM can [ed: or, rather, has to] approve any spell, feat, subclass or item used" emphatically is not that. Instead, it's saying that the GM must do a comprehensive review of the entire game and filter out that stuff.

IMO the DM should be doing such a review anyway, of the entire system top to bottom, as standard procedure before running any new edition or rules-set; and making changes and tweaks as and where required.

Think of it as debugging. Every RPG system worth its salt is going to have bugs and proud nails; better to find and fix them before play starts rather than on the fly during the game.

 

[dave2008]

Everyone was a caster in 4e.

Not even close.

The classes worked identically.

The original classes had a similar structure, but the essentials classes where much different.

They all had "powers." The system was designed to be uniform.

The original classes had a similar structure, but they worked and played very differently. If are familiar with roles then you now this well. A controlled did not play like a defender or a striker. Even then different strikers played differently as well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IMO the DM should be doing such a review anyway, of the entire system top to bottom, as standard procedure before running any new edition or rules-set; and making changes and tweaks as and where required.

Think of it as debugging. Every RPG system worth its salt is going to have bugs and proud nails; better to find and fix them before play starts rather than on the fly during the game.

All I can say is, my three favorite systems--4e, 13A, and Dungeon World--didn't need this. It's part of why they're my favorite systems.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There are a few 5e ongoing spells without it that I think should have it though.

We went the other way, removing concentration from half the spells that really shouldn't have it.

Another aspect is spells with are concentration AND allow repeated saving throws (e.g. hold person). If a spell has both, if you concentrate saves cannot be remade; if you don't concentrate, repeated saves are allowed.

 

[dave2008]

Are you interpreting washing in fresh basilisk blood as "other magic"?

In this case yes. A basilisk is clearly a magical creature and therefor can be interpreted to have magical blood. This is nothing against the rules with this ruling. To be clear, this would be player driven in my game. It is not information I give out (just like the spell needed), it would be determined by what the characters do.

I would generally say that making up new stuff is within the DM's purview, but I would also generally say that changing something from requiring magic to not requiring magic is a house rule.

And I think I clearly did the former.

If you decide that basilisks blood is magical and when fresh can break petrification and a PC asks if they know of a remedy or are researching one, that seems just a RAW application of adjudicating their declared action under the knowledge skill rules of 5e.

I should have read your whole response before I started to answer! That is exactly what I do / would do. The idea would only come to be based on a player's declared action(s).

 

[Voadam]

We went the other way, removing concentration from half the spells that really shouldn't have it.

Another aspect is spells with are concentration AND allow repeated saving throws (e.g. hold person). If a spell has both, if you concentrate saves cannot be remade; if you don't concentrate, repeated saves are allowed.

Different tastes.