D&D 5E Why Has D&D, and 5e in Particular, Gone Down the Road of Ubiquitous Magic?

[Tony Vargas]

Ummm......

Cantrips roughly = weapon attacks, so a caster's goodie is "deal 1d10 fire damage" (firebolt) and the fighter's goodie is "deal 1d10 piercing damage." (longbow)

These are pretty much the same goodie.

Apart from cantrips sometimes having riders or attacking more than one target, and except for weapon attacks adding the attack stat to damage for everyone (vs cantrips mostly not doing so with caster stat), and, perhaps most significantly, weapon attacks scaling via Extra Attack vs cantrips scaling damage dice with level.

Compare superiority dice and crit frequently to slot-using spells, not cantrips.

Exactly.

Sub-class on the other hand, are not intended to be used every round. They are supplemental.
Clerics' channel divinity, tomelocks' rituals, divination's dice replacement, and assassins's free crits happen every once in a while. Either by being limited, or situation. Same with battlemaster, EK, and champion. You get dice/spells/crits every once in a while.

That sounds good, but the fighter has short-rest-recharge goodies on the main class, and casters have most of their spellcasting in the main class, too. And, there's at-will (cantrip) enhancing goodies in sub-classes, too, here & there.

But, yes, at-will weapon attacks need to be compared to at-will cantrips, while maneuvers, EK spells, improved crit, Action Surge, & Second Wind need to be compared to other rest-recharge resources, like neo-Vancian casting, Warlock short-rest-recharge casting, channel divinity, and the like...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Apart from cantrips sometimes having riders or attacking more than one target, and except for weapon attacks adding the attack stat to damage for everyone (vs cantrips mostly not doing so with caster stat), and, perhaps most significantly, weapon attacks scaling via Extra Attack vs cantrips scaling damage dice with level.

Yeah, there are some subtle differences, but it's kind of like comparing, I dunno Tide of Iron and Wolf Pack Tactics from 4e. They've got differences, but they're on pretty much the same power scale.

So much so that in 5e, I think one of the more interesting "low magic" houserules is just to replace cantrips with individual weapon proficiencies.

Now Gandalf wields a sword!

 

[innerdude]

*Do not taunt flaming sphere.

Just in case anyone doesn't get the joke:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HappyFunBall

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah, there are some subtle differences, but it's kind of like comparing, I dunno Tide of Iron and Wolf Pack Tactics from 4e. They've got differences, but they're on pretty much the same power scale.

So much so that in 5e, I think one of the more interesting "low magic" houserules is just to replace cantrips with individual weapon proficiencies.

Now Gandalf wields a sword!

Unless Gandalf gets extra attacks with that sword at higher levels, it doesn't keep up with cantrips.

Of course you could rule that such casters infuse their strikes with magical might doing 2W damage at level 5 and 3W damage at level 11.

This will be roughly equal with cantrip use. The caster would get STR or DEX modifier to damage, but they wouldn't use their casting stat to hit. So damage may go up a bit, but attack modifier would be a bit lower.

 

[innerdude]

But if you're playing a "wizard", is a pretty dangerous crossbowman really what you're looking for? I think for most players, that class choice is a pretty clear indication that the "something interesting" they want to be doing is casting spells.

Maybe. But then again, D&D has systematically never given a wizard anything else to do that didn't require multiclassing.

If you have the choice of casting a spell or doing something highly ineffective, of course you're going to choose to cast a spell. Being told by the rules that you can cast spells and do pretty much nothing else isn't necessarily an endorsement of the "doing nothing else" portion of the equation.

Given the choice of, "I really, really want to cast spells, so I guess I'll choose the class that lets me cast spells and do pretty much nothing else"? versus "I can cast spells, and be a highly effective archer, a competent hand-to-hand fighter, wear chain armor, and have effective skills in tracking, investigation, healing, horse riding, animal handling, and stealth," which one would you choose?

I guess if you're REALLY into the "flavor" of being a "wizardly wizard" you might choose the former, but give me the the choice of a character with the ability to do exactly ONE interesting thing, versus the ability to do nine interesting things, and I'll take "nine interesting things" every time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Unless Gandalf gets extra attacks with that sword at higher levels, it doesn't keep up with cantrips.

Of course you could rule that such casters infuse their strikes with magical might doing 2W damage at level 5 and 3W damage at level 11.

This will be roughly equal with cantrip use. The caster would get STR or DEX modifier to damage, but they wouldn't use their casting stat to hit. So damage may go up a bit, but attack modifier would be a bit lower.

Yep. And now you're getting at part of why this probably went over like a lead balloon...

"I'm a wizard. Why in Gygax's name am I getting better at hitting things with a sword when I level up?"

When the alternative is acid splash and prestidigitation, I can tell you which one would fit my image of what a wizard is better.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, there are some subtle differences, but it's kind of like comparing, I dunno Tide of Iron and Wolf Pack Tactics from 4e. They've got differences, but they're on pretty much the same power scale.

Not so much, no. Even comparing Twin Strike to Magic Missile doesn't quite capture it, since even Twin Strike eventually scaled with another [W]. You didn't ever get more at-will attacks/round just by leveling in 4e, your attack bonus just scaled like crazy on the infamous treadmill.

Making multiple attacks starting at 5th level vs just getting a second die of damage at 5th level has surprisingly distinct implications in 5e. Even if the cantrip caster gets an ability that lets him add his caster stat to damage, it's not generally per-die, for instance. Damage balloons faster with multiple attacks than with similar scaling of damage dice, alone. (Really, scaling damage dice is the more practical, playable mechanic - multiple attacks have proven problematic in every edition.)

So much so that in 5e, I think one of the more interesting "low magic" houserules is just to replace cantrips with individual weapon proficiencies.

Frankly, I don't see cantrips as what makes it 'high magic,' it's the much higher power & setting-impact of spells that can be systematically cast every day that does that. Being able to cast firebolt all day long is barely more world-unsettling than running around with torches, oil, and flaming arrows.

Given the choice of, "I really, really want to cast spells, so I guess I'll choose the class that lets me cast spells and do pretty much nothing else"? versus "I can cast spells, and be a highly effective archer, a competent hand-to-hand fighter, wear chain armor, and have effective skills in tracking, investigation, healing, horse riding, animal handling, and stealth," which one would you choose?

Historically, players haven't been that hot to play Clerics instead of magic-users, though, so maybe you're missing something.

I guess if you're REALLY into the "flavor" of being a "wizardly wizard" you might choose the former, but give me the the choice of a character with the ability to do exactly ONE interesting thing, versus the ability to do nine interesting things, and I'll take "nine interesting things" every time.

'Casting spells' isn't just one interesting thing, it's level+CasterStatMod interesting things that you can switch up every day.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yep. And now you're getting at part of why this probably went over like a lead balloon...

"I'm a wizard. Why in Gygax's name am I getting better at hitting things with a sword when I level up?"

You're a wizard, which means you're an adventurer who sees combat on a regular basis. Eighty percent of what you do in combat is attacking with a sword and using your sword to prevent people from hitting you. How could you not get better at using your sword when you level up?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not so much, no. Even comparing Twin Strike to Magic Missile doesn't quite capture it, since even Twin Strike eventually scaled with another [W]. You didn't ever get more at-will attacks/round just by leveling in 4e, your attack bonus just scaled like crazy on the infamous treadmill.

The comparison is just that they are rough equivalents - that they have broadly the same impact in play. They are different, but that difference doesn't result in one being better or worse than the other in general (though in specific instances, one is probably better than the other).

The differences that are there don't change their broad parity. Cantrips crit less often and deal less damage much of the time (more saving throws, fewer attack rolls), but have rider effects. Weapons get mitigated with damage resistance (which just lessens damage); cantrips get mitigated with magic resistance (which removes all consequences of a failed save).

And in the end, the idea that fighters get to play with their features less than wizards do because wizards have cantrips is just shown to not really be the case - wizards play with cantrips, fighters play with martial weapons, these things basically fill the same design space and neither can be said to be objectively better than the other.

You're a wizard, which means you're an adventurer who sees combat on a regular basis. Eighty percent of what you do in combat is attacking with a sword and using your sword to prevent people from hitting you. How could you not get better at using your sword when you level up?

Because when you think about a powerful wizard, "being good with a sword" is not a quality you associate with them. The first obligation of the class system in D&D is to help us realize the character archetypes of fantasy fiction in our gameplay.

It would be like a dwarf developing charm resistance or a barbarian learning algebra. It's not really what you sign up to do when you pick that game element.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Frankly, I don't see cantrips as what makes it 'high magic,' it's the much higher power & setting-impact of spells that can be systematically cast every day that does that. Being able to cast firebolt all day long is barely more world-unsettling than running around with torches, oil, and flaming arrows.

Torches, oil, and arrows are of finite quantity. There are limitations involved around how much of that stuff you can practically lug around at once. A party carrying around a large load of oil, torches, and arrows is obviously up to something.

A fire bolt consumes no resource, is always ready to go, and can set things on fire. That has the potential to be very world unsettling.