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

[Umbran]

I didn't say anything about base assumptions here.

No, you didn't, but I think it largely follows, anyway.

All talk of inclusiveness and modularity notwithstanding, a well-designed system, by in large does what is in its base assumptions. The farther something is from the base assumptions, the less you're apt to see it, and the less well the system will handle it, generally speaking.

Moreoever, if the base assumptions are along the lines of what the players want, then the more distant a thing is from the base assumptions, the less impetus there's usually going to be to develop it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Torches, oil, and arrows are of finite quantity.

So are the number of firebolts you can cook off in one day, you can equip an army with incendiaries and burn down a lot more than a lone caster spamming firebolt could. That's what I mean about it not impacting the world overmuch. Conversely, actual spell slots can do things you can't begin to do with medieval technology, even with tons of people involved.

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).

Sure, most cantrips are mainly a source of DPR, as are weapon attacks in general and Extra Attack in particular. Multiple attacks, though, as a mechanic, can go off the rails more dramatically than slowly-scaling damage dice, while cantrips can do a bit more than just damage, and can force a bad save rather than rattle off a high AC, among other things.

They're quite different. Cantrips are a little more varied so can have a situational edge, but, at bottom, probably less abuseable where optimization is concerned.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

You probably also don't think, "Flying and invisible, while dropping meteors on people." A wizard in D&D has never been a great example of any classic fantasy archetype. A wizard in D&D is a wizard in D&D, and that's down to the edition to define what that means exactly.

For most people, they hear "wizard" and think "Gandalf" - and as the foremost paragon of fantasy wizardry, he wants to avoid using any sort of (useful) magic unless it's absolutely necessary. It shouldn't seem weird to get on board with that.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So are the number of firebolts you can cook off in one day, you can equip an army with incendiaries and burn down a lot more than a lone caster spamming firebolt could. That's what I mean about it not impacting the world overmuch. Conversely, actual spell slots can do things you can't begin to do with medieval technology, even with tons of people involved.

A single person equipped with nothing, can ONLY produce roughly the same effects as a small mercenary force equipped with incendiaries.

Whew! What a relief. Here I am thinking that would be a nightmare security concern.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

A single person equipped with nothing, can ONLY produce roughly the same effects as a small mercenary force equipped with incendiaries.

Whew! What a relief. Here I am thinking that would be a nightmare security concern.

It's not like they can also come back from the dead or anything, right?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

A single person equipped with nothing, can ONLY produce roughly the same effects as a small mercenary force equipped with incendiaries.

You are doing that thing where you ignore logistic concerns because it would make your argument look as ridiculous as it is.

I.e. one guy with firebolt can't burn down a village in a day because the villagers heavily outnumber him and can stop him because it takes 100s of actions for him to get the job done - but 100s of actions delivered simultaneously by an army of guys with torches and oil is not only harder for the villagers to stop because they are the ones outnumbered now, but also because it takes a whole lot less time for the army to get the job done.

So in practicality, firebolt is nowhere near "roughly the same effects" as you claimed it was.

 

[pemerton]

If you want magic to feel special and magical, then I believe you do, which is the point of this thread. In order to make magic special, you have to create gameplay moments where players think, "now's the time to break out the big guns!".

I don't agree with this. The special-ness of magic need not be connected to being "the big guns". It can be done through the flavour of magic-use, or the mechanics of magic-use, or the range of effects that magic is able to achieve.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A single person equipped with nothing, can ONLY produce roughly the same effects as a small mercenary force equipped with incendiaries.

Very small force with only one guy shooting the flaming arrows, yeah (unless that one guy is a 5+ level fighter type, then he's shooting arrows twice as fast the cantrip guy is firebolts), otherwise, no. Heck, even a handful of ordinary folks with torches & flaming arrows can spread fires around an area a lot faster than one guy tossing firebolts. The arrows have much longer range, too, don't forget.

Whew! What a relief. Here I am thinking that would be a nightmare security concern.

Not so much. Anyone can start a fire, most places you wouldn't want burned down probably need to have ready flames in them, anyway, if only for lighting purposes. Heck, the old continual light had more setting-distorting implications than firebolt, for that reason, alone, and it's hardly the only reason...

 

[ExploderWizard]

You are doing that thing where you ignore logistic concerns because it would make your argument look as ridiculous as it is.

I.e. one guy with firebolt can't burn down a village in a day because the villagers heavily outnumber him and can stop him because it takes 100s of actions for him to get the job done - but 100s of actions delivered simultaneously by an army of guys with torches and oil is not only harder for the villagers to stop because they are the ones outnumbered now, but also because it takes a whole lot less time for the army to get the job done.

So in practicality, firebolt is nowhere near "roughly the same effects" as you claimed it was.

Of course Joe cantrip wouldn't be allowed to stand there and burn down the village, but an army outfitted for such a task would be a bit more conspicuous.

" Hey a few dozen guys with torches, pushing a cart loaded with barrels & arrows is up on the hill. Wonder what they are up to?"

Now suppose Joe cantrip arrived in town with 8 or 9 buddies? No suspicious gear or anything and BAM! The burninating of the thatched roof cottages!!!

 

[Umbran]

A single person equipped with nothing, can ONLY produce roughly the same effects as a small mercenary force equipped with incendiaries.

Whew! What a relief. Here I am thinking that would be a nightmare security concern.

A single person, typically with genius level intellect (or with enough charisma to nearly alter reality by force of personality), and *with magical training* ought to be rather more impressive than a small mercenary force of shlubs with Molotovs, no? I mean, is this somehow surprising?