D&D 5E (2014) Why Has D&D, and 5e in Particular, Gone Down the Road of Ubiquitous Magic?

[mellored]

Because you can make any effect you want without needing to figure out why. You don't need to figure out why you can launch a Fireball or summon a bunch of animals. You teleport into a shadow because it's fun, and don't need to justify it.

 

[BryonD]

Because having your wizard cast a spell is more fun than shooting a crossbow, for most people.

Some may recall that WotC made note to point out the common presence of crossbows in the preview art for 3E.
It was a big deal that low level casters would have more ways to "do things" (i.e. - kill kobolds after their 2 1d4+1 magic missles were gone)

At the time I was positive on it. But it didn't take long at all before I "invented" basic magic "wands" which caster could readily obtain. Anyone who could cast spells could spend a move action to focus energy into the wand. They could then make a ranged attack for 1d8 damage with that energy. In other words I reskinned the light crossbow (less ammo) into an at-will.

I agree that the progression from early 3E (crossbows), through 3.5 (Warlocks and others) led to the "at-will" assumption that was present in both 4E and PF. And people ENJOYED it. As you said this thing called "fun".

I'd be completely on-board with the opinion that a game lacking "ubiquitous" magic has a ton of merit. But even before 3E existed, I never thought D&D ever did, low magic well. Low level spellcasters sucked as part of paying the price for being a badass later on. I'm not saying it couldn't be a ton of fun. But there was a disconnect and it was easy for it to be "not fun". When I went through my low magic fantasy phase I simply played completely different systems. The fact that a L2 wizard was little more than a glorified commoner didn't make D&D feel any less "high magic".

The embracing of "at-wills" has certainly nudged things further down the dial. But I'd call it no more than a nudge. If you want 1st level warforged and dragonborn in your game, then constant magic is already on the table. You can go a different direction, RPGs are adaptable that way. But you would be cutting against the grain rather needlessly.

People want their wizard to feel like a wizard. And in the context of D&D, being down to only mundane options in short order will fall short for the majority of groups.
Give the people what they want.

 

[ccs]

but Barbarian is here as a new martial class.

It's been a few years since the Barbarian was new....

 

[Greg Benage]

From my perspective, compared to AD&D, 5e really just moves it from the backpack onto the character sheet. We didn't play especially "Monty Haul" campaigns -- we mostly played modules and homebrewed adventures modeled on modules -- but our games were full of potions, scrolls, wands and miscellaneous magic items. If you played the game "by the book," you wound up with a *lot* of that stuff. Even on the character side, multiclassing was very popular (especially fighter/magic-users, magic-user/thieves and ranger/clerics in our campaigns), so most characters ended up with spellcasting as well. I do think there's a difference in presentation and feel, but substantively, not so much.

 

[jmoolaman]

It's hard to be all cool and magical, when after the first encounter, you kinda just shoot a crossbow. It takes away the whole cool and magical thing really quick. There really isn't much more to say.

 

[ccs]

I think that there is the realization that in game play people want to do more than just hit point attrition and the least controversial way of doing that is "spells", because "magic".

And yet that's EXACTLY what so many players use that increase in spell availability for.

 

[famousringo]

It's been a few years since the Barbarian was new....

As a PHB class, it's as new as sorcerer. Since OP talks about increasing magic from original AD&D to 5th, it seemed relevant to look at the (relative) newcomers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And for some, it isn't even exactly that it is "more fun" - just that there are two options available, and it seems like there is no reason not to go with the second option.

For clarity, these are the options I speak of:
1) Make characters that focus on magic use (i.e. wizards) use non-magical means more often than they use magical means.
2) Make characters that focus on magic use (i.e. wizards) use magical means more often than they use non-magical means.

Assuming, of course, that the two options result in mechanically similar game impact (which, oddly enough, isn't actually quite the case given that old versions of the game expected the caster characters not only to not use spells as their go-to method of action, but to use weapon attacks when your choice of weapon and chance of being successful are both signifcantly lower than any other character's - meaning the old style isn't just "magic doesn't happen so often" but "characters that primarily focus on magic spend a lot of time with terrible chances of successful contribution to a significant portion of the typical game experience." And with that being the case, it's really a "no brainer" that people would prefer the modern "my character actually gets to do something" style).

You know, I was going to launch into an analysis of this, but...you've covered pretty much everything I was going to say. It's a cost/risk/benefit thing. Magic-focused characters could use magic (moderate cost, moderate risk, high reward) only occasionally, and otherwise had to use non-magical methods which they were intentionally not very skilled at (very high cost, high risk, low reward). Your second option replaces this with a low-cost, low-risk, moderate reward alternative to the use of Actual Magic (as in spell slot expenditure). That's going to attract positive attention.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I think the at-will cantrips make it seem more "Potterverse", more than anything else.

It's driven, I expect, by the McDonald's Effect.

People like to play casters (because, magic - it's a fantasy game after all), and as such they want their character to be magical, and that means being able to cast spells. As the default response to most things, from attacking monsters to locked doors to stubborn shopkeepers.

In previous editions, written in a different time with different assumptions and expectations of the real world to today, the concept of 'serving your time' as a fragile one/two shot caster with a Saturday night special crossbow as protection was acceptable, because paying your dues and then reaping rewards of your investment was worth it, and an accepted 'thing', culturally.

However, nowadays, people - especially the younger generations, but including us older folks who've got used to it, expect everything pretty much on demand - coffee just the esoteric way we like it, food fast and plentiful and ready to eat on the go in a much less formal way than before (hence the McDonald's Effect). As time has gone on we expect other things on tap too - wifi, your OS to boot in a moment, instant communications via email rather than waiting for the post, instant gratification via Likes rather than waiting to tell your mates that cracking joke you thought of the next time you see them, etc.

And so, when we play a game, having stopped by en route to grab a quick burger and fries and a cappufrappumoccachino with unicorn milk and chocolate dusting sustainably handmade by blind Gabonese virgins, and check our phone to say hi to our best friend who is shark hugging on a boat 100 miles off the coast of Vanuatu, why would we then sit down at a table and be happy to play a fantasy character who can cast one magic missile before quivering in fear for the rest of the session?

No, we want to cast spells with as little consideration as we send texts. Because the real world allows us to fulfil so many things from the get go, the fantasy world we choose to inhabit should provide the same freedom.

Before the inevitable hairshirtists declare their preference for the older way of doing things, if that's your preference, fine. But OP asked a more metaphysical why. Games reflect the culture they serve. As such, the McDonalds Effect.

I'm just off to make myself one of those cappufrappumoccachinos.

 

[Libramarian]

And for some, it isn't even exactly that it is "more fun" - just that there are two options available, and it seems like there is no reason not to go with the second option.

For clarity, these are the options I speak of:
1) Make characters that focus on magic use (i.e. wizards) use non-magical means more often than they use magical means.
2) Make characters that focus on magic use (i.e. wizards) use magical means more often than they use non-magical means.

Assuming, of course, that the two options result in mechanically similar game impact (which, oddly enough, isn't actually quite the case given that old versions of the game expected the caster characters not only to not use spells as their go-to method of action, but to use weapon attacks when your choice of weapon and chance of being successful are both signifcantly lower than any other character's - meaning the old style isn't just "magic doesn't happen so often" but "characters that primarily focus on magic spend a lot of time with terrible chances of successful contribution to a significant portion of the typical game experience." And with that being the case, it's really a "no brainer" that people would prefer the modern "my character actually gets to do something" style).

The way you've phrased it feels like you're begging the question. I've never thought of the wizard as focusing on magical spells. They're the class with access to (the best) magical spells.

If one prefers a wizard that casts weaker spells often, rather than more powerful spells rarely, fine; it's a matter of taste. But I dispute that there is anything incoherent about a wizard with only enough magic to use under great need.