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

[TheLoneRanger1979]

For some reason i can't edit my post....... but lowkey13 ninja's me!!!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Oh step off your high horse.

Of course many players feel only effective options are fun to play.

And if your game is anything like mine, the purpose of the game if boiled down to the core is: to have fun while defeating monsters. (if I want combat to play a secondary role I'll play another rpg than dnd thank you very much)

This means that cool kooky options are fun. If and only if they don't seriously compromise my character's ability to meaningfully contribute to the party's success.

Which can be shortened to "damage".

That's why people complain, and legitimately so, if their selected build forces them to sacrifice oomph for kookiness.

So it seems as though you are saying that playing kooky builds and options are fun. Also... playing powerful characters that kill things fast is fun. But unfortunately, the game is written such that you can't have BOTH types of fun at the same time.

Sorry... but I have a hard time feeling sorry for you about that, nor do I wish WotC to think about changing their game to cater to your needs for "double-fun" because "single-fun" isn't good enough.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That, to me, is the key. As has been pointed out, and as is my experience, it is exceptionally difficult to build a non-magic using class in 5e. Which is pretty much the opposite of, say, 1e.

Let's be specific.
In 5e, the only main class that has no subclasses (that I am aware of) that doesn't have spellcasting options is the Barbarian. That's it.
You have primary spellcasters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard). You have the secondary spellcasters (Paladin, Ranger). That leaves four (4!) classes. Of those, three (fighter, monk, and rogue) all have spellcasting (or, in the case of monk, pseudo-spellcasting based on ki) options. And, of course, you can always cast spells with the feats. And this is before considering multi-classing.

In short, it's the exception to have a character that cannot cast spells.

No... what you're actually saying is that it's the exception to have a character that has no opportunity to select options that allow them to use magic. But even that isn't right, because the Barbarian has the opportunity to select the Magic Initiate feat. So the fact is... every single character created in D&D has the opportunity to cast spells, provided the DM allows those options.

There is not a single character created in D&D that is incapable of using magic spells, unless the DM specifically makes explicit the fact that some options in his or her game world just aren't available. The DM decides the Magic Initiate feat doesn't exist? Boom, one avenue is now closed. The DM decides to not allow multiclassing. Boom, another avenue is closed. The DM decides that the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are not available subclasses, because those are ostensibly multiclasses and they want the fighter and Rogue strictly non-magical. Boom, a third avenue closed. The DM decides Paladins don't get spells and instead can only use their slots for Divine Smite. There we go, avenue four is closed. The DM decides to use the Spell-less Ranger option provided to us by WotC. Avenue five closed. And then the DM could go so far and decide "You know what? I'm only going to use the Basic Rules for this campaign"... and BAM, close off a whole bunch of other streets of magic because now there's only two classes in the game that can.

But in all of these cases... it's the Dungeon Master making the call for THEIR game. It's NOT Wizards of the Coast making the call for EVERYONE'S game by not putting all these options in the game in the first place. Because I think they don't feel it's their call to make.

WotC writes the game to give us options so we can make our game our own. Because every gamer wants something different. But whether or not we use those options is ON US. Does it feel like there's a lot of magic to be had in the 5E D&D game as a whole? Sure, I'm sure for a lot of people it does. But does it feel like there's a lot of magic in any one DM's specific game? That depends entirely on what they choose to use.

Someone may wish there was less magic available overall in the 5E book, but that ship has sailed. The book is the book. So now, the question is "What are you going to do about it?"

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[innerdude]

Do you still find this to be true in 5E, or just 3.5? Because I don't see how anyone in 5E can fail to see that ranged combat specialization utterly crushes melee in all but the nichest of niche situations.

I can't really comment; I've never played 5e, or even looked at the rules beyond public playtest 3 (or was it 2? I can't remember).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Woah, now! Selective quoting appears to lead to aggressive disagreements and excessive use of all-caps and italics.

My apologies for any offense. I use caps and italics for emphasis rather than anger or shouting.

Yes, pointing out or reiterating what the OP put forth can and is done. But at 23 pages, at what point does countless reiterating without actual progress become redundant? If people feel the need to repeat themselves and their annoyance, I feel the need to comment from the other side of the aisle. Especially when the thread gets long enough that there's the chance WotC might see it and think there's an actual problem (and try and change the game because of it.)

You know when I don't tend to comment? When someone makes a complaint in a new thread (not looking for a solution per se, just wanting to get out a grievance), it goes about 3 pages with some responses in support, people get their annoyances out in the open, and the thread then shortly drops off the front page because there's really nothing more that needs to be said. When that happens, I never bat an eye. But when an argument that I personally think has no basis in merit goes on for this long without any attempts at a solution... I'm going to try and provide one. Because I don't want to the see the game changed without all sides of the problem being looked at and addressed.

And in this case... the problem of "There's too much magic in my D&D" has the very simple solution of 'Well, then don't put so much magic *into* your D&D then."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[BryonD]

The feel, therefore, is very different. Magic, in 1e (to use an example) was almost always a big deal. Magic, in 5e, is a given.

To that extent, it is less special. When a 1e Magic User chose to cast a spell, it always mattered. When (say) a Warlock casts eldritch blast, it is no different than a fighter attacking with his sword. So, while this isn't a value judgment, I think it is correct to say that the proliferation of magic has made it less exceptional. Whether that is good or bad is a value judgment.

I agree with this. But, again, I think this point comes completely back to "give the people what they want".
Given a choice between a warlock repeatedly blasting so that it feels like a fighter with his sword (definitely agree with that point) and the warlock having to pull out a crossbow, the player who choose Warlock would much prefer to have a lot of generic blasts over having to choose the crossbow sometimes just so his blast feels special when he uses it.
And I think the feel of the settings which D&D has always supported reinforces this. It isn't that magic in 1E being a "big deal" was a problem. It was that for a lot of players those turns when magic was scarce their character became "no big deal." They want to always be a big deal. And I'm not saying this high level of magic is necessary for a good game. I'm saying that (a) the feel of D&D always ran that way, even in 1E. Other games were better for low magic. And (b) players who want to play these characters prefer the constant option.

Again, I think the thing with 5E that makes this a sore thumb is the lack of diverse options.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*