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

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't think it's all that different for reasons of proliferation. I think that some might dislike it because magic has been brought down a few pegs over the course of editions. Sleep, the low-level "I win" button of 1e and 2e now grants a saving throw. Polymorphing an enemy into a toad isn't an invitation to a beatdown, since it will break on the first serious injury. I appreciate the nod to balance. Magic doesn't have to be "I win" to be magical in my book. Granted, anyone who expects it to be so may be disappointed.

In 5E, Sleep has no saving throw. Only a 5d8 HP limit. It's very AD&Dish in that respect.

 

[Hussar]

How is it impossible to run a low or no magic campaign? All you need to do is restrict classes. If you restrict it so that you only have barbarian, fighter, and rogue then suddenly it is a low/no magic campaign. That includes disallowing the fighter and rogue subclasses that grant spells which leaves you 6 distinct subclasses, assuming my counting is correct, or more if you include the options in SCAG. I sometimes wonder if people feel that they cannot have a low/no magic campaign because they feel like they are forced to have the spellcasting classes in the game.

You could probably even add in the open hand monk as that subclass is fairly low-magic.

This is more or less what I've done with my Primeval Thule campaign. Actually I'm not even that restrictive because I allow Rangers and Paladins.

But I have seen rather a lot of push back from my players about this because of the very restricted class list.

 

[Azurewraith]

This is more or less what I've done with my Primeval Thule campaign. Actually I'm not even that restrictive because I allow Rangers and Paladins.

But I have seen rather a lot of push back from my players about this because of the very restricted class list.

I feel for you on pushback about class restrictions tried to do cut the full casters from a game and you would think I proposed to torture their mothers.

So o abandoned that campaign idea but then I think my party want what they can't have as I ended up with a cleric in darksun fortunately the premise of the story was one God survived so it worked out pretty coo

 

[S'mon]

This is more or less what I've done with my Primeval Thule campaign. Actually I'm not even that restrictive because I allow Rangers and Paladins.

But I have seen rather a lot of push back from my players about this because of the very restricted class list.

I think Warlock (Old One Pact) is a great class for Primeval Thule - of course one might wish to restrict them to NPCs.

 

[Hussar]

Oh yes. Casting classes exist in the setting. I just don't want them in the group as pc's.

Fortunately for me the group is letting me have enough rope to hang myself. If the campaign goes pear shaped it's mostly on me.

On the topic though, what I hope to see is some exploration of the design space that imo 5e has left pretty open. We're seeing some movement for rangers and there have been a couple of subclasses added with the SCAG, so there is some light shining in.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In 5E, Sleep has no saving throw. Only a 5d8 HP limit. It's very AD&Dish in that respect.

You're right. I was thinking of the 3e version.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

On the topic though, what I hope to see is some exploration of the design space that imo 5e has left pretty open. We're seeing some movement for rangers and there have been a couple of subclasses added with the SCAG, so there is some light shining in.

That is true. I know i'm probably in the minority here, but so far i've liked both the Spell less Ranger and the UA's Ranger variant proposals. I also liked some fo the home brews i saw here. It would surely be nice if the Paladins get similar treatment as well. Though..... from my limited time on these forums, i get the idea that far too many people complained about the rangers then about the paladins....... or was i too late for the Paladin wars? <confused>

 

[Azurewraith]

That is true. I know i'm probably in the minority here, but so far i've liked both the Spell less Ranger and the UA's Ranger variant proposals. I also liked some fo the home brews i saw here. It would surely be nice if the Paladins get similar treatment as well. Though..... from my limited time on these forums, i get the idea that far too many people complained about the rangers then about the paladins....... or was i too late for the Paladin wars? <confused>

I think paladins are in a fine space as to me they should have spells but if you don't like them smite away.

As for rangers I didnt dislike the rangers they just needed some finagling I merged them together to suite my needs still looking to play one though.

 

[Hussar]

I agree about Paladins and Rangers. Even the standard versions don't really bother me. After all, it's not like they're dropping spells every single round.

As I said, I'd like to keep things somewhere between where we are now with 5e and something a bit less frequent. Drop one spell every encounter or maybe two? I'm happy. Two or three spells being dropped every round? A bit too much for my taste.

 

[Azurewraith]

I agree about Paladins and Rangers. Even the standard versions don't really bother me. After all, it's not like they're dropping spells every single round.

As I said, I'd like to keep things somewhere between where we are now with 5e and something a bit less frequent. Drop one spell every encounter or maybe two? I'm happy. Two or three spells being dropped every round? A bit too much for my taste.

I could get onboard with that makes casting a spell feel like an event as opposed to just meh in a similar way to when a fighter uses action surge you know its going down. As for rangers 0spells please.