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

[BryonD]

This is a very interesting post. By and large I agree with the end conclusion. But the path getting there is very different than mine and, yet again, shines a light on assumptions which underlie conversations.

5e makes a big deal of having different resource suites for different classes, and different mechanics as well. This is not an accident. As has been stated by the designers, and as in any event obvious, it is about evoking "feel" - especially the classic D&D feel. In this respect it is an obvious departure from 4e, which used highly symmetrical resource suites for all classes based around uniform mechanics
In 4e, differences in the fiction are only rarely expressed in the actual mechanical resolution method: in combat this tends to be "spend a power, roll a d20 to attack" and out of combat this tends to be "pile up any available bonuses, roll a d20 to determine movement within a skill challenge". The differences in the fiction are driven by outcomes: in combat, this is often about keywords and grid positioning; in a skill challenge this is typically about narration and fictional positioning.

Agreed.
This is my long held point that in 4E the mechanics inform the fiction while in 3E (and now 5E) the fiction informs the mechanics.

In 5e, though, difference in the fiction are very often expressed in the actual mechanical resolution method: there is a difference between making a weapon attack and casting a spell (eg anti-magic rules, attacks vs saves); there are different resource management rules (eg spell memorisation, rules for spell components, etc).

To be a bit more concrete: in 4e you can't tell the difference between using a fighter close burst and a MU casting an AoE about him-/herself except by attending to the keywords (Arcane vs Martial; damage types; etc) and narrating the fiction on the basis of that; whereas in 5e the fighter's multi-attacks are mechanically based around the extra attack, action surge etc features (which treat each attack as a granular action declaration and then build baroque manipulations of the action economy on tope of that), while the MU's AoE will be resolved by the rules for spell areas in the magic chapter, via saving throws for enemies, etc.

In this context, simply taking a suite of daily abilities and saying "they're not spells" is pushing hard against 5e's design paradigm. It requires pretending that those details of mechanical processes of resolution have no implications for the fiction; whereas the whole tenor of 5e (in contrast to 4e) is that those details do have implications for the fiction.

Again, you highlight the homogeneity of 4E and the mechanic's first perspective. But then you get to the point where I strongly disagree. You state that the details in 5E do have implications on the fiction. I think you miss a key point there. The fiction has implications on those details, not the other way around. Then, in play, because the fiction informed the mechanics, the mechanics resolve in such a way that in a purely logical assessment the details are having implications. But those implications were built because the fictional aspects of the effect were already in mind.

I suspect this sounds like splitting hairs to you. Based on prior conversations, I strongly suspect it.
But I assure you it is a critically important distinction.

I suspect you would agree that with enough creativity you could reskin a handful of spells and play a wizard as a fighter. But you would be using mechanics which were built with a completely different fictional context in mind. It would be a rather unsatisfactory result. Thus, I fully agree with your conclusion. Large scale reskinning is such effort and such minimal return that it seems crazy to pursue when other games are just sitting there waiting to be played. As always, I think the hackability of 5E is huge and is easily its best feature. But there is hacking a game and then there is absurdity.

And, I'll also tie back to the thread topic a little closer. The cantrips are far and away the driving issue of this problem. And I don't think it is a coincidence that they fall quite far from the model I have described. Fire Bolt does not model shooting a blast of flame. It is a pure *roll to hit* deal Xd10 damage with no further implications. Yes, you can also instead ignite an unattended object. I'm betting that use of Fire Bolt (when used) has never made anyone think "pew pew". And having another character use Ray of Frost doesn't end up feeling different enough to resolve the everybody goes Pew Pew.

Maybe an alternate set of cantrips would be a cool approach. I personally wouldn't mind if wizards has to be a bit more creative in combat and lost some built in DPR. I want a lot more spells. And new 3rd, 4th, etc level spells can take all kinds of new ideas into the game. A new energy cantrip "pew pew" on the other hand would do nothing. And now I've gone way off on a tangent....

 

[BryonD]

double

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps in theory but not in practice. Divine casters are the ones who can actually cast all the spells with a day's rest, and they have been so since 3e.

Since the beginning, AFAIK, a wider variety of lists being possible in 2e.

I agree that 4e was the best at handling a no-magic campaign, although I do think it was possible in other editions to varying degrees. 5e would be the next best IMO, and I'd also agree that it has room to grow in achieving its full potential in this respect. I didn't count monk because I don't consider it a no-magic class, given that it's always had a mystical aspect to it.

I certainly agree in the context of 5e, where Ki is explicitly magical. In 1e, the Monk came off a lot like David Carradine as Kwai Chang Caine, so passing it off as non-magical seemed more plausible.

Admittedly, this might not be an issue in a no-magic campaign that allows psionics

Just might have to call it 'non-supernatural' rather than 'non-magical'.

I disagree with you on there being zero classes in 5e that are non-magical.

It's literally true. Each class has at least one sub-class that uses some sort of magic...

Sub-classes ought to be considered separately from the classes

Absolutely, and there are 5 non-magical sub-classes in the PH, alone.

If your DM is running a no-magic game, she's (hopefully) not going to throw situations that require magic to overcome at you.

To an extent - you won't need to be returning petrified allies to flesh, gating into the BBEG's pocket dimension, or dispelling magical barriers. You still need to be able to get a party through a challenging combat without too many of them dying (especially given that you won't be resurrecting them the next day).

Backgrounds can provide skills that those classes don't normally access.

Yep, and the Rogue's Expertise means that skills are certainly a non-issue for such a party.

The three non-magical classes with their five eligible subclasses should be able to handle everything a no-magic campaign can throw at them by definition.

They should, but they don't even come close. Thought there's 5, they really fall into two categories, tough DPR, skilled DPR. Skills are covered, taking up space & sucking up damage is covered, beating down enemies one at a time is covered. Nothing else is.

Aren't those dichotomies like complaining that both the Paladin and the Fighter can use swords?

Yes, and equally valid. A Fighter & Paladin can both be armored, chivalrous, warriors. A Cleric and Paladin can both be divinely-empowered warriors. But them together than the Paladin is redundant because you can just have a Fighter/Cleric handling the same concept. Except that MCing is an optional system, so the Paladin is justified(npi) in the Standard game that doesn't include MCing.

Access to similar class features such as having a spell list with some shared spells on doesn't 'blend' the classes any more than having a weapon style list with some shared styles on.

Which is to say it does, indeed, 'blend' them, just so much as to make them loose distinctiveness.

More restrictive spell lists will just create different subsets of the best spells for this type of group. So an evoker and an illusionist might be different, but two evokers will still be the same.

True enough. Same problem, writ slightly smaller.

However, a more open spell list allows players who aren't min-maxers more freedom and creativity.

There always has been this argument that trap choices are justified by the fact that there are players who are willing to take a hit to effectiveness, even play a non-viable character, in order to play the concept they want. It's even taken so far as to suggest that the only way to prove 'real roleplayer' cred is to play mechanically inferior characters for 'RP reasons.' It's a little off-base. Within the constraints of any given character concept, there are still optimal and sub-optimal choices - even the optimal ones may be non-viable in the bigger picture, but they're still the best you can do with that concept. Optimization is always there, unless you eliminate choice entirely. The best you can do is try to present balanced options, such that the optimal aren't game-breaking, and sub-optimal are still perfectly viable.

The thing is, that become problematic when all the choices are more or less equally available. 5e doesn't have as many spells as 3.5, and even the most broken of them aren't broken like 3e polymorph for a while there. But, 5e spells are surprisingly swappable. You can learn one spell in place of any other of a level you can cast when you learn it, you can prepare any spell you know in place of any other spell (level doesn't even come into it), you can use a slot to cast any spell of equal or lower level that you have prepared. Each spell has to be balanced with every other spell in the same list - and many are in multiple lists (and some casters can poach spells from other lists). That's problematic.
If each class were to have a unique list, then each spell need only be balanced for it's native class, and with multi-classing in mind. If slots were less flexible, if for instance, you could only cast spells of the slots level with them, not lower level ones to greater effect, then spells of the same class & level would be a little easier to balance. You'd probably have to get each spell into a freely-exchangeable set with only a handful of other spells to really make it /easy/ to balance them... and there's no way that'd be practical working from most of the caster classes in 5e, anyway.

Spells have been nerfed in 5e.

Not compared to the last edition, they haven't, a great deal of their power has been restored. There's a whole lot more slots to cast 'em with, too.

I would say a 5e wizard, cleric are so much weaker compared to their 2e, 3e, 3.5e counter parts.

5e casters vs 2e casters is debatable. Some spells are weaker in one than the other, some don't exist, but casters face fewer restrictions and risks in using spells in 5e than they do in 2e. Relative to 3.5, yes, some spells have been 'nerfed' - the idea of repeating saves every round that started with 3.5 Hold spells has been expanded, Concentration checks aren't as easy to pass, you can't stack spells to a silly degree, &c. OTOH, a few spells have it pretty good (8d6 fireballs at 5th level isn't exactly less than 5d6, nor is Sleep with no save exactly 'nerfed' relative to Sleep that granted one), save DCs now scale with character level instead of slot level, and casting combines the versatility of 3.5 Vancian with the round-to-round flexibility introduced by the 3e Sorcerer's spontaneous casting.

Because the answer is "You refluff."

That wasn't the answer for years, I don't know why it suddenly would be now.

Unless you all just prefer having something to be constantly annoyed about?

It's not like that's never happened.

In 5e differences in the fiction are very often expressed in the actual mechanical resolution method: there is a difference between making a weapon attack and casting a spell (eg anti-magic rules, attacks vs saves); there are different resource management rules (eg spell memorisation, rules for spell components, etc).

Very true, and a more concrete/practical reason that re-fluffing isn't really a complete answer.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I certainly agree in the context of 5e, where Ki is explicitly magical. In 1e, the Monk came off a lot like David Carradine as Kwai Chang Caine, so passing it off as non-magical seemed more plausible.

I don't know about that. At 3rd level the 1e monk could Speak with Animals. At 8th level they could Speak with Plants. I never really saw those as extraordinary but non-magical abilities. A lot of their other abilities could be justified that way, but not those IMO.

It's literally true. Each class has at least one sub-class that uses some sort of magic...

And as I pointed out in the part of my post that you neglected to quote, those classes are still viable even if you ban all of the magic-using subclasses.

I disagree with you on there being zero classes in 5e that are non-magical. Sub-classes ought to be considered separately from the classes, as you can easily ban a sub-class without impacting the class. The base Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue classes have zero magical abilities. If you ban the Totem Warrior, Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Trickster, you still have 3 fully viable and playable classes.

They are non-magical classes that have access to magical subclasses. They are not magical classes. A subtle distinction perhaps, but an important one nonetheless. If the base barbarian, fighter, and rogue all indeed used magic by default, then it would in fact be impossible to run a non-magic game in 5e without modifying the classes. As it stands however, you can run a non-magic campaign by simply restricting the classes to barbarian, fighter and rogue, and banning the Totem Warrior, Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster subclasses. Saying that there are zero classes in 5e without access to magical abilties would be accurate. Saying that there are zero classes without magical abilities is demonstrably false.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know about that. At 3rd level the 1e monk could Speak with Animals. At 8th level they could Speak with Plants. I never really saw those as extraordinary but non-magical abilities.

Maybe in a 'Horse Whisperer' sense.

I mean, you say you can talk to that geranium...

But, sure, there are mystical ('orientalist') overtones to the Monk concept in general, that were certainly present in 1e. Whether that crosses the line into 'magic' is debatable. It doesn't really make much of a difference if a Monk joined the Fighter, Thief, & Assassin in a 1e no-magic adventure, or if they were later joined by a Thief-Acrobat, Barbarian, & Cavalier - they still lacked a Cleric. ;P

They are non-magical classes that have access to magical subclasses.

That means the class is no long non-magical, since sub-classes are part of the class.

Saying that there are zero classes without magical abilities is demonstrably false.

Under every class entry, you will find magical abilities. There are no classes that lack magical abilities. Demonstrably true.

That said, sub-classes are a better way to look at it: there are 38 sub-classes, 5 of them are strictly non-magical.

Rather than split hairs over classes, we can focus on the sub-classes, it's the more relevant PC choice point, anyway.

And as I pointed out in the part of my post that you neglected to quote, those classes are still viable even if you ban all of the magic-using subclasses.

Three of those sub-classes are tough contributors of more-than-merely-viable volumes of DPR, two of them are viable contributors of DPR & optimized skills. A party with only those three assets, not so viable.

 

[pemerton]

At 3rd level the 1e monk could Speak with Animals. At 8th level they could Speak with Plants. I never really saw those as extraordinary but non-magical abilities.

This comes back to magic vs fantasy vs spells vs . . .

Clearly the idea of a monk talking to nature is fantastic, but I'm not sure it means the monk is a magician. S/he is just in tune with nature in a way that ordinary people are not.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Maybe in a 'Horse Whisperer' sense.

I mean, you say you can talk to that geranium...

But, sure, there are mystical ('orientalist') overtones to the Monk concept in general, that were certainly present in 1e. Whether that crosses the line into 'magic' is debatable. It doesn't really make much of a difference if a Monk joined the Fighter, Thief, & Assassin in a 1e no-magic adventure, or if they were later joined by a Thief-Acrobat, Barbarian, & Cavalier - they still lacked a Cleric. ;P

Fair enough. But by that argument, the Totem Warrior is mostly non-magical. Only the 14th level eagle ability is explicitly magical (and even that might be explained away as a "mystical" ability to jump).

That means the class is no long non-magical, since sub-classes are part of the class.

The sub-classes are isolated subsections of class rules. Not every instance of that class will have the abilities from a given subclass. Saying that every class is magical is like saying that every wizard casts fireball. Not true. Only wizards who learn the fireball spell can cast it. If the DM bans fireball from the campaign, you still have a wealth of viable non-fireballing wizards.

On the other hand banning a granted class ability, like rage, impacts that class overall. If the DM bans rage, it makes the barbarian class arguably unplayable. Ban the Totem Warrior (or just the 14th level eagle ability) and you can have perfectly viable barbarians who simply have less options to choose from.

Under every class entry, you will find magical abilities. There are no classes that lack magical abilities. Demonstrably true.

That said, sub-classes are a better way to look at it: there are 38 sub-classes, 5 of them are strictly non-magical.

Rather than split hairs over classes, we can focus on the sub-classes, it's the more relevant PC choice point, anyway.

Three of those sub-classes are tough contributors of more-than-merely-viable volumes of DPR, two of them are viable contributors of DPR & optimized skills. A party with only those three assets, not so viable.

The majority of 5e games I've played in or DM'd didn't have a true healer. In at least one case, there was no healer at all. All of these parties were functional and viable, capable of taking on encounters well above deadly. I think you're underestimating what 5e PCs are capable of. More than one of these parties was under a "let the dice fall as they may" killer-style DM.

Add on top of that non-magical feat options, like Healer and Inspiring Leader (which the aforementioned parties didn't have), and you can definitely have a fully functional non-magical 5e party. Admittedly, not quite as capable of pushing the red line as a 4e martial party, but certainly viable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The majority of 5e games I've played in or DM'd didn't have a true healer. In at least one case, there was no healer at all. All of these parties were functional and viable, capable of taking on encounters well above deadly. I think you're underestimating what 5e PCs are capable of.

The 'didn't have a Cleric' bit was in reference to 1e, it was a truism, back in the day that you absolutely needed one. Hasn't been the case since 3e. 3e expanded the healing abilities of other classes to the point a Cleric wasn't strictly necessary, and made between-combat healing so trivial you only needed a healer, at all, for in-combat healing (and if your campaign went the way of rocket tag, not even then). 4e shifted daily healing resources to the individual being healed, eliminating the issue almost entirely, though you still 'needed' a Leader to trigger in-combat healing, and to provide the full range of support contributions the party needed.

5e has pulled back from that, with less and less-accessible between-combat healing, and returning to spell slots as a potentially substantial healing resource. You don't, strictly-speaking, /have/ a dedicated healer like you used to in 1e, the classes that do have a lot of support contributions to make are flexible enough to make others, instead, at need. Now the strength of 5e is that a DM can make what he wants of it, and I don't doubt anecdotes can be found of it 'working' with an outré party configuration for that reason. Heck, I've heard people claim they had 1e campaigns work without adequate healing.

But, it's not just healing that a no-magic party is going to lack. Lacking in-combat healing is going to be bad enough, but also lacking all the other contributions support-oriented characters have always made, as well as blasting, 'control,' and so forth, is not something that's going to be smoothly compensated for or just take care of itself. It'd take more than a few more sub-classes of the same 3 DPR-focused full classes to make up the difference. I'd think two full classes are called, for, each with several sub-classes. (Or, I suppose one very versatile class with many sub-classes.)

Admittedly, not quite as capable of pushing the red line as a 4e martial party, but certainly viable.

They might survive for a while, like an all-Striker 4e party, but I can't grant the limited selection of no-caster sub-classes currently in 5e (even including the few in SCAG) as being 'viable.' You have too limited a range of contributions to the party's success, you can't handle everything a more complete party can, and you run into issues of even differentiating the party members.

 

[Hussar]

There seems to be a couple of conversations going on. Having magical abilities in a given class doesn't really make a character a caster does it? The 1e monk is mentioned, with speak with animals at 3rd level and speak with plants at 8th. Paladins and rangers getting spells at 8th or 9th level as well.

Thing is, we do have to look at this in context. Rangers and Paladins gaining one or two spells per day at around name level isn't really going to have a large effect on how those classes play. It's not like the Ranger, hitting 9th level and getting Magic Missile once per day is going to start shooting nothing but magic missiles all day long. Realistically, the character will play pretty much exactly the same as it did at 7th level. Gaining a couple of first level spells is cool and all, but, it's not radically altering how the class works.

I'd argue the same for Speak with Animals. Ok, sure, it's handy and whatnot, but, remember, this is a system that lacks any social mechanics, so, it's entirely freeform what happens. But, at the end of the day, the monk is still going to play pretty much the same. It's not like he's suddenly controlling animals (which would be a major change in how the class plays) or gaining a pet or anything like that. He can simply chat with animals. Cool, but, not game changing.

Now, look at a 5e druid. It's not unreasonable to think that a 5e druid is going to have a 12 or 14 Str score. Same with Dex. So, that druid with a scimitar has about a +5 (ish) bonus to hit and does a d8+1 or 2. Or, he can go with Produce Flame, using his likely 18 Wis score for a +6 or 7 to hit and dealing d8 or 2d8 (by 5th level) damage. As I said, the mechanics very much favour using cantrips over attacks. Can I make a druid that stands up and fights? Sure. Likely you'd go with Moon Druid and do most of your fighting in Wild Shape. A Land Druid though? That's a wizard in leather armour.

This is the issue that I'm having with 5e magic. Because it has become so ubiquitous, and so easy to use, it turns all the casters into wizards. They're doing the same thing, by and large, as what traditionally wizards did. Unless you play a Warpriest, there's no particular reason for your priest to stand in combat. What's the point of having heavy armour proficiency for a character whose abilities pretty much tell the player to play a ranged combatant?

The other issue that I'm having is that so much of this is hard wired into the base class. It's not that druids and clerics and bards are gaining all these combat spells when they choose their subclass. If that were true, I'd have a lot less issues. The Eldritch Knight doesn't phase me at all. It's that most of these very common spells, that are stand ins for actual physical attacks, are added to the classes from first level. Why is a druid, bard or cleric blasting with spells? Since when was that the niche for these classes? All three were support, front line combatants. At least, in 1e, a Bard was a full on fighter. Your character didn't have ANY spells until about 7th level or so, when you managed to become a full bard (bard was a prestige class). 2e bards could be made into pretty decent secondary combatants. But, now, there's no real reason for a bard to even pick up a weapon. Doesn't "Jack of all Trades" include fighters? I always kinda pictured a bard as a swashbuckler with some magic, not a singing wizard.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There seems to be a couple of conversations going on. Having magical abilities in a given class doesn't really make a character a caster does it?

Actually casting spells obviously does. But, a Totem Barbarian using a ritual might be just fine for low-magic, for instance.

Rangers and Paladins gaining one or two spells per day at around name level isn't really going to have a large effect on how those classes play.

I suppose it did open up some magic item use to them, though, even in 1e - scrolls, at least.

Now, look at a 5e druid. .. the mechanics very much favour using cantrips over attacks. Can I make a druid that stands up and fights? Sure. Likely you'd go with Moon Druid and do most of your fighting in Wild Shape. A Land Druid though? That's a wizard in leather armour.

So maybe half of Druids have this issue?

This is the issue that I'm having with 5e magic. Because it has become so ubiquitous, and so easy to use, it turns all the casters into wizards. They're doing the same thing, by and large, as what traditionally wizards did.

Cowering in the back until the party encountered a group of enemies that could be affected by his Sleep spell?

In 1e, casters had very few spells at low level, couldn't often risk casting them in melee, and had specific things their spells did so well that they were generally best off memorizing certain spells and only casting when those spells were needed, falling back on darts (or wands) and maces and whatnot the rest of the time. All casters were like that, wizards weren't an exception. The wizard would do something other than cast most of the game, at low level, and still need to manage his spell slots until quite high level.

Now, casting in melee is automatic, the wizard has more hps, and every primary caster has at-will cantrips. So everyone runs around casting every round, like none of them did in 1e, because they can, and they look a little more like they're adventuring spell casters instead of playing darts at a bar.

I think one of the positives of cantrips is that it does let a spellcasting character display spellcasting without blowing a slot. It's mostly window-dressing/fluff. In 3e he might have done as well with a crossbow, or in 1e with 3 darts/round, as casting a cantrip in 5e, but in 5e it's at least looking like he's doing magic. Maybe in a 'low magic' premise, it'd make sense to have fewer slots, or no slots at all, and just cantrips & rituals? In a setting where magic is very rare, but still open to PCs, that is.

Unless you play a Warpriest, there's no particular reason for your priest to stand in combat.

Or Moon Druid, or Valor Bard, or even Bladesinger, I suppose.

What's the point of having heavy armour proficiency for a character whose abilities pretty much tell the player to play a ranged combatant?

It's still AC without having to invest in DEX. And, if your ranged combat uses your caster stat...

The other issue that I'm having is that so much of this is hard wired into the base class. It's not that druids and clerics and bards are gaining all these combat spells when they choose their subclass.

By 'combat spell,' we are still talking about cantrips that are only about as effective as an attack routine with a weapon at the same character level?

Why is a druid, bard or cleric blasting with spells?

Because they're spell-casters? To be fair, the Bard could be 'blasting' you with insults.

Since when was that the niche for these classes?

Since 3.x loosened up their need to spend most of their spells on healing?

I always kinda pictured a bard as a swashbuckler with some magic, not a singing wizard.

Singing Wizard just happens to get more toys in D&D, I guess.