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

[TheLoneRanger1979]

No that's acceptable and justified.

Not just justified, there are few greater sins!

 

[ExploderWizard]

But, then, my fighter is the front line brick. His reason for being there is soaking up the damage and freeing up the other characters.

I would say that your fighter either has some self esteem issues or the rest of the party doesn't like him very much.

Any character who believes its their "job" to get beaten until they smell like onions was probably the kid who was always picked last for team sports.

An adventuring fighter's job is handling combat. This often involves getting hurt because combat is dangerous, but the primary responsibility is eliminating the threat, not being a punching bag.

Adventurers are the special forces of the fantasy world. Optimally, they operate smart and attempt to do unto others before it gets done unto them. Taking damage happens when a plan goes FUBAR, it isn't plan A.

The concept of someone believing it is their "job" to get beaten up in a role playing game has always irritated me.

 

[TwoSix]

The concept of someone believing it is their "job" to get beaten up in a role playing game has always irritated me.

It's the holy trinity, not the nice idea trinity.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I would say that your fighter either has some self esteem issues or the rest of the party doesn't like him very much.

Any character who believes its their "job" to get beaten until they smell like onions was probably the kid who was always picked last for team sports.

An adventuring fighter's job is handling combat. This often involves getting hurt because combat is dangerous, but the primary responsibility is eliminating the threat, not being a punching bag.

Adventurers are the special forces of the fantasy world. Optimally, they operate smart and attempt to do unto others before it gets done unto them. Taking damage happens when a plan goes FUBAR, it isn't plan A.

The concept of someone believing it is their "job" to get beaten up in a role playing game has always irritated me.

In fairness, IMO you're soaking up (hypothetical) damage if the enemy is attacking you and your AC causes them to miss. You're soaking up damage if you knock the enemy prone and then move to a position from which that enemy cannot attack anyone the next round. Preventing the enemy from attacking is ideal, but it's generally more in the wizard's wheelhouse than the fighter's. Aside from reducing the enemy to zero, of course. Tanking isn't about getting hit, it's about making sure your squishy allies aren't. Which, admittedly, sometimes involves getting hit instead of them.

 

[Hussar]

The thing is, though, is it really the same? Sure in the PHB it states that it all comes from the weave and, sure, settings like the Forgotten Realms have always had so many wizards running around that no one is going to be afraid when one sets up in a tower outside of town. Other settings though, wizards tend to be hated, priests loved because people flock to their religion rather than to people who practices the arcane arts.

Look to our own history, priests tended to be trusted, people who "meddled with dark powers but in reality probably only knew which herbs would kill you and which would heal you" tended to be ostracised. We have had centuries of witch burnings but not priest burnings. That mysterious stranger could try and claim that their magic is no different but that doesn't mean people will believe them.

But, see, that rolls back around to what I said earlier where there is very little difference between the casters. Clerics in 5e cast Fireball and Lightning Bolt. What distinguishes a cleric or druid from a wizard when they can largely do the same spells?

A robed figure ignites a townsperson with a bolt of flame. What class was the robed figure?

 

[Hussar]

In fairness, IMO you're soaking up (hypothetical) damage if the enemy is attacking you and your AC causes them to miss. You're soaking up damage if you knock the enemy prone and then move to a position from which that enemy cannot attack anyone the next round. Preventing the enemy from attacking is ideal, but it's generally more in the wizard's wheelhouse than the fighter's. Aside from reducing the enemy to zero, of course. Tanking isn't about getting hit, it's about making sure your squishy allies aren't. Which, admittedly, sometimes involves getting hit instead of them.

Pretty much this. The whole point of being the front line melee guy is that you're going to tie up the baddies. Yup, you're going to deal the beats too, but, part of the job is to protect. There's a reason you get that shield proficiency style in 5e that allows you to shield allies and not yourself. Frankly I find it baffling that anyone would look at the front line fighter types and come to the conclusion that "no, they aren't supposed to take any damage".

Look, in a standard 4 person party - fighter, cleric, wizard, thief, who do you think is going to lose HP first and most often?

 

[Hussar]

In fairness, IMO you're soaking up (hypothetical) damage if the enemy is attacking you and your AC causes them to miss. You're soaking up damage if you knock the enemy prone and then move to a position from which that enemy cannot attack anyone the next round. Preventing the enemy from attacking is ideal, but it's generally more in the wizard's wheelhouse than the fighter's. Aside from reducing the enemy to zero, of course. Tanking isn't about getting hit, it's about making sure your squishy allies aren't. Which, admittedly, sometimes involves getting hit instead of them.

Pretty much this. The whole point of being the front line melee guy is that you're going to tie up the baddies. Yup, you're going to deal the beats too, but, part of the job is to protect. There's a reason you get that shield proficiency style in 5e that allows you to shield allies and not yourself. Frankly I find it baffling that anyone would look at the front line fighter types and come to the conclusion that "no, they aren't supposed to take any damage".

Look, in a standard 4 person party - fighter, cleric, wizard, thief, who do you think is going to lose HP first and most often?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Clerics in 5e cast Fireball and Lightning Bolt. What distinguishes a cleric or druid from a wizard when they can largely do the same spells?

And, with those three classes, specifically, the same number of slots/level &c as neo-Vancian casters?
It still has to be all the spells they /don't/ have in common. Yes, there's overlap, and some Domains make it worse. That doesn't make Clerics into Wizards. (And I don't have a big problem with Druids & Wizards being a little similar: in European myth & legend, figures like Merlin, who contribute to our concept of the Wizard, were probably derived from pre-Christian priests like Druids.)

A robed figure ignites a townsperson with a bolt of flame. What class was the robed figure?

Considering his obvious contempt for the peasantry, clearly from the upper classes, probably a Noble.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But, see, that rolls back around to what I said earlier where there is very little difference between the casters. Clerics in 5e cast Fireball and Lightning Bolt. What distinguishes a cleric or druid from a wizard when they can largely do the same spells?

This is one of the many reasons I prefer the old way of doing things, before that whole "specialty cleric" thing. The cleric should be using subtle magic that mostly helps people, and the wizard should be using obvious magic that mostly hinders people.

To answer the question, though, the difference is in where those near-identical spells come from. A cleric is still answerable to a deity, at least in theory, and can have their spells denied if they abuse them. A wizard is only answerable to them-self.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

The way the spellcasting classes are done is one of my few complaints about 5E, which is my favorite edition so far.

There seem to be too many spellcasting classes with relatively similar abilities/spells distinguished mostly by flavor... and I dislike that because it sets a "default" or "expectation" for a very strong flavor-mechanics link.

I'd prefer there to be one Arcane-Full-Caster class, with various subclasses/options, and whether you get your power from intense study (Wizard) or magical bloodline/wild magic (Sorcerer) or pacts with strange powers (Warlock) could just be flavor.

In an edition with subclasses (or Pathfinder archetypes), I'd argue you really only need like 6-8 genuinely different classes. The Oath of the Ancients Paladin kind of overlaps into Ranger territory, too.