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

[NotActuallyTim]

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

A Fighter, Subclass Champion, with a non-magical flamethrower, in a bathrobe.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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?

Thing is, a Cleric and a Wizard can't largely do the same spells. No cleric can cast both Lightning Bolt and Fireball. Any Wizard above a certain level could. Likewise not many Wizards are capable of knitting their friend's injuries back together with their spells.
A Cleric dedicated to the Storm God is distinguishable from one that spends his life worshipping the Sun God, let alone a member of a different class, unless they choose not to. There isn't much stopping a Cleric dressing in robes and a pointy hat with stars on, and only using a staff or dagger for example. Mechanically they will still play somewhat differently, and less effectively than a Wizard however.

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

Could be a Human, High Elf, Dragonborn, or any race above level 4 of any class. Could be a Cleric, Rogue, Warlock or Fighter with a specific subclass/archetype. Could be a Wizard, Druid, Sorceror of any subclass. Could be a Bard if he decided to learn the right spell.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Could be a Human, High Elf, Dragonborn, or any race above level 4 of any class. Could be a Cleric, Rogue, Warlock or Fighter with a specific subclass/archetype. Could be a Wizard, Druid, Sorceror of any subclass. Could be a Bard if he decided to learn the right spell.

2 kobolds, one standing on the others shoulders, with a tiny dragon held in the tops ones hands being used like a gun.

All 3 are wearing hats that cast shadows onto their faces.

 

[Hussar]

/snip .

Could be a Human, High Elf, Dragonborn, or any race above level 4 of any class. Could be a Cleric, Rogue, Warlock or Fighter with a specific subclass/archetype. Could be a Wizard, Druid, Sorceror of any subclass. Could be a Bard if he decided to learn the right spell.

Which is pretty much precisely my point. Magic is so ubiquitous that what was once a pretty signature effect for one class is now shared by virtually every class. It's easier to say what our robed figure isn't than what he is.

 

[Sunseeker]

Which is pretty much precisely my point. Magic is so ubiquitous that what was once a pretty signature effect for one class is now shared by virtually every class. It's easier to say what our robed figure isn't than what he is.

True, but this harkens back to the points I made early in this thread.

Magic is easy.

Magic breaks the rules.

Magic wins the game.

DMs are reluctant to enforce the harsher rules of magic.

Many of the penalties/risks to magic use have been removed.

Many of the rewards have been increased.

For a long time playing a non-magic user was simply an inferior choice.

Magic gets a lot of cool stichk.

Non-magic doesn't.

Magic can often do the same thing non-magic does cheaper, better and faster.

So if I can play the game faster, easier, with fewer restrictions, fewer penalties and higher rewards, why wouldn't I?

It's like the adage of "You can have it fast, good or cheap, pick two." Well with magic you can have all three and eat your cake too.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

True, but this harkens back to the points I made early in this thread.

Magic is easy.

Magic breaks the rules.

Magic wins the game.

DMs are reluctant to enforce the harsher rules of magic.

Many of the penalties/risks to magic use have been removed.

Many of the rewards have been increased.

For a long time playing a non-magic user was simply an inferior choice.

Magic gets a lot of cool stichk.

Non-magic doesn't.

Magic can often do the same thing non-magic does cheaper, better and faster.

So if I can play the game faster, easier, with fewer restrictions, fewer penalties and higher rewards, why wouldn't I?

It's like the adage of "You can have it fast, good or cheap, pick two." Well with magic you can have all three and eat your cake too.

Completely agreed. In the same vein as Hussar's "it would be easier to say who couldn't do this," it would be easier to describe what spellcasting cannot do (hint: the opposite of "everything"!) than what it can. And when you have a choice between something that the designers intentionally make open-ended and "rule"-breaking,* vs. something intentionally closed-ended and "rule"-abiding*...which one are people going to want to choose?

*I don't mean breaking game rules as in cheating or the like, but rather that non-spellcasting is almost always shackled with heavy and inviolable limitations, while spellcasting is always free to go in new directions that were never even considered before. Also, note that I am intentionally drawing a distinction between "magic" and "spellcasting," as I did earlier in the thread, IIRC.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Oh man, this is weird for me, but I actually agree with you. I'd prefer that the casters have as close to zero overlap on spell effects as possible. Of course, I'd also prefer one or two spellcasting practices in the game, instead of 6.

 

[jayoungr]

The cleric should be using subtle magic that mostly helps people, and the wizard should be using obvious magic that mostly hinders people.

Obvious magic, I agree with; "mostly hinders people" I don't. That would heavily skew the wizard's usefulness just toward combat, leaving the character little to do in the other two pillars of the game, since combat is the main time when you want to hinder people.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

But is this really a problem *at the table*?

IMX, generally tables have some manner of niche protection to avoid toe-stepping. Just because a cleric and wizard might be able to make choices that give them spell overlap, doesn't mean you will necessarily see a campaign played where that is happening. If the group has a guy itching to play a fire sorcerer, do you expect the guy thinking about playing a cleric is going to go out of his way to gain access a bunch of otherwise arcane fire spells?

More likely, a particular table doesn't have someone who wants to play a wizardy-type, so the guy wanting to play a cleric decides to the arcane domain to help fill that perceived missing niche.

 

[Azurewraith]

Obvious magic, I agree with; "mostly hinders people" I don't. That would heavily skew the wizard's usefulness just toward combat, leaving the character little to do in the other two pillars of the game, since combat is the main time when you want to hinder people.

They could have some social hindering stuff mind blank, maybe something to lower cha, leomunds foul stench. Simple stuff like that maybe a you really need to pee spell