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

[innerdude]

Because having your wizard cast a spell is more fun than shooting a crossbow, for most people.

This is mostly a byproduct of how disproportionately ineffective ranged combat is in D&D, and the long-standing ban on casters wearing armor, making it even less likely for them to have something interesting to do that isn't casting spells.

Make mundane ranged combat highly effective with lots of tactical options and the need to have wizards blasting spells lessens. In Savage Worlds, ranged combat is highly effective, and synergizes with most of magic-user's "classic" abilities.

 

[Salamandyr]

A few thoughts off the top of my head.

1. The complaint about Paladins and Rangers seems really overblown. They aren't all any more magical than they were in previous editions; it's just that abilities that they had were shunted over to the same spell mechanic wizards use. Rather than having a "Hunter's Mark" special ability, they now cast "Hunter's Mark" like the wizard casts burning hands. But the ability doesn't actually feel any more magical to me. Instead of summoning a magical mount at 4th level, the paladin casts a mount spell. End result is the same. Paladin in my game uses her slots almost exclusively for smites. Doesn't feel any more magical than the smitey Pathfinder paladin, or a the 3e one. I'm open that using the spellcasting system for what maybe ought to be discrete abilities was a mistake, in feel if nothing else, but it doesn't suddenly make them more magical.

2. The D&D party can be as magical as it wants to be; that doesn't necessarily have to affect the rest of the world. In the Conan stories, he trips over an undead or sorceror, ancient artifact, or monster from the beyond in what seems like every other story, but that sort of thing doesn't happen to your average Bossonian plowman, who has to worry about the occasional pict raid, but has never heard of carnivorous flying apes and wouldn't believe you if you told him of them.

PC's are magical because they poke around in the corners of the world best left uncovered, and if it doesn't kill them, it rewards them greatly. They can be as dripping with magical gewgaws as you want, but that doesn't mean the world has to be that way. (Or it does, it's how you want to play the game).

3. Going back to Basic/Expert, I've sort of looked at 'swing to hit, and then doing damage' as "the Game". Fighters were the best at "the Game". Meanwhile clerics, rogues, and wizards, traded being less good at "the Game" in order to have extraordinarily abilities that when deployed, made "the Game" superfluous. (note; "the Game" is a gross oversimplication). That still largely holds true in 5e. However; at least at my tables, a lot of people have come to the conclusion that "the Game" is really boring. So, even when they would really prefer a nonmagical class, they wind up playing a spellcaster because the spellcasting gives them something to do other than just swing to hit.

I'm working on some mundane solutions to the problem, like upgrading the alchemical solutions to be actually useful, and stealing some things that got sequestered off as class abilities to make them as mundane combat options, and outlining some new things to be done with bonus actions and reactions.

4. One of the ways to cut back on magic? Cut back on the number of magic classes. Each magic class is built around a certain idea of magic. Warlocks have pacts with otherworldly beings. Wizards have formulae, sorcerors have arcane heritages. What if the only way to get magical power was to "make a deal with the devil?" Boom, you can get rid of sorcerers and wizards. Want your wizards to be less boom-y, and more support-y; want them to feel a bit like Gandalf? Make them all clerics. Not every campaign world has to have every sort of magic available to it.

5. Lastly, somebody said that 5e isn't so much more magical, but it moved the magic from the backpack to the character sheet. I think that's right. A high level fighter in 1e could have as much access to magical spells as a wizard; he just cast them using his Helm of Teleportation, Boots of Speed, and Horn of Blasting.

 

[Hussar]

That doesn't make it less true, though. Traditionally, magic is impressive at least partially because it's rare. When it's not rare, it stops being impressive on that merit, and so you're left to judge it by its utility function.

That's the topic of this thread. Magic doesn't feel magical anymore, because it's everywhere. I don't know how we could possibly make it feel inherently awesome - aside from its utility function - without making it much less common.

You could also make food and money seem more special, if you greatly restricted access to that in the game, but the difference between that and magic is that people have real-world experience with food and money. Most players, in the real world, have enough food and money to get by; making their characters suffer in that regard makes them seem less capable than the players are in the real world, which is a hard sell for a game that many use as a power fantasy. For contrast, a wizard who can cast one Fireball per day is still infinitely​ more magical than anyone is in the real world.

This is an excellent restatement of the point I think I was trying to get across.

It's not a balance issue. 5e casters are not overpowered and I haven't seen a lot of claims to the otherwise. They do their jobs and everyone gets to contribute. Fantastic.

But, for me, the issue is more that as D&D has progressed, particularly from 3e onward, magic has become so ubiquitous in play that it might as well just be swinging a sword. Every scenario gets resolved by the application of magic. We've gone from a time when you might see an encounter with no magic used at all to a time when it would be rare to see a single round where magic isn't used.

Remember, not only did casters get at will spells but they got a boatload of actual spells per day as well. My 6th level druid has 11 spells per day. Ok, this is a bad example because a 1e 6th level druid would have 12. LOL. But, a cleric, OTOH, would only have 8 spells and a MUCH more limited spell list. Cleric or Druid, I would have had a list of 12 spells per level to choose from, as opposed to the 15 or so spells for either cleric or druid PLUS their Domain spells. My druid, in AD&D, would just be gaining shape change this level. My 5e druid gains shape change after about 3 sessions.

Surely there might be something of a middle road here. Instead of having enough magic in the game to see several magical effects being used every single round of every single encounter, isn't there a design space for, say, encounter level magic? If we have a scale of 10 for magic, and AD&D is a 2-3, and 3e, 4e and 5e are 7+, isn't there a way to get a 5? Maybe shading into a 4?

Look, I don't want a zero magic campaign. That's not interesting to me and there are systems far, far better suited to that. But, that doesn't mean that I want my campaigns to be ... I hate using this term, because I don't mean it pejoratively, but, ... Potterverse where every problem is solved by throwing buckets of magic at it and every character in the stories is carrying a big old bucket of magic.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

This is mostly a byproduct of how disproportionately ineffective ranged combat is in D&D, and the long-standing ban on casters wearing armor, making it even less likely for them to have something interesting to do that isn't casting spells.

Make mundane ranged combat highly effective with lots of tactical options and the need to have wizards blasting spells lessens. In Savage Worlds, ranged combat is highly effective, and synergizes with most of magic-user's "classic" abilities.

But if you're playing a "wizard", is a pretty dangerous crossbowman really what you're looking for? I think for most players, that class choice is a pretty clear indication that the "something interesting" they want to be doing is casting spells.

 

[Umbran]

Surely there might be something of a middle road here.

I'm sure that, in general, there is a middle road that could be taken. But that doesn't mean that D&D is or should be the game that takes that middle road as its base assumption.

5e had a lot of playtesters, and playtesting went on for a long time. There was a great deal of opportunity for people to give feedback. I'm going to guess that if they'd gotten a ton of feedback that magic was too common, and didn't feel special any more, they'd have dialed it back. They didn't.

So, the primary answer to the original question is likely, "Because a lot of people like it, or are at least not put off by it, the way it is." It may simply be that lower-magic desires are a smaller portion of the market, and so maybe aren't strongly catered to by the largest game in the market.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think you and I might agree that only getting one little pouch of coins after doing a dozen quests might make monetary rewards more impressive, but the trade-off is likely not worth it as the characters (and very possibly the players) will get sick of risk with little chance of any reward. Removing at-will magic is a similar thing. Sure, it might make the big outbursts of magic more impressive, but there are certainly some players who will wonder why they aren't playing a non-wizard if they're going to spend most of their time with a crossbow in their hands.

You were probably writing this while I was editing my post to add a concluding paragraph.

Limiting money (or food) is different from limiting magic because people have real-world experience with money (and food). A character in the game who is poor and/or starving is less capable than the real-world people playing the game, while a wizard who can cast one spell per day is instantly more powerful than everyone in the real world.

It still comes down to personal preference, but that's one good reason why some people would be happy with limiting magic, but not happy with restricting money (or food) at that level. I don't think anyone here is complaining that common-magic makes for an inherently worse setting, just that it's different from our preference, and difficult to work around given the ruleset at hand.

 

[BryonD]

That doesn't make it less true, though. Traditionally, magic is impressive at least partially because it's rare. When it's not rare, it stops being impressive on that merit, and so you're left to judge it by its utility function.

IMO, from the perspective of a typical player you are wrong here.
The player plays once or twice a month for a few hours. For that brief time they get the fresh feeling of their character doing something that is rare. The fact that the player sitting right next to them can also do it, and their last character could also do it, does not diminish this feeling. In the game the powers are typically still fairly rare. I'm sure there are super woo-hoo games out there, but in most games the vast majority of NPCs are not throwing around the quantity of magic that PCs are. So their character *is* rare. (For a case here, look at the outcry over a 4E race that could make a very short daily teleport. There is a fundamental difference in the setting boundaries for the world as a whole and for the PCs)
And, for the fun part, vicarious use of magic via shared imagination during a 4 hour period every 14 days is "rare enough". The sensation certainly wears off so that the player gets that buzz again after 14 days away. In their "real experience" it is rare.

And that is what it is all about. That "cool" moment. And even if it gets repetitive over 4 hours, if the player wants that "cool" moment one more that is 50% as good as the first one 4 hours ago is still better to them than the option of not having it again for the sake of it being "rare". (Similar issue with magic items. Every player wants that cool moment where your get "Sting". Then they want that cool moment again.)

Again, I see lots of merit in low magic games. But I think that D&D is going to follow the market demand, and that is for more instant and continuous gratification. You can play D&D or you can play low magic. Or you can seriously hack D&D, in which case default D&D doesn't mean much. Or you can play D&D and complain, which just seems like complaining about the lack of designated hitters in basketball.

 

[MechaPilot]

You were probably writing this while I was editing my post to add a concluding paragraph.

That's probably the case. Allow me to remedy that.

You could also make food and money seem more special, if you greatly restricted access to that in the game, but the difference between that and magic is that people have real-world experience with food and money. Most players, in the real world, have enough food and money to get by; making their characters suffer in that regard makes them seem less capable than the players are in the real world, which is a hard sell for a game that many use as a power fantasy. For contrast, a wizard who can cast one Fireball per day is still infinitely​ more magical than anyone is in the real world.

If many use D&D as a "power fantasy," how does being unable to use your power frequently, and often having to rely on being worse at things that everyone else can do, make D&D appealing as a power fantasy?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If many use D&D as a "power fantasy," how does being unable to use your power frequently, and often having to rely on being worse at things that everyone else can do, make D&D appealing as a power fantasy?

Because when you do get to use that power, you own the scene. The wizard, casting its one spell for the day, is the most powerful person in the room, and commands the respect and admiration of everyone there.

And the trade-off for that is that you're not as good at swinging your staff as the fighter is at swinging her sword. You're still doing cool heroic stuff - smashing demons and saving villagers - but the fighter is the star of any show where the wizard doesn't cast a spell.

 

[Hussar]

I'm sure that, in general, there is a middle road that could be taken. But that doesn't mean that D&D is or should be the game that takes that middle road as its base assumption.

5e had a lot of playtesters, and playtesting went on for a long time. There was a great deal of opportunity for people to give feedback. I'm going to guess that if they'd gotten a ton of feedback that magic was too common, and didn't feel special any more, they'd have dialed it back. They didn't.

So, the primary answer to the original question is likely, "Because a lot of people like it, or are at least not put off by it, the way it is." It may simply be that lower-magic desires are a smaller portion of the market, and so maybe aren't strongly catered to by the largest game in the market.

I didn't say anything about base assumptions here. But, I do think your final point is probably on target here. The trend continues because that's what people like.

I guess what I'd like to see, and hopefully it will come eventually, is a number of options for the game that aren't centered around making magic ubiquitous. So far we're seeing a lot of magical options - the Mystic being the most recent. But, by the same token, the Sword Coast Adventure Guide did include both the Mastermind and the Purple Dragon Knight, so, we are seeing some movement in this direction.

I just hope that we see a few more. It wouldn't take a whole lot to open the space up for a campaign that dials back magic a bit.