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

[Sunseeker]

Oh my sweet Wizards vs Warriors thread. How I have missed thee.

The irony is of course, that the lowest-selling edition was the only edition to resolve these problems.

The grass is always greener I suppose.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The irony is of course, that the lowest-selling edition was the only edition to resolve these problems.

It's a matter of priorities. They achieved the "balance" goal, but sacrificed so much to get there that they lost their followers.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's a matter of priorities. They achieved the "balance" goal, but sacrificed so much to get there that they lost their followers.

Well, the same systems bring the same followers who bring the same complaints.

Again: the grass is always greener.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

The list of what the robed figure isn't is considerably larger than the list of who it could be however.

There are many more humans who aren't variant humans who take one specific feat to pick up one specific spell than humans who are for example. There are more Clerics who don't have the Light Domain than there are who do. And so on.

5e is flexible enough that you can build a character capable of throwing a bolt of fire in many different ways. It doesn't mean that a lot of those methods for achieving that aim are common however.

Even in high-magic settings, magic is not ubiquitous. It may be quite common, but firebolt-throwing figures are still a very tiny fraction of the populace.

 

[BryonD]

Well, the same systems bring the same followers who bring the same complaints.

Again: the grass is always greener.

I think you are inserting the voices of the outliers as the voices of the masses.

 

[CapnZapp]

Nobody is saying the obvious: even if 99% of the classes are magical, 99% of the general population might still be distinctly non-magical.

No matter how much you dislike the idea, the class selection in the PHB is not meant to represent the general population.

Only the hero population.

Of which there can be as little as 5. In the whole world.

What you don't get to do, is to say two things:

1) I find that illogical and improbable so I'll have many more NPCs with PHB class levels.

And

2) That brings consequences for how the world is built, and WotC should solve that for me.

No they don't. YOU made the choice to have other heroes than the characters, you solve the consequences of that choice.

Take a campaign supplement like Out of the Abyss.

It contains ZERO fighters and druids and wizards. (Or close to zero, I haven't actually double-checked).

---

But a more specific answer for player characters:

Even if there's only a single non-magical subclass, you can still have a completely non-magical party.

 

[Sunseeker]

Nobody is saying the obvious: even if 99% of the classes are magical, 99% of the general population might still be distinctly non-magical.

Yup and that's how I roll things. In the settings I design, 90% of the people in the world are common folk with barely a spell between them. Even the rich and powerful have to rely on magical trinkets, arcane relics and ritual scrolls in order to do any magic whatsoever. There may be a school of Mages, with a dozen magically inclined people or so. There may be a monastic, holy or knightly order with some range of magic between them. There may also be some circles of druids and a bardic school here and there. But all in all this makes up at most a few hundred people, out of thousands upon thousands. The woods are largely full of natural beasts, the plants are mundane and non-magical and beyond a few ancient spots here and there, without outside influence (a powerful dragon, lic or other magically-inclined creature) affecting their natures, they will remain that way for a good long while.

Players see a microcosm of the world. They head to the areas with higher magical natures because that's "where the action is". After the first few levels, events dealing with mundane creatures and mundane people taper off. Even if those events still occur at higher levels, it is often because they are spurred by those with magical power (again, evil wizards, evil paladins, dragons, powerful artifacts, etc...) Players don't go looking for adventure in Old Mr. McCreedy's wheat fields. Players don't head to the office to defeat dragons (unless ya know, the evil head of HR is a dragon in disguise!).

So when people talk about how "full of magic the world is"; well, do you really want me to sit you down and run you through how much of the world ISNT magical? To go over the rivers without golden rings in them, to review the lakes without magic swords in them, to address the forests that aren't filled with magical tree-people? We all live in reality. We all know what a non-magical world looks like. The reason we (as adventurers) seek out magic is because we (as characters within the setting) know just how mundane the world is. We just don't talk about it, so we make a concerted effort to go where the world ISNT mundane which makes it appear from our perspectives as if magic is everywhere.

But in reality magic isn't everywhere. WE are everywhere there is magic.

 

[Hussar]

In 1e AD&D, which class was throwing a bolt of fire a signature effect of?

I'd call magic missile a pretty signature effect.

 

[Hussar]

The list of what the robed figure isn't is considerably larger than the list of who it could be however.

There are many more humans who aren't variant humans who take one specific feat to pick up one specific spell than humans who are for example. There are more Clerics who don't have the Light Domain than there are who do. And so on.

5e is flexible enough that you can build a character capable of throwing a bolt of fire in many different ways. It doesn't mean that a lot of those methods for achieving that aim are common however.

Even in high-magic settings, magic is not ubiquitous. It may be quite common, but firebolt-throwing figures are still a very tiny fraction of the populace.

That's beside the point though. You're looking at the setting, but, that's not what's seen at the table. What's seen at the table is firebolt-throwing figures (plural) in every single encounter in every single session. And virtually every single round.

 

[Sunseeker]

That's beside the point though. You're looking at the setting, but, that's not what's seen at the table. What's seen at the table is firebolt-throwing figures (plural) in every single encounter in every single session. And virtually every single round.

So what? When you're reading LOTR the book consists in large part of mighty warriors, ancient elf lords, animated tree-people, powerful wizards and undead kings. You get occassional mention of the fact that Minas Tirith is full of normal people, much like the Shire, Dale, Rohan and Moria is full of a million CR 1/4 Goblins and a couple trolls and one big ass Balrog.

Stories always focus on the interesting stuff. Dirt-poor farmers dying from the cold every day isn't interesting.