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

[Hussar]

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.

The difference being, in LotR, you only have one caster. There isn't an entire group of protagonists dropping magic multiple times every situation. Aragorn or Boromir are just really good swordsmen. It's not Potterverse.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

But that's immaterial if the stated goal is "I want play at the table to be low-magic". That's a different goal than "I want the setting to be low-magic."

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Haven't read through this thread, but I have to imagine Shonen anime and jrpgs from the SNES generation to the present have had something to do with it.

 

[Sunseeker]

The difference being, in LotR, you only have one caster. There isn't an entire group of protagonists dropping magic multiple times every situation. Aragorn or Boromir are just really good swordsmen. It's not Potterverse.

There is one caster in the party. There are at least 3 Wizards, most of the elves know some magic. There's at least one druid mentioned.

Actually, Potterverse is a perfect example of "the world" vs. "the party" perspective I was talking about, far better than LOTR. In the Potterverse there are hundreds upon hundreds of wizards. However, we're in a world (the real world) with some 9 BILLION people. By the numbers the Potterverse is a low-magic setting, probably even more so than LOTR!. We just don't see it because, as I pointed out before but you felt more inclined to split hairs between universes which wasn't even close to my point, was that the party goes and does the interesting stuff. Which is likely going to encounter a higher distribution of magical stuff than that magical stuff actually represents in the setting. In the few times we go back to the muggle world, we have no idea who is or isn't a wizard and magic is almost NEVER used.

But that's immaterial if the stated goal is "I want play at the table to be low-magic". That's a different goal than "I want the setting to be low-magic."

Woah there partner, but that was never the "stated goal" of the OP. The OP asked why the GAME has tended towards ubiquitous magic; not why tables or settings allow it.

If you want to play at a low magic table, you're just going to have to hunt for it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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 in that particular group of players, you have more than one person who wanted to play a spellcaster-type character concept? Someone who is able to throw magic around against her enemies.

And the game has let them do so. I'm not really seeing an issue.

Presumable if the DM didn't want this, they would be setting some sort of quota. "Only one offensive caster allowed in this game. If you want to play one you can rock-paper-scissors to decide who gets to play the character they want."

There are also tables that don't have anyone throwing offensive magic around. Its just the nature of statistical variation. The PC population in D&D might average out at only one offensive caster in four or similar, but every table will vary.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

It sounds good in theory, in theory. In practice I've noticed designers can't help but design a wizard and stamp token flavor over it. (That is what happened during the playtest, and there was a huge backlash) And the limiting of spell list by flavor so far has only gimped sorcerers into one-trick-ponyhood.

So in that particular group of players, you have more than one person who wanted to play a spellcaster-type character concept? Someone who is able to throw magic around against her enemies.

And the game has let them do so. I'm not really seeing an issue.

Presumable if the DM didn't want this, they would be setting some sort of quota. "Only one offensive caster allowed in this game. If you want to play one you can rock-paper-scissors to decide who gets to play the character they want."

There are also tables that don't have anyone throwing offensive magic around. Its just the nature of statistical variation. The PC population in D&D might average out at only one offensive caster in four or similar, but every table will vary.

I guess all the times I've been told in these same boards sorcerers are meant to be blasters not to use sticks and I gotta like it that way were just my imagination?, not there by design and and a general attitude, only in my head... ?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd call magic missile a pretty signature effect.

But it's not a bolt of fire. It might look like one via Sense Shifting (2e) or Spell Thematics (3e), but it's not doing fire damage.

No one in 1e was throwing bolts of fire around. Balls and columns and fans and sheets and squares and walls and clouds and vaguely humanoid elementals and even chariots, but not bolts. Unless you count casting Flame Arrow on some crossbow bolts.

So in that particular group of players, you have more than one person who wanted to play a spellcaster-type character concept? Someone who is able to throw magic around against her enemies.

And the game has let them do so. I'm not really seeing an issue.

No issue at all, among the classes and sub-classes that cast offensive spells they should have no trouble each creating a unique character.

Now, what about the contrary supposition? You have a table where no one really wanted to play an offensive caster, or even a caster, at all. You go from dozens of choices to five, and from any possible contribution to just DPR (your pick of tanky or sneaky).

There are also tables that don't have anyone throwing offensive magic around.

Seems unlikely at a 5e table. Not impossible, a party with all the available non-caster options and a Cleric could see the Cleric devoting himself to healing/buffing rather than offensive casting, for instance.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I guess all the times I've been told in these same boards sorcerers are meant to be blasters not to use sticks and I gotta like it that way were just my imagination?, not there by design and and a general attitude, only in my head... ?

I can't speak for what other people have said to you.

Sorcerors don't have to be blasters any more than Fighters have to use two-handed weapons though.
People can guess at the optimal strategy, or design concepts behind any class. They don't get to determine what the class is "meant" to be without proof from the 5e design team stating that however.

They also don't get to tell you what sort of character to get to play, unless your DM is on these boards and tells you.

No issue at all, among the classes and sub-classes that cast offensive spells they should have no trouble each creating a unique character.

The same holds for among the classes and sub-classes that don't cast offensive spells: they should have no trouble creating a unique character either.
Because spells are inherently rules-heavy, there is more division between spellcaster variants into separate classes than for example martial variants.

Now, what about the contrary supposition? You have a table where no one really wanted to play an offensive caster, or even a caster, at all. You go from dozens of choices to five, and from any possible contribution to just DPR (your pick of tanky or sneaky).

How many dozens?

Seems unlikely at a 5e table. Not impossible, a party with all the available non-caster options and a Cleric could see the Cleric devoting himself to healing/buffing rather than offensive casting, for instance.

Eminently possible. There aren't any classes where the only way to play them is as an offensive caster. Just because there is a Wizard and a Sorceror in the group for example, doesn't require that either of them must be an offensive caster.
In addition, the greater concept-space among some of the non-caster classes allows multiple different options of the same to happily coexist in the same party, allowing a party to be made up of non-casters without two people playing the same character.

In one of my current groups, there is a Fighter, Paladin, Bard, Ranger, Warlock and Rogue. Only one offensive spell has even been cast so far.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The same holds for among the classes and sub-classes that don't cast offensive spells: they should have no trouble creating a unique character either.

There are very few classes that can't cast offensive spells at all in any sense (arguably there's one, maybe two if you stretch a point about the elemental monk not technically 'casting' its ki-powered spells), but, it is quite easy to simply not choose offensive spells, so as long as 'offensive' not 'cast spells' is what you're trying to avoid, there's no problem. There may be some pressure to go ahead and prepare offensive spells at some point as the campaign progresses, though...

Because spells are inherently rules-heavy, there is more division between spellcaster variants into separate classes than for example martial variants.

That doesn't follow. If an option is rules-heavy, you'd expect the game to include fewer such options, since they have such high overhead and bloat potential.

How many dozens?

~2.7

In addition, the greater concept-space among some of the non-caster classes

There are no entirely non-caster classes (the Barbarian, with but one sub-class that only uses rituals, perhaps comes the closest).

allows multiple different options of the same to happily coexist in the same party, allowing a party to be made up of non-casters without two people playing the same character.

Choice of race, alone, allows that, yes. Background doubles-down on the technicality. Heck, you could all pick the same sub-class and still be nominally 'different characters.'

 

[Tony Vargas]

As far as I'm concerned, if a class does not have spellcasting as a base feature then it is a non-casting class.

That's about the best argument for 'ubiquitous magic' I've heard so far. If a hypothetical party of 4 non-casters (a Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, & Monk) can all use magic (because they're a Totem Barbarian, EK, AT, and, well, Monk, because Ki is officially magic), that's pretty ubiquitous....