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

[TwoSix]

Okay, so the spell in the actual game is a better example of divine subtlety than the spell in the video game. You're supposed to cast it on sticks that were already lying on the ground, rather than ones which you produce from your trousers.

I always keep wood in my trousers.

 

[Gadget]

I always keep wood in my trousers.

If Sticks to Snakes lasts longer than four hours, consult a doctor.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Many of which don't come up that often. If you want to play a wilderness-oriented character without the nature magic, there are other classes that could be customised with backgrounds. Why pick a class that has nature magic?

I didn't. I picked a fighter. For the first time in my DnD history, i picked a fighter with an outlander background to be a classical 1E and 2E ranger. I find it a wee bit insulting that a class and background combo represents the class better then the name holder.

You don't even have to pick the abilities that let you blast out cones of arrows. A lot of Ranger magic is subtle. Muttering a prayer to predator spirits to give you insight into your prey. Asking the Land to smooth your path and speed your steps, or to hide your passing. Speaking a few words in a sacred tongue to calm an animal or enlist its aid through shared emotions. etc.

It also breaks away with the spirit of 1E and 2E rangers, that were more of highly trained individuals then magical people. Sure, they could learn some magic (through different manners in both editions), but it was marginal and not what they were doing most of the time,

Ah. Sorry to hear that. So what is it about the Ranger Class that you definitely want to play one rather than just a wilderness oriented Fighter or Rogue and calling yourself a ranger in-character? (Does your DM allow multiclassing?)

Sounds like multiclassing with a martial type class to delay and/or reduce your magical progression could be the best way to go about this if your DM allows it.

The basic archetypes (looking at hunters mostly) have some neat features that harken back to 1E and the giant/mosnter slayers of old. Also the defensive tactics at level 7, land's stride and the favorite terrain features are very "rangery". Fortunately the DM did allow MCing and that was the way i went. Unfortunately MCing comes with it's own problems. Not so much from role playing aspects. More from having to take levels in "batches". And this tends to get annoying after some time. Unless you are really willing to play a dead duck character with 0 utility to the group until you concept matures. Mine does so at level 10 (i am the level 5 now), so i went for 6 consecutive fighter levels and take the rest (4) in ranger.

I really haven't found that. Ranger spells are generally subtle and useful as expediters rather than outright powers. They help the Ranger and/or his party do things rather than doing things themselves. If you didn't have them, you could generally achieve the same things, just harder and slower.

They can be subtle yes, but they can also be as intrusive as lighting arrows, spray of thorns and hunter's mark. All of which increase the fighting potential quite a bit. The mark especially.

If you want to know more about what i like/d about the rangers of old, look for the 1E ranger, and 2E Justifier Kit for rangers. I have based my concept on them. In essence highly trained specialist military men, that favor guerrilla tactics over slug fests, but are not exactly archers or skirmishers. They do melee and have staying power (including heavier armor), but also possess the ability to disappear as quick as they attacked or ambushed.

 

[Fanaelialae]

First, there's nothing wrong with class proliferation for extra experiences.

Yes, but there comes a point where you are potentially sacrificing replay value. A class with many options can encompass all permutations of those experiences, and is more practical if you don't want to take up book space to turn each permutation into its own class.

Second necessity is the mother of invention. If we want the benefits of freedom and creativity let's throw out the entire 300 page rulebook that is the PHB. And the DMG. And the MM with it. On the other hand restrictions can drive creativity. Present me a blank sheet and I don't know what to do with it. Seed the water with ideas and I have dozens that build off them.

Reductio ad absurdum? It has its place, but I don't see much value in this case.

Let's take a more reasonable example. What would happen if we eliminated the class spell lists and any spellcaster could pick any spell?

In the pro column, spellcasters could be tailored to match a concept more easily. My wizard might be a white mage, casting healing and support spells without the clerical baggage (such as having a deity).

In the con column, differentiation between the spellcasting classes would be significantly watered down. You could have rangers tossing fireballs, and fiendish warlocks conjuring angels.

Now, I'm not advocating no class spell lists. While I would love the ability to play a red mage in D&D, I freely admit that it's not a core D&D class concept. However, as I hope you can see from the above, there are both advantages and disadvantages to any approach. More classes with more restrictive spell lists is certainly an option, also with pros and cons. Personally, I prefer the former. I'd rather pick from a spell list to turn my wizard into a fire mage, rather than having to wait for WOTC to produce an official fire mage class. Having options is good, although there do come diminishing returns at some point.

While I realize you might disagree, I think the system as it currently stands is a fair compromise between creative freedom and restrictions.

 

[n00b f00]

I think DnD went down the magic path because that's what the people want and expect. People playing wizards don't want to shoot crossbows, they wanna shoot lazers out of their hands pew pew pew.

The reasons for this are many. Some people don't like doing non magical things in between spell slots, some people like the hybrid vancian system, some people just expect magical people to be oozing magic like in a video game. I like it. I like the hybrid system, I like the downplaying of magical items. I like tying many of the class features into spell lists.

It does means you have to work a bit to get a low magic setting going, while still using the system. You got in the PHB 2 fighter, 2 rogue, 1 monk, and 1 barbarian (if you count out totem for animal talking) subclasses that don't really do magic. Well you can use spells and say you aren't doing magic like, say the ranger. Many ranger spells, aren't spells, they are him getting in the zone, or being extra fast, or whatever. Mundane flavor to his mechanics, 4e style. You can also allow magic users into the game modified or otherwise, and then just say these guys are special. Removing cantrips, and/or forcing to take them on alternating levels will give them magic but less magic.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If the attack spells are just as good as attacks, then why bother with attacks? That's not a really meaningful choice is it? Do the same damage regardless of what you choose, but, one way you don't have to go down the route of MAD.

Same reason you'd bother with a greatsword when you can use two short swords or whatever - variety, flavor, because one is more useful in a given situation than another, etc.

Generally speaking, because cantrips = weapons, you don't lose anything by going with one or the other. Of course, classes with cantrips only get martial weapon proficiency if they devote some class resources to it (and vice versa).

 

[jayoungr]

For the first time in my DnD history, i picked a fighter with an outlander background to be a classical 1E and 2E ranger. I find it a wee bit insulting that a class and background combo represents the class better then the name holder.

Er ... represents the 1E and 2E version of the class. The Ranger is one of the least consistent classes from edition to edition, so even if the 1E-2E version is your favorite, you can't in fairness say it is THE CLASS.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Er ... represents the 1E and 2E version of the class. The Ranger is one of the least consistent classes from edition to edition, so even if the 1E-2E version is your favorite, you can't in fairness say it is THE CLASS.

That's like saying words have no meaning, because colloquial use can change their meaning....... take decimation in example. You can use it as much as you want in the context of having a hard time, but in essence it will always be the execution of every tenth man in a legion.

 

[Caliban]

Magic has become more ubiquitous mostly because it's more convenient and fun. Filthy casuals. Not like the old days where your wizard was basically useless for most of the fights and a demigod who bends the universe to their whims in the other fights. (Usually the ones that take place right after breakfast.)

It may or may not also have something to do with how ubiquitous technology has become in our lives, so that having magic be equally prevalent seems natural.

 

[Koloth]

In the original D&D 1st level wizards were basically a resource drain on a party. You had to choose your spell(1) with care. Sleep? Magic Missile? Something else? And cast it wisely, you didn't get another for the day. And there wasn't that encounter, rest, encounter, rest stuff like so many folks do today. It did get a bit boring. Plus I guess computer games have influenced things. After all, magic in a lot of computer games was plentiful. And players wanted that in their table top game. And a smart company gives its customers what they want.

And now, magic is the Fantasy Game equivalent of technology. Magic Items used to be rare and cherished. Now if you don't have several, you are under equipped.