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

[Ancalagon]

I guess that's a third option in the whole chicken/egg thing. Was high level not played much because people weren't interested therefor it wasn't very well executed, or was it not very well executed therefor people didn't play it much, or was it intentionally designed to be tedious to prevent people from playing it?

Well I think some of it is attrition. Unless you start at high level, by the time you are high level well, some campaign - or groups! - will have fallen appart. In my personal experience however, we found that big issue was spellcaster "swiss-army-knifing". A lot of spells were potent problem solvers that would allow the party to duck and weave around plotpoints. After a while it got wearisome for the GM to keep coming up with adventures that couldn't be easily solved with clever magic use.

 

[Reflected_Shadows]

1. Expectations. Games want to look familiar and provide a layer of what you expect to see. This means either some form of Vancian Magic or Spell Point system, or amalgamation of the two. There is also the concept of a skill spell, and "equip spell" systems. There are only so many methods to apply magic use to a game, after all, and there is a point at which the prior effort of commitment stimulates further commitment, even if the effort is in vain or there is a better way to do things.

2. Simplicity. They wanted to keep a streamlined feel. They didn't want Spellcasters to be "abusive" just by having a toolbox of stock answers and win buttons. They also didn't want to ruin spellcasting as a means to control it.

3. Customization. I think they wanted a system that would be easy and painless to adapt/change per group. 3e was in many aspects a pain if you wanted to change core things because the system of spellcasting in prior systems had some kinda stupid design elements, which forced even more stupid design elements. Changing one thing you thought was stupid reveals why it was there - to prevent something else stupid. And this is a cascading effect where, like an onion, each layer has other layers beneath it. So in short, they wanted a magic system with as few layers of dependency as possible. So, instead of developing a whole new animal, they made adjustments to the machine we already had.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Yep, the infamous treadmill. It was a great feature as far as providing PCs with a sense of advancement, keeping classes balanced, and making encounter-building functional at all levels. It was even elegant when viewed from some angles - from others it looked like travesty of a mockery of a sham...

A sham definitely! After the first several levels, when it became all to obvious how things fair, my group got increasingly disillusioned with the edition.

 

[MerricB]

If I can make one or two comments about the effect of cantrips on combat...

A lot of the actual play of cantrips depends greatly on party composition. In our AD&D game which ran from 2013-2015 while waiting for 5E to come out), the front rank of the party (3 characters) formed a defensive line behind which the rest of the group sat. A cleric in AD&D had no missile weapons to speak of, so if they weren't in that front rank, they basically cast bless and waited for the combat to end. That was with nine characters - PCs and henchmen.

In our D&D 5E games, a more typical party size is 4 characters. In that situation, the archetypal group of a fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard ends up with the fighter and cleric in melee, while the rogue and wizard are behind. With such a composition the use of cleric cantrips in combat becomes more problematic.

Beside, what cantrips are we talking about? I find this a major flaw in the argument that cantrips turn everyone into faux-wizards. Quite simply, most classes don't have (per the PHB) access to a good selection of attack cantrips.

Let's look at them:

Bard: Vicious Mockery
Cleric: Sacred Flame
Druid: Poison Spray, Produce Flame, Shillelagh, Thorn Whip
Sorcerer: Acid Splash, Chill Touch, Fire Bolt, Poison Spray, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp
Warlock: Chill Touch, Eldritch Blast, Poison Spray
Wizard: Acid Splash, Chill Touch, Fire Bolt, Poison Spray, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp

Just by examining the spell lists, it quickly becomes obvious that neither the Bard nor Cleric are at their best when just spamming cantrips. If the Bard actually wishes to deal significant damage, a bow or rapier is far more effective. Likewise, the Cleric has sacred flame, which at least deals damage, but against a significant number of creatures is not as effective as a weapon. Certainly at lower levels, your chances of hitting with a melee weapon are better than a monster failing a saving throw against sacred flame. There are situation where it is superior, but it isn't universally better than a weapon attack.

For the Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard: They're wizards in any case. This is what they should be doing. I'll leave aside whether it is a good thing or not save to say that if in AD&D all Wizards were using wands of magic missile and wands of fire... then cantrips have simply taken the place of the wands.

Which brings us to the one class where cantrips do change how we perceive the class. Or, perhaps I should say, how some of us perceive the class. Historically, the druid gained spellcasting capabilities faster than any class in AD&D. They weren't a top-rank melee combatant - where the potential AC of the character made the most difference to their effectiveness. Clerics and Fighters were in plate armour and could stand toe-to-toe. The druid, in leather and shield, could not. (Barkskin improved AC by 1. It wasn't that good).

The fact is that a first-level druid was pretty awful. Yes, they got two spells (plus Wisdom modifier), but their first-level spells were forgettable - with the exception of animal friendship, which allowed them to take a wolf as a pet. So, as a first-level druid, you were really playing a wolf and his human side-kick! Honestly, this didn't change for many levels, even with their fast gaining of spells, they weren't getting all that many significant ones. (Call lighting? Awesome... but it required a storm).

The druid came into its own in 3E. A little too much so! Animal companion, shape-shifting, good utility spells and a fair number of attack spells...

So, I think there's a definite argument to saying the 5E druid changes how it is played. I am not, however, convinced that this is a bad thing. My experience with druids in my games indicate that (a) shapechanging trumps cantrip use and (b) shillelagh is awesome.

Cheers!

 

[Azurewraith]

If I can make one or two comments about the effect of cantrips on combat...

A lot of the actual play of cantrips depends greatly on party composition. In our AD&D game which ran from 2013-2015 while waiting for 5E to come out), the front rank of the party (3 characters) formed a defensive line behind which the rest of the group sat. A cleric in AD&D had no missile weapons to speak of, so if they weren't in that front rank, they basically cast bless and waited for the combat to end. That was with nine characters - PCs and henchmen.

In our D&D 5E games, a more typical party size is 4 characters. In that situation, the archetypal group of a fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard ends up with the fighter and cleric in melee, while the rogue and wizard are behind. With such a composition the use of cleric cantrips in combat becomes more problematic.

Beside, what cantrips are we talking about? I find this a major flaw in the argument that cantrips turn everyone into faux-wizards. Quite simply, most classes don't have (per the PHB) access to a good selection of attack cantrips.

Let's look at them:

Bard: Vicious Mockery
Cleric: Sacred Flame
Druid: Poison Spray, Produce Flame, Shillelagh, Thorn Whip
Sorcerer: Acid Splash, Chill Touch, Fire Bolt, Poison Spray, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp
Warlock: Chill Touch, Eldritch Blast, Poison Spray
Wizard: Acid Splash, Chill Touch, Fire Bolt, Poison Spray, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp

Just by examining the spell lists, it quickly becomes obvious that neither the Bard nor Cleric are at their best when just spamming cantrips. If the Bard actually wishes to deal significant damage, a bow or rapier is far more effective. Likewise, the Cleric has sacred flame, which at least deals damage, but against a significant number of creatures is not as effective as a weapon. Certainly at lower levels, your chances of hitting with a melee weapon are better than a monster failing a saving throw against sacred flame. There are situation where it is superior, but it isn't universally better than a weapon attack.

For the Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard: They're wizards in any case. This is what they should be doing. I'll leave aside whether it is a good thing or not save to say that if in AD&D all Wizards were using wands of magic missile and wands of fire... then cantrips have simply taken the place of the wands.

Which brings us to the one class where cantrips do change how we perceive the class. Or, perhaps I should say, how some of us perceive the class. Historically, the druid gained spellcasting capabilities faster than any class in AD&D. They weren't a top-rank melee combatant - where the potential AC of the character made the most difference to their effectiveness. Clerics and Fighters were in plate armour and could stand toe-to-toe. The druid, in leather and shield, could not. (Barkskin improved AC by 1. It wasn't that good).

The fact is that a first-level druid was pretty awful. Yes, they got two spells (plus Wisdom modifier), but their first-level spells were forgettable - with the exception of animal friendship, which allowed them to take a wolf as a pet. So, as a first-level druid, you were really playing a wolf and his human side-kick! Honestly, this didn't change for many levels, even with their fast gaining of spells, they weren't getting all that many significant ones. (Call lighting? Awesome... but it required a storm).

The druid came into its own in 3E. A little too much so! Animal companion, shape-shifting, good utility spells and a fair number of attack spells...

So, I think there's a definite argument to saying the 5E druid changes how it is played. I am not, however, convinced that this is a bad thing. My experience with druids in my games indicate that (a) shapechanging trumps cantrip use and (b) shillelagh is awesome.

Cheers!

I think part of the issue with druids is they keep changing. Like you say they began with pretty poor damage spells, became God's in 3e with an impressive spell list and a straight up broken wildshape, the system in 4e was different as we all know and put druids back in a supporting melee capable role similar to 2e and finally currant day they are in a similar spot to 3e except without the broken wildshape a full caster with some strong offensive spells but many more utility and control orientated spells.

 

[pemerton]

magic-users kept getting new spell levels through 18th, Druids & Assassins hard-level-capped at 14th (Monks at 17th), and multi-class characters only started to hit their more significant level caps around that time, finally giving humans their day in the sun. So it sure seems like the game was meant to be played into the double-digit levels...

Not really - the highest level PC in Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at IIRC level 13. Sure they had advancement beyond that - but that was mostly intended for NPCs or even legendary magic items. The enemies normally have to at least look bigger than the PCs

I think that Neonchameleon is correct about this (and also correct in his evaluation of the relationship between OD&D and AD&D).

Those XP and spell charts in the AD&D PHB weren't really meant to be used. I don't think either the spell charts or the high level spells themselves were playtested in any serious fashion. (Or, perhaps they were playtested for NPCs but not PCs.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well I think some of it is attrition. Unless you start at high level, by the time you are high level well, some campaign - or groups! - will have fallen appart.

That certainly seems like a big one. I've been in groups that have just disintegrated as people left the area (due to cost of living), for instance. Then again, if the game is friendly enough to starting at higher level, you can replace lost players. The campaign I'm currently running started as a continuation of an Encounters season (1-4th level), and now it's 18th, but I only have two players out of seven who have been with it the whole time, and it's fluctuated from 5-12 players over the years. It's easy enough to just build a character at X level, so bringing new players in is fairly straightforward.

In my personal experience however, we found that big issue was spellcaster "swiss-army-knifing". A lot of spells were potent problem solvers that would allow the party to duck and weave around plotpoints. After a while it got wearisome for the GM to keep coming up with adventures that couldn't be easily solved with clever magic use.

Also a big factor.

A sham definitely! After the first several levels, when it became all to obvious how things fair, my group got increasingly disillusioned with the edition.

Like I said, when looked at from a certain angle, they could appear that way. If you had the world, in essence, leveling up around the PCs, so that when the 1st level part journeyed from Winterhaven to Hammerfast, they randomly encountered kobold bandits on the road, when they'd reached 11th and went from Hammerfast to Winterhaven, they randomly encounter Githyanki on the road, and at 21th level, Titans, for instance - or worse, if they kept encountering Kobolds, just 'higher level' kobolds, (as you could do in 3e by giving them class levels), or when every door turned from wood to iron-bound to adamantine as you leveled.

Those XP and spell charts in the AD&D PHB weren't really meant to be used. I don't think either the spell charts or the high level spells themselves were playtested in any serious fashion. (Or, perhaps they were playtested for NPCs but not PCs.)

Well, that's a definite position in the chicken/egg debate: that high levels worked poorly because no one played them, or was ever meant to have done so. I don't find it terribly persuasive, it still seems like an attempt to put forth playable high-level rules that just failed, so didn't get used much, and led to the cycle of not really trying with higher level rules, either, that lasted until 4e, and is presumably back with 5e (since it's returned to advancement structures comparable to those of past editions that had the problem).

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Like I said, when looked at from a certain angle, they could appear that way. If you had the world, in essence, leveling up around the PCs, so that when the 1st level part journeyed from Winterhaven to Hammerfast, they randomly encountered kobold bandits on the road, when they'd reached 11th and went from Hammerfast to Winterhaven, they randomly encounter Githyanki on the road, and at 21th level, Titans, for instance - or worse, if they kept encountering Kobolds, just 'higher level' kobolds, (as you could do in 3e by giving them class levels), or when every door turned from wood to iron-bound to adamantine as you leveled.

Yep. And it's that insistence of staying on the power curve that made the whole experience feel so gamey. If you didn't level those Cobolts, no matter the numbers, they just wouldn't feel a threat. The whole affair just brought too many Oblivion nightmares back to life.....

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yep. And it's that insistence of staying on the power curve that made the whole experience feel so gamey. If you didn't level those Cobolts, no matter the numbers, they just wouldn't feel a threat. The whole affair just brought too many Oblivion nightmares back to life.....

And if you did level them, then you'd constantly feel like you're still being threatened by kobolds, no matter how much more awesome you'd become.

I think the problem in this example comes from levelling too quickly. You can run an entire campaign against goblins or orcs, while still avoiding this problem (in any edition), as long as you don't gain more than two levels over the course of the entire adventure.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep. And it's that insistence of staying on the power curve that made the whole experience feel so gamey. If you didn't level those Cobolts, no matter the numbers, they just wouldn't feel a threat.

Past a certain point, a low-level monster ceased to be a threat (nothing new/strange there, really). Thus the 'feeling of advancement' PoV. But, no, guidelines aren't 'insistence,' not in any of the editions that've had them, not even when they've worked dependably.

And if you did level them, then you'd constantly feel like you're still being threatened by kobolds, no matter how much more awesome you'd become.

Sure, that's the point. You could increment a bunch of numbers in a kobold stat block by n, or give a band of kobolds n Warrior levels, so the band of kobolds who were a threat at 1st are still a threat n levels later, but they're still kobolds, all you'd've been doing is disguising that the party has advanced. Or you can let them casually beat down kobolds from the band that previously gave them a hard time, and let them feel that advancement, at the price of not providing a 'challenging encounter' (albeit, where no challenging encounter was logically called for).

I think the problem in this example comes from levelling too quickly. You can run an entire campaign against goblins or orcs, while still avoiding this problem (in any edition), as long as you don't gain more than two levels over the course of the entire adventure.

Or you could just fight more and more of them, and the occasional exceptional individual. In classic D&D very large groups of much-weaker individuals became problematic, even comical, and even 'chieftain' types were quickly outclassed. In 3e, too, though eventually you could just bundle them into a mob (swarm) and applying levels could make exceptional individuals as tough as needed, and in 4e from standard to minion to throng (swarm) for many lesser enemies, and level-up formulas for exceptional individuals. 5e bounded accuracy makes very large groups problematic in a different way, but you can use increasingly large groups of very low-level enemies for quite a while thanks to Bounded Accuracy, you just have to be careful with how many in what circumstances...