Has magic become so abundant it's not magical anymore?

[Trask]

Earlier editions had thieves and fighters have access to much fewer abilities (and wizards limited to much fewer spells) and that was widely considered enough, and still is by many people.
I think the problem is the approach to put all the options a character has into the class, while a great number of options could be coming from the environment, that can be widely different in every room.
Giving players options in fights can be as much part of encounter design than classes.

I totally agree, but the difficulty is in the steep power curve. Most things, even minor things like kicking over a brazier, even to pushing someone off a freaking 20 foot ledge arent as good as what you could do with all your class abilities if you just..hit the guy one more time. Its hard to make environmental effects stay relevant ime, although maybe im just not creative enough.

[Yora]

I guess that's to a great part because the classes have already been stuffed full with powerful attacks. That makes everything else seem less attractive.

[ezekielraiden]

"help an ally shrug off a condition" could mean flushing poison out of their system. You can't do that in a six second action <snip>

Who says? You can't survive a direct blast from a flamethrower by "careful dodging," yet that happens on the regular in D&D. We're already talking about people who do what is not possible on Earth, on a daily basis.

So, we don't need more non-magic classes, the fighter, rogue, barbarian and monk have the conceptual space they need to cover us. Maybe they need to have better designed subclasses, but the concepts are there.

With the Fighter shackled to the base class it currently has, I fundamentally disagree. The Fighter chassis has too much "baked into" it to ever be a proper "Cleric replacement," the way the 4e Warlord was. I know that this is a huge can of worms and thus really really don't intend to debate it, but I genuinely think that a Warlord class, one free of the "MUST have heavy armor proficiency and MUST have 4 attacks at max level and MUST have 2 extra ASIs," etc., would be able to explore many avenues as suggested. Essentially, the Fighter becomes the relatively "hardwired" class, that can pick up a smattering of other classes' specialties; the Banneret and Battlemaster being two different "slices" of a Warlord-type non-casting support class (which has some of the aforementioned stuff.)

I was thinking of Paladin auras, since they are the only auras usually in the game.

Sure, if you assume that any aura has to be lifted, without a single change, from the Paladin class, then any such aura would be magical. But "aura" as a general concept is just...a persistent radius effect, more or less.

Now, this seems at odds with my Banneret, which does exactly this. I never called it out as magical (nothing is enchanted after all)

I don't see that as magical, myself. Supernatural, yes, but D&D is heavily "outside of Nature," as we would define it here on Earth. But I've always accepted that characters in D&D are inherently at least a little supernatural: that's why they can heal so fast, why falling a long way is lethal at low levels and a flesh wound at high levels, why poison is neither a near-guaranteed kill nor a slow creeping effect, why PCs never suffer any debilities until they're unconscious and never suffer any lingering wounds besides outright death, etc., etc., etc. If the Supernatural is limited exclusively to potions, spells, outright blessings, and explicit curses, we have impoverished our gaming experience severely, and ignored the real-world psychological value of things like symbols and the benefits of literally anything that can preserve homeostasis long enough to get someone actual medical attention. Staving off shock is one of the most important things for keeping someone alive until real medicine arrives IRL; I see no reason why, in the fundamentally-fantastical world of D&D, this can't extend just that tiny bit further into ACTUALLY making that gut wound survivable, as opposed to simply "not immediately lethal."

Does that up above really need a new class? Or just a new system for fighters or a new subclass? I could see that Enemy prediction ability being a feat or a rewrite of the Battlemasters "Know your enemy" feature.

Because the baseline Fighter is already too full of baseline features. Its design space for subclasses is too limited, and changing the fundamental chassis is completely untenable for any realistic first- or third-party product. WotC won't change it because they're extremely errata-averse, as (at least IMO) demonstrated by the "Class Feature Variants" (emphasis added) document and the discussion from the developers. They're aware that there are some problems baked into the core rules, but even that tiny dipping of a toe into the waters of "replacing" the PHB rankled a bunch of fans. It's just too delicate a matter to tackle head-on, but that's the only way to make it work without adding at least one more new class.

One thing I forgot to mention from the first part of this post is that you scoffing at the Tool Proficiency isn't a problem with the fighter, it is a problem with the crafting system. I'm playing a rogue thief that fairly consistently throws alchemical items in combat, makes them himself, I had to find a 3pp supplement for crafting items though, because the crafting system is busted. But, fix that crafting system, and I don't think you need an "alchemist class" because everything they are doing is something that you should be able to do with the alchemist kit (I am also growing more and more convinced that alchemy and herbalism need to be combined, they overlap too much)

So, it sounds like the solution isn't "we need more non-magical classes" it sounds to me like we need more non-magical systems.

Oh, that would go a long way toward helping, to be sure. That might mean we'd only need the one (Warlord-type) martial class, rather than two or three more--would depend on exactly how those subsystems cash out, methinks. But I'm very much of the opinion that a Warlord-type class is not only good for the game (allowing "martial prowess" the breathing room to really show off what it can do outside of the narrow confines of the Fighter chassis' subclass-space), it's also good as an olive branch to 4e fans, who (speaking at least for myself) felt pretty snubbed by 5e, particularly when Mearls explicitly said that martial healing would be present in the game and DMs who didn't like it could just not use that option....and then it never actually appeared.*

As someone who was in marching band, I get that. But, assuming the weather isn't boiling hot, I'd say that about an hour after the end of a short parade I could have done the parade again. I certainly could keep walking after, since we generally had to walk back from the end of the parade route back to where the pick-up area was.

But, take something like disarming an opponent. One of the big problems people had with 4e, and have with the battlemaster, is that you can't disarm an opponent every single round. Why not? I knocked the weapon out of his hand once, but now I forgot how to do it?

Sigh. Okay, I'm gonna level with you. I legit struggle to believe that you actually see it this way. Because this is the most intentionally obtuse way of presenting the idea imaginable. It is very much equivalent to the "shouting hands back on" crap that Mearls once spouted during an actual podcast. (I honestly don't care that he followed it up with "now I'm being ridiculous"--to have the effective community voice of D&D spout such things at all is unacceptable.)

However, if you need an answer as to why, I can give you two things. First, my proposal of Gambit as a resource one must first earn and then spend justifies it--you have to "build up to" actions, demonstrating the planning required to pull these things off. You can't just disarm someone repeatedly because disarming them requires getting them into the disadvantageous position where that becomes possible to do. Second, Martial maneuvers and tactics are not simply a matter of "oh, just do the thing." They're a gloss--in almost, but not quite, exactly the same way that an attack roll is a gloss, which not only can but does cover a wide variety of approaches and methods in a single abstraction, or that AC glosses an enormous variety of attack avoidance/repulsion/absorption/deflection into a single (mostly) static number. You can't do them indefinitely because, "hiding" behind that gloss, is the "actual facts" of how it was done. Dudes get wise to tricks, hence the old saw "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Look how the healer feat or Inspiring Leader feats are limited. You can do them infinitely, but the recipient can only benefit from them once per short rest. A healer doesn't forget how to heal after doing it six times, but the bodies of the people they have healed have already been treated as best as they can for now. An Inspiring Leader can give an hour long speech and inspire 60 individuals, but you can't inspire the same person over and over again without giving them a break to rest and renew that inner resource you are calling up.

I'm...not sure what I'm supposed to draw from this. Are these examples of good limits, or bad ones?

And, if you do things like give out feats that allow them to use their skills in "new ways" you run into the same problem we had with the Menacing feat, "now that it is a feat, I can't let my players use the intimidation skill to give someone the frightened condition, this should just be something you can do with the skill, not a feat"

A foolish line of thinking which not only can be but should be explicitly rejected in the text. "Just because you don't have a feat or feature, does not necessarily mean it is impossible to do something. Always ask your DM what is or isn't possible. Attempting to be intimidating without having a feature that specially enhances intimidation can be both a wonderful roleplay opportunity, and a means by which you demonstrate that you are working toward a future feat or class feature, should you acquire it later on." Or something like that. This has always been a stupid argument and it should be firmly, formally, and summarily dismissed with extreme prejudice.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that people shouldn't try to make these systems and expand the game, but I am pointing out that it is a tricky needle to thread.

Absolutely agreed. Game design--unlike what some of 5e's designers would have you think--is an extremely complicated effort, and flavor really, truly isn't the most difficult part. Managing to get flavor, mathematics, playfeel, and concise structure all in a single place is a major achievement. It's one of the reasons why I love the design of 13A so much. Its Monk, for example, is brilliant and the "opening/flow/finishing attack" structure should be nicked by all future D&D-alikes, while its Druid actually solves the problem of designing a thematic, true-to-its-heritage Druid, which is a feat I didn't think was possible. (This does, admittedly, make the Druid susceptible to "mediocre at three things" type problems, but goodness gracious, to achieve what they did with it is nothing short of incredible.)

ROFLOL, I'm dying over here. That is such a perfect description of that moment.

Reaper: Dude, it has been hours, you literally have no blood left in your body, it is all poison.
Beowulf: Is the gold piled up to the ceiling?
Reaper: .... no
Beowulf: I ain't dying yet then.

Though I have read sections of Beowulf myself, I must admit that my knowledge is mostly vicarious (via OSP) of this specific part. Still, I'm glad it's on point :)

I know it was most common in 4E, but I remember seeing "at-will" abilities and spells in 3.X as well. Was it just monsters who had that or were there a few late edition magic classes that had it too?

It wasn't exclusively late-edition even--depending on how you define "late," anyway. Complete Mage introduced Reserve Feats, which weren't all that good, but gave at-will abilities as long as you had a spell of a particular type still memorized/known-with-a-slot-to-cast-it. And that was mid-2006, meaning the "revised" edition had only been around for between half and two thirds of its life.

Pathfinder made all cantrips at-will, though, which might be what you're thinking of.

*There are a lot of reasons why 4e fans don't have a lot to love about 5e, but the obvious and intentional dangling of future, potential olive branches that never actually materialized? Yeah, that's a pretty big reason many of us aren't super happy about it. Everyone else got their toys, and told 4e fans to wait their turn. And I literally watched those calls go from "just wait for the next playtest" to "just wait for the final playtest" to "just wait for release" to--I kid you not--"just wait for a couple of years after release" and only THEN make a judgment call. And eventually? I was told (with mixed antagonism/friendliness, it was a weird comment) to be happy that I got anything at all. So yeah.

[Chaosmancer]

I don't see that as magical, myself. Supernatural, yes, but D&D is heavily "outside of Nature," as we would define it here on Earth. But I've always accepted that characters in D&D are inherently at least a little supernatural

I see no reason why, in the fundamentally-fantastical world of D&D, this can't extend just that tiny bit further into ACTUALLY making that gut wound survivable, as opposed to simply "not immediately lethal."

Ah, this is a nuance I didn't assume. For most people I have discussed with there is no difference between "magical" and "supernatural" so for them wanting "less magic" means closer to reality. Since it seems you want something different, what exactly are we looking for here?

With the Fighter shackled to the base class it currently has, I fundamentally disagree. *snip* I genuinely think that a Warlord class, one free of the "MUST have heavy armor proficiency and MUST have 4 attacks at max level and MUST have 2 extra ASIs," etc., would be able to explore many avenues as suggested. *snip snip*

Oh, that would go a long way toward helping, to be sure. That might mean we'd only need the one (Warlord-type) martial class, rather than two or three more--would depend on exactly how those subsystems cash out

Hmmm, I sort of see the problem, but I also don't think it is as dire as you present it as. I'm going to post my banneret in a spoiler tag below this, but I also think there is more to the design space than might first meet the eye.

Firstly, I don't think ASI's or Heavy Armor are a problem. In fact, I think a warlord with Heavy armor is perfect. Life Cleric gets heavy armor after all. And, the extra feats can essentially guarantee that feats like Inspiring Leader make it into the class without having to give them a specific ability (one thing I dislike about the Celestial Warlock is that Inspiring Leader is such a great feat for them, but they get a weaker unstacking version at level 10, so you don't actually want to take it)

So, then we have the 4 attacks, but this is where we could end up utilizing the spore druid or shoving trick. Give them an ability that offers an alternative to their attack, something with the phrasing "When you take the attack action, instead of making an attack you can-"

You can already replace an attack with a grapple or shove, why not a "grant one ally temp hp equal to 1d6+cha mod" instead of an attack? It scales automatically since more attacks gives you more chances to use it. Honestly, you could probably get away with 1d8+cha, but people are going to lose their minds at "unlimited temp hp forever".

Then you could add an ability such as "when you use action surge, every ally within 30 ft can make an attack with advantage, these attacks deal extra damage equal to your cha mod."

But hey, maybe you are right and the warlord needs a unique class to truly shine. I still think it can be achieved through the fighter though. For me, this is pretty darn close:

Spoiler: Banneret Remake

Show

Bannerets are warriors pledged to protect the crown, they take the fight against evil beyond their kingdom's borders.
They are tasked with wandering the land as knights errant, relying on their judgment, bravery, and fidelity to the code of chivalry to guide them in defeating evildoers.

A Banneret inspires greatness in others by committing brave deeds in battle. The mere presence of a Banneret in a hamlet is enough to cause some orcs and bandits to seek easier prey. A lone Banneret is a skilled warrior, but a Banneret leading a band of allies can transform even the most poorly equipped militia into a ferocious war band.

A Banneret prefers to lead through deeds, not words. As a Banneret spearheads an attack, the Banneret's actions can awaken reserves of courage and conviction in allies that they never suspected they had.

Banner
At 3rd level, the next time you take a long rest, you can craft a banner, or use an existing one, to represent your order.

While you are displaying or holding your banner and you are not incapacitated, all allies within 10 feet have a bonus to saving throws against being frightened or charmed equal to your Charisma Modifer (minimum +1), provided they can see your banner. At 7th and 15th level, the bonus increases by +1 and the range increases by 10 feet.

While you are holding the banner you gain a +1 to AC, and you may make a special action to make a speech to inspire your allies and frightened hostile creatures. Each ally within the range of the banner’s aura add your Charisma modifier to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma saving throws. Each hostile creature within the range of the banner’s aura must make a Wisdom saving throw, or be frightened of you. These effects last for 1 minute, until you die, or until you are not holding your banner. Creatures who failed the save may attempt the saving throw at the end of each of their turns.

You must finish a long rest before using this special action again.

Banner Save DC = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Charisma modifier

If your banner is lost or destroyed, you can make a new one using 50 gp in raw materials and a skill check using Weaver’s Tools over the course of an hour or a short rest.

Rallying Cry
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you learn how to inspire your allies to fight on past their injuries.
When you use your Second Wind feature in combat, you can choose up to three creatures within 60 feet of you that are allied with you. Each one regains hit points equal to your fighter level + your Charisma Modifier.

If you are holding the banner and the healing from this ability would raise a creature over their max hp, any remaining healing becomes temporary hp

You gain a second use of Second Wind at level 10 and a third at level 15.


Royal Envoy
A Banneret serves as an envoy of the crown. Bannerets of high standing are expected to conduct themselves with grace. At 7th level, you gain proficiency in the Persuasion skill and two languages of your choice.

If you are already proficient in persuasion, you gain proficiency in one of the following skills of your choice: Animal Handling, Insight, Intimidation, or Performance.

Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses Persuasion. You receive this benefit regardless of the skill proficiency you gain from this feature.

Inspiring Act
Starting at 10th level, whenever you use your Action Surge feature or whenever you score a critical hit on a creature with a weapon attack, you can immediately choose one allied creature within 30 feet of you that can see or hear you. That creature can make one weapon attack with its reaction. If you are holding your banner, the attack gains a bonus to hit and damage equal to your Charisman modifier (minimum +1)

Starting at 18th level, you can choose two allies within 60 feet of you, rather than one.

Bulwark
Beginning at 15th level, you can inspire your allies to push through the darkest hours.

When an ally within 60 ft of you fails a saving throw and you aren't incapacitated, you can spend your reaction to allow them to reroll the failed save, though they must keep the new result. If the ally is within your Banner's aura, they get a bonus to the new roll equal to your charisma modifier.

You can use this feature a number of times equal to your charisma modifier (minimum 1) and regain all uses on a short rest.

Beacon of Battle
At 18th level, you have become synonymous with your banner. As long as you are conscious, you act as though you are holding your banner for every ability below this one, and your speech action recharges on a short rest.

While holding the banner, your AC bonus increases to +2, and you gain a new special action.

You let out a righteous call, every ally within 120 ft of you can move up to half their speed without spending a reaction. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks. Any ally that ends this movement next to an enemy may use their reaction to make a single melee attack, adding half your fighter level to the damage. If the enemy is frightened, the attack has advantage.

It isn't perfect, but it actually looks fun to me.

Sure, if you assume that any aura has to be lifted, without a single change, from the Paladin class, then any such aura would be magical. But "aura" as a general concept is just...a persistent radius effect, more or less.

I suppose that is fair, we just haven't seen an aura that is not a magical effect to date, oh, except the stench abilities, those aren't called auras, but they do count.

Okay, I retract. I was mentally limiting myself to PC options.

However, if you need an answer as to why, I can give you two things. First, my proposal of Gambit as a resource one must first earn and then spend justifies it--you have to "build up to" actions, demonstrating the planning required to pull these things off. You can't just disarm someone repeatedly because disarming them requires getting them into the disadvantageous position where that becomes possible to do.

*snip* Dudes get wise to tricks, hence the old saw "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

See, but neither of those things prevents the ability from being repeatable. For me, something like what you are presenting on the "dudes get wise" aspect would be that you can only use this ability twice against a single opponent. You can do it every fight, to every opponent in the fight, but no more than twice to the same guy.

The gambit thing is actually really freakin' cool, and I think a system like that could be a ton of fun, but, it is also repeatable. Get the "token" spend the token, do the action. you can always disarm an opponent, as long as they are in a position to be disarmed. That is great, and I almost want to build an inverse battlemaster who have that sort of ability.

But it doesn't change what I mean by being able to do it repeatedly, with no rest limits.

I'm...not sure what I'm supposed to draw from this. Are these examples of good limits, or bad ones?

I like them, make sense within the fiction and they are both really good feats.

A foolish line of thinking which not only can be but should be explicitly rejected in the text. "Just because you don't have a feat or feature, does not necessarily mean it is impossible to do something. Always ask your DM what is or isn't possible. *snip*

Sure, but I think there is a decent argument to be had that if we are redesigning things, why not redesign the entire skill system instead of granting feats that do things that the skill system could potentially do instead?

Honestly, allowing the overlap could be fine, or you could even add into the skill system some synergy stuff "If you have the skill, these options, if you have expertise, those options, if you have this feat, then this as well". Frankly, a person with expertise in medicine and the healer feat should be practically a legendary doctor. Letting them do more cool stuff is fine with me.

[Dr. Cliché]

Ah, this is a nuance I didn't assume. For most people I have discussed with there is no difference between "magical" and "supernatural" so for them wanting "less magic" means closer to reality. Since it seems you want something different, what exactly are we looking for here?

It might relate to how abilities were classified in 3.5:

You had Extraordinary Abilities (Ex), which were based on physical characteristics of some sort or other (e.g. being able to jump higher, a Beholder's natural buoyancy, some fast-healing and Regeneration abilities). They were potentially physics-defying in some cases but were explicitly not magical.

Then you had Spells and Spell-Like Abilities, which were basically the definition of D&D magic. A creature either knew some spells inherently or else was one of the many casting classes. Spell-Like Abilities required no components of any kind but otherwise worked exactly like spells.

However, between Extrordinary Abilities and Spells, you had Supernatural Abilities (Su), which were more unnatural in some way but also weren't spells and didn't (typically) resemble them. A Dragon's breath weapon would be a Supernatural Ability. Same goes for a Lycanthrope's Shapechange ability or a Medusa's petrifying gaze. Supernatural abilities were magic to the extent that they didn't work in an anti-magic field, but unlike spells there was no other way to dispel or counter them and they weren't affected by Spell Resistance.

Now whilst Supernatural Abilities were still magic, I think a lot of people naturally put them on a different level to actual magic in the form of spells or spell-like abilities. I think one of the key differences is in the feel or flavour. It makes sense that a Dragon's breath weapon and a Medusa's are magical, but they nevertheless feel different to a wizard casting Fireball or Flesh to Stone.

Supernatural Abilities tend to feel much more like a natural part of a magical or supernatural creature, if that makes sense.

[Hypersmith]

I fully agree, I don't think D&D does low magic settings well at all, with magic being too pervasive in character options, as a system too formulaic and with little weight behind it because it's so readily available all the time. If you want to run a game where magic is something wondrous and rare and most people don't have it, D&D ain't the system to do that in because you'll inevitably end up with people blasting fireballs out the wazoo and bringing the dead back to life willy-nilly. Purely martial options are too few and would honestly get kinda boring the way the system is built, basically just attacking over and over again.

There are changes you can make to alleviate some of these feelings, but they don't change the core of the system. But you'd have to change so much in order to get a game where the vast majority are martial without it being redundant and kinda boring that it's probably easier and smoother to just play a different system.

[sandmote]

And here I thought that was the engineers job.

Basically, yeah. The lower the magic, the less science of casting there is, leaving you with the practical methods engineers use for what remains. Same for all the "real world magics" that got subsumed into "mundane" matters from being thoroughly studied. Compare the volume of medicine today vs. back when it was mostly herbalism; basically becomes High Medicine vs Low Medicine in the same vein as magics are.

Edit: also,
Nah psionics should just be spells, subclasses of existing classes, and maybe some spells as bonus restricted spell lists for those subclasses or features that allow you to cast them however often.

A single magic subsystem is a feature, not a bug.

This is person dependent. For me the lack of a greater martial system is a bug, as is the lack of a second system for magical effects. For me subclasses are more interesting when they combine two subsystems in varying ways.

I don't need that second system in the Player's handbook by any stretch, but the complete exclusion of an alternative method leaves the game shallow for me. Mind, I love that 5e character's grow by class features (I want shoving off the cliff to be done for tactical purposes), but it is shallow. The warlock having spell slots is a similar problem for me.

You're not wrong. We use a fair many models that we know aren't completely right, but they're close enough to right to evaluate the situation in the range of conditions it's expected to be in.

Unified theories of everything are scientists. Turning that into something practical is engineering.

The internet tells me the comparison I want is to Mark's Handbook. I think the big missing step from Angry and some other people is to treat getting the spells as being from an approximate listing instead of understand what they actually do. Replace "I cast fireball" with "I invoke the explosive magics of the ProperName-GibberishOrder I discovered in DuskyDungeon." Suddenly every spell feels more mysterious, even if the effects are the same.

Even with high magic I do this for spell descriptions. Fireball feels more different when its a conjured dying phoenix vs. a bout of hellfire vs. an exploding dragon's head depending on the character's origin and spellcasting method. Helps reduce the sameness of a dozen characters with fireball.

Now whilst Supernatural Abilities were still magic, I think a lot of people naturally put them on a different level to actual magic in the form of spells or spell-like abilities. I think one of the key differences is in the feel or flavour. It makes sense that a Dragon's breath weapon and a Medusa's are magical, but they nevertheless feel different to a wizard casting Fireball or Flesh to Stone.

One of the simplifications I don't like for 5e. Hoping 5.5e or 6e (whatever they go with) filters some of these distinctions back in.

[Willie the Duck]

Unified theories of everything are scientists. Turning that into something practical is engineering.

And keeping the engineers from competently solving problems no one required, is where we managers come in.

Seriously though, this model leaves out applied science, which I feel deserves more credit.

Earlier editions had thieves and fighters have access to much fewer abilities (and wizards limited to much fewer spells) and that was widely considered enough, and still is by many people.
I think the problem is the approach to put all the options a character has into the class, while a great number of options could be coming from the environment, that can be widely different in every room.
Giving players options in fights can be as much part of encounter design than classes.

2e tried to do this during the red/brown-backed expansion books ('Complete Guide to Fighters' and the like). While there was beginning to be some character build customization, mostly in terms of non-weapon proficiencies (and kits which mostly granted different non-weapon proficiencies), much of the actual rules changes which would have a large effect in combat were non-build-granted things like disarms, trips, called shots, and the like. I think that there's a strong impulse to gate such things either behind build-based gates or make them everyone-can-use, and the former clearly won.

[Yora]

And the RPG world has been a lesser place for it ever since.

[Dr. Cliché]

One of the simplifications I don't like for 5e. Hoping 5.5e or 6e (whatever they go with) filters some of these distinctions back in.

Likewise.

I liked the flavour these distinctions brought but I also appreciated the mechanical benefits.

As it stands, whether a given ability counts as being magical for the purposes of spells/abilities that interact with such is yet another problem that's been dumped on the DM with absolutely no guidance.

[Waazraath]

Likewise.

I liked the flavour these distinctions brought but I also appreciated the mechanical benefits.

As it stands, whether a given ability counts as being magical for the purposes of spells/abilities that interact with such is yet another problem that's been dumped on the DM with absolutely no guidance.

Agree. It aslo codified how martial ("mundane" if you like but I dislike the tone of the word) characters could still do supernatural or extraordinary stuff without needing to cast spells. Martials benefited a lot from that.

[LordCdrMilitant]

And keeping the engineers from competently solving problems no one required, is where we managers come in.

Seriously though, this model leaves out applied science, which I feel deserves more credit.

This is why the clearly best possible future is that of Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds, where there seems to be a limitless budget for engineering projects with no real concern for "Is this actually a good idea?" beyond "but hear me out: a nuclear powered logging machine that turns trees into gasoline and lays a 4 lane highway behind it would be awesome!"

But yeah, the model of "scientists discover things, engineers make discoveries into awesome things" is very simplified, and mostly one of the easily digestible phrases I use to sell kids thinking of a career path on joining me in engineering ;P



Back to magic though, I think the more everyday and common magic enriches the world by making the whole world more special and magical and fantastic and not just a generic dark ages setting with mostly pointy sticks and that one guy who can level a town. I'm usually disappointed that there's not greater exploration of the possibilities granted by magic, and how so much of the magic that players can learn amounts to "I CAST DIE!"
Not including magic into your world outside your party is also how you end up with "smart" [and by "smart", I mean the moment you let your players get crazy] starting major societal revolutions with magic like setting up teleportation-based transit & communication networks for remote shopping and overnight delivery or something.

[ZeshinX]

That was actually my reaction to 5e on first read, "Holy crap...EVERY class can cast spells now, or has a specific option to cast spells." 5e (mostly) nerfed magic and gave it to everyone (or painted it up with words like totems and spirits and ki, but a rose by any other name...). Even their continued approach with psionics is still just magic with a different flowery label. It was an odd choice, but one that doesn't bother me too much, aside from having the PHB Ranger leaning so ridiculously heavy on its spellcasting....give the Ranger a slower progressed Sneak Attack and be done with it already...it's a class built around the concept of ambush, guerilla-style fighting for its combat aspect...not bloody spellcasting. But no no, mustn't step on the Rogue's toes...just the traditional spellcaster classes' toes, right?

Now I do like the changes, for the most part, and enjoy the hell out of 5e. I especially like the new concentration rules, but giving magic to all felt a little over-compensatory to be honest.

[Tanarii]

, aside from having the PHB Ranger leaning so ridiculously heavy on its spellcasting....give the Ranger a slower progressed Sneak Attack and be done with it already...it's a class built around the concept of ambush, guerilla-style fighting for its combat aspect...not bloody spellcasting. But no no, mustn't step on the Rogue's toes...just the traditional spellcaster classes' toes, right?

Rangers have have had spell casting since 1e, and at relatively low levels in 3e. Spell-less Rangers were a conceit of 4e. It worked fine in that edition, but Martials in general were awesome in 4e.

Regardless, D&D Rangers are casters. It's the norm. So it always surprises me when people think they shouldn't be.

[Dienekes]

Rangers have have had spell casting since 1e, and at relatively low levels in 3e. Spell-less Rangers were a conceit of 4e. It worked fine in that edition, but Martials in general were awesome in 4e.

Regardless, D&D Rangers are casters. It's the norm. So it always surprises me when people think they shouldn't be.

Probably because the term comes from Tolkien where the Rangers were not magical. And Tolkien took the inspiration from of rangers from Yeoman Foresters a very real medieval position that never had ties to magic either.

That and the sort of characters one might think would be best representing of the Ranger class: Robin Hood, Will, Katniss, most of the Wildlings of ASOIAF all don't have magic to them either.

That all said. If you want to make a character that does all the sort of things a Ranger is supposed to do, like moving through the forests without leaving a trace, just seeming to know things about nature that to an outside they have no reason of knowing, and calming animals and all that stuff. You would either have to greatly expand the rules on how skills work while giving a bunch of custom made tailored abilities for said Ranger to use.

Or you can just give them a partial spell list cribbed off the Druid. Which already does all that stuff anyway.

The second seems much easier to me.

[Gildamir]

Interesting concept, if I want a low magic campaign setting I restrict my players to choose mostly melee oriented classes, possibly a caster or two at most. It's all about how the DM chooses to run the campaign, though I do agree, magic is far too common in most campaigns to still be considered mysterious by your average joe.

[Telok]

I totally agree, but the difficulty is in the steep power curve. Most things, even minor things like kicking over a brazier, even to pushing someone off a freaking 20 foot ledge arent as good as what you could do with all your class abilities if you just..hit the guy one more time. Its hard to make environmental effects stay relevant ime, although maybe im just not creative enough.

I can speak to this one. It's sort of a left over from 4e, the no-auto win/lose abilities ethos, the continuing hit point inflation, and the advent of lair actions.

4e codified the "use the environment not your class ability" attacks as a basic attack without any bonuses that should be about as damaging as your at will powers. 4e also continued the 3e practice of adding skill checks before you could try the attacks at times. So there's lots of recent history behind rolling a d20 over 10 to make an attack that's like your basic attacks in effect. They're also usually strength based checks and/or attacks so non-str classes basically need not apply.

4e & 5e fights are all about hit points. Sure, a DM can create situations where you can solve things without TPKing the other side, but those often involve house rules, special one-off circumstances the DM prepared aheaf, or morale which is a largely unsupported optional/house rule. Because you aren't supposed to bypass hit points and fights are supposed to be exciting for a certain number of rounds you aren't supposed to have things that can just bypass of speed things up. Some of the bigger complaints in 5e come from the few remaining save-or-lose effects. Plus if pcs csn use the environment then npcs can use it against pcs, and if the effect is strong it comes too close to save-or-lose against the pcs which can't be allowed because it bypassed hp.

Hit point inflation has been constant for the last three editions too. An ad&d 5th level wizard would have been thrilled to have 25 hp and the equal if 16 ac, a 3e wizard could be pushing 35 hp and 18 ac by then, later it stays at least that high or gets a bit higher. This is supposed to be the most fragile and least armored character. This has all been done to increase survivability of first level characters but the knock on effect has been that pcs and monsters are less affected by environmental effects that largely do the same damage they did in ad&d. A 40 foot fall for 4d6 matters when you have 25 hp and 6 spells a day but less so if you have 40 hp, 9+ spells, infinite cantrips, and free access to healing that isn't a serious drain on the cleric.

Lair actions have mostly replaced useful environmental effects in 5e. They matter because they're damage scales by level or they substitute for debuff and control spells. But pcs can't be allowed to access them because of balance theory. So it puts a paradigm of not allowing pcs to use the environment in front of dms and adventure designers.

[Dork_Forge]

Probably because the term comes from Tolkien where the Rangers were not magical. And Tolkien took the inspiration from of rangers from Yeoman Foresters a very real medieval position that never had ties to magic either.

That and the sort of characters one might think would be best representing of the Ranger class: Robin Hood, Will, Katniss, most of the Wildlings of ASOIAF all don't have magic to them either.

That all said. If you want to make a character that does all the sort of things a Ranger is supposed to do, like moving through the forests without leaving a trace, just seeming to know things about nature that to an outside they have no reason of knowing, and calming animals and all that stuff. You would either have to greatly expand the rules on how skills work while giving a bunch of custom made tailored abilities for said Ranger to use.

Or you can just give them a partial spell list cribbed off the Druid. Which already does all that stuff anyway.

The second seems much easier to me.

Tolkien didn't invent the word Ranger and there's a few sources that he could have taken inspiration from that aren't medieval (like the rangers that the British used to protect frontier settlements). Perhaps a big consideration is the difference of setting: despite the fantasy trappings of LotR it isn't really a high fantasy world as depicted during the trilogy (even then a lot of what is presented as magical is more things left over from past generations/ages) whereas most D&D settings are much more high/current magic. If Tolkien wrote a story in a more magical world (or before magic mostly left Middle Earth) then Rangers could have looked very different than Aragorn (who himself wasn't even a normal human, you can afford to pass things off onto skills/knowledge when you have his lifespan as an explanation).

[Morty]

Rangers have have had spell casting since 1e, and at relatively low levels in 3e. Spell-less Rangers were a conceit of 4e. It worked fine in that edition, but Martials in general were awesome in 4e.

Regardless, D&D Rangers are casters. It's the norm. So it always surprises me when people think they shouldn't be.

People want to play a wilderness specialist and explorer without necessarily also being a spellcaster. They don't need to be a ranger to do it, but the game sells the class as doing just that, so why shouldn't they believe what the book says? It's counter-intuitive. Besides, the Scout rogue subclass isn't core - and the core rogue subclasses carry its thief and trickster baggage heavily, so using a rogue to play a "ranger" is likewise counter-intuitive. People who pick up 5E aren't exactly obliged to care about what the "norm" has been in editions they've never played, either. Now, rangers are of course not a good class, never have been and wouldn't be even if we took their spells away, but that's another thing.

[Tanarii]

People who pick up 5E aren't exactly obliged to care about what the "norm" has been in editions they've never played, either.

D&D isn't exactly obligated to care about folks preconceived notions that run to its sacred cows either.

I mean, if enough of them do that it's not a success yeah maybe the next edition will tweak it a bit. But for an edition that is back-to-old-school, as so many design elements of 5e are, they definitely weren't going to go with folks misconceptions.

[ezekielraiden]

Ah, this is a nuance I didn't assume. For most people I have discussed with there is no difference between "magical" and "supernatural" so for them wanting "less magic" means closer to reality. Since it seems you want something different, what exactly are we looking for here?

The supernatural is...well, anything that isn't natural. This can be viewed from either Watsonian (internal) or Doylist (external) perspectives. Most people refer to naturalness WRT the real world, and are thus in a Doylist stance, so I'll start there, and then give the Watsonian stance. In the real world, jumping more than about 8 feet (2.5 meters) straight up, without ANY load whatsoever, would be a demonstration of supernatural ability, which a Strength 20 character can achieve pretty easily (especially in prior editions; both running ). Falling 50 feet is almost always lethal IRL, unless mitigating circumstances apply; falling 50 feet in most editions of D&D is something even a frail Wizard can shrug off after about level 6 or 7 (average of 5d6 = 3.5*5 = 17.2 damage); with Con 10, a 7th level 4e Wizard has 44 HP, while her 5e counterpart has 30 HP. The latter will be hurting more than the former, to be sure, but you'd have to roll very badly to kill them (all five dice would have to come up 6, an extremely unlikely event). Hence, from a real-world standpoint, all D&D classes are inherently supernatural, and taking very modest steps to include further supernatural behavior (such as supernaturally powerful inspirations, or a refusal to be beholden to other rules that would hold in our world, e.g. Drill Sergeant Shouting that can actually stave off death rather than simply prolong the period of "dying but saveable") does not seem like a step too far.

From a Watsonian perspective, the "line" that divides the explicitly supernatural is very different from the line of our world. In-universe, people regularly survive even very high falls; they shrug off burns and wounds easily; they can stay within 5 feet of their original position while still "avoiding" a blast equivalent to a grenade (taking very little damage in the process); etc. Stuff that would be supernatural in our world is...just the way things physically work in D&D-land. Therefore, we should try to be comfortable with slightly less stringent standards about what is "supernatural," as long as it doesn't truly break into the realm of "magic" proper.

When I say "'magic' proper," I mean a granted boon (e.g. most Divine magic, Warlocks), a specialized formal discipline (Wizard magic, Monks, arguably Druids), or a supernatural power drawn from one's bloodline (Sorcerers, many magical creatures like fey or dragons), which may take the form of "spells," or may be a little more nebulous/variable like metamagics, ki powers, etc., but whatever their form, they are unnatural consequences of seemingly unrelated behaviors. That is: you wave your hands around, speak a specific set of obscure words, and/or pull out a handful of bat guano/wave a wand/etc., and spontaneously a fireball appears or someone turns invisible. Note the vital element here is that you do something generally NOT associated with the appearance of a bolt of lightning or a person becoming invisible, but then that effect happens. You have, in some sense, activated a "shortcut" in reality (by whatever means--divine power, l33t ub3r h4xx, being one-sixty-fourth dragon, meditating SUPER hard) that immediately instantiates your will. Now, because it's a designed game, this power is not plenary, but it is still "do a thing that SHOULDN'T cause Strange Effect X to happen, but Because <Magic Source> Reason, it does."

The difference between "'magic' proper" and what I like to call the "transmundane" is that there MUST be some connection between what you're doing, and the outcome you achieve. You can't just flick your wrist and a guy gets disarmed; you have to be up in his face, attacking, trading blows, but your skill with arms is sufficiently beyond-mortal that yes, you really can just decide that, this one time, the guy gets disarmed. You can't do it infinitely often. Why not? Because it's an ability beyond the ken of mortals. It's subject to its own rules and regs, because it has stepped outside what is normally permitted. Anyone can try the mundane act of separating a warrior and her weapon. Only a truly transmundane Fighter--a class we are explicitly told is NOT just equivalent to even a well-trained, battle-experienced soldier, but which steps beyond mere combat excellence--can will for her fighting skill to manifest an effect just that little step beyond. Only a truly transmundane Warlord can step just that little bit beyond the limits, some of the time. Why can't they do it all the time? Maybe they're not strong enough yet. Maybe reality doesn't appreciate being pushed around like that, and refuses to bend too much for those who don't have a "free pass" (="magic" proper).

Transmundane power isn't just limited to Fighters, or even to PCs, for that matter. It's bound up in the Riddle of Steel that lets so-called "mundane" smiths produce artifacts of legend, because their skill has exceeded the bounds of what "should" be possible. It's bound up in the weaver who defeats Athena rather than failing, whose skill can produce a bag of holding or a cloak of invisibility because the universe recognizes such skill. Or the mad scientist who can cobble together a thing of gears and lightning that somehow achieves the desired effect despite lacking parts that really should be present to do that. Etc. These things live by a different set of limits than those of the totally mundane, but they also aren't off in the realm of hardcore "I just declare that reality works that way, and it does" either. They sit in that liminal space, the threshold between what a mere Earth human could achieve with time and training, and what a true Wizard hacking reality can achieve.

Hmmm, I sort of see the problem, but I also don't think it is as dire as you present it as. I'm going to post my banneret in a spoiler tag below this, but I also think there is more to the design space than might first meet the eye.
<much snippage>
It isn't perfect, but it actually looks fun to me.

Well, I think anyone you show this to will (rightly) argue that this is way out of line compared to all other Fighter subclasses--and that is what I meant by all those things to which you responded. That is, rightly or wrongly, the designers AND the community at large have decided that the baseline Fighter chassis is "very powerful." Perhaps even "ridiculously powerful." Obviously, you don't think that, and I generally agree with you. But because of this perception from the designers and the community, you'll almost certainly never get people sold on that beyond your own table.

But it doesn't change what I mean by being able to do it repeatedly, with no rest limits.

Eh. I see these things as justifying rest limits myself. Different strokes, I guess. Glad you like the Gambit stuff (heavily stolen from the aforementioned Grim World stuff--check it out, it's super good, albeit thematically too dark for my tastes. I've ignored/modified the grimmer parts out of it for my home Dungeon World game.)

I like them, make sense within the fiction and they are both really good feats.

Aren't there some rest limits in there though? Short rest, but still...like, just turn the Inspiring Leader feat the *tiniest* bit. "Performing such a feat of vaunting oratory is not trivial. You can, of course, continue to exhort your allies if you wish, but you are not able to grant the benefits of this feat more than once, as repeating the same statements over and over robs their effectiveness. By taking a short or long rest, however, you can reflect on how your situation has changed and come up with new sources of inspiration for yourself and your allies."

Perfectly explained, in-character. Limited by short rests on the giver.

Sure, but I think there is a decent argument to be had that if we are redesigning things, why not redesign the entire skill system instead of granting feats that do things that the skill system could potentially do instead?

Well, (a) I see the things I'm calling for less as "redesign" and more as supplement and extension, and (b) because I don't really have an interest in overhauling the entire edition, just enough of it to smooth out the parts that especially bug me. For the former, "redesign" to me means "you're ripping out entire sections and totally replacing them," which I find to be both a lot harder than it sounds, and rarely worth the effort because few people will want to use it. For the latter, I just value parsimony and (though you wouldn't know it from my posting style) concise changes. Don't go to unnecessary effort.

Creating a single new class is less effort than re-designing a class that already exists so that it will both satisfy the people who already like it, and yet also satisfy those who want it different. A single new class also has the advantage of real design freedom: we can explore what directions we like, without being beholden to prior commitments. For example, believe it or not, my preferred structure for building a Warlord-like character is actually the Warlock, but tweaked in a few ways. The Patron/Pact/Invocations model is just delightful for having a class with highly modular, choice-dependent structure: the Warlord chooses a Battlefield Presence at first level that determines their Leadership Modifier (Bravura = Cha, Tactical = Int, Resourceful = Wis) and some fundamental features; at third level, you truly come into your own as a leader and select a Leadership Style (ideas I've had here include Battlefront = frontline melee, Skirmishing = light-footed archer, Heraldry = lazylord, Spellweaver = specialized in boosting magic, etc.); and then Invocations map to Tactics, which can vary from passive always-on effects, to things that gain Gambit from some particular action taken by the Warlord or a teammate, or which spend built-up Gambit for some benefit. And since the Warlock already features ideas like expanding armor or weapon access, it would be perfectly cromulent to include such things in this Warlord. (Obviously, something must replace the higher Arcana, but I'd prefer something different--not sure what precisely, I haven't thought THAT deeply about this.)

Hit point inflation has been constant for the last three editions too.

It's worth noting that, unless a character has Con 10, they tend to get larger HP pools over time in 5e than in 4e. That is, 4e starts off higher but scales much more slowly because there's no scaling Con benefit. A 4e Wizard starts with 10+Constitution score HP at first level, but never gains more than 4 per level thereafter. (They will gain a measly 1 HP at Epic purely from natural stat growth. That doesn't really count.) Since Con is a good thing to invest in for Wizards in any edition, assuming a modest 12 Con at character creation isn't that big an ask, but it essentially adds the character's level to their max HP. The comparison looks something like this, assuming 12 Con:

Spoiler: Table

Show

4e Wizard HP	5e Wizard HP
22	7
26	12
30	17
34	22
38	27
42	32
46	37
50	42
54	47
58	52
62	57
66	62
70	67
74	72
78	77
82	82
86	87
90	92
94	97
98	102

So...yeah. With even modest Con, the early gap evaporates by high level. With a Constitution modifier of +2? You'd be looking at an initial gap of (10+14)-(6+2) = 16, so it's gone by 16/2 = 8th level (because the 4e growth rate is a fixed 4, while the 5e growth rate is 4+Con mod = 4+2 = 6). And because Constitution increases are retroactive, on top of Con saves being how you maintain Concentration in 5e, it's really quite likely that a 5e Wizard will end up with significantly more HP than a 4e Wizard would have. (The argument generalizes to all classes available in both games, it just changes the level at which the flip occurs.) Of course, if a character never invests in Constitution, the 4e character will always be slightly ahead.

[Chaosmancer]

The supernatural is...well, anything that isn't natural. This can be viewed from either Watsonian (internal) or Doylist (external) perspectives.

*Big Snip*

I see where your perception is, but like I said, I'm not used to people making that distinction. Mostly when people say they want a "spell-less" ranger for example, they will bring up Aragorn and Bear Grylls. They aren't talking about Transmudane considerations, but with solid "I want to do what can be done on Earth by Humans" Which as you pointed out, isn't exactly accurate to how DnD ends up working.

Well, I think anyone you show this to will (rightly) argue that this is way out of line compared to all other Fighter subclasses--and that is what I meant by all those things to which you responded. That is, rightly or wrongly, the designers AND the community at large have decided that the baseline Fighter chassis is "very powerful." Perhaps even "ridiculously powerful." Obviously, you don't think that, and I generally agree with you. But because of this perception from the designers and the community, you'll almost certainly never get people sold on that beyond your own table.

I'm not sure if it is way out of line, but I was tweaking all the fighters at the same time, and this one was an overhaul that I got inspired with. Haven't even had a chance to playtest it or show it to many people.

But, I think also, it is a mistake to really worry too much about the Designers or the community at large. Everyone has different tastes and different goals, and trying to get a consensus from them is a mountain I don't feel like pushing boulders up.

And either way, the point remains. Whether you rebuild the fighter or take it as is, it covers a vast swath of concepts that you don't need to make classes for, just subclasses, so more "martial" or "mundane" classes aren't really needed. Maybe one if you really feel the warlord cannot possibly fit onto the fighter or the rogue, but the majority are buildable now.

Perfectly explained, in-character. Limited by short rests on the giver.

Yes, which is why I said I liked it and the limits made sense.

Limits on a disarming strike, or precise strike, are harder to make sense of.

Creating a single new class is less effort than re-designing a class that already exists so that it will both satisfy the people who already like it, and yet also satisfy those who want it different. A single new class also has the advantage of real design freedom: we can explore what directions we like, without being beholden to prior commitments.

Hmm, disagree there. By working from an already existing chasis I don't have to worry about balance nearly as much as I would in designing a new chasis

For example, believe it or not, my preferred structure for building a Warlord-like character is actually the Warlock, but tweaked in a few ways. The Patron/Pact/Invocations model is just delightful for having a class with highly modular, choice-dependent structure:

True, the warlock structure is incredibly good for basing classes and ideas off of.

[Waazraath]

In terms of how to make the Fighter more interesting, I would start by throwing the current chassis in the bin and instead taking notes from the classes in Book of Nine Swords.

To put it another way, make Manuvers the core feature of the class and build the rest of the class around them. Don't just make a really boring class and then slap Manuvers onto just one of its subclasses as an afterthought.

I've seen comments like this quite often, and though I agree up to a point, I think it fails to adress how much 5e did incorporate of ToB already. Just finished a thread on this topic, join the discussion if you like: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-in-5e-already

[Dr. Cliché]

Oh, something else to consider.

I know that Concentration (along with various other nerfs) was aimed at weakening casters, but I find myself wondering whether it actually had a knock-on effect on Martials.

For example, in 3.5 casters would often put reasonably long-lansting buffs not on themselves but on the martial characters in the party. e.g. using Bull's Strength on a melee fighter (which now doesn't even help much even if it wasn't concentration). Or using Haste at the start of an encounter to speed up every martial character in the party (and everyone else in range, though spellcasters rarely got as much out of it).

In theory, these types of spells made casters stronger. But in the game they actually helped the martials shine by increasing their attack rolls, boosting their damage, letting them attack more etc..

Now, though, mages are much more limited in their ability to boost martial characters. They can usually only provide a single buff at any one time, often only to a single character, and at the expense of many other useful spells.


...


I've forgotten how this tied into the actual topic of the thread. I'm sure I had a point when I started writing it.

I've seen comments like this quite often, and though I agree up to a point, I think it fails to adress how much 5e did incorporate of ToB already. Just finished a thread on this topic, join the discussion if you like: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-in-5e-already

Not sure I agree but I'll certainly take a look.

[Chaosmancer]

Oh, something else to consider.

I know that Concentration (along with various other nerfs) was aimed at weakening casters, but I find myself wondering whether it actually had a knock-on effect on Martials.

For example, in 3.5 casters would often put reasonably long-lansting buffs not on themselves but on the martial characters in the party. e.g. using Bull's Strength on a melee fighter (which now doesn't even help much even if it wasn't concentration). Or using Haste at the start of an encounter to speed up every martial character in the party (and everyone else in range, though spellcasters rarely got as much out of it).

In theory, these types of spells made casters stronger. But in the game they actually helped the martials shine by increasing their attack rolls, boosting their damage, letting them attack more etc..

Now, though, mages are much more limited in their ability to boost martial characters. They can usually only provide a single buff at any one time, often only to a single character, and at the expense of many other useful spells.


...


I've forgotten how this tied into the actual topic of the thread. I'm sure I had a point when I started writing it.

There might have been a small knock-on effect, but that is probably a good thing. If the game is balanced around martials needing casters to be at peak performance, or casters being able to reach peak performance if they are not uplifting martials, then it leaves martials as left out in the cold if big brother magic doesn't decide to help them out.

[FabulousFizban]

we are having this conversation in an ethereal plane contacted using magic tablets powered by atomic lightning. I would say magic has become somewhat ubiquitous in our world yes.

[ezekielraiden]

There might have been a small knock-on effect, but that is probably a good thing. If the game is balanced around martials needing casters to be at peak performance, or casters being able to reach peak performance if they are not uplifting martials, then it leaves martials as left out in the cold if big brother magic doesn't decide to help them out.

Agreed. Also, countervailing effect: no Concentration checks when the buffed Fighter takes a hit but the caster does not. A real reason to buff others instead of yourself. (Likewise, Twin Spell's power: buff two allies, avoid engagement. Not just double effect, double avoidance too.)

[Alucard89]

It's a concept I have been struggling with when it comes to DnD. Because on one hand you want to play "low magic" setting but on the other hand when you get party of "magic users" (even Paladin who is half caster) you suddenly have low-magic setting where everyone are summoning creatures, magic weapons, cast fireballs, make illusions etc. Hexbaldes summon weapons from out of nowhere, Paladins ride magical mounts and so on. There is no consequence apart from resources or wild magic table when it comes to using magic in DnD.

Hence why I always play DnD as high magic setting with magic items, scrolls etc. because it suits it more. I like to play "low magic" in settings where magic is very rare (usually only one/two professions/class have access to it), magic items are ONLY very powerful artifacts (so very very rare) and using magic is always risky (mischaps, botches, chaos etc.). Then the magic itself is explained as powerful but dangerous to wield.

DnD is hard for me to play as low magic. It just doesn't make sense for me personally.

[Sorinth]

It's a concept I have been struggling with when it comes to DnD. Because on one hand you want to play "low magic" setting but on the other hand when you get party of "magic users" (even Paladin who is half caster) you suddenly have low-magic setting where everyone are summoning creatures, magic weapons, cast fireballs, make illusions etc. Hexbaldes summon weapons from out of nowhere, Paladins ride magical mounts and so on. There is no consequence apart from resources or wild magic table when it comes to using magic in DnD.

Hence why I always play DnD as high magic setting with magic items, scrolls etc. because it suits it more. I like to play "low magic" in settings where magic is very rare (usually only one/two professions/class have access to it), magic items are ONLY very powerful artifacts (so very very rare) and using magic is always risky (mischaps, botches, chaos etc.). Then the magic itself is explained as powerful but dangerous to wield.

DnD is hard for me to play as low magic. It just doesn't make sense for me personally.

This strikes me as more of a player buy in/session 0 problem. You're right that it doesn't make a lot of sense for a low-magic world have a team of adventurers all of whom are magical and a number of them high magic users. But why are the players choosing those classes if the idea is to play in a low magic setting?

[Alucard89]

This strikes me as more of a player buy in/session 0 problem. You're right that it doesn't make a lot of sense for a low-magic world have a team of adventurers all of whom are magical and a number of them high magic users. But why are the players choosing those classes if the idea is to play in a low magic setting?

Because in my opinion- if someone wants to play DnD- mostly he wants to play with what DnD has most to offer - and that is magic. I don't think many people chose to play DnD if they seek "low magic setting". There are better systems for that.

Because what would they play as in "low magic setting" in DnD? Only Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian (also without all Magic-subclasses that each of those classes have)? That's like cutting 70% of what DnD is.

As I said- you can play low magic in DnD but it doesn't make much sense for me. The whole class system is bascially high magic setting.