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

[Waazraath]

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.

Makes sense, but then again - you are always selecting anyway. In a party of 4, 8 classes are probably not played anyway. And also a party of a champion, thief, open hand monk and berserker barbarian can be quite compentent to overcome obstacles and succesfully adventure. It might make less sense but low magic is definitely an option, if all players are willing.

[Sorinth]

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.

The answer to why play D&D over another system is simple, a lot of people won't want to learn a whole new system when the DM pitches them a low magic campaign. Right or wrong they'd prefer to stick to the game they know.

And it's pretty clear that was behind a lot of WoTC's decisions when they made 5e. They wanted 5e to be able to support a wide variety of settings/styles, and at the end of the day a low magic settings works out quite well in 5e as long as everyone is on the same page.


I do find your response is a bit strange though, you say you want to play a low magic settings, which 5e supports, but then you say if you play 5e you choose to go with a high magic character. Sounds like FOMO more then anything. Have you actually played 5e with a low magic?

[Tanarii]

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.

😂😂😂 thanks 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.

Just start tacking on penalties to spell casting. Don't worry about inter-class balance, in this case you're specifically trying to discourage spell casting.

Things like:
- provokes an Oa
- automatically countered if the OA does damage
- limited cantrips per day (maybe double level 1 slots?)
- If you really want to be nasty, and make it primarily a BBEG/NPC thing, just make each spell cast cost XP.

That way players are free to choose to be spellcasters in a low magic world, if they're willing to deal with the problems. But you've got systematic modifications that make it clear why it's not common in general.

[Alucard89]

Just start tacking on penalties to spell casting. Don't worry about inter-class balance, in this case you're specifically trying to discourage spell casting.

Things like:
- provokes an Oa
- automatically countered if the OA does damage
- limited cantrips per day (maybe double level 1 slots?)
- If you really want to be nasty, and make it primarily a BBEG/NPC thing, just make each spell cast cost XP.

That way players are free to choose to be spellcasters in a low magic world, if they're willing to deal with the problems. But you've got systematic modifications that make it clear why it's not common in general.

At this poit if I am to start revamping 5e mechanic to suit low-magic-setting - I will just take simpler and better mechanic from another system, preferable one that is already low-magic one. Faster and easier.

[Schadenfreuda]

After reading through this whole high magic vs. low magic debate and about the desire to make magic feel more magical and less mechanical, I found that there's a distinction worth putting into words: this debate isn't exactly about high magic vs. low magic. There's actually two different arguments going on.

The first is about common/high magic vs. low/rare magic. For campaigns where magic is something that only a few people can do and where everyone in a party is a martial or maybe a half caster, the rules of 5e are more than capable of supporting the world believably and keeping magic mystical and special, and is more than capable of also supporting campaigns where wizards are running around like rats and magic items are a copper a dozen.

However, the second axis of the argument is more about soft magic vs. hard magic.

Soft magic systems, notably those of the works of Tolkein, Martin, and Rowling, are kept opaque to both the readers and characters in the story as to what magic can do and how it works, regardless of how common it is. LotR and the Song of Ice and Fire books are set it uncommon/low magic times and places in what are more properly high-magic settings. Magic is powerful, though generally in poorly defined and unpredictable ways. Even in the common or high magic setting of Harry Potter, a world where all the wizards can cast every spell as a cantrip, magic is still a fairly mysterious force that behaves in ways wizards often can't predict or don't understand the reasons behind. Why do potions sometimes need to be brewed under a full moon? Who knows. Sometimes the power of love and self-sacrifice defeats mighty wizards. Things happens, no one knows exactly why, and it's better for the story that way.

Hard magic systems, on the other hand, like those of Avatar: the Last Airbender or Eragon, are much more understandable and scientific in their outlooks, and the exact mechanics of most powers are well-understood to characters and readers alike. Casting a Fireball spell never produces something that isn't a fireball, nor does earthbending spontaneously and unexpectedly turn one into a newt.

While more than capable of supporting a hard magic setting with magic of any commonality, 5e cannot well approximate soft magic well at all without a great deal of imagination from the GM, and provides relatively little guidance as to what soft magic would look like within the context of the game. This isn't really the fault of 5e in particular; certainly, it could have done better, but really there's only so much a game that by necessity comes with hard rules that are consistent table to table, common between groups of strangers. Soft magic is by definition poorly defined and very difficult to write rules for, perhaps impossible. The DMG could still easily have had suggestions such as "use real-world myths and stories of ancient heroes and gods and witchcraft as inspiration for soft magic" or similar, but it doesn't, and this leaves interested tables and players without a satisfying mechanism for exploring those particular fantasies.

[Deathtongue]

This isn't really the fault of 5e in particular; certainly, it could have done better, but really there's only so much a game that by necessity comes with hard rules that are consistent table to table, common between groups of strangers. Soft magic is by definition poorly defined and very difficult to write rules for, perhaps impossible. The DMG could still easily have had suggestions such as "use real-world myths and stories of ancient heroes and gods and witchcraft as inspiration for soft magic" or similar, but it doesn't, and this leaves interested tables and players without a satisfying mechanism for exploring those particular fantasies.

There are two metafictional reasons to want to use soft magic.

1.) Law of conservation of detail. If you're writing a 30-page short story soft magic is all that you, the writer, have time for.
2.) They want to write a broad comedy like Family Guy or the Tex Avery cartoons.
3.) Wanting the ability to take the story in a direction not constrained by their previous writing. I am much less sympathetic to this motivation. A writer who wants to write an ongoing story but sees internal consistency as an obstacle is a writer that is insecure about what they're doing and disrespectful of their audience's attention.

3 is especially contemptible in a cooperative storytelling game.

[Dr. Cliché]

There are two metafictional reasons to want to use soft magic.

1.) Law of conservation of detail. If you're writing a 30-page short story soft magic is all that you, the writer, have time for.
2.) They want to write a broad comedy like Family Guy or the Tex Avery cartoons.
3.) Wanting the ability to take the story in a direction not constrained by their previous writing. I am much less sympathetic to this motivation. A writer who wants to write an ongoing story but sees internal consistency as an obstacle is a writer that is insecure about what they're doing and disrespectful of their audience's attention.

3 is especially contemptible in a cooperative storytelling game.

I would add an additional reason:
4) To try and create a sense of wonder, mystery and/or uncertainty. This is especially true for cases when the protagonists (or at least the viewpoint characters) don't have access to magic. Basically, it allows for magic to be incredible or awe-inspiring, at least partially because the veiwpoint character(s) and, by extension, the audience, don't understand how or why it works. If the magic is instead used by dark sorcerers or the like, then it can create a similar effect, but this time one emphasising dread.

Of course, this is based on a narrative perspective and assumes that magic is both rare and (especially in the case of 'good' magic) is used very infrequently and not as a constant problem-solver.



However, I don't think this approach can really work in a game where the magic system needs to have rules.

To be perfectly honest, I see D&D's magic as being a messy combination of hard and soft magic. It was described above as being "hard" because it has strict rules, but I'd actually disagree. Hard magic systems generally have rules that can not only be understood but extrapolated. Take the always-popular Avatar the Last Airbender. Earth Benders can use their ability to move small rocks. it stands to reason that with sufficient training, they can move larger and larger rocks.

Now try to apply that to 5e's spell system. One might think that - particularly when it comes to natural casters like sorcerers - having knowledge of, say, fire magic would be something they could develop over time. So they could go from single bolts to cones and then maybe to precise shapes like detonating spheres or walls. Nope. If a Sorcerer learns fireball then they can cast fireball. They can't use a smaller amount of fire magic to reduce the radius, create a cone or bolt instead, or even just create a tiny flame to light a pipe or such. It's Fireball or go home. 5e is further complicated by generally failing to answer *why* magic works. I appreciate that this is something you'll never get a completely concrete answer for, but it's really not helped by D&D having about 12 supposedly different forms of magic which all somehow work in exactly the same way. One might think that different types of magic might require different components. e.g. one might naturally expect Bardic and Clerical spells to lean towards verbal components, with the former being words, songs or music, and the latter being chants or prayers. Likewise, one might reasonably expect innate, sorcerous magic to require only somatic components, maybe verbal at a push but certainly not material components. But no, all mages, regardless of type, have spells with verbal, somatic and material/focus components.

I suppose my point is that the rules for a given hard magic system can generally be deduced and extrapolated simply by seeing the system in action. Imagine for a moment that you have a new player who isn't allowed to look at the rulebook. Instead, he has to try and guess the rules of magic simply by watching a lot of spells being cast. Do you think he'd be able see patterns, to work out why some spells require components and some don't? Or even what the difference is between supposedly different casting classes? Because I'm highly doubtful.

[Tanarii]

I'm pretty sure an observing character (in universe) can quickly work out "each spell is a specific invocation that has its own rules that must be obeyed to trigger a specific effect".

[Chaosmancer]

However, I don't think this approach can really work in a game where the magic system needs to have rules.

I agree, soft magic ends up being a little too malleable to work in a system like DnD. It can work in things like Fate maybe (I'd have to check how Fate handles levels of success) or in the Sentinels GYRO system (coming soon but they've been promoting it for years so people can check Greater Than Games youtube channel to see the system in action) where you can do pretty much anything and almost anything can happen as a result

To be perfectly honest, I see D&D's magic as being a messy combination of hard and soft magic. It was described above as being "hard" because it has strict rules, but I'd actually disagree. Hard magic systems generally have rules that can not only be understood but extrapolated. Take the always-popular Avatar the Last Airbender. Earth Benders can use their ability to move small rocks. it stands to reason that with sufficient training, they can move larger and larger rocks.

One of my favorite examples of Avatar being a hard magic system is actually Blood Bending.

You have people that can control water, well, if they are powerful enough they can control the water inside people. Or rip the water out of plants to use that. This makes perfect sense, and being done during a full moon even makes sense, because they already connected water bending's strength to the phases of the moon, because of the connection between the moon and tides.

It all just falls together elegantly.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm pretty sure an observing character (in universe) can quickly work out "each spell is a specific invocation that has its own rules that must be obeyed to trigger a specific effect".

But that's not hard magic. What you're talking about there seems, if anything, far more akin to soft magic.

The rules for why some spells require this and other spells require that are entirely arbitrary and it's impossible to extrapolate in any meaningful way.

[Tanarii]

But that's not hard magic.

You're using a very different definition of hard magic from me then. Detailed specific rules for each spell are about the hardest magic there is.

A system that allows you to create your own spells on the fly by following some guideline rules and extending them would be medium magic.

[Chaosmancer]

You're using a very different definition of hard magic from me then. Detailed specific rules for each spell are about the hardest magic there is.

A system that allows you to create your own spells on the fly by following some guideline rules and extending them would be medium magic.

If you go back up to his post, you can read his definition of hard magic and compare it to your own

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Our last session (playing CoS) after our DM described the cracks in the stained glass windows of a temple, one of the players decided to use his mending cantrip to fix the problem, which led to a discussion of how lazy the local spellcasters must be to allow for such a situation to exist... kind of killed the mood.
I think the OP raises an excellent point. Low level casters could remove many mundane obstacles, and creating a believable world is challenging.
As another example 5e was created based on the party having limited access to magic items, yet almost all characters are casters and items are relatively cheap and easy to make or buy RAW. How do these things coexist?

[Dr. Cliché]

You're using a very different definition of hard magic from me then. Detailed specific rules for each spell are about the hardest magic there is.

A system that allows you to create your own spells on the fly by following some guideline rules and extending them would be medium magic.

Yeah, I think we're just using different definitions here.

Amusingly, the second type you describe would actually be much closer to my definition of hard magic.

For me, hard magic needs to have rules, but it's equally important that there's an internal logic and consistency to those rules that can be reasonably extrapolated. But with the magic in D&D, even when you see the rules in their entirety you'd still be hard-pressed to make any logical deductions or extrapolations. e.g. I think you'd likely struggle to explain why some fire spells require no material components whatsoever, one requires phosphorous, another requires a red dragon scale, and yet another requires sulphur and bat-poop. I'm sure you could make reasonable cases for each of these individually (with the possible exception of the bat guano ), but when taken together there's no real pattern with regard to which spells require which ingredients.

In contrast, if every fire spell required, say, a red dragon scale in addition to any other components, then you'd at least be able to make some sort of deduction. Not only that, but (just as importantly) people observing spellcasters without prior knowledge of the magic system would also be able to make logical deductions. They'd likely not understand all the rules, but they'd at least learn that anyone wanting to use fire magic needed the scale of a red dragon.

Does that make sense?


Either way, I appreciate that this is just my definition of 'hard magic'. Clearly it's not a universal definition, so I can perfectly understand if you choose to stick with your own that any system with complete rules for spells is hard magic. I just thought I'd have another go at trying to explain what I mean when I say 'hard magic'.

[Telok]

Our last session (playing CoS) after our DM described the cracks in the stained glass windows of a temple, one of the players decided to use his mending cantrip to fix the problem, which led to a discussion of how lazy the local spellcasters must be to allow for such a situation to exist... kind of killed the mood.
I think the OP raises an excellent point. Low level casters could remove many mundane obstacles, and creating a believable world is challenging.
As another example 5e was created based on the party having limited access to magic items, yet almost all characters are casters and items are relatively cheap and easy to make or buy RAW. How do these things coexist?

Many d&d settings/adventures are written like the old sword & sorcery novels. The protagonist may have some magic, the bbeg usually is/has major magic that the protagonist can't have/use, and there may or may not be an old sage/mysterious stranger with magic to start the protagonist into the story. And that's it. In sword & sorcery the unnamed masses don't get nice things.

Of course d&d doesn't match up well with the old sword & sorcery any more. So it's a bit jarring when your 3rd level pcs run across something like a run down church with a 7 hd priest in charge (because the pcs may need to be bailed out) who "needs adventurers to help with five skeletons" or something similar.

[LankyOgre]

I'm sure you could

Guano was historically collected to extract saltpeter from, which is the mixed with sulfur to make blackpowder. Essentially, the fireball components are rudimentary explosives.

[Zarrgon]

I don't think any fiction has Hard Magic: it's all Soft Magic. For Hard Magic, you would need magic rules, and few fictional settings have them....and even when they do they are just as often ignored, circumvented or changed on a whim. Worse, magic always bends to the story and plot.

You don't get Hard Magic unless you have a fairly detailed magic rule system: what you get from most RPGs. Though this is straightforward Roll Playing.

I would note that D&D can also be a good Soft Magic game, all it needs is for players to just back away from the hard rule obsession. So many players get so obsessed with the rules and demand that the game only does what is written on the official rule page. And it makes for a fine roll playing game: you cast spell A and it always has effect A, all hail the rules.

But it does not have to be that way, Soft Magic rules work fine. a spell might mostly do what it should...or might be effected by other local magic or maybe something else. The effect might make the spell more powerful, weaker, or have a neutral effect. In any case what might happen specifically is unknown, but most spellcasters can make good guesses.

For Example: one of my DMs had a rule something like active powerful conjuration magic will cause any conjuration spell cast nearby to maybe get effects of a connected plane. So if there was a large gate to the Plane of Fire, and you cast a summoning spell, you'd most likely get some fire type creature.

And this type of thing adds spice to the game, much more then just reading the rules and rolling dice.

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think any fiction has Hard Magic: it's all Soft Magic. For Hard Magic, you would need magic rules, and few fictional settings have them....and even when they do they are just as often ignored, circumvented or changed on a whim. Worse, magic always bends to the story and plot.

You don't get Hard Magic unless you have a fairly detailed magic rule system: what you get from most RPGs. Though this is straightforward Roll Playing.

Brandon Sanderson and Patrick Rothfuss both do fairly hard magic. Avatar the Last Airbender is often used as a Hard Magic system example.

I wouldn't disagree that most systems are softer than not, but there are Hard Magic stories out there.

[Dr. Cliché]

I don't think any fiction has Hard Magic: it's all Soft Magic. For Hard Magic, you would need magic rules, and few fictional settings have them....and even when they do they are just as often ignored, circumvented or changed on a whim.

I'm reminded of Brandon Sanderson's First Law of Magic:

An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.

In any case, I disagree that hard magic doesn't exist at all in fiction, though I'd certainly agree that most systems (even the ones with supposed rules) nevertheless lean far more towards soft magic.

I should probably mention that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hard magic systems aren't inherently better than soft magic ones. However, it can be bad when magic is repeatedly used for Deus Ex Machinas to get the protagonists out of tricky situations.

Worse, magic always bends to the story and plot.

Out of interest, are there any specific examples that come to mind? Asking out of simple curiosity.

[Dienekes]

Out of interest, are there any specific examples that come to mind? Asking out of simple curiosity.

Not Zarrgon but The Sword of Truth comes to mind. Where the effects of magic that are possible changes book to book.

Harry Potter as well. New magic tends to be consistent in the book it’s introduced but gets ignored in later books with maybe a handwave if we’re lucky.

Discworld’s magic runs however Pratchett wants the magic to run. As long as the effects are funny.

Even Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. What Gandalf can and can’t do has few rules. Well actually it has very specific rules that you only really learn about if you read bonus material. But in practice it looks like he just shows up and does whatever. Tolkien gets away with it because every time it happens it really just gives the heroes a means of dealing with issues themselves or at great cost.

[Deathtongue]

But it does not have to be that way, Soft Magic rules work fine. a spell might mostly do what it should...or might be effected by other local magic or maybe something else. The effect might make the spell more powerful, weaker, or have a neutral effect. In any case what might happen specifically is unknown, but most spellcasters can make good guesses.

See, and that's exactly why I don't like soft magic outside of simpler systems like FATE. Even with a theoretically fair-minded, impartial DM using magic repeatedly turns into a debate and negotiation. I don't mind having to do that now and again, but having that standard procedure sounds frustrating and exhausting. I don't want to spend 5 minutes discussing whether Mold Earth allows my wizard to set up simple 2-square tall breastworks spanning 50' in the next hour, especially since I play with multiple DMs and they have different opinions. I don't want to spend another 10 minutes explaining to a DM (who might still decide to say 'no' anyway) that with sufficient time and Shape Water cantrips I can use the magic of enthalpy to freeze over a pond.

[Sorinth]

It's actually not that hard to support soft magic in 5e with only minor alterations. There are quite a number of vaguely defined spells like Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy, Druidcraft, etc... not to mention pretty much every illusion spell where you can get creative with the use of magic and attempt to do almost anything. Simply add a spellcasting check against a DC determined by the DM when trying to push beyond the limits of the spell or modify a spell. So when you want to use mending on something big that normally wouldn't work well now you roll a d20 add your spellcasting mod and see if you can beat the DC. When you want to make a half-sized fireball make a check, if you fail that check the DM decides what happens. Maybe it's the right size but weak so only deals half normal damage or maybe it ends up a quarter of the size causing you to miss some of the targets you wanted, etc...

5e was designed to be easily modifiable so that it can support whatever world you want to create. Homebrewing is highly encouraged throughout the game.

[Optimator]

D&D has always been on the higher end of the spectrum in terms of magic prevalence. I don't see this as a problem.