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

[Tanarii]

I think the difference in feel is that in each of the pulp stories, the magical thing was a rare, possibly situation-dependent, and definitely special/exceptional event.

And often evil. More often than not, for the really powerful stuff.
(Possible exception for LotR, where the elves and Gandalf used the rings as a powerful force for good.)

[Joe the Rat]

It sounds like it's less "the world is steeped in magic" as "magic is formulaic" - magic is reliable and predictable. Something akin to DCC (as a system) or Savage Kingdoms (system and setting) is what you are trying to get to. Both hew closer to Swords and Sorcery style games - where magic has a distinct otherness, unpredictability, and risk.

DCC eschews spell slots in favor of spell checks, where a good roll gets you greater effect options, and low rolls risk failure, losing spell access, or some sort of Bad Thing (corruption for wizards, Progressive Bad Luck for Clerics). Spells also are mercurial - no two casters will necessarily produce the same effects, or have the same costs for casting. Warrior-types get an added feature in the Deed die - in place of a static to-hit modifier, they roll a die (starting at d3). At a 3 or higher, you get to try and add a rider to your attacks - pushing, tripping, pocket sand, kicking off to reach another opponent... pretty much whatever you can come up with, and what fits the roll of the die (higher is better, and higher level Dwarves and Warriors can get into some crazy stuff). Basically you can be a reaver with free chances at awesome, or take the high-risk, high-reward path of spellcasting.
DCC is very much about creating a nostalgic D&D experience - not how the game ran, but the feel of danger and strangeness that we feel like the game had. This also means healing is slower

Savage Kingdoms is a Post-3rd Gearhead system - lots of buildy details, but lighter on the deep strategic stacking of modifiers, with more focus on grit and deeds. It is a classless system, but does have an archetype "packaged traits" system that emulates much of this. Magic is flat-out rare. You can be of an unnatural race, have the blood of demons or whatnot, or even know some magic, but it is a tricky thing. Spells are rolled to cast, and cost stamina. There are also several feat-style maneuvers you can learn - martial, mobility, etc, which also use stamina. The same pool for casting a blinding flash, or impaling and immobilizing, with growing levels of cool tricks in both domains, albeit with fewer risks on the non-magical side.

[Dr. Cliché]

This is the crux of the issue, to me. Take away these classes magical options and you're still left with a very similar question: Why would any character take a gamble on using skill checks alone when they could have rolled a wizard (or cleric or druid or what-have-you) and use spells to Fly, or Disguise Self/Speak with Dead?

I do feel that funny feeling it gives, for every class including Fighters and Barbarians to be able to invoke sparkling magic powers. It's weird! But how do you design a non-magical ability that can compete with Fireball, Tongues, Spiritual Guardians, Entangle, to say nothing of the non-spell abilities of caster classes?

Well, there are a few things to consider here:

1) Magic should have some strengths. That is to say, there should be some legitimate advantages to picking a spellcaster over a mundane class. After all, if Fireball, Tongues, Entangle, Spiritual Guardians etc. can all be replicated via ordinary, non-magical means, what's the point of learning magic at all? This was the issue 4th edition ran into, as its system - whilst more balanced - created a different issue wherein there was no meaningful distinction between magical and non-magical effects or classes.

Now, this isn't to say casting classes should be outright better than non-casting ones. Just that I don't think every spell needs a mundane equivalent.


2) However, I think part of the problem is that most casters are generalists who can be good at almost anything. Take the examples of Fireball, Spiritual Guardians and Entangle. All of these represent AoE effects. This could actually be a good thing for magic to focus on. That way, mages are necessary to handle large groups of enemies, but mundane classes are better at taking down single, strong targets. Of course, it doesn't actually work out that way as mages also have piles of single-target spells to choose from.

Skills are likewise tricky due to the sheer number of spells that can replicate or surpass them in some way, usually without any risk of failure. Though I'm not sure the current method for skills helps much either. The shorter list combined with the trained/untrained nature of them seems detrimental to 'skillmonkey' characters.

I think the wizard is one of the worst examples, due in no small part to the change in specialisation. It used to be that in order to specialise in one type of magic you had to give up two other types (you could choose to be a generalist but then you had fewer spells each day). This forced some difficult choices and meant that most wizards would end up with two schools that they couldn't have spells from. However, the current specialisations don't require any sacrifice whatsoever. Hence, there are no limits on what spells you can take and no disadvantage to just taking all the best spells, flavour be damned.


3) In fact, magic in general has no meaningful costs or risks. I know that a few spells have risks or costs, but these are very much in the minority (and when you've got bugger-all else to spend money on, paying a little extra for a spell component rarely amounts to any significant drawback). If magic had a greater cost or risk associated with its use, then mages might actually think twice about using a spell to auto-succeed a skill check or solve a problem.

I know that people tend to dislike this idea as they feel they're being punished for using their abilities, but I see this as a fundamental choice. It's very hard to see how non-magic characters can be on the same level as magic ones when magic costs nothing (no, I don't count spell slots because they're entirely abstract and the loss doesn't have any negative consequences aside from 'not being able to cast even more magic today') and has no risks.


4) In game terms, the main disadvantage of magic seems to be that it represents a finite resource (albeit one that automatically replenishes each day). However, I think that 5e's Spell Slot casting has completely buggered the equation. It used to be that Wizards, Clerics, Druids etc. all had to prepare their spells beforehand. Hence, a wizard might know Fireball but if he'd prepared several castings of Fly instead, then it didn't matter. If a Druid only had one Entangle prepared, that would help him for the first encounter but what about the encounters after that?

In contrast, so long as a Wizard knows Fly and Fireball, he can cast either as many times as he has spell slots. Run out of 3rd level slots? No problem, just upcast with a 4th level slot instead. This also goes back to the point about flexibility. In prior editions, a caster might have been wary of preparing Tongues as it's a somewhat niche spell that could easily end up 'wasting' one of their spell slots. In contrast, a caster in 5e can have Tongues on their list of known/prepared spells, safe in the knowledge that they can still use all of their spell slots for Fireball or whatever, but will still have it in reserve should they run into a situation that calls for it.


5) The gradual reduction in elemental and magic resistance of monsters. In 2nd edition a lot of monsters, particularly at the higher end of the scale, would be resistant to magic (for those who don't remember, it was represented as a % chance to ignore a spell effect entirely). Hence, spellcasters often had to spend a number of rounds using spells to lower a monster's magic resistance before they could meaningfully attack it. In the meantime, martials were free to go all out on it (naturally, an alternative strategy for casters would entail buffing the martials to make them better in this role).

3.5 had spell resistance, which I think was a more intuitive system. Again, it represented a chance for a monster to negate a spell entirely but instead of a flat %, the caster would have to roll to beat the monster's Spell Resistance, adding their caster level to the roll. It probably represented a weakening overall but felt more involved and gave players some options (such as Spell Penetration feats) to improve their chances.

In 5e though, magic resistance only ever gives a monster Advantage on their saving throw against a spell. So rather than having two separate lines of defence (spell resistance and then the saving throw), the monster now has only one. If the spell does something even on a success, the monster no longer ignores it. If the spell doesn't allow a saving throw then the monster has no protection at all.

Then you've got the change to elemental resistance, which is now represented as Resistant or Immune with nothing in between. In the past, monsters could have Fire Resistance 5 (meaning they ignore the first 5pts of damage from every instance of fire damage), or Fire Resistance 10 or Fire Resistance 30. It allowed for different levels of resistance without making monsters outright immune. This then meant that a lot of monsters could have minor resistance to elements (elements of course being the primary method of damage for casters). Probably not quite as important as the nerfing of spell resistance, but still noteworthy I think.


Bear in mind also that it's not just these individual changes but also their effect when taken together.

[ezekielraiden]

1) Magic should have some strengths. <snip>

I agree, at least as far as your comments regarding actual game design, and not the...other things. (Which are, as so many things touched on in this thread, best addressed in a different thread.) Fortunately, we've had that covered in literally every single edition, bar none, no questions. There has never been an edition of D&D where magic didn't have strengths. Consider: apart from consumable-form healing spells (potions, scrolls, wands) and regular healing spells, it is essentially impossible to restore more than a paltry amount of hit points without magic in (most) prior editions. Likewise, if you suffer from something nasty, like mummy rot, or god forbid you die, literally nothing except magic can save you. Magic has always had its things that ONLY magic can do, while non-magic is forced to live in the closet under the stairs.

2) However, I think part of the problem is that most casters are generalists who can be good at almost anything.

And as soon as you start suggesting anything that might limit them, they cry havoc and let slip the dogs of (flame)war. It is essentially impossible to get D&D caster fans (and especially Wizard fans) to accept anything that will cause them to lose ground. Because, the thing is? D&D doesn't have a problem with "magic" not having strengths. It has a problem with every single thing you could do without magic, magic can always do better. Magic has no limitations. There isn't a single thing you can do without magic, that magic can't do better if you choose to do it with magic--a serious design problem that the community won't let the designers fix, even if they wanted to. Which they don't, as demonstrated by that interview with Rob Heinsoo a while back, where he talked about how many members of the 4e design team kept bumping up the power of the Wizard *just a little* with every design pass, and he had to keep reining it back in.

3) In fact, magic in general has no meaningful costs or risks. <snop> I know that people tend to dislike this idea as they feel they're being punished for using their abilities...

Although this is a real problem (and, uh, D&D has tended to create really really anti-fun and ineffective restrictions of this type, e.g. boring, frustrating, and not-too-difficult to dodge), there are two bigger problems: perverse incentives and "tax-dodging." In brief, perverse incentives are what create things like the fifteen minute workday, the excessive focus on alpha-striking, or avoiding spending "permanent" resources (gp) on "temporary" benefits (consumables & ritual components). (Note the quotes; these are player perspectives, not a more thorough and patient analysis.) "Tax-dodging" is an inaccurate term in this context, but it's got cultural cachet so I'm using it when "regulation-dodging" would be more accurate: if you make magic have a real cost, the playerbase (which mostly DOES like having magic in some form) will not start using and liking non-magic things, but will instead finagle least-punishing, most-usable option and default to that unless some other concern becomes greater.

Making magic that has reasonable-but-not-trivial costs, that don't create perverse incentives or encourage tax-dodging, is extremely difficult. Very few games come to market with it, because few people have figured out any good answers. Ironically, though you poo-pooed it earlier, 4e actually tried to fix these with its power schedule and finite healing resources--and the very fact that you dislike it despite it solving this problem is yet another example of "people get MORE upset when you change things to fix the problems they claim to be upset about."

4) In game terms, the main disadvantage of magic seems to be that it represents a finite resource (albeit one that automatically replenishes each day). However, I think that 5e's Spell Slot casting has completely buggered the equation.

It really wasn't that much of a limitation in prior editions either, because of the "always go for the best spells" perverse incentive.

5) The gradual reduction in elemental and magic resistance of monsters.

Now this is a 100% valid criticism, and one based on a frank historical analysis of D&D. Its monster design (with the exception of 4e, imagine that) has been a long train of making monsters somehow more susceptible to magic, and likewise Fighters. You're completely right that early editions made incautious use of magic...just not very effective against dangerous foes, and that that has slowly ceased to be the case. 5e has tried to reverse the trend, but I completely agree that the ways in which 5e flattened the design depth of creatures (not complexity per se--"reduce incoming fire damage by 5" is not meaningfully more complicated than "takes half damage from fire," but the former allows scaling while the latter does not), spells, and characters has removed many avenues of addressing the power and versatility of magic.

Edit:
But, again, none of this addresses what I think is the real, core, fundamental problem. Things are only "wondrous" and "magical" when they're not yet understood, when your mind is suddenly opened to a world of possibilities you hadn't considered before. Wonder is like fresh snow: beautiful when untouched, but once it becomes well-trodden ground, its beauty is lost. Once the wondrous becomes familiar, becomes rote, there's no charm left, no room for that wonder because you know what the limits are. Yet the nature of formal systems is to define the limits of things, to set values and functions and calculations to something. Unless and until someone can demonstrate something that will be enough of a "system" to satisfy the D&D community, and yet also somehow either create or at least preserve the lack-of-familiarity

Besides, one of the key things 5e was designed for--one of the things the fans clamored for--was "feel." Getting the "feel" of D&D down pat. That literally means making it "feel" familiar, recognizable, identifiable. The designers are boxed in; they can't create a system that doesn't "feel like D&D," because fans will revolt. But if they want to create a new system that can thus evoke wonder, they have to do that very thing--take away the comfort zones, present the strange and unexpected.

It is not possible to create wonder and preserve the D&D "feel" in the same system. A single system can, at best, slow down the process of becoming familiar with it, so that it always feels like there's something left to discover. (One can argue that 3rd Edition, with its incredible breadth of splats and revival via Pathfinder, was banking on exactly that: that it is SO riddled with subsystems and components that no one can ever really experience everything it has to give, and thus always feel at least a little wonder.)

[Chaosmancer]

One thing that I can't help but thinking during this discussion is how I have no idea what other "non-magical" classes people could want.

Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue and Monk pretty well cover it. Now, I only include the monk because there isn't a good unarmed fighter archetype... unless you use the Class Variant Fighting Style, in which case, drop the monk.

So, you have a hero who uses weapons. A hero who is stronger than average and hard to hurt. One who uses their wits and skills, and one who punches people.

You want to play a wilderness warrior, cloaked in the woods and tracking their foes across all lands? Scout Rogue, Outlander Background.

A warrior devoted to the temples of [insert god] who fights with conviction that can inspire his companions? Well, the Banneret Fighter is poorly made, but some tweaks to get it up to par and the Acolyte background and you are good to go.

A scholar who uses their vast knowledge of ancient lore to aid the team? Inquisitive or Mastermind Rogue with Scholar background.

An alchemist who concocts potions and explosives to use in battle? Thief Rogue, Alchemist kit. Granted, you need to some 3pp rules or homebrew to get actual items worth crafting, but as someone who is playing that exact build, it works. Can even make them a doctor by adding the Healer feat.

A "Battle dancer" dervish style character? Refluff barbarian, maybe let their abilities key off dex attacks.

The more I think about it, trying to figure out what non-magical, non-mystical things people would want to do.... the more I don't see what choices are actually missing that people want.

I'm not saying I don't see what people mean by there being a lot of magical classes, I wanted to make a 6-man team for a one-shot that had no magic, and I couldn't do it without repeating classes, but I also don't see what classes are actually missing if you want zero magic within the class itself.

I think this is a good point. As it stands, there's a weird disconnect between a lot of the world magic compared with the magic used not just by PCs, but also by NPCS and monsters.

As in, we have all these monsters and constructs created with magic, plus magic items (and I don't just mean scrolls and potions), plus various other effects . . . yet no rules for how a powerful wizard could possibly accomplish any of these.

I know 3.5 had issues but at least it actually had rules for creating golems, for crafting magic items, even for stuff like implanting grafts. I'm sure many of these were costly and difficult but it nevertheless showed that the players could do them with enough time and gold and the right resources.

Meanwhile, in 5e you're generally left scratching your head at a lot of magical effects. Because very few spells can last for any significant length of time, Permanency is long gone, and yet somehow wizards are still managing to do all this long-term stuff. Can we see the rules they're using? Because even the NPC Archmage doesn't have any rule or spell that would allow him to accomplish this sort of thing.

Let me show you what I mean. Here's what the 3.5 MM said about building a golem:

CONSTRUCTION

Spoiler

Show

The cost to create given for each golem includes the cost of the physical body and all the materials and spell components that are consumed or become a permanent part of the golem. Creating a golem is essentially similar to creating any sort of magic item (see page 282 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide). However, a golem’s body includes costly material components that may require some extra preparation. The golem’s creator can assemble the body or hire someone else to do the job. The builder must have the appropriate skill, which varies with the golem variety.

Completing the golem’s creation drains the appropriate XP from the creator and requires casting any spells on the final day. The creator must cast the spells personally, but they can come from outside sources, such as scrolls.

The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golem’s description, in the same format used in Chapter 7 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Note The market price of an advanced golem (a golem with more Hit Dice than the typical golem described in each entry) is increased by 5,000 gp for each additional Hit Die, and increased by an additional 50,000 gp if the golem’s size increases. The XP cost for creating an advanced golem is equal to 1/25 the advanced golem’s market price minus the cost of the special materials required.


Example: Clay Golem:
A clay golem’s body must be sculpted from a single block of clay weighing at least 1,000 pounds, treated with rare oils and powders worth 1,500 gp. Creating the body requires a DC 15 Craft (sculpting) check or a DC 15 Craft (pottery) check.
CL 11th; Craft Construct (see page 303), animate objects, commune, resurrection, caster must be at least 11th level; Price 40,000 gp; Cost 21,500 gp + 1,540 XP.

So it's complicated and requires an 11+th level caster with some specific spells (not to mention a hefty wallet), but you basically have the entire process here. If a PC dreams of having their own golem, then they know (or can find out) exactly what is required and gradually work on assembling the necessary components.


Now let's see how 5e suggests building a golem:
Elemental Spirit in Material Form.

Spoiler

Show

The construction of a golem begins with the building of its body, requiring great command of the craft of sculpting, stonecutting, ironworking, or surgery. Sometimes a go I em's creator is the master of the art, but often the individual who desires a golem must enlist master artisans to do the work.

After constructing the body from clay, flesh, iron, or stone, the golem's creator infuses it with a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. This tiny spark of life has no memory, personality, or history. It is simply the impetus to move and obey. This process binds the spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem's creator.

The more keen-eyed amongst you might notice a certain lack of details (and to save you checking, no the individual entries don't give any extra information).

We're told that building a golem requires "great command of the craft of sculpting, stonecutting, ironworking, or surgery". Okay. But what does that mean in game? I assume proficiency with a given set of tools but are any checks involved? What's the DC? How much do the materials cost? How long does it take?

Next we're informed that the golem is infused with "a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth". How? Does this involve the Conjure Elemental spell? Planar Ally, maybe? Or would the Conjure Minor Elementals spell work? If it needs one of the Conjure Elementals spells, what happens if I lose my concentration; does the golem them become hostile towards me? Do I need to cast any other spells before or after this? Do I need to do anything else to prepare the body? Whichever spell I use to summon the elemental spark, how do I make it permanent, given that it normally has a finite duration?

Finally, we have this gem: "This process binds the spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem's creator". Er . . . I can only assume you missed a step somewhere because you haven't actually told us the process.


Anyway, I'm not saying that someone couldn't necessarily make up hard rules for creating a golem in 5e. The issue is that the designers haven't. Nor have they provided rules for most of the other long-term uses of magic in the world. And this creates a weird disconnect wherein the magic of players, monsters and NPCs is constantly seen to be narrow in scope and rarely ever having significant, long-term effects; yet the world still somehow contains all manner of golems, magic items and other examples of long-term magic with no explanation of how any of it was achieved.

I appreciate that this ramble is somewhat tangential to the topic at hand, I just think it's amusing that the D&D world seems detached from its own magic system.

This and another post bring me to a complaint I do actually have, and that is that the "small magics" like blessings and such don't exist or have rules.

I've worked around that by letting people spend their spell slots and roll a casting check (ability mod + prof) to see what happens.

For example, I had a player who was playing a cleric and wanted to bless a child. I asked them to tell me what they wanted the blessing to be, how many spell slots of "energy" they were spending (they could have dumped everything into this) and then to roll. I can't remember what the result.... oh wait, yes I do. They were blessing the son of a Fey Prince with a mortal woman and gave him "the ability to see the true intentions of people" and they crit, so I gave them a future vision of the child as a king, able to see at a glance what those around him intended. That game died due to the virus though, so we didn't expand upon it much)

But, the nature of things like, the farmers who sing "ritual songs" and empower the land because it has been the same song, song on the same land, for a hundred years and that has impact, is something that I don't think the game system will ever be able to emulate to the point I'm happy with it.

Sun Wukong didnt emit qi in the form of energy based attacks or move faster than the eye could see

Actually... he did.

After being born from a rock (twice) Sun Wukong bowed in the four cardinal directions and then shot lasers out of his eyes... for no reason that I can find (I'm sure it was symbolic since it nearly hit the Emperor of Heaven).

Then, later, he was challenged by the Buddha to jump out of his hand. Sun Wukong jumped from where he was to "The pillars of the universe" which was the edge of reality. Then lept back (turns out the pillars were buddha's fingers though, so oops, not out of his hand). So, he had to have moved incredibly quickly.

He could also make hundreds of clones of himself, was thrice immortal (he learned a secret of immortality, ate some fruit that made him immortal, then erased his name from the books of the underworld so they could never take him to the land of the dead) and could shapeshift into pretty much anything (other people, flies, growing to the size of a mountain, ect), was stupidly strong (his "staff" is actually a size-changing pillar that kept the oceans calm and weighs about as much as a mountain, even when shrunk)

So.... yeah. Sun Wukong, stupidly magical and powerful.

[Dr. Cliché]

I agree with basically everything else you said, I just wanted to address a couple of points:

It really wasn't that much of a limitation in prior editions either, because of the "always go for the best spells" perverse incentive.

But choosing the 'best spells' didn't mean you could have all of them prepared at the same time.

If a 3.5 wizard has fireball and fly, he still has to choose how many of each to prepare. If he prepares more instances of Fly then he risks running out of fireballs, and vice versa. Meanwhile, a 5e wizard with the best spells has all of them ready to cast. He doesn't need to allocate his spell slots ahead of time.

I appreciate that it wasn't necessarily the worst drawback in past editions but I do think this increased flexibility makes a difference, as it basically means wizards can always make the best possible use of their spell slots. They'll never be stuck in a battle with a dragon, having wasted several slots on social-interaction or skill-based spells.

Making magic that has reasonable-but-not-trivial costs, that don't create perverse incentives or encourage tax-dodging, is extremely difficult. Very few games come to market with it, because few people have figured out any good answers. Ironically, though you poo-pooed it earlier, 4e actually tried to fix these with its power schedule and finite healing resources--and the very fact that you dislike it despite it solving this problem is yet another example of "people get MORE upset when you change things to fix the problems they claim to be upset about."

I appreciate what 4th edition *tried* to do, I just think the execution was awful.

For example, healing magic was already limited. 4e just needed to put a different limit on it, since spell slots no longer existed.

What's more, there still wasn't any cost to the magic. It was just limited in a way that completely broke verisimilitude. It was also made exceptionally boring, with the vast array of fun spells being reduced to a handful of 'do X damage and something else' effects.

To put it another way, I don't want a magic system wherein mages are outright superior to non-mages because magic can do virtually anything and has no meaningful cost. However, by the same measure, I also don't want a system wherein every caster just feels like someone took a martial class and re-skinned it.

[ezekielraiden]

Actually... he did.

After being born from a rock (twice) Sun Wukong bowed in the four cardinal directions and then shot lasers out of his eyes... for no reason that I can find (I'm sure it was symbolic since it nearly hit the Emperor of Heaven).

Then, later, he was challenged by the Buddha to jump out of his hand. Sun Wukong jumped from where he was to "The pillars of the universe" which was the edge of reality. Then lept back (turns out the pillars were buddha's fingers though, so oops, not out of his hand). So, he had to have moved incredibly quickly.

He could also make hundreds of clones of himself, was thrice immortal (he learned a secret of immortality, ate some fruit that made him immortal, then erased his name from the books of the underworld so they could never take him to the land of the dead) and could shapeshift into pretty much anything (other people, flies, growing to the size of a mountain, ect), was stupidly strong (his "staff" is actually a size-changing pillar that kept the oceans calm and weighs about as much as a mountain, even when shrunk)

So.... yeah. Sun Wukong, stupidly magical and powerful.

IIRC, five times immortal. In addition to the three you mentioned (his Daoist master teaching him an "illegitimate" form of immortality; erasing his own name, and the names of as many monkeys as he could find, from the ledgers of the Ten Kings of Diyu; and eating the peaches from the grove of heavenly peach trees, which he had been tasked to guard), he also consumed an entire heavenly peach festival banquet's worth of heavenly booze that also makes you immortal, AND ate an entire batch of Lao-Tze's immortality pills, making him quintuply immortal.

But yes, literally the first thing the Monkey King does after hatching from a rock egg is bowing to the cardinal directions, "inadvertently activating his LASER EYES," as OSP's Red puts it. He repeatedly moves so fast he can't be seen (often creating a perfect body-double behind him so no one even notices the switch!), and the only time he's ever actually slowed down is when someone drops AT LEAST a full-on mountain on top of him, often with EXTRA magic power as well (e.g. the Mountain of the Five Phases with its Buddhist "seal" at the top to keep Monkey in place.) He can transform into 72 different creatures ("the Art of the Earthly Multitude") and fly. It literally takes inventing entirely new magical BS in order to stop him (e.g. the wind-ferret creature, Red Boy and his True Fire of Samadhi, certain magic treasures). Journey to the West is MANY things, but low-magic is EMPHATICALLY not among them.

(All of this courtesy of Overly Sarcastic Productions' Journey to the West series. Which is lovely and hilarious and everyone should watch it. Don't bug Red about making new eps though, she has vowed that every time she's asked, she will delay the production of the next episode!)

[Schwann145]

But how do you design a non-magical ability that can compete with Fireball, Tongues, Spiritual Guardians, Entangle, to say nothing of the non-spell abilities of caster classes?

I know a lot of people don't particularly like this answer but... you don't.
The classes aren't meant to be balanced against one another, they're meant to be built to have to tools necessary to fill their roles successfully.
When you balance the classes against one another, you get 4th Edition (a great example of, "the player isn't the best judge for what is good").

Howling spirits coming to your aid sounds like something right out of Conan to me.

It sure does! But like... once, at a pivotal moment at the end of the adventure; not every day.

[FilthyLucre]

I think the issue can be solved by just having more classes that are explicitly non-magical or have non-magical options/subclasses. Ranger and Bard both stand out to me as classes that are very viable without resorting to magic. I would greatly like to see more 'mundane' options that make hacking other genres easier, (steampunk, modern, etc. I know people will say 'use another system' but I think many people are absolutely married to d20 - I am).

[FilthyLucre]

Besides, one of the key things 5e was designed for--one of the things the fans clamored for--was "feel." Getting the "feel" of D&D down pat. That literally means making it "feel" familiar, recognizable, identifiable. The designers are boxed in; they can't create a system that doesn't "feel like D&D," because fans will revolt. But if they want to create a new system that can thus evoke wonder, they have to do that very thing--take away the comfort zones, present the strange and unexpected.

It is not possible to create wonder and preserve the D&D "feel" in the same system. A single system can, at best, slow down the process of becoming familiar with it, so that it always feels like there's something left to discover. (One can argue that 3rd Edition, with its incredible breadth of splats and revival via Pathfinder, was banking on exactly that: that it is SO riddled with subsystems and components that no one can ever really experience everything it has to give, and thus always feel at least a little wonder.)

I don't think that "wonderment" is in the system so much as the DM and their story telling. So, while you could have a perfect, unfailing memorization of all the rules it's still possible for the DM to create new experiences.

[Chaosmancer]

IIRC, five times immortal. In addition to the three you mentioned (his Daoist master teaching him an "illegitimate" form of immortality; erasing his own name, and the names of as many monkeys as he could find, from the ledgers of the Ten Kings of Diyu; and eating the peaches from the grove of heavenly peach trees, which he had been tasked to guard), he also consumed an entire heavenly peach festival banquet's worth of heavenly booze that also makes you immortal, AND ate an entire batch of Lao-Tze's immortality pills, making him quintuply immortal.

But yes, literally the first thing the Monkey King does after hatching from a rock egg is bowing to the cardinal directions, "inadvertently activating his LASER EYES," as OSP's Red puts it. He repeatedly moves so fast he can't be seen (often creating a perfect body-double behind him so no one even notices the switch!), and the only time he's ever actually slowed down is when someone drops AT LEAST a full-on mountain on top of him, often with EXTRA magic power as well (e.g. the Mountain of the Five Phases with its Buddhist "seal" at the top to keep Monkey in place.) He can transform into 72 different creatures ("the Art of the Earthly Multitude") and fly. It literally takes inventing entirely new magical BS in order to stop him (e.g. the wind-ferret creature, Red Boy and his True Fire of Samadhi, certain magic treasures). Journey to the West is MANY things, but low-magic is EMPHATICALLY not among them.

(All of this courtesy of Overly Sarcastic Productions' Journey to the West series. Which is lovely and hilarious and everyone should watch it. Don't bug Red about making new eps though, she has vowed that every time she's asked, she will delay the production of the next episode!)

Also a man of culture I see :D

Love OSP

I think the issue can be solved by just having more classes that are explicitly non-magical or have non-magical options/subclasses. Ranger and Bard both stand out to me as classes that are very viable without resorting to magic. I would greatly like to see more 'mundane' options that make hacking other genres easier, (steampunk, modern, etc. I know people will say 'use another system' but I think many people are absolutely married to d20 - I am).

I brought this up already in post... looks like #95 to me, but what exactly do you think this ends up meaning?

A Scout Rogue is very much a Ranger. Or you could build it with a Fighter and the Outlander background if want heavier armors. If you want a non-magical ranger, those two options seem to fit the bill.

Same with Bard, take an Inquisitive or Mastermind rogue and the Performer background. Bam, Non-Magical bard.

The more I think of it, the more I think if you want a game limited by "no magic" then Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian and Monk (maybe) fit the bill of pretty much anything you might want.

[FilthyLucre]

I brought this up already in post... looks like #95 to me, but what exactly do you think this ends up meaning?

A Scout Rogue is very much a Ranger. Or you could build it with a Fighter and the Outlander background if want heavier armors. If you want a non-magical ranger, those two options seem to fit the bill.

Same with Bard, take an Inquisitive or Mastermind rogue and the Performer background. Bam, Non-Magical bard.

The more I think of it, the more I think if you want a game limited by "no magic" then Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian and Monk (maybe) fit the bill of pretty much anything you might want.

I don't disagree with you in premise, but I do disagree that there is sufficient content to make a party of 5 characters, all nonmagical, where there isn't significant class or feel overlap. In a perfect world, (IMHO), there would only be three classes (fighter, rogue, mage) and just many many subclasses/specialization opportunities.

TL;DR I want to be able to have a party of 5 mundane characters that are all thematically quite different.

[Democratus]

TL;DR I want to be able to have a party of 5 mundane characters that are all thematically quite different.

You can do this, but you have to re-think how broad a "theme" should be.

A good example of this is the game Leverage (based on the TV show of the same name).

There are 5 character archetypes in Leverage:

• Grifter
• Hacker
• Hitter
• Mastermind
• Thief

All of them are non-magical (obvious, sense they exist in a 'real' world). But each has its own theme, powers, and role in the party.

[FilthyLucre]

You can do this, but you have to re-think how broad a "theme" should be.

A good example of this is the game Leverage (based on the TV show of the same name).

There are 5 character archetypes in Leverage:

• Grifter
• Hacker
• Hitter
• Mastermind
• Thief

All of them are non-magical (obvious, sense they exist in a 'real' world). But each has its own theme, powers, and role in the party.

I'm not disputing that it can be done - I'm disputing that it can be done in D&D as it exists as of this writing.

[Morty]

The fact that non-magical characters' class options boil down to "boring generic beatstick, "thief", "angry beatstick" and arguably "wuxia character" does go a long way towards magic's dominance in the field of actually doing anything interesting.

[Democratus]

I'm not disputing that it can be done - I'm disputing that it can be done in D&D as it exists as of this writing.

Gotcha. That's why I brought up "theme" as something that can be very narrowly defined. You could have 2 fighters and 3 rogues which each have a theme.

• The Tank
• The Archer
• The Second-Story Man
• The Con Man
• The Assassin

Each of these is a theme. And each has a part to play in the 3 pillars of RPG-ing.

A group like this trying to prove themselves in a world where everyone thinks you need magic - could be an amazing campaign.

[FilthyLucre]

Gotcha. That's why I brought up "theme" as something that can be very narrowly defined. You could have 2 fighters and 3 rogues which each have a theme.

• The Tank
• The Archer
• The Second-Story Man
• The Con Man
• The Assassin

Each of these is a theme. And each has a part to play in the 3 pillars of RPG-ing.

A group like this trying to prove themselves in a world where everyone thinks you need magic - could be an amazing campaign.

Again, I think you prove your point but I'd still like to see more/expanded mundane options. I'd like to see more options, period, as a matter of fact. For me, there isn't enough content to adequately support those themes within the two classes you specified.

[Democratus]

Again, I think you prove your point but I'd still like to see more/expanded mundane options. I'd like to see more options, period, as a matter of fact. For me, there isn't enough content to adequately support those themes within the two classes you specified.

Totally fair. I wonder what they would look like.

Adventures in Middle Earth has a Scholar class who is good at knowing things and has access to mundane (herbal/medical) healing. There's also a Warden class that is a lot like the Warlord from earlier editions - an inspiring leader who can assist his party through inspiration dice much like a bard.

Have you had any ideas for mundane awesomeness? Would love to hear them.

[8wGremlin]

Back when they were talking about what the new 5e was going to be they made a big announcement that it was going to be MODULAR.

for me that meant that you'd have modular sets of rules, and I naively thought.

Mundane characters (no magic using character)
Feats as a Module (they kind of do this)

Modular rules for low level martial arts/manoeuvres
Modular rules for Low magic; Divine Characters to add on (half casters)
Modular rules for Low magic; Arcane Characters to add on (half casters)
Modular rules for Low magic; Nature Characters to add on (half casters)
Modular rules for Low magic; Binding/Oaths Characters to add on (half casters)

Modular rules for High level martial arts/manoeuvres (Wuxia)
Modular rules for High magic; Divine Characters to add on (casters)
Modular rules for High magic; Arcane Characters to add on (casters)
Modular rules for High magic; Nature Characters to add on (casters)
Modular rules for High magic; Binding/Oaths Characters to add on (casters)

I was so hopeful and naive.

[AntiAuthority]

But, again, none of this addresses what I think is the real, core, fundamental problem. Things are only "wondrous" and "magical" when they're not yet understood, when your mind is suddenly opened to a world of possibilities you hadn't considered before. Wonder is like fresh snow: beautiful when untouched, but once it becomes well-trodden ground, its beauty is lost. Once the wondrous becomes familiar, becomes rote, there's no charm left, no room for that wonder because you know what the limits are. Yet the nature of formal systems is to define the limits of things, to set values and functions and calculations to something. Unless and until someone can demonstrate something that will be enough of a "system" to satisfy the D&D community, and yet also somehow either create or at least preserve the lack-of-familiarity

Besides, one of the key things 5e was designed for--one of the things the fans clamored for--was "feel." Getting the "feel" of D&D down pat. That literally means making it "feel" familiar, recognizable, identifiable. The designers are boxed in; they can't create a system that doesn't "feel like D&D," because fans will revolt. But if they want to create a new system that can thus evoke wonder, they have to do that very thing--take away the comfort zones, present the strange and unexpected.

Pretty much this. Something is going to appear wonderful the first time you see it, but after a while, you sort of just get used to it, and when it becomes understood it's not really mystifying anymore.

This then ties back into what "feels" like D&D. Is it high powered adventures, low magic, Conan the Barbarian style games where mostly villains use magic... What? D&D doesn't exactly have a feel beyond being D&D.

---

Actually... he did.

After being born from a rock (twice) Sun Wukong bowed in the four cardinal directions and then shot lasers out of his eyes... for no reason that I can find (I'm sure it was symbolic since it nearly hit the Emperor of Heaven).

But yes, literally the first thing the Monkey King does after hatching from a rock egg is bowing to the cardinal directions, "inadvertently activating his LASER EYES," as OSP's Red puts it. He repeatedly moves so fast he can't be seen (often creating a perfect body-double behind him so no one even notices the switch!), and the only time he's ever actually slowed down is when someone drops AT LEAST a full-on mountain on top of him, often with EXTRA magic power as well (e.g. the Mountain of the Five Phases with its Buddhist "seal" at the top to keep Monkey in place.) He can transform into 72 different creatures ("the Art of the Earthly Multitude") and fly. It literally takes inventing entirely new magical BS in order to stop him (e.g. the wind-ferret creature, Red Boy and his True Fire of Samadhi, certain magic treasures). Journey to the West is MANY things, but low-magic is EMPHATICALLY not among them.

Look, the takeaway from this is... Mythological and ancient literary characters ripped off comic books and anime! I knew something was up with Cu Chulainn's great grandfather having basically laser vision! Shiva's third eye being able to incinerate things is a classic comic book trope! Clearly the Banshee of folklore was ripping off DC's Black Canary and Marvel's Banshee (come on, the folklore Banshee even stole Marvel Banshee's name, no originality at all)! The comic and anime fans invented time travel to give mythological and literary characters anime and comic book powers, it all makes sense! And I wasn't invited to help because I'm not cool enough! lol Seriously, I'm tempted to rewatch OSP's Journey to the West now...

Anyway, about the Monkey King and tying into fantasy characters being able to do things that are impossible in our world because they're not limited by the constraints of our world... I read some of the Journey to the West and after Sun Wukong shoots lasers out of his eyes, the Jade Emperor states, "Creatures down below are born of the essence of heaven and earth: there is nothing remarkable about him."

Nothing remarkable about shooting lasers out of your eyes? I think fantasy characters should get a pass because, like Sun Wukong, they can just be that awesome (or they live in a fantasy world). They're not bound to the rules of being normal people like the Monkey King or any of the mythologies (Greek, Celtic, Norse) that directly or indirectly inspired D&D in some form or another.

---

The fact that non-magical characters' class options boil down to "boring generic beatstick, "thief", "angry beatstick" and arguably "wuxia character" does go a long way towards magic's dominance in the field of actually doing anything interesting.

Unfortunately, yes, this is a problem...

[MaxWilson]

I agree also there is a HUGE disconnect between PC creation and NPC/monster creation.

I remember when I started 5e (again after playing in the 1980's) and I wanted to re-do my favorite beginner module: U1 Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh (this was before The Ghosts of Saltmarsh was written/released).

I thought converting an old module into 5e rules would help me learn.

First problem I had was making the first "boss", who in the original document was 2nd or 3rd level Illusionist into a 5e monster. I at first wanted to just make a 3rd level illusionist (like a PC) and plop him into the adventure. Of course problems insued (power level being one) and so I venture here to ask questions.

OH NO!!!! That's a BIG NO-NO in 5e. You just don't make PC's as monsters. PC's are PC's and NPC's and Monsters are made completely different.

The Internet lies a lot. Good thing you learned that sooner than later.

The 5e DMG straight-up tells you in two different sections that building NPCs using PHB rules is a valid option (it even has NPC-only races and subclasses like the Oathbreaker), but for some reason the Internet pretends otherwise.

[GreyBlack]

Been questioning this recently and came upon this blog:
Fanservice BS: Low Magic, No Problem. Oh, Wait, Problem

And this particular part stuck out to me:


When you consider your class options, literally everything is either 100% magical or has magical options; the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue are the only ones with non-magical options, and none of them can say exclusively so.

Game designers will tell us that we can play however we wish, whether it's more high fantasy or more sword & sorcery, but that's just not true based on what they actually design and release in final products - all of it is super-high fantasy.

When everything is magical, is nothing magical? If you can expect cantrips or their non-spell equivalent around every corner of every city of every setting... is magic special anymore?

What do you think?

A couple people have brought this up, but LOTR is really not the basis of D&D in any way, shape, or form. D&D's DNA comes more from the Conan short stories, where the characters climb the tower, steal the loot, and come back to town to party hard until they go broke and need to go adventuring again. As such, any such comparisons to LOTR become kinda moot; D&D is not designed to be such an overarching quest. Sure, it can happen, but it isn't what the intention was.

.... That said, even comparing D&D to source materials becomes kinda bizarre. The Jack Vance series (from which Vancian Magic takes its name) was more low magic than modern D&D, the Conan series was more low magic... all of the games DNA is more low magic than modern D&D.

As such, I'd like to posit that modern D&D is less related to its predecessors than to what I would call the "modern fantasy" genres; it's more related to series like Warcraft, Harry Potter, or Warhammer than it is to any of that original DNA. In this, magic is more mundane; it is treated more like a tool to be used in the world than it is a force of the unknown. Magic has been made scientific and systematized in some way, or at least that appears to be the assumption of the baseline setting of D&D post-3rd edition (probably even post-2nd edition, given how magic-heavy 3rd was).

This is probably best typified in something like Avatar: The Last Airbender transitioning to Legend of Korra. In the first, sure, bending is this weird magic system that has rules in place, sure, but otherwise isn't always applied as something that would be useful on a society level. Compare this to Legend of Korra, where lightning-benders are seen generating power for the entire city; where one is awesome and mystical, the second is practical and almost mundane.

This isn't a good or a bad thing, but it does leave people who don't really like that modern fantasy genre a bit cool; some people want magic to be... magical. Mysterious. Unable to be quantified by the mortal realm. That really can't be squared with the assumption that magic is only a tool that can be learned and harnessed by anyone. Personally, I would prefer a lower magic option for my D&D, and am currently working on a module that deals more in that lower magic world, but that's just my preference; I can totally understand some people wanting that more practical magic.

[Galaxander]

I know a lot of people don't particularly like this answer but... you don't.
The classes aren't meant to be balanced against one another, they're meant to be built to have to tools necessary to fill their roles successfully.
When you balance the classes against one another, you get 4th Edition (a great example of, "the player isn't the best judge for what is good").

I'm not talking about balancing for power though. I'm talking about balancing for fun. (My bad for not making that clear.)

A magic class gets to do fun varied things in almost any situation. Non-magic classes are typically going to be doing the same thing all the time, over and over. Magic classes might have pages of options that can change a situation in unpredictable ways in and out of combat.

I don't think it's good design to have some classes be inherently more boring than others, regardless of whether or not they can all fill their role.

[Chaosmancer]

The fact that non-magical characters' class options boil down to "boring generic beatstick, "thief", "angry beatstick" and arguably "wuxia character" does go a long way towards magic's dominance in the field of actually doing anything interesting.

Well, a few things here.

1) You seem to be limiting classes right out of the gate. Fighter's can be fairly interesting. Maybe not as interesting, but for example, a friend of mine built an actual combat effective net fighter. I played a Samurai from the UA that was a ton of fun. Saying "boring generic beatstick" seems to predispose you to thinking of them in that way, but there is nuance.

2) What would you add to make them more interesting? That is the forever problem. Between maneuver's and the optional rules in the DMG, there aren't a lot of combat moves left. And aura's are expressly magical, so what can you give them to actually do?

Again, I think you prove your point but I'd still like to see more/expanded mundane options. I'd like to see more options, period, as a matter of fact. For me, there isn't enough content to adequately support those themes within the two classes you specified.

Can you explain what more you would need?

I'm not talking about balancing for power though. I'm talking about balancing for fun. (My bad for not making that clear.)

A magic class gets to do fun varied things in almost any situation. Non-magic classes are typically going to be doing the same thing all the time, over and over. Magic classes might have pages of options that can change a situation in unpredictable ways in and out of combat.

I don't think it's good design to have some classes be inherently more boring than others, regardless of whether or not they can all fill their role.

I get that, but sort of by definition, mundane things are things that can be done over and over again. I don't think you could write pages and pages of mundane options that can change things in unpredictable ways. Not that it isn't a good way to go, I just don't think it is possible without ripping things away from the skill system

[Tanarii]

The Internet lies a lot. Good thing you learned that sooner than later.

The 5e DMG straight-up tells you in two different sections that building NPCs using PHB rules is a valid option (it even has NPC-only races and subclasses like the Oathbreaker), but for some reason the Internet pretends otherwise.

Oh it's a pretty easy to figure out the most common reasons

1) Most people don't want to, or just can't, figure out the CR. But they're still trying to balance around it. And it's a lot of work to do that.

2) they're not very well balanced as combat enemies even when you figure out their CR using the DMG. They break the CR model pretty well.

But, you know, if you don't care about CR and encounter difficulty, for sure do it. Unfortunately that's exactly what the person you were quoted was trying to do. Care and balance around it.

[Galaxander]

I get that, but sort of by definition, mundane things are things that can be done over and over again. I don't think you could write pages and pages of mundane options that can change things in unpredictable ways. Not that it isn't a good way to go, I just don't think it is possible without ripping things away from the skill system

This is what I'm saying.

I agree that it feels weird to have magical options be so prevalent, but at the end of the day we're talking about a game people want to have fun playing. If someone can come up with non-magical options that are as exciting and dramatic as the magical ones, I welcome it, but until that happens, don't begrudge the magic barbarians and whatnot, in my opinion.

[GreyBlack]

This is what I'm saying.

I agree that it feels weird to have magical options be so prevalent, but at the end of the day we're talking about a game people want to have fun playing. If someone can come up with non-magical options that are as exciting and dramatic as the magical ones, I welcome it, but until that happens, don't begrudge the magic barbarians and whatnot, in my opinion.

Personally, I've always felt that high level fighters should be acting more like the Warlord of 4e (don't shoot yet!). Since their inception, fighters have had some form of gaining followers and inspiring others to their cause; I'd love to see that baselined a bit more than the current Battlemaster as an example. Would that be an example of non-magical options that are as exciting and dramatic as magical abilities?

[ezekielraiden]

1) You seem to be limiting classes right out of the gate. Fighter's can be fairly interesting. Maybe not as interesting, but for example, a friend of mine built an actual combat effective net fighter. I played a Samurai from the UA that was a ton of fun. Saying "boring generic beatstick" seems to predispose you to thinking of them in that way, but there is nuance.

I find the "nuance" of the Fighter extremely, painfully, regrettably, infuriatingly flat. The Battlemaster--supposedly the most "interesting" fighter--is incapable of doing even something so simple as "help an ally shrug off a condition," let alone anything really tactical or engaging. Its design falls even MORE prey to the "spam the best option" perverse incentive than caster classes do! As someone who was legit intrigued by some of the directions 4e enabled, like the staff fighter or brawling style, I find 5e Fighters blander than unflavored, overcooked oatmeal. And I'm not alone in this; some time back, Mearls explicitly discussed how one of the team's regrets was how little flavor the Fighter possesses.

It also *really* doesn't help that the vast majority of Fighters get *zero* features that depend on their mental stats, and what they do get is usually crap/super boring (tool proficiency? Persuasion expertise? Try again, WotC.) Choosing to play a high Charisma Fighter effectively means taking a handicap to your proper Fighter stats at early levels. Oh, sure, you'll eventually come out 2 ASIs ahead, but it takes a while to get even one, let alone two.

2) What would you add to make them more interesting? That is the forever problem. Between maneuver's and the optional rules in the DMG, there aren't a lot of combat moves left. And aura's are expressly magical, so what can you give them to actually do?

Why would auras have to be magical? They just represent a radius of effect. You can boost the morale of those near you with your incredible grit, panache, or acumen without it needing to be magical. You're just that awesome, and inspiring/leading others with incredible skill is a documented thing in real history. (Can't give examples because the modhammer hates meaningful discussion of anything in the real world, but I can PM you if you care enough.)

Beyond that: Gambits and Tactics, Training, Prediction of Foes. There's a lovely 3PP supplement for Dungeon World called Grim World, which has a Battlemaster class. It *actually* rewards investing in Intelligence, and sometimes other mental stats (depending on what moves you take). Most DW combat is a little too crunch-avoidant for my taste, but the Battlemaster seems actually interesting. (Didn't get to play one when I was a player, but now that I'm a DM there's one in our group and he's pretty damn effective at leveraging party resources.) Gambit is a resource acquired by taking risks, getting hurt, or otherwise suffering a setback (all part of the plan!), and is spent on various useful benefits that Just Happen. Tactics are a group of benefits, some more passive (Cautious = better saves/avoidance, more or less) and others more active (Reckless = deal more damage but *take* more damage), that one can switch between by spending 1 Gambit or making an INT roll.

"Training" includes things like getting cheaper, better hirelings; preparing the group for an ambush, whether sprung upon or sprung by the enemy; coordinated assaults with an ally; sharing the benefit of one's current Tactic with a specific chosen "student" PC; and outfitting defenders of a location with better equipment and training so they have buffs when the fighting starts.

"Enemy prediction" includes class-specific benefits for observing the world through the lens of a tactician, and reading body language/subtle cues to know what your opponent desires of you (though not, of course, exactly why they desire that).

So no, I don't think the space has been exhausted yet.

I get that, but sort of by definition, mundane things are things that can be done over and over again. I don't think you could write pages and pages of mundane options that can change things in unpredictable ways. Not that it isn't a good way to go, I just don't think it is possible without ripping things away from the skill system

No, they aren't. Ask someone who's just come off the field from a marching band show, or just run a marathon, or any number of dramatic physical feats. "Mundane" does not equate to "infinitely repeatable without rest."

[Knaight]

Going back to the OP: Is D&D pretty high magic? Yes. Is it higher magic than it used to be? On the character side, sure (it's been full of magic creatures from day one). Is it higher magic than the underlying literature though?

No. That argument is made by selecting LotR specifically, and treating LotR as the only fantasy story worth paying attention to is a shallow, obnoxious piece of analysis. It's not even that Tolkien wrote low magic stories, given that the Silmarillion isn't low magic by any stretch of the imagination, it's definitely not that "the literature" as a monolith is low magic. You've got your Guy Gavriel Kay's writing thinly veiled historical fiction, you've got some low magic sword and sorcery (a decent chunk of Howard and C. L. Moore), but you've also got A Wizard of Earthsea, Moorcock's and Anderson's very high magic sword and sorcery, the other chunk of Howard, large amounts of Lieber, some amount of Gene Wolf, etc. That's without getting into how later editions of D&D take post D&D writings into account, where we can also throw Jemison, Sanderson, Jordan, Hobbs, Brust, etc. on the higher fantasy end, keeping clear of the stuff where D&D itself was a heavy influence.

If we don't steer clear of the stuff where D&D itself is a heavy influence it becomes immediately clear that that high magic isn't some weird 5e aberration. The Drizzt stories aren't exactly new.

[ezekielraiden]

Going back to the OP: Is D&D pretty high magic? Yes. Is it higher magic than it used to be? On the character side, sure (it's been full of magic creatures from day one). Is it higher magic than the underlying literature though?

No. That argument is made by selecting LotR specifically, and treating LotR as the only fantasy story worth paying attention to is a shallow, obnoxious piece of analysis. It's not even that Tolkien wrote low magic stories, given that the Silmarillion isn't low magic by any stretch of the imagination, it's definitely not that "the literature" as a monolith is low magic. You've got your Guy Gavriel Kay's writing thinly veiled historical fiction, you've got some low magic sword and sorcery (a decent chunk of Howard and C. L. Moore), but you've also got A Wizard of Earthsea, Moorcock's and Anderson's very high magic sword and sorcery, the other chunk of Howard, large amounts of Lieber, some amount of Gene Wolf, etc. That's without getting into how later editions of D&D take post D&D writings into account, where we can also throw Jemison, Sanderson, Jordan, Hobbs, Brust, etc. on the higher fantasy end, keeping clear of the stuff where D&D itself was a heavy influence.

If we don't steer clear of the stuff where D&D itself is a heavy influence it becomes immediately clear that that high magic isn't some weird 5e aberration. The Drizzt stories aren't exactly new.

This succinctly covers many of the "modern-literature" sides of what I mentioned earlier. There's also the more recent trends (since the 90s at least) to higher-magic settings, like Wheel of Time or Harry Potter.

As noted, Journey to the West is CRAZY high-magic, with explicit sets of magic items, laser eyes, flight, transformation, etc. Irish and Welsh mythology are also full of crazy stuff done by "mortal" heroes. It also doesn't hurt that the "mundane vs magic" divide is entirely a modern invention--up until the Enlightenment, "magic" was as much a natural part of the world as sunlight. Blacksmiths were thought to have secret knowledge of the inner magic of materials, the "riddle of steel." Lü Bu and many other heroes from Chinese myth are supposed to be Regular Dudes who have just...learned how to sword/punch/spear/whatever so good that they can pull off some insane maneuvers. The Mahabharata and Vedic myth generally has several people who are gods, sure, but it also has several people who aren't incarnations of perfect divine beings, like Arjuna or Vrishaketu. Beowulf manages to live for hours after being mortally wounded because it dying when you don't have a huge pile of treasure around you is for chumps and squares--and it's pretty clear that there's plenty of magic equipment just lying around. Near-, Middle-, and Far-Eastern myth has plenty of magic items (rings, carpets, lamps, swords, shoes, turbans...you name it, there's probably a magic something, and it could EASILY have been made by a totally mundane crafter who just Knows The Secrets).

The line between "magical" and "natural" did not exist to the ancients and medievals. Again, I would provide examples, but the modhammer is vicious about even vaguely referring to real history, let alone naming people. "Magic" was as much a part of "mundane" life as sunrise and sunset.