This right here. I think there are two main issues at work here:
Game balance. At level 1, a wizard is zapping with cantrips and a barbarian is swinging his axe. At level 20, a wizard is raining down a storm of meteors over entire towns and the barbarian is... swinging his axe two times. You gotta give martials enough to not be complete wastes of time at high levels, and that means moving beyond the bounds of regular human physical limits. If you're mad about it, blame spellcasters.
Game design. 5e really likes modular solutions. Instead of making a spell called Speak to Animals and then giving a nature-themed barbarian a class feature that descrbies how they can speak to animals, they just say the barbarian gets a spell. It's just cleaner and easier design. As a player, I have never described these kinds of things as spells at the table. They are just a bundle of rules that were more convenient to present in a particular way. I'm not saying this is the best way, just that it makes sense from the standpoint of a game designer.
I also think it's just a consequence of the industry becoming more crowded. D&D has picked the niche they are best at and doubled down on it. Other systems do low magic better - including past versions of D&D - if that's what you want.
1. "Swinging an ax?" By the time any Barbarian in a campaign of mine got to level 20, they would be wielding an artifact level weapon, quite possibly hand crafted by them, themselves, quite likely literally, at least in part, from the bones of at least some of their enemies. The party's casters may have helped create it or it may have been an epic quest to find it, but it will not be merely 'an ax.' High fantasy melees are just as high fantasy as wizards.
2. Why do the ways Speak with Animals could be useful have to be spelled out to anyone? It is completely up to the DM whether animals are just idiots, whether they know the things their species would know, or whether there are higher functioning animals more along the lines of anime (or Disney). That is, quite rightly, left up to the DM.
The term "heroic fantasy" appears several times throughout this thread to describe modern D&D, but in academic studies of the fantasy genre or of its subgenres, "heroic fantasy" is just another term for "sword and sorcery." It denotes a subgenre of fantasy in which not teams of heroes but, with very few exceptions, a single protagonist, although perhaps with companions, in a world in which magic is something seen to be corrupting of its wielders is propelled by personal or even purely mercenary aims.
High fantasy is what describes the direction in which D&D has gone. With more and more magic at characters' disposal. Among other things that can make it feel a bit too "superhero-y."
Things like Forgotten Realms novels have much more in common with other pastiche Tolkienesque high fantasy series like the Shannara series than they do "heroic fantasy."
D&D once drew inspiration from the "heroic fantasy" of authors like Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock, and C.L. Moore. Their influence remains, but the game has become something else and the OP ain't wrong to point this out. Many are the games being released that strive to capture that "heroic fantasy" look and feel. Something like Dragonbane, for example, feels and looks like the S&S pulps of old. D&D is many things and is good at those many things, but without some serious homebrewing and of magic in particular, it certainly ain't "heroic fantasy."
The term "heroic fantasy" appears several times throughout this thread to describe modern D&D, but in academic studies of the fantasy genre or of its subgenres, "heroic fantasy" is just another term for "sword and sorcery." It denotes a subgenre of fantasy in which not teams of heroes but, with very few exceptions, a single protagonist, although perhaps with companions, in a world in which magic is something seen to be corrupting of its wielders is propelled by personal or even purely mercenary aims.
High fantasy is what describes the direction in which D&D has gone. With more and more magic at characters' disposal. Among other things that can make it feel a bit too "superhero-y."
Things like Forgotten Realms novels have much more in common with other pastiche Tolkienesque high fantasy series like the Shannara series than they do "heroic fantasy."
D&D once drew inspiration from the "heroic fantasy" of authors like Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock, and C.L. Moore. Their influence remains, but the game has become something else and the OP ain't wrong to point this out. Many are the games being released that strive to capture that "heroic fantasy" look and feel. Something like Dragonbane, for example, feels and looks like the S&S pulps of old. D&D is many things and is good at those many things, but without some serious homebrewing and of magic in particular, it certainly ain't "heroic fantasy."
Tolkien's world, by the 3rd Age (the time LotR is set in) was becoming steadily lower fantasy, however in the 1st or even the 2nd age, it was very much high fantasy, with Balrogs being slain by Elven or Human heroes. In the 1st Age, Sauron was a mere Lieutenant and the gods, themselves came over to Middle Earth to join in the fight against his former boss, Morgoth. The firstborn generations of each race are described as being innately immensely powerful, with the power waning only either by death or by distribution among each new generation of children. This is not just true or the Elves, but also of the Humans, particularly the Numenoreans.
And that is just Tolkien. You mention Robert E. Howard. Conan soloed demons. Go back further to Heracles. He literally held the world in place temporarily while Atlas was busy elsewhere.
The point of dnd is to go on adventures with magic and mayhem everywhere. Your table but I feel complaining the rules not being inclusive to any fantasy besides playing Honor Among Thieves is like complaining that Call of Cthulu is too edgy.
The game has just become overly reliant on magic. Everything is magic, everyone gets magic.
It all just feels like the designers are telling those of us who want less "over-the-top fantasy" in our settings to just go play something else.
Is it just me?
On one hand, no, it's not just you. I've also been frustrated by 5E's deliberate design to make magic items redundant and how easily any class can seem to be able to do magic, whether it's spells or abilities. It's very likely my old school roots showing, but I've long disliked how many healing subclasses there are, for instance, that render clerics either unnecessary or too much like non-cleric classes.
OTOH: not only are there plenty of low-magic TTRPGs available, there are a lot of 5E-compatible campaigns and rules sets out there that take a decidedly low-magic approach to FTTRPGs.
Finally, as others have pointed out, 5E is very up front in its official publications about what its default tone/approach is.
It's not just the mechanics the fact the game as demon spawn and dragon people as races would make game too 'high fantasy' so you'd have to also remove (IMO the coolest races) from play
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I for one love the prevalence of non-cleric "healers," especially with the addition of Celestial Warlock and Stars Druid to the new core. Variety is good, and no one class should be the only one capable of doing a thing or performing a given role in this game!
It reminds me of how in World of Warcraft, for the longest time only Shamans could bring Bloodlust and only Druids could battle-rez. Then they added Time Warp to Mages and Primal Rage to Hunters for the former, and gave battle-rez to Death Knights and Warlocks for the latter; it made it so more group compositions could have fun without anyone feeling forced into one singular choice. That's how class-based games should be imo.
It's just my preference for the classes to feel very different from each other, including the kinds of spells and magic they wield. I don't want my warlock to feel like a cleric in any way.
As a player that really enjoys Cleric PC's, I love that other classes can be healers too. I feel it frees the Cleric to be a more rounded character and has made it a lot more fun for me to play them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
It's just my preference for the classes to feel very different from each other, including the kinds of spells and magic they wield. I don't want my warlock to feel like a cleric in any way.
I think a Celestial Warlock is still going to feel very different from any cleric mechanically.
It's just my preference for the classes to feel very different from each other, including the kinds of spells and magic they wield. I don't want my warlock to feel like a cleric in any way.
I think a Celestial Warlock is still going to feel very different from any cleric mechanically.
Being that clerics are my go to and have been across multiple editions now, I appreciate that other characters can carry some of the load for healing. I also really enjoy the Celestial Warlock and the Divine Soul Sorcerer. All three have a very different feel in both RP and mechanically.
I do prefer the versatility of the 3e/3.5 cleric but 5e having multiple paths for healing almost allows the same level of versatility.
To answer the OP, it depends on what I am looking for at the time. Overall though I don't have an issue with heroic fantasy as presented as long as the system balances within itself.
I feel like every class should feel fundamentally different. Different enough that they don't feel defined as "healer" (or whatever) and so that if another class gets that ability (eh it can heal), then it doesn't feel like its treading on the toes of the other class.
For example, a Wizard doesn't feel deprecated just because Sorcerers get Fireball too, because the class has a strong enough identity that it still feels unique and interesting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
IMO, thats because 5e made a basis of the system that made martial classes boring, and gave more to do to the magic classes. Thats a little bit better now with the revamp to include stuff like Weapon Mastery so you can have a mechanically compelling character without the need of spelllists. But yeah, if you dont want a high fantasy setting, you are barking up the wrong tree. DnD from its inception was always as high fantasy as you wanted it to be, even being comparable to Lord of the Rings. I mean, its kind of hard to not have high fantasy and include stuff like dragons, ya know?
But theres no harm in playing a different system. Why is it such an insult to think you may find a better system elsewhere? If I didnt want high fantasy with magic, but still wanted to keep Arthurian roots, Id play Ironsworn. Or if I wanted horror, Id pick Call of Cthulhu. One system cannot do everything well or else it become average or bad at everything.
IMO, thats because 5e made a basis of the system that made martial classes boring, and gave more to do to the magic classes. Thats a little bit better now with the revamp to include stuff like Weapon Mastery so you can have a mechanically compelling character without the need of spelllists. But yeah, if you dont want a high fantasy setting, you are barking up the wrong tree. DnD from its inception was always as high fantasy as you wanted it to be, even being comparable to Lord of the Rings. I mean, its kind of hard to not have high fantasy and include stuff like dragons, ya know?
But theres no harm in playing a different system. Why is it such an insult to think you may find a better system elsewhere? If I didnt want high fantasy with magic, but still wanted to keep Arthurian roots, Id play Ironsworn. Or if I wanted horror, Id pick Call of Cthulhu. One system cannot do everything well or else it become average or bad at everything.
I totally agree with this, but I think I can elaborate a little bit on where the feeling of insult comes from. D&D is very much marketed as "the system that can do anything." There's a pervasive idea among the 5e community that if you just learn this one fairly complicated system, you can play in any kind of setting or story without ever having to learn another one. As you point out, it's impossible for one system to do all that, but a lot of 5e players are only now catching on to the fact that D&D is actually very opinionated about what kinds of settings and stories you can use it to play. Some of those players feel lied to, and I think there's some validity in that feeling. It would be better for everyone if D&D as a product was more honest about what kind of game it is (and isn't).
Honestly, you have always had to jump through a lot of hoops and disallow a bunch of stuff to make D&D low fantasy so... why not focus on what it does well? As for people feeling lied to... the game system calls itself Dungeons and Dragons. What about that name suggests that it's a general purpose fantasy simulator? Yes, various influencers have demonstrated that you can use the system well outside of its designed comfort zone, but that doesn't change how the game was designed.
IMO, thats because 5e made a basis of the system that made martial classes boring, and gave more to do to the magic classes. Thats a little bit better now with the revamp to include stuff like Weapon Mastery so you can have a mechanically compelling character without the need of spelllists. But yeah, if you dont want a high fantasy setting, you are barking up the wrong tree. DnD from its inception was always as high fantasy as you wanted it to be, even being comparable to Lord of the Rings. I mean, its kind of hard to not have high fantasy and include stuff like dragons, ya know?
But theres no harm in playing a different system. Why is it such an insult to think you may find a better system elsewhere? If I didnt want high fantasy with magic, but still wanted to keep Arthurian roots, Id play Ironsworn. Or if I wanted horror, Id pick Call of Cthulhu. One system cannot do everything well or else it become average or bad at everything.
I totally agree with this, but I think I can elaborate a little bit on where the feeling of insult comes from. D&D is very much marketed as "the system that can do anything." There's a pervasive idea among the 5e community that if you just learn this one fairly complicated system, you can play in any kind of setting or story without ever having to learn another one. As you point out, it's impossible for one system to do all that, but a lot of 5e players are only now catching on to the fact that D&D is actually very opinionated about what kinds of settings and stories you can use it to play. Some of those players feel lied to, and I think there's some validity in that feeling. It would be better for everyone if D&D as a product was more honest about what kind of game it is (and isn't).
WotC could use a marketing seminar.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Tolkien's world, by the 3rd Age (the time LotR is set in) was becoming steadily lower fantasy, however in the 1st or even the 2nd age, it was very much high fantasy, with Balrogs being slain by Elven or Human heroes. In the 1st Age, Sauron was a mere Lieutenant and the gods, themselves came over to Middle Earth to join in the fight against his former boss, Morgoth. The firstborn generations of each race are described as being innately immensely powerful, with the power waning only either by death or by distribution among each new generation of children. This is not just true or the Elves, but also of the Humans, particularly the Numenoreans.
And that is just Tolkien. You mention Robert E. Howard. Conan soloed demons. Go back further to Heracles. He literally held the world in place temporarily while Atlas was busy elsewhere.
You have misunderstood the point of my post.
Conan fought demons? That has nothing to do with what I said. The original Conan tales are exemplary of the S&S model: (a) a single protagonist, and rare are the exceptions where S&S/heroic fantasy features even two main characters least of all a whole party of them, (b) those protagonists occupying a world in which magic is fought against or when used it corrupts, (c) characters who for the most part aren't out to save the world from destruction but are instead propelled by personal and immediate goals, and (d) episodic short stories and not multivolume sagas. These are academic criteria for what constitutes S&S/heroic fantasy. What are you on about by talking about Conan fighting demons or talking about Greek gods? The former goes nowhere towards even addressing what I am talking about. The latter is irrelevant.
Modern D&D has more in common with what we see in high fantasy series. Heroic fantasy is a different subgenre. That was my point. Heracles is not an example of that subgenre. He is a figure from mythology. What exactly is your point when you invoke his name? What does it have to do with my making the distinction between high fantasy and heroic fantasy? Nothing.
Tolkien? I mentioned pastiches of his work. Not his own. But I don't need a lecture about the waning of magic in his world as if this has any bearing on whether Lord of the Rings is now a sword and sorcery novel. You can take that up with experts if you want to make a clown out of yourself.
Honestly, you have always had to jump through a lot of hoops and disallow a bunch of stuff to make D&D low fantasy so... why not focus on what it does well? As for people feeling lied to... the game system calls itself Dungeons and Dragons. What about that name suggests that it's a general purpose fantasy simulator? Yes, various influencers have demonstrated that you can use the system well outside of its designed comfort zone, but that doesn't change how the game was designed.
Not always. Go back and look at earlier editions in which far fewer spells were available at lower levels. In which casters did not have an infinite supply of combat-oriented cantrips to be spammed so they can match even martial classes when it comes to delivering damage in a typical combat round.
What 5e does it does exceptionally well. But can we do without the historical revisionism?
Not always. Go back and look at earlier editions in which far fewer spells were available at lower levels. In which casters did not have an infinite supply of combat-oriented cantrips to be spammed so they can match even martial classes when it comes to delivering damage in a typical combat round.
What 5e does it does exceptionally well. But can we do without the historical revisionism?
It's not historical revisionism. D&D has never been low fantasy, and while it's true that a first level wizard in 5e can cast more spells per day than an AD&D wizard... those spells do less. In AD&D, ten orcs vs a level 1 party was a TPK... unless one of the PCs had sleep available, in which case the PCs instantly won.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. "Swinging an ax?" By the time any Barbarian in a campaign of mine got to level 20, they would be wielding an artifact level weapon, quite possibly hand crafted by them, themselves, quite likely literally, at least in part, from the bones of at least some of their enemies. The party's casters may have helped create it or it may have been an epic quest to find it, but it will not be merely 'an ax.' High fantasy melees are just as high fantasy as wizards.
2. Why do the ways Speak with Animals could be useful have to be spelled out to anyone? It is completely up to the DM whether animals are just idiots, whether they know the things their species would know, or whether there are higher functioning animals more along the lines of anime (or Disney). That is, quite rightly, left up to the DM.
The term "heroic fantasy" appears several times throughout this thread to describe modern D&D, but in academic studies of the fantasy genre or of its subgenres, "heroic fantasy" is just another term for "sword and sorcery." It denotes a subgenre of fantasy in which not teams of heroes but, with very few exceptions, a single protagonist, although perhaps with companions, in a world in which magic is something seen to be corrupting of its wielders is propelled by personal or even purely mercenary aims.
High fantasy is what describes the direction in which D&D has gone. With more and more magic at characters' disposal. Among other things that can make it feel a bit too "superhero-y."
Things like Forgotten Realms novels have much more in common with other pastiche Tolkienesque high fantasy series like the Shannara series than they do "heroic fantasy."
D&D once drew inspiration from the "heroic fantasy" of authors like Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock, and C.L. Moore. Their influence remains, but the game has become something else and the OP ain't wrong to point this out. Many are the games being released that strive to capture that "heroic fantasy" look and feel. Something like Dragonbane, for example, feels and looks like the S&S pulps of old. D&D is many things and is good at those many things, but without some serious homebrewing and of magic in particular, it certainly ain't "heroic fantasy."
Tolkien's world, by the 3rd Age (the time LotR is set in) was becoming steadily lower fantasy, however in the 1st or even the 2nd age, it was very much high fantasy, with Balrogs being slain by Elven or Human heroes. In the 1st Age, Sauron was a mere Lieutenant and the gods, themselves came over to Middle Earth to join in the fight against his former boss, Morgoth. The firstborn generations of each race are described as being innately immensely powerful, with the power waning only either by death or by distribution among each new generation of children. This is not just true or the Elves, but also of the Humans, particularly the Numenoreans.
And that is just Tolkien. You mention Robert E. Howard. Conan soloed demons. Go back further to Heracles. He literally held the world in place temporarily while Atlas was busy elsewhere.
The point of dnd is to go on adventures with magic and mayhem everywhere. Your table but I feel complaining the rules not being inclusive to any fantasy besides playing Honor Among Thieves is like complaining that Call of Cthulu is too edgy.
On one hand, no, it's not just you. I've also been frustrated by 5E's deliberate design to make magic items redundant and how easily any class can seem to be able to do magic, whether it's spells or abilities. It's very likely my old school roots showing, but I've long disliked how many healing subclasses there are, for instance, that render clerics either unnecessary or too much like non-cleric classes.
OTOH: not only are there plenty of low-magic TTRPGs available, there are a lot of 5E-compatible campaigns and rules sets out there that take a decidedly low-magic approach to FTTRPGs.
Finally, as others have pointed out, 5E is very up front in its official publications about what its default tone/approach is.
It's not just the mechanics the fact the game as demon spawn and dragon people as races would make game too 'high fantasy' so you'd have to also remove (IMO the coolest races) from play
Not even a little. High fantasy is what I want.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I for one love the prevalence of non-cleric "healers," especially with the addition of Celestial Warlock and Stars Druid to the new core. Variety is good, and no one class should be the only one capable of doing a thing or performing a given role in this game!
It reminds me of how in World of Warcraft, for the longest time only Shamans could bring Bloodlust and only Druids could battle-rez. Then they added Time Warp to Mages and Primal Rage to Hunters for the former, and gave battle-rez to Death Knights and Warlocks for the latter; it made it so more group compositions could have fun without anyone feeling forced into one singular choice. That's how class-based games should be imo.
It's just my preference for the classes to feel very different from each other, including the kinds of spells and magic they wield. I don't want my warlock to feel like a cleric in any way.
As a player that really enjoys Cleric PC's, I love that other classes can be healers too. I feel it frees the Cleric to be a more rounded character and has made it a lot more fun for me to play them.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I think a Celestial Warlock is still going to feel very different from any cleric mechanically.
Being that clerics are my go to and have been across multiple editions now, I appreciate that other characters can carry some of the load for healing. I also really enjoy the Celestial Warlock and the Divine Soul Sorcerer. All three have a very different feel in both RP and mechanically.
I do prefer the versatility of the 3e/3.5 cleric but 5e having multiple paths for healing almost allows the same level of versatility.
To answer the OP, it depends on what I am looking for at the time. Overall though I don't have an issue with heroic fantasy as presented as long as the system balances within itself.
I feel like every class should feel fundamentally different. Different enough that they don't feel defined as "healer" (or whatever) and so that if another class gets that ability (eh it can heal), then it doesn't feel like its treading on the toes of the other class.
For example, a Wizard doesn't feel deprecated just because Sorcerers get Fireball too, because the class has a strong enough identity that it still feels unique and interesting.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
IMO, thats because 5e made a basis of the system that made martial classes boring, and gave more to do to the magic classes. Thats a little bit better now with the revamp to include stuff like Weapon Mastery so you can have a mechanically compelling character without the need of spelllists. But yeah, if you dont want a high fantasy setting, you are barking up the wrong tree. DnD from its inception was always as high fantasy as you wanted it to be, even being comparable to Lord of the Rings. I mean, its kind of hard to not have high fantasy and include stuff like dragons, ya know?
But theres no harm in playing a different system. Why is it such an insult to think you may find a better system elsewhere? If I didnt want high fantasy with magic, but still wanted to keep Arthurian roots, Id play Ironsworn. Or if I wanted horror, Id pick Call of Cthulhu. One system cannot do everything well or else it become average or bad at everything.
I totally agree with this, but I think I can elaborate a little bit on where the feeling of insult comes from. D&D is very much marketed as "the system that can do anything." There's a pervasive idea among the 5e community that if you just learn this one fairly complicated system, you can play in any kind of setting or story without ever having to learn another one. As you point out, it's impossible for one system to do all that, but a lot of 5e players are only now catching on to the fact that D&D is actually very opinionated about what kinds of settings and stories you can use it to play. Some of those players feel lied to, and I think there's some validity in that feeling. It would be better for everyone if D&D as a product was more honest about what kind of game it is (and isn't).
Honestly, you have always had to jump through a lot of hoops and disallow a bunch of stuff to make D&D low fantasy so... why not focus on what it does well? As for people feeling lied to... the game system calls itself Dungeons and Dragons. What about that name suggests that it's a general purpose fantasy simulator? Yes, various influencers have demonstrated that you can use the system well outside of its designed comfort zone, but that doesn't change how the game was designed.
WotC could use a marketing seminar.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
You have misunderstood the point of my post.
Conan fought demons? That has nothing to do with what I said. The original Conan tales are exemplary of the S&S model: (a) a single protagonist, and rare are the exceptions where S&S/heroic fantasy features even two main characters least of all a whole party of them, (b) those protagonists occupying a world in which magic is fought against or when used it corrupts, (c) characters who for the most part aren't out to save the world from destruction but are instead propelled by personal and immediate goals, and (d) episodic short stories and not multivolume sagas. These are academic criteria for what constitutes S&S/heroic fantasy. What are you on about by talking about Conan fighting demons or talking about Greek gods? The former goes nowhere towards even addressing what I am talking about. The latter is irrelevant.
Modern D&D has more in common with what we see in high fantasy series. Heroic fantasy is a different subgenre. That was my point. Heracles is not an example of that subgenre. He is a figure from mythology. What exactly is your point when you invoke his name? What does it have to do with my making the distinction between high fantasy and heroic fantasy? Nothing.
Tolkien? I mentioned pastiches of his work. Not his own. But I don't need a lecture about the waning of magic in his world as if this has any bearing on whether Lord of the Rings is now a sword and sorcery novel. You can take that up with experts if you want to make a clown out of yourself.
Not always. Go back and look at earlier editions in which far fewer spells were available at lower levels. In which casters did not have an infinite supply of combat-oriented cantrips to be spammed so they can match even martial classes when it comes to delivering damage in a typical combat round.
What 5e does it does exceptionally well. But can we do without the historical revisionism?
It's not historical revisionism. D&D has never been low fantasy, and while it's true that a first level wizard in 5e can cast more spells per day than an AD&D wizard... those spells do less. In AD&D, ten orcs vs a level 1 party was a TPK... unless one of the PCs had sleep available, in which case the PCs instantly won.