Sword and sorcery isn't about "less" magic but it is about magic being far harder to wield and very mysterious (and usually dangerous far all involved). The original Conan stories, which are considered by many to be the ur-texts for the genre, feature plenty of magic - but the hero never wields it, it's almost always something to be defeated, and it often has infernal connotations. Magical items and effects, though, are rare - you don't have cities with streetlights fueled by spells or artificer works, you don't have shops on every corner selling potions and scrolls, and you don't have every single adventurer wielding some magical ability.
Isn't that Sword v Sorcery, though, rather than Sword & Sorcery? I mean, in Conan, we have a solo protagonist and he happens to be a non-spell user (and actually usually dislikes spell users). That could work fine as a solo campaign and there is nothing stopping any DM from running a campaign that way.
There is nothing stopping any DM from saying 'No caster PC's,' either.
However, if you have caster PC's, they are caster PC's and generally expected to actually wield magic.
I'm curious/puzzled by this threads weird intervention into the backstory of the brand's past editions.
So are you basically saying you don't care for D&D's embrace of its present aesthetic? I know there's this pedantic point that what D&D's own present DMG uses is incorrect against some definitive academic definition you believe is out there. But that's not really the point of the thread. The DMG calls its default mode "high fantasy", OP seems to have wished for more support for the other modes of fantasy (which may or not fit pedantic definitions some scholars may or may not use). That's what this discussion is about. the present mode of D&D and how well it has or could accommodate other modes.
Yeah, I couldn't care less about the True Definition of "high fantasy." What I care about is what DMG pg. 38 says: the default expectation for D&D is Heroic Fantasy, and they go on to describe exactly that means:
- Adventurers begin life as ordinary - Something impels them to a life of adventuring - Technology and society are based on medieval norms - Campaigns will typically involve dungeon-delving for treasure or monster-slaying
Those are the baseline assumptions of D&D. You are free to deviate from those if you want, but you shouldn't expect the books to do much to help you.
'Ordinary' can be an apprentice priest or apprentice mage, though. Clerics or Druids could suddenly be granted power from above or from nature, but in no version of D&D have wizards simply woken up one day with a cool idea and scribed their own spellbook out of nowhere, with no prior training in magic.
"Sword vs Sorcery" is not. I mean, we are always free to make up terms and use them however we see fit, but this whole "debate" around D&D and sword&sorcery is about the literary tradition that goes by that name. (That same tradition uses "heroic fantasy" as a synonym for "sword and sorcery," though the DMG does not.)
To the best of my knowledge (which is pretty limited when it comes to old-school D&D settings), Dark Sun was the only really fitting sword&sorcery setting in old-school D&D. But old-school D&D was definitely closer to sword&sorcery before 3e or so. Even then, D&D has always had more/friendlier magic than classic sword&sorcery, in that you can have PC wizards and clerics and have them be not evil.
"Sword vs Sorcery" is not. I mean, we are always free to make up terms and use them however we see fit, but this whole "debate" around D&D and sword&sorcery is about the literary tradition that goes by that name. (That same tradition uses "heroic fantasy" as a synonym for "sword and sorcery," though the DMG does not.)
To the best of my knowledge (which is pretty limited when it comes to old-school D&D settings), Dark Sun was the only really fitting sword&sorcery setting in old-school D&D. But old-school D&D was definitely closer to sword&sorcery before 3e or so. Even then, D&D has always had more/friendlier magic than classic sword&sorcery, in that you can have PC wizards and clerics and have them be not evil.
The genre originated from the early-1930s works of Robert E. Howard. The term "sword and sorcery" was coined by Fritz Leiber
Who happened to write about melee protagonists, however their worlds had casters in them. Is there, then, some other term for fiction with a caster protagonist? If it really is limited to melee protagonists, then that would be better described as sword v sorcery. Conan and Fafhrd/G. Mouser both start essentially as low fantasy.
But again, that definition, D&D can handle. Simply declare 'no PC casters.' Done.
Still waiting on someone to cite actual definitions, ideally with sources.
My very first post in this thread gave criteria for what constitutes S&S. I have elsewhere in this thread named experts. Murphy. Carter and de Camp (who coined the term "heroic fantasy") before him. Not to mention Leiber and Moorock who were not only authors of the genre but whose discussions arrived at the term and its meaning. So when you say you have been "waiting" what you really mean is you have been ignoring. All you have done is just make it up as you go and post irrelevancies and speculate and then evade any corrections and just continue to act like you were never corrected. Did you know Conan fought demons?
That Harry Potter might be seen as a mix of low fantasy (given it takes place in a reimagined Earth) and high fantasy (given the level of magic on that reimagined Earth) is beside the point. Harry Potter isn't sword and sorcery.
I would refer you to Chapter One of Murphy's academic study of S&S. Where he goes into how magic operates in high fantasy compared to how it operates in sword and sorcery. Making pretty clear not only the distinction between these two subgenres (as he does elsewhere throughout the book) but how magic in these subgenres is very different and perceived differently by characters within their representative works.
You will not find a S&S book in which the main character just gleefully wields magic and spams it without end. Magic in the genre is neither routine nor safe. I never said magic in S&S was "occasional." The subgenre's protagonists frequently contend with wielders of it. Moorcock's Elric is probably the only protagonist in the genre who makes use of it himself as often as he does. But his is a world in which magic is black. He isn't Super Elric shooting magic beams out of his fingertips.
In earlier editions of D&D magic felt a bit more occult. It is one of the reasons the game caught the attention of the drivers of the Satanic panic. And one of the reasons it felt that way was because magic was rarer (wizards had fewer spells at their disposal) but often more powerful (the effects were often greater). As someone else pointed out in this thread even a 1st-level wizard with the Sleep spell in AD&D was no pushover. That occult feeling is long gone. A 1st-level wizard can now just spam damage round after round. And that's fine. Just don't call that S&S. That feels more like characters in Harry Potter shooting magic beams out of their wands on repeat.
EDIT: I now see you are again doing what you have done repeatedly throughout this thread and are arguing against something that isn't even the main point: Now you are contesting the term "sword and sorcery" and saying it should have been called "sword vs. sorcery." Putting aside the fact the latter sounds about as vacuous a term as a movie like Freddy vs. Jason you now sound like a child complaining because the box in which his statue of Luke Skywalker fighting Darth Vader came dared to have the words "Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader" on it and not "Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader." Oh no!
It's not like you can't go and read why "sword and sorcery" was decided upon by heads wiser than yours or mine.
But again, that definition, D&D can handle. Simply declare 'no PC casters.' Done.
5E will fit in as small a box as you'd like if you cut enough of it off though you'll often find it will cause more problems than it solves, this seems like an "every problem is a nail if the only tool you have is a hammer" problem more than using the best tool for the job; which in this use case is a different TTRPG.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Still waiting on someone to cite actual definitions, ideally with sources.
My very first post in this thread gave criteria for what constitutes S&S. I have elsewhere in this thread named experts. Murphy. Carter and de Camp (who coined the term "heroic fantasy") before him. Not to mention Leiber and Moorock who were not only authors of the genre but whose discussions arrived at the term and its meaning. So when you say you have been "waiting" what you really mean is you have been ignoring. All you have done is just make it up as you go and post irrelevancies and speculate and then evade any corrections and just continue to act like you were never corrected. Did you know Conan fought demons?
That Harry Potter might be seen as a mix of low fantasy (given it takes place in a reimagined Earth) and high fantasy (given the level of magic on that reimagined Earth) is beside the point. Harry Potter isn't sword and sorcery.
I would refer you to Chapter One of Murphy's academic study of S&S. Where he goes into how magic operates in high fantasy compared to how it operates in sword and sorcery. Making pretty clear not only the distinction between these two subgenres (as he does elsewhere throughout the book) but how magic in these subgenres is very different and perceived differently by characters within their representative works.
You will not find a S&S book in which the main character just gleefully wields magic and spams it without end. Magic in the genre is neither routine nor safe. I never said magic in S&S was "occasional." The subgenre's protagonists frequently contend with wielders of it. Moorcock's Elric is probably the only protagonist in the genre who makes use of it himself as often as he does. But his is a world in which magic is black. He isn't Super Elric shooting magic beams out of his fingertips.
In earlier editions of D&D magic felt a bit more occult. It is one of the reasons the game caught the attention of the drivers of the Satanic panic. And one of the reasons it felt that way was because magic was rarer (wizards had fewer spells at their disposal) but often more powerful (the effects were often greater). As someone else pointed out in this thread even a 1st-level wizard with the Sleep spell in AD&D was no pushover. That feeling is long gone. A 1st-level wizard can now just spam damage round after round. And that's fine. Just don't call that S&S.
EDIT: I now see you are again doing what you have done repeatedly throughout this thread and are arguing against something that isn't even the main point: Now you are contesting the term "sword and sorcery" and saying it should have been called "sword vs. sorcery." Putting aside the fact the latter sounds as about as vacuous a term as a movie like Freddy vs. Jason you now sound like a child complaining because the box in which his statue of Luke Skywalker fighting Darth Vader had the words "Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader" on it and not Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader.
Again, to get back to something that fits that definition of Sword and Sorcery, simply declare 'no casters in the party.'
Elric is, as you say, a caster, but he is a special case as primarily a summoner, isn't he? I don't remember him being any sort of evoker or elementalist. He finds an artifact ranked sword and that becomes his main thing.
But regardless, the OP is complaining about too much magic, not what style thereof. Too High Fantasy (vs Low). Again, Sword and Sorcery seems to be defining the protagonists more than the world.
But again, that definition, D&D can handle. Simply declare 'no PC casters.' Done.
5E will fit in as small a box as you'd like if you cut enough of it off though you'll often find it will cause more problems than it solves, this seems like an "every problem is a nail if the only tool you have is a hammer" problem more than using the best tool for the job; which in this use case is a different TTRPG.
I have not been the one expressing a desire for such a setting, however, I have played adventures as a solo melee without ever feeling like a different TTRPG has been needed.
But again, that definition, D&D can handle. Simply declare 'no PC casters.' Done.
5E will fit in as small a box as you'd like if you cut enough of it off though you'll often find it will cause more problems than it solves, this seems like an "every problem is a nail if the only tool you have is a hammer" problem more than using the best tool for the job; which in this use case is a different TTRPG.
I have not been the one expressing a desire for such a setting, however, I have played adventures as a solo melee without ever feeling like a different TTRPG has been needed.
I was adding to your point, not disagreeing with it. Sorry it came across that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
But again, that definition, D&D can handle. Simply declare 'no PC casters.' Done.
The problem with that is that you're left with very few workable classes and even fewer subclasses.
Basically, you have fighters and rogues, minus a couple of subclasses. Even the barbarian can cast spells in 5E.
Yes, but the genre usually is has a solo protagonist or a duo. We are talking "for a single campaign" not 'for all campaigns,' nor even 'for all tables.' Some barbarians can cast spells in 5e, but all?
'Ordinary' can be an apprentice priest or apprentice mage, though. Clerics or Druids could suddenly be granted power from above or from nature, but in no version of D&D have wizards simply woken up one day with a cool idea and scribed their own spellbook out of nowhere, with no prior training in magic.
(Not disagreeing with you, just elaborating )
Okay... and? Not sure what point you're trying to make with your elaboration.
...as we move into the 2024 books, it's becoming clear that the designers have clearly leaned in to the "High Fantasy" aesthetic. Sure, you can play swashbuckling campaigns, or embrace horror or dark fantasy vibe, but at the end of the day, D&D has become a game of "superhero fantasy." And nowhere is that clearer than in the plethora of magical powers being baked in to to the new class and ancestry options...
the 5e system at its core pressumes to "balance" many things, especially its player classes. that balance is what leads to "super heroic" heroes. it's in the name of balance that casters get a magical bow or javalin equivalent as cantrips. and many classes (and subclasses) with many novel levels leads to many, many unique abilities (and no wonder if "because magic" is an easy go-to explanation for those). these, among other things, dilute the rarity of magic. eventually pc magic is so tame, common, and comes at so little cost that it's lost nearly all mystery.
pc magic in modern d&d is as reliable and problem-solving as Superman's laser eyes and frost breath and casual flying. and when you're Supermen, why avoid, out-think, or flee from an encounter your group can power through? 5e is less reliant on player skill, relying on encounters to always be balanced to character skill.
the problem isn't that 5e is stuck in high fantasy, it's that a focus on balance throws out the potential for emergent gameplay of dangerous magic: spell fumbles, risk of corruption, patron disapproval, wimpy dagger as a fallback in lieu of infinite-ammo attack cantrips, etc... it's hard to do low fantasy or swords & sorcery when your character is insisting you ignore how many arrows are in your quiver and whether you brought iron spikes to instead focus on how far you can get before the next short rest save point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
...as we move into the 2024 books, it's becoming clear that the designers have clearly leaned in to the "High Fantasy" aesthetic. Sure, you can play swashbuckling campaigns, or embrace horror or dark fantasy vibe, but at the end of the day, D&D has become a game of "superhero fantasy." And nowhere is that clearer than in the plethora of magical powers being baked in to to the new class and ancestry options...
the 5e system at its core pressumes to "balance" many things, especially its player classes. that balance is what leads to "super heroic" heroes. it's in the name of balance that casters get a magical bow or javalin equivalent as cantrips. and many classes (and subclasses) with many novel levels leads to many, many unique abilities (and no wonder if "because magic" is an easy go-to explanation for those). these, among other things, dilute the rarity of magic. eventually pc magic is so tame, common, and comes at so little cost that it's lost nearly all mystery.
pc magic in modern d&d is as reliable and problem-solving as Superman's laser eyes and frost breath and casual flying. and when you're Supermen, why avoid, out-think, or flee from an encounter your group can power through? 5e is less reliant on player skill, relying on encounters to always be balanced to character skill.
the problem isn't that 5e is stuck in high fantasy, it's that a focus on balance throws out the potential for emergent gameplay of dangerous magic: spell fumbles, risk of corruption, patron disapproval, wimpy dagger as a fallback in lieu of infinite-ammo attack cantrips, etc... it's hard to do low fantasy or swords & sorcery when your character is insisting you ignore how many arrows are in your quiver and whether you brought iron spikes to instead focus on how far you can get before the next short rest save point.
This is a great post... The art of DnD and roleplaying has evolved and the resource management side is all but non existent at most tables. Ammo, rations, spell components... Encumbrance in many cases.
...as we move into the 2024 books, it's becoming clear that the designers have clearly leaned in to the "High Fantasy" aesthetic. Sure, you can play swashbuckling campaigns, or embrace horror or dark fantasy vibe, but at the end of the day, D&D has become a game of "superhero fantasy." And nowhere is that clearer than in the plethora of magical powers being baked in to to the new class and ancestry options...
the 5e system at its core pressumes to "balance" many things, especially its player classes. that balance is what leads to "super heroic" heroes. it's in the name of balance that casters get a magical bow or javalin equivalent as cantrips. and many classes (and subclasses) with many novel levels leads to many, many unique abilities (and no wonder if "because magic" is an easy go-to explanation for those). these, among other things, dilute the rarity of magic. eventually pc magic is so tame, common, and comes at so little cost that it's lost nearly all mystery.
pc magic in modern d&d is as reliable and problem-solving as Superman's laser eyes and frost breath and casual flying. and when you're Supermen, why avoid, out-think, or flee from an encounter your group can power through? 5e is less reliant on player skill, relying on encounters to always be balanced to character skill.
the problem isn't that 5e is stuck in high fantasy, it's that a focus on balance throws out the potential for emergent gameplay of dangerous magic: spell fumbles, risk of corruption, patron disapproval, wimpy dagger as a fallback in lieu of infinite-ammo attack cantrips, etc... it's hard to do low fantasy or swords & sorcery when your character is insisting you ignore how many arrows are in your quiver and whether you brought iron spikes to instead focus on how far you can get before the next short rest save point.
When was there ever risk of spell fumbles in RAW for any version? Other than with scrolls, perhaps?
Or risk of corruption? There are actual optional rules in 5e that can cover that. Could use the Shadowfell Despair rule and/or the Madness rules, either of which leave the trigger conditions to the DM. However, do you also have bad things happen to melees rolling a 1 on an attack?
Patron disapproval is something else a DM can simply include. I do admit though that it seems a very tough sell with players :( That is the biggest problem, though... getting players to buy in to any such limits. If you cannot, it does not matter what the rules say since you'll have no players.
And ignoring how many arrows in quivers is similarly up to the DM. There is no rule in the game saying one does not have to keep track of that. That is a table choice thing. Any time I play a bow specialist, they fletch or learn to do so as soon as they can, to explain resupply. They also typically carry a separate bundle of 20 arrows strapped to their pack. It is relatively rare that one will go through 20 arrows before having a chance to resupply, but it can happen, so they carry 40. If going into an actual war zone, likely 60. The PHB lists arrows and quivers as separate items, rather than a spell focus / component pouch style ever full 'Quiver Full of Arrows:'
If a DM puts a caster in a position where they would be using 60 rounds of attack cantrips and then has an issue with them having that 'infinite supply,' they could simply have a purpose built assassin sniper to one shot them. They can set up situations the PC will not survive.. but why? The cantrip armed caster should be overrun and killed anyway long before their 60th cantrip between long rests.
This is a great post... The art of DnD and roleplaying has evolved and the resource management side is all but non existent at most tables. Ammo, rations, spell components... Encumbrance in many cases.
But where is that in RAW? Isn't that a question of how those tables run things, rather than how the rules are written?
This is a great post... The art of DnD and roleplaying has evolved and the resource management side is all but non existent at most tables. Ammo, rations, spell components... Encumbrance in many cases.
But where is that in RAW? Isn't that a question of how those tables run things, rather than how the rules are written?
Outside of AL games I wonder how many tables run RAW, I don't think I have played a casual game that wasn't RAI with some HB rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
This is a great post... The art of DnD and roleplaying has evolved and the resource management side is all but non existent at most tables. Ammo, rations, spell components... Encumbrance in many cases.
But where is that in RAW? Isn't that a question of how those tables run things, rather than how the rules are written?
you can also roll stats 3d6 in order and embrace the low numbers. instead we usually pick a backstory and class first and slot in an array of numbers after, don't we? because what fun would an unbalanced character be? 5e insists from the start that characters come first and tedious things like encumbrance ("we can't take a mule into a dungeon!") and rations ("I forage for... oh, you have goodberry?") and what fits in a sack ("hurray! a bag of holding for each of us!") only delay us on our way to forwarding the plot.
...but to be clear, I think that at least some of 5e popularity is due to this focus. there are other games for the people who want to carry a l0ft pole and gather hirelings and have all your class abilities at level 1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
This is a great post... The art of DnD and roleplaying has evolved and the resource management side is all but non existent at most tables. Ammo, rations, spell components... Encumbrance in many cases.
But where is that in RAW? Isn't that a question of how those tables run things, rather than how the rules are written?
Where are the RAW written for how to roleplay? I'm not talking about RAW, I'm talking realism and common sense... MOST tables don't worry about those details yet they are still in the game. How many people carry around useless pack items from character creation that they know they'll never use. Why worry about it if you never get hungry or never need to worry about how much weight your carrying?
If anyone is bothered by high fantasy yet give their players/table unlimited ammo and immunity from starvation then it would seem a little hypocritical ehh?
I played at tables where resource management mattered and it was actually fun... But I'd argue it takes a good DM.
To each their own, I'm just saying its hard to be bothered by high fantasy when the game pushes you that way and you still enjoy playing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Isn't that Sword v Sorcery, though, rather than Sword & Sorcery? I mean, in Conan, we have a solo protagonist and he happens to be a non-spell user (and actually usually dislikes spell users). That could work fine as a solo campaign and there is nothing stopping any DM from running a campaign that way.
There is nothing stopping any DM from saying 'No caster PC's,' either.
However, if you have caster PC's, they are caster PC's and generally expected to actually wield magic.
'Ordinary' can be an apprentice priest or apprentice mage, though. Clerics or Druids could suddenly be granted power from above or from nature, but in no version of D&D have wizards simply woken up one day with a cool idea and scribed their own spellbook out of nowhere, with no prior training in magic.
(Not disagreeing with you, just elaborating )
"Sword and Sorcery" is an established term of art. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_and_sorcery
"Sword vs Sorcery" is not. I mean, we are always free to make up terms and use them however we see fit, but this whole "debate" around D&D and sword&sorcery is about the literary tradition that goes by that name. (That same tradition uses "heroic fantasy" as a synonym for "sword and sorcery," though the DMG does not.)
To the best of my knowledge (which is pretty limited when it comes to old-school D&D settings), Dark Sun was the only really fitting sword&sorcery setting in old-school D&D. But old-school D&D was definitely closer to sword&sorcery before 3e or so. Even then, D&D has always had more/friendlier magic than classic sword&sorcery, in that you can have PC wizards and clerics and have them be not evil.
Sword v Sorcery: Dawn of Linear Quadratic Argument
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The genre originated from the early-1930s works of Robert E. Howard. The term "sword and sorcery" was coined by Fritz Leiber
Who happened to write about melee protagonists, however their worlds had casters in them. Is there, then, some other term for fiction with a caster protagonist? If it really is limited to melee protagonists, then that would be better described as sword v sorcery. Conan and Fafhrd/G. Mouser both start essentially as low fantasy.
But again, that definition, D&D can handle. Simply declare 'no PC casters.' Done.
My very first post in this thread gave criteria for what constitutes S&S. I have elsewhere in this thread named experts. Murphy. Carter and de Camp (who coined the term "heroic fantasy") before him. Not to mention Leiber and Moorock who were not only authors of the genre but whose discussions arrived at the term and its meaning. So when you say you have been "waiting" what you really mean is you have been ignoring. All you have done is just make it up as you go and post irrelevancies and speculate and then evade any corrections and just continue to act like you were never corrected. Did you know Conan fought demons?
That Harry Potter might be seen as a mix of low fantasy (given it takes place in a reimagined Earth) and high fantasy (given the level of magic on that reimagined Earth) is beside the point. Harry Potter isn't sword and sorcery.
I would refer you to Chapter One of Murphy's academic study of S&S. Where he goes into how magic operates in high fantasy compared to how it operates in sword and sorcery. Making pretty clear not only the distinction between these two subgenres (as he does elsewhere throughout the book) but how magic in these subgenres is very different and perceived differently by characters within their representative works.
You will not find a S&S book in which the main character just gleefully wields magic and spams it without end. Magic in the genre is neither routine nor safe. I never said magic in S&S was "occasional." The subgenre's protagonists frequently contend with wielders of it. Moorcock's Elric is probably the only protagonist in the genre who makes use of it himself as often as he does. But his is a world in which magic is black. He isn't Super Elric shooting magic beams out of his fingertips.
In earlier editions of D&D magic felt a bit more occult. It is one of the reasons the game caught the attention of the drivers of the Satanic panic. And one of the reasons it felt that way was because magic was rarer (wizards had fewer spells at their disposal) but often more powerful (the effects were often greater). As someone else pointed out in this thread even a 1st-level wizard with the Sleep spell in AD&D was no pushover. That occult feeling is long gone. A 1st-level wizard can now just spam damage round after round. And that's fine. Just don't call that S&S. That feels more like characters in Harry Potter shooting magic beams out of their wands on repeat.
EDIT: I now see you are again doing what you have done repeatedly throughout this thread and are arguing against something that isn't even the main point: Now you are contesting the term "sword and sorcery" and saying it should have been called "sword vs. sorcery." Putting aside the fact the latter sounds about as vacuous a term as a movie like Freddy vs. Jason you now sound like a child complaining because the box in which his statue of Luke Skywalker fighting Darth Vader came dared to have the words "Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader" on it and not "Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader." Oh no!
It's not like you can't go and read why "sword and sorcery" was decided upon by heads wiser than yours or mine.
The problem with that is that you're left with very few workable classes and even fewer subclasses.
Basically, you have fighters and rogues, minus a couple of subclasses. Even the barbarian can cast spells in 5E.
5E will fit in as small a box as you'd like if you cut enough of it off though you'll often find it will cause more problems than it solves, this seems like an "every problem is a nail if the only tool you have is a hammer" problem more than using the best tool for the job; which in this use case is a different TTRPG.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Again, to get back to something that fits that definition of Sword and Sorcery, simply declare 'no casters in the party.'
Elric is, as you say, a caster, but he is a special case as primarily a summoner, isn't he? I don't remember him being any sort of evoker or elementalist. He finds an artifact ranked sword and that becomes his main thing.
But regardless, the OP is complaining about too much magic, not what style thereof. Too High Fantasy (vs Low). Again, Sword and Sorcery seems to be defining the protagonists more than the world.
I have not been the one expressing a desire for such a setting, however, I have played adventures as a solo melee without ever feeling like a different TTRPG has been needed.
I was adding to your point, not disagreeing with it. Sorry it came across that way.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Yes, but the genre usually is has a solo protagonist or a duo. We are talking "for a single campaign" not 'for all campaigns,' nor even 'for all tables.' Some barbarians can cast spells in 5e, but all?
Okay... and? Not sure what point you're trying to make with your elaboration.
the 5e system at its core pressumes to "balance" many things, especially its player classes. that balance is what leads to "super heroic" heroes. it's in the name of balance that casters get a magical bow or javalin equivalent as cantrips. and many classes (and subclasses) with many novel levels leads to many, many unique abilities (and no wonder if "because magic" is an easy go-to explanation for those). these, among other things, dilute the rarity of magic. eventually pc magic is so tame, common, and comes at so little cost that it's lost nearly all mystery.
pc magic in modern d&d is as reliable and problem-solving as Superman's laser eyes and frost breath and casual flying. and when you're Supermen, why avoid, out-think, or flee from an encounter your group can power through? 5e is less reliant on player skill, relying on encounters to always be balanced to character skill.
the problem isn't that 5e is stuck in high fantasy, it's that a focus on balance throws out the potential for emergent gameplay of dangerous magic: spell fumbles, risk of corruption, patron disapproval, wimpy dagger as a fallback in lieu of infinite-ammo attack cantrips, etc... it's hard to do low fantasy or swords & sorcery when your character is insisting you ignore how many arrows are in your quiver and whether you brought iron spikes to instead focus on how far you can get before the next short rest save point.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
This is a great post... The art of DnD and roleplaying has evolved and the resource management side is all but non existent at most tables. Ammo, rations, spell components... Encumbrance in many cases.
When was there ever risk of spell fumbles in RAW for any version? Other than with scrolls, perhaps?
Or risk of corruption? There are actual optional rules in 5e that can cover that. Could use the Shadowfell Despair rule and/or the Madness rules, either of which leave the trigger conditions to the DM. However, do you also have bad things happen to melees rolling a 1 on an attack?
Patron disapproval is something else a DM can simply include. I do admit though that it seems a very tough sell with players :( That is the biggest problem, though... getting players to buy in to any such limits. If you cannot, it does not matter what the rules say since you'll have no players.
And ignoring how many arrows in quivers is similarly up to the DM. There is no rule in the game saying one does not have to keep track of that. That is a table choice thing. Any time I play a bow specialist, they fletch or learn to do so as soon as they can, to explain resupply. They also typically carry a separate bundle of 20 arrows strapped to their pack. It is relatively rare that one will go through 20 arrows before having a chance to resupply, but it can happen, so they carry 40. If going into an actual war zone, likely 60. The PHB lists arrows and quivers as separate items, rather than a spell focus / component pouch style ever full 'Quiver Full of Arrows:'
If a DM puts a caster in a position where they would be using 60 rounds of attack cantrips and then has an issue with them having that 'infinite supply,' they could simply have a purpose built assassin sniper to one shot them. They can set up situations the PC will not survive.. but why? The cantrip armed caster should be overrun and killed anyway long before their 60th cantrip between long rests.
But where is that in RAW? Isn't that a question of how those tables run things, rather than how the rules are written?
Outside of AL games I wonder how many tables run RAW, I don't think I have played a casual game that wasn't RAI with some HB rules.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
you can also roll stats 3d6 in order and embrace the low numbers. instead we usually pick a backstory and class first and slot in an array of numbers after, don't we? because what fun would an unbalanced character be? 5e insists from the start that characters come first and tedious things like encumbrance ("we can't take a mule into a dungeon!") and rations ("I forage for... oh, you have goodberry?") and what fits in a sack ("hurray! a bag of holding for each of us!") only delay us on our way to forwarding the plot.
...but to be clear, I think that at least some of 5e popularity is due to this focus. there are other games for the people who want to carry a l0ft pole and gather hirelings and have all your class abilities at level 1.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Where are the RAW written for how to roleplay? I'm not talking about RAW, I'm talking realism and common sense... MOST tables don't worry about those details yet they are still in the game. How many people carry around useless pack items from character creation that they know they'll never use. Why worry about it if you never get hungry or never need to worry about how much weight your carrying?
If anyone is bothered by high fantasy yet give their players/table unlimited ammo and immunity from starvation then it would seem a little hypocritical ehh?
I played at tables where resource management mattered and it was actually fun... But I'd argue it takes a good DM.
To each their own, I'm just saying its hard to be bothered by high fantasy when the game pushes you that way and you still enjoy playing.