Originally Posted by
Dr.Samurai
Sure, but this to me seems like a low bar and not actually what the OP was asking. The OP isn't asking "does not having OOC spells change the game?", in fact it assumes it does by saying you'll find another way.
The fact is, using spells is not intrinsically a superior way to do anything. Yes, we get across the ravine quicker sure. But what if the ravine holds magic items, enough XP to level up, NPC allies that grant us boons, etc? There can be a cost to "bypassing" stuff with the push of a spell slot.
My issues are:
1. This assumption that finding a workaround is the DM catering to the party. Flying mounts are a thing in fantasy settings, especially in D&D, and exist in the MM. Portals are a thing. NPC spellcasters exist. The list goes on of things in the world that exist that can allow you to bypass an obstacle without a spellcaster in the party, nevermind that real humans in the real world have accomplished the same without magic of any kind. Populating your world with these things is not catering; it's running the game.
2. The assumption that snapping your fingers to do something is intrinsically superior to not doing so. Not only do you need to get over this thing or teleport over here, but you need to do so RIGHT NOW. It's a best case scenario for the argument, sure. But as I mentioned above, you can be missing out on a bunch of other stuff. As a reminder, we're saying the DM should populate the world organically without assuming the players will be able to do or not do anything to progress. Well, then if your DM has populated creatures, encounters, treasure, magic items, and whatever else, and you just bypass it with a spell slot, congratulations, you've just paid a cost you didn't know about.
3. Framing everything around what spellcasters can do. Who cares? You can even play a spellcaster that doesn't even learn these critical spells. We're talking about a subset of a subset of PCs.