D&D 5E [+] Ways to fix the caster / non-caster gap

[Baron Opal II]

?

At the level that the fighter would have access to a power that mimicked a night level spell once per day, I believe that a wizard of equivalent level would have at most two. More, yes, but not grossly so.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

At the level that the fighter would have access to a power that mimicked a night level spell once per day, I believe that a wizard of equivalent level would have at most two. More, yes, but not grossly so

I’m still not sure the point. So fighters shouldn’t be able to compete with wizards at high levels?

 

[overgeeked]

You could always remove non-combat spells from spell slot casting, make them rituals, and give everyone access to ritual magic. Switch casters to mana instead of slots. Give non-casters energy as a resource and balance those against each other.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You could always remove non-combat spells from spell slot casting, make them rituals, and give everyone access to ritual magic. Switch casters to mana instead of slots. Give non-casters energy as a resource and balance those against each other.

Not exactly a solution for 5e without some major changes, but worth looking into.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I’m still not sure the point. So fighters shouldn’t be able to compete with wizards at high levels?

The point is you would be comparing 1 power vs. two powers, not 1 power vs. 5 powers. There isn't a lot of flexibility on the wizard side that the fighter isn't compensating for. I'm also not making a value judgement as to whether that is a good thing or not. I'm just pointing out that the wizard doesn't have a lot of flexibility in this regard.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean without detail the answers must be similarly broad.

1. Any magical solution that could also be done in a mundane way, must have a negative effect. An example is Knock.

When you cast the spell, a loud knock, audible from as far away as 300 feet, emanates from the target object.

Meh...kinda neutral on this.

2. Casting spells within Melee distance should obviously trigger an opportunity attack from the enemies in melee. Being struck should force a Con check, or be interrupted as per the new Counterspell.

Not enough. Go further. Casting spells within melee distance should be flat-out impossible - in other words, it's an ironclad guarantee that you're going to be interrupted and lose your spell - unless the specific intent is to "cast" a wild magic surge as a desperation last-ditch move.

3. Increase the power and prevalence of Magical items for the Melee/Mundane classes.

5e could do with some of this, yes.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

spell slots are not like class abilities, those differences impose a lot of things that limit spell slot use.

Like what? Anti-magic is probably the most serious, but is very rare. Dispel is a risk for some, components are a factor in some as well. Designing the extended martial abilities either taking these into account, or giving them different weaknesses would be entirely possible.

But how many options would they have? Two?

Wizards would have the potential for knowing two at level 17, going up to possibly 8, but I don't think it is likely many do. - Most Wizards are going to fill out their lower level options rather than learn lots of 9th level spells since they only have one slot a day.
The extended martial equivalent would probably know fewer but there might be a downtime-based option to swap them around perhaps.

 

[Minigiant]

What if Fighters got an extra attack every 4 levels? And Triple Action Surge at level 13 or something.

THREE TURNS WITH 4 ATTACKS!

What if Rogues got Mastery which is Triple proficiency modifier?

 

[ECMO3]

What if Fighters got an extra attack every 4 levels? And Triple Action Surge at level 13 or something.

THREE TURNS WITH 4 ATTACKS!

What if Rogues got Mastery which is Triple proficiency modifier?

For starters, that would do nothing at all for Monks or Barbarians.

I think the mastery would break bounded accuracy and is not really compatible with the 5E rule set. I would be ok with all skill proficiencies at the expert level for Rogues though, instead of the current 2/4.

I do not like the idea of more attacks for fighters. Frankly I would like to see the class eliminate the 3rd and 4th attack at high levels.

More to the point though, I don't think either of these would substantially close the gap in comparison to casters.

 

[tetrasodium]

Like what? Anti-magic is probably the most serious, but is very rare. Dispel is a risk for some, components are a factor in some as well. Designing the extended martial abilities either taking these into account, or giving them different weaknesses would be entirely possible.

Wizards would have the potential for knowing two at level 17, going up to possibly 8, but I don't think it is likely many do. - Most Wizards are going to fill out their lower level options rather than learn lots of 9th level spells since they only have one slot a day.
The extended martial equivalent would probably know fewer but there might be a downtime-based option to swap them around perhaps.

If you need to ask a question like that given the omitted context of my selectively quoted post, have you actually played d&d5e with other players and a DM? If not what about any other version?

One ninth level spell slot can only be used to cast a single spell. That spell must be selected from among the spells that the caster has prepared and the caster must decide when is the best time to burn a given slot with a spell they feel most fitting. Because the spell slot is not easy to recover it means that sometimes the caster will avoid casting a spell that could be useful just because they can if the player feels that the spell use is not warranted enough to justify consuming the slot. Sometimes that will result in a slot remaining unused at the adventuring day.