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

[Micah Sweet]

It has nothing to do with improvement; it has to do with maintaining relevance as social mores and trends evolve over time. Maintaining an evolving game's conception of magic to align with the fantasy trends of the mid-to-late 20th century would render the game atavistic.

So make a new game to keep up. Why do we have to keep changing the same game's design priorities?

 

[TwoSix]

So make a new game to keep up. Why do we have to keep changing the same game's design priorities?

Because it's new? That's like asking why I bought the Harry Potter books when I could have gone to the library and read Conan books for free. I bought a new thing because it was new and different.

 

[Minigiant]

I wouldn't have picked one level. I'd have said that 12 would be the last where you could apply enough duct tape but it was already cracking by 9.

I find that if you play from level one organically it doesn't crack until level 13. But if you plan your character or start from level 3 it cracks around 10.

 

[DammitVictor]

Here are some of the things that I’ve done (that are currently in playtesting with my group):

• all classes get expertise in one skill as part of their class. For some classes, they don’t choose the skill (Wizards get Arcana). Others do (Barbarians Athletics or Nature, Fighters Athletics or Society (which replaces History)).

I'd like to pair this with two house rules:

1. Backgrounds don't grant proficiencies, Backgrounds are proficiencies. (Think Barbarians of Lemuria's Careers system.)
2. The Expertise Dice from Level Up Advanced 5th Edition. Rogues, Rangers, and Bards start at +1d6; Rogues cap at +1d10.

 

[DammitVictor]

Yeah, I was wondering whether Thor would show up if you asked the man on the street about 'fantasy characters' ... but, it'd be nice if Cap or Thor was a legit question to ask about D&D martials... getting up to Cap's level would be cool.

Something to remember about Captain America, as a high-level martial, is that he's a lot more than just "peak human". A peak human is... peak at one thing, because there are tradeoffs, physiological compromises that must be made. He is not just as strong as Hafthor Bjornsson and as fast as Usain Bolt and as nimble as Mary Lou Renner-- he is all of these things simultaneously with the perception and instincts and split-second conscious decision-making capacity to use all of these capacities in conjunction.

He's not just a double-digit Fighter/Rogue/Monk with straight 24s. He'd demolish a D&D campaign and he's the Designated Mere Mortal in his franchise.

I really... don't want high-level Martials in D&D to be like Hulk and Thor. I want the archetypical high-level pure martial to be Captain America, with the choice of being Iron Fist or Psylocke instead being a real tradeoff.

 

[James Gasik]

That's true, but not really accurate.

Firstly, Rand is an exceptionally powerful channeler, vastly more powerful than virtually all other channelers. Even in the Age of Legends, the Dragon was one of the most powerful channelers, and in the time the books are set even weaker channelers from the Age of Legends are significantly more powerful than most Aes Sedai. He's a chosen one, and it doesn't make sense to use him as a baseline of power for that setting. That would be like saying that because Elminster and Sadira exist, every D&D mage should be their equal (even a 20th level mage pales in comparison to those characters). If the expectation is for every caster to be Rand al Thor, then every martial should reasonably expect to be the equal of Goku (or something).

Secondly, there are in fact limits to what the magic can do. Even wielding Callandor, Rand fails to restore the life of a single child. Characters have strengths and weaknesses in the various elements that compose the magic, and this influences what kinds of effects they're good at. Even Rand acknowledges that he's far less skilled at weaving air and water than earth and fire. There are things that casters can do in D&D that are simply not possible in WoT.

Thirdly, the casters themselves do have limits. Someone who channels too much of the One Power might collapse, have their connection to the Source damaged, or even burn themselves out and sever their connection entirely. It would be like if a wizard risked permanently losing access to their spell slots by casting too many spells.

Lastly, being a channeler in the WoT comes with certain drawbacks. Channelers are often mistrusted. Woman are typically bound by the magical three oaths (speak no untrue word, do not make weapons for killing, and only use the One Power as a weapon in self defense). Male channelers go insane, and are usually hunted down if their abilities become known. There are magic items which can literally enslave and torture channelers, but do nothing to ordinary people. There are also certain herbal concoctions that can block someone from touching the Source, as well as ways that a channeler can block another from doing so. I've talked to plenty of people who would probably pitch a fit if similar restrictions were placed on D&D mages, lol.

You're right, I did gloss over a few things, but what I'm getting at is, when someone sits down to play D&D, they often don't want to play the Neville Longbottom characters (though they should, he's quite awesome in his own right). They want to be the hero, and the hero of the story usually has some trait that sets them apart from others in their setting.

So if a HP fan sits down to play D&D, they might wonder why they can't throw out five or six hexes in a row, for example. Now you can say "well, people need to learn to accept being a "just starting out character"" and that's fine, but when the system never really delivers on that fantasy because it relies on some fairly outdated notions of what a Wizard is in contrast to pop culture, they might bounce off of it.

The question of whether or not D&D should evolve with current trends is a gnarly one, I'll grant. The question of whether trying to add new players to the game should come at the expense of the older fans can certainly rankle one if they happen to be one of those older fans! Though it's likely moot; WotC will do whatever keeps as many people happy at once, and that means evolution will be glacial, and we'll still be asking how to fix the caster gap when 6e comes out in 2030, I'm sure.

 

[James Gasik]

So, warlocks, basically. I'm definitely on board with that.

Kind of. My personal experience playing a Warlock was too much Eldritch Blast, not enough spells of levels 1-5 per day, lol. The variability of short rests in games kind of ruined it for me (and too many DMs who want every fight to be a big epic battle, so you get 1-2 per game day)...but that is an entirely different conversation.

 

[James Gasik]

So make a new game to keep up. Why do we have to keep changing the same game's design priorities?

So the Warlocks of the Coast can make more money to offer up to their Patron?

 

[Gammadoodler]

Right, it would be weird if a wizard fought with a weapon.

Yes..

Yes it would..

..and is in the posted image.

Edit: Seriously..the dude is in a white bathrobe and he's holding that sword like his wife woke him up in the middle of the night to check out a weird sound in the basement and all he could find as a weapon was the little broom near the fireplace.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Kind of. My personal experience playing a Warlock was too much Eldritch Blast, not enough spells of levels 1-5 per day, lol. The variability of short rests in games kind of ruined it for me (and too many DMs who want every fight to be a big epic battle, so you get 1-2 per game day)...but that is an entirely different conversation.

Yeah. I don't think many defend the "however many short rests you take" design. And the Warlock has an absurd power scaling with rests; averaging between 0 and 1 short rests per day they're in the Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster league, between 1 and 2 it's rough equivalence to the Paladin/Ranger/Artificer. Between 2 and 3 it's primary casters. And above 3 it can get silly. No class should be that dependent on a clunky mechanic.